PatriotforFreedom:Knight asks, "What do you think taxation IS?"I do not think that an honest and uncoerced agreement may be understood in any way to be a form of "molestation" as you put it. I am not necessarily in from of "taxation" because it implies that the government is due a portion of the fruit of one's labor. I am, however, in favor of a just fee paid in return for fair services rendered by a government of and for the people
What about those who do not wish to participate in the services of the government?
PatriotforFreedom:Sir, if you do believe in Anarchy, then I ask you for the last time to support it by answering the question, How does a society without leaders and government render efficient and consistent justice for all? Unless perhaps you do not believe in justice for all?
We've been trying to answer you. We are tryign to answer your question with a question.
Who do you think would be a better provider and dsitributor of Milk and milk products to the men in our country.
A) Government managed, run, and operated diary industry?
B) Free trade, priviate companies bringing the goods naturally to meet the demands of consumers.
If you chose B then you have just answered your own question to why and how anarchy works better. Free trade is anarchy. Planned economies cannot work. I doubt you would disagree on that note, unless you are a communist/socialist/ect...
If you want a more direct answer I'll say this. An An-cap society would naturally meet the demands of people via open, free and uncoerced trade.
You have to highlight only what you want, and then hit the quote link. When you are done, if it needs cleanup, I can do it.
liberty student: You have to highlight only what you want, and then hit the quote link. When you are done, if it needs cleanup, I can do it.
I think it was an accident. I must have had the whole page highlighted, I tend to do that...
I also just found the preview page so I'll be using that. Sorry about that.
PatriotforFreedom:Knight_of_BAAWA replies to my assertion that "in an honorable debate, the debaters agree to answer each others questions, as I have done for you above," saying, "No, they do not. I don't know where you got that idiotic idea, but it's not true."I refer you to Wikipedia
PatriotforFreedom:Of course, I recognize that in Anarchy, there are no rules
PatriotforFreedom:Knight of BAAWA states, "When you create questions which contain within them implicit strawmen (as you've done), there's no requirement to answer."Then, it is your responsibility to cite the supposed strawman
PatriotforFreedom:Regarding the question at hand, "how a society without leaders and government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?" Knight of BAAWA ask the direct question (the preceding was edited for honesty) "Then why ask such a question of us?" Because, Knight, I believe it points directly at the weakness of the anarchic position.
Because, Knight, I believe it points directly at the weakness of the anarchic position.
PatriotforFreedom:To Knight of BAAWAs question, "Yeah--how's that working out?" with regards to the American Constitution, I say it is currently in a state of abuse, which has been compounded by the laziness and failure of the citizens to uphold it.
PatriotforFreedom: Knight of BAAWA asks (the preceding once again edited for honesty), "Once again, it's not up to us to explain it. YOU have the onus of proof. Not us."I am not a proponent of anarchy, as are you.
PatriotforFreedom:Knight then asks, "do you understand the concept of shifting the burden of proof?"Yes.
PatriotforFreedom:Knight continues, "Governments claim monopolies over justice, defense, etc., and say that they "own" the land they govern. By what right did this happen? Show it."They would be in violation of the Constitution when this has happened in the US.
PatriotforFreedom:Knight asks, "What do you think taxation IS?"I do not think that an honest and uncoerced agreement
PatriotforFreedom:may be understood in any way to be a form of "molestation" as you put it. I am not necessarily in from of "taxation" because it implies that the government is due a portion of the fruit of one's labor. I am, however, in favor of a just fee paid in return for fair services rendered by a government of and for the people.
PatriotforFreedom:Knight writes, "Consent theory requires unanimity or else you violate the rights of those who do not consent." Not everyone will agree in this world, but that does not mean that a majority approved contract
Not everyone will agree in this world, but that does not mean that a majority approved contract
PatriotforFreedom:The assumption that unanimous assent should be required for all contracts
This is not a place for lovers of theft, initiatory force, and logical impossibilities.
filc has now directed us to the German constitution and social contract stating that "it was completely within the states’ rights to murder those Jews and it was of no loss to personal liberty to the Jew to die in such a way, as it was completely morally, ethically, and legally in the right to do so."I am no student of the German social construct of the time, so will you please point me to the precise location in their governing document which supports your claim? And if there was such a statement in their governing constitution, I would not be in support of it. I have not accused everyone of sidestepping every point.
But I do accuse you of sidestepping this question: "Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?"filc has stated, with regards to Constitution, "The present government has the tools to amend the constitution to how it sees fit."Of course the Constitution does not grant them any such tools, and if and when asserted such "tools" wold be in abuse of the Constitution, not in support of it. filc asks, "How will your system prevent such abuse in the long rung? What previsions will you place that will bring more protection than what the founders left us?"Excellent questions, thanks. I am concerned with a manifestation of the rights of Liberty, not necessarily with provisions to protect same, though I am interested in debating precisely the answers to your questions. Right now, I would answer, that we must find better ways to provide checks and balances and so protection. There were some thoughts on this proposed in draft one of the Manifesto including the new right of "citizens' initiatives", and "citizen's oversite boards."filc asks, "And how would you deal with folks who didn't agree to that social construct?"They would have the right to petition their grievances, address them in a court of law, choose to comply, or choose to leave after converting their property and non-liquid assets to cash and taking that with them.filc asks, "Name one current country that has transpired into a fair and just government."I find your question to imply a position for which I am in agreement -- that corruption finds its way into governments because men and women are not perfect. But I do not find this to be an argument for Anarchy, since you still have the same problem of human imperfection under that philosophy, and all citations and arguments presented here show Anarchy as arbitrary, inefficient, and so ineffective.
Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?
filc asks, "What about those who do not wish to participate in the services of the government? "I have already answered this above. They are free to petition for grievances, address their differences in a court of law, comply, or leave in position of the cash value of all their possessions.filc continues: "Who do you think would be a better provider and dsitributor of Milk and milk products to the men in our country.
If you chose B then you have just answered your own question to why and how anarchy works better. Free trade is anarchy. Planned economies cannot work. I doubt you would disagree on that note, unless you are a communist/socialist/ect...My answer, as you guessed, is B. But your conclusion is without merit. I am not proposing a government to manage, run and operate the dairy industry. I don't believe that government should be in any business that is better left to the free market system. But I do believe there are things a government can do better than a corporation, such as raising and operating a Navy. Would you prefer a company like "Blackwater" do that work?filc then makes this conclusion: "An An-cap society would naturally meet the demands of people via open, free and uncoerced trade."You have stated no premises for this conclusion, and since you can cite no historic examples, it is academic at best. What are the "demands" it would meet? If it meets such "demands" then how is it not a "social contract"? Finally, How are An-cap operation principles more efficient and just than those proposed in the American Constitution?
PatriotforFreedom:filc has now directed us to the German constitution and social contract stating that "it was completely within the states’ rights to murder those Jews and it was of no loss to personal liberty to the Jew to die in such a way, as it was completely morally, ethically, and legally in the right to do so."I am no student of the German social construct of the time, so will you please point me to the precise location in their governing document which supports your claim? And if there was such a statement in their governing constitution, I would not be in support of it. I have not accused everyone of sidestepping every point.
Please don't place words in my mouth. I never stated that the germen constitution gave such powers, though I wouldn't be suprised if some clause was feasibly capable of producing such a tragedy. My point is social-contracts can be made to grant abusive powers which are detrimental to the people they are suppose to protect and represent.
PatriotforFreedom:But I do accuse you of sidestepping this question: "Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?"
I have answerd this. My answer was extremely clear. I will not re-word. Instead I will quote myself.
filc:We've been trying to answer you. We are tryign to answer your question with a question. Who do you think would be a better provider and dsitributor of Milk and milk products to the men in our country. A) Government managed, run, and operated diary industry? B) Free trade, priviate companies bringing the goods naturally to meet the demands of consumers. If you chose B then you have just answered your own question to why and how anarchy works better. Free trade is anarchy. Planned economies cannot work. I doubt you would disagree on that note, unless you are a communist/socialist/ect... If you want a more direct answer I'll say this. An An-cap society would naturally meet the demands of indepdendant people via open, free and uncoerced trade.
If you want a more direct answer I'll say this. An An-cap society would naturally meet the demands of indepdendant people via open, free and uncoerced trade.
Now please answer my question, choose option A or B.
PatriotforFreedom:filc asks, "How will your system prevent such abuse in the long rung? What previsions will you place that will bring more protection than what the founders left us?"Excellent questions, thanks. I am concerned with a manifestation of the rights of Liberty, not necessarily with provisions to protect same, though I am interested in debating precisely the answers to your questions. Right now, I would answer, that we must find better ways to provide checks and balances and so protection. There were some thoughts on this proposed in draft one of the Manifesto including the new right of "citizens' initiatives", and "citizen's oversite boards."
So in other words, you offer nothing better then what has already been done.
PatriotforFreedom:filc asks, "And how would you deal with folks who didn't agree to that social construct?"They would have the right to petition their grievances, address them in a court of law, choose to comply, or choose to leave after converting their property and non-liquid assets to cash and taking that with them.
What if they were property owners and decided they would rather stay on the land that they worked for and earned?
PatriotforFreedom:Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?
It will not be consistent, but it will be effecient and probably more just. Errors or wrong doings will be isolated to individuals and perhaps a small group around those individuals.
The difference is, when a human being makes a mistake they pay for it one way or another. When the government makes a mistake it's a blanket error for all. That is not just or effecient. Shall I start naming the number of error's which have effected every last individual in this country? By the time I'm done it would make even a serial killer look good by comparisson.
Let me re-word your question and direct it at you.
Please explain how a hypothetical "society" with government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?
PatriotforFreedom: filc continues: "Who do you think would be a better provider and dsitributor of Milk and milk products to the men in our country. A) Government managed, run, and operated diary industry? B) Free trade, priviate companies bringing the goods naturally to meet the demands of consumers. If you chose B then you have just answered your own question to why and how anarchy works better. Free trade is anarchy. Planned economies cannot work. I doubt you would disagree on that note, unless you are a communist/socialist/ect... My answer, as you guessed, is B. But your conclusion is without merit. I am not proposing a government to manage, run and operate the dairy industry. I don't believe that government should be in any business that is better left to the free market system. But I do believe there are things a government can do better than a corporation, such as raising and operating a Navy. Would you prefer a company like "Blackwater" do that work?
filc continues: "Who do you think would be a better provider and dsitributor of Milk and milk products to the men in our country.
If you chose B then you have just answered your own question to why and how anarchy works better. Free trade is anarchy. Planned economies cannot work. I doubt you would disagree on that note, unless you are a communist/socialist/ect... My answer, as you guessed, is B. But your conclusion is without merit. I am not proposing a government to manage, run and operate the dairy industry. I don't believe that government should be in any business that is better left to the free market system. But I do believe there are things a government can do better than a corporation, such as raising and operating a Navy. Would you prefer a company like "Blackwater" do that work?
Slippery slope. By what divine power or right can you objectively judge what is better for "Government" to operate and what is better for "Free Market" to operate. On that note, in your opinion what industries are better left to the government?
I find it inconsistent to randomly mark some goods better left to the government but others not. If a free market can better manage the distribution of a potato, it can also equally better manage the distribution of security., roads, healthcare ect... Your whole argument is inconsistent and hipocritical. You are the one who is without merit or consistency.
PatriotforFreedom:filc then makes this conclusion: "An An-cap society would naturally meet the demands of people via open, free and uncoerced trade." You have stated no premises for this conclusion, and since you can cite no historic examples, it is academic at best.
I think the premise for my argument has been stated clearly enough several times now. But if you must require busy work of me, here is my premise.
PatriotforFreedom:Finally, How are An-cap operation principles more efficient and just than those proposed in the American Constitution?
The constitution only addressed the needs of the majority at the time(And that may not be true, as a rational person I am highly doubtful that the constitution was created with the expressed needs of the majority at the time. More like the majority of an elite few). Libertarian principles however address the needs of all majorities’ and minorities alike on true equal grounds at all times.
On the matter of efffeciency I'll also quote myself from before
filc: The difference is, when a human being makes a mistake they pay for it one way or another. When the government makes a mistake it's a blanket error for all. That is not just or effecient. Shall I start naming the number of error's which have effected every last individual in this country? By the time I'm done it would make even a serial killer look good by comparisson.
PatriotforFreedom:What are the "demands" it would meet? If it meets such "demands" then how is it not a "social contract"?
Any demand imaginable by an individual. Is purchasing milk a social contract? Why is this confusing?
PatriotForFreedom:I asked you what you thought, Juan. Are you saying that LeFevre expresses the answer better than you could do?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, To declare War, To raise and support Armies, To provide and maintain a Navy; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
Strawman (from wikipedia): "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." In reply to this question, Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?", Knight of BAAWA wrote: "I refer you to the fact that your question contains an implicit strawman, meaning it has no reason to be answered."Sir, since you have referred to something, unstated, which you believe I have implied, please state what you believe I implied, so we can see if it does not represent your position. To, "Of course, I recognize that in Anarchy, there are no rules", BAWAA replies, "Yet another strawman."Ok, perhaps I'm guilty, but the definition of Anarchy at Wikipedia is "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."To me this says there are no rules, "lawlessness" in Anarchy. If that is not your position, please clarify it for us.BAAWA writes, "Clearly, a government doesn't render efficient and consistent justice for all. Since the only other option is anarchy, I fail to see how it could be any worse. It's up to you to show that it would be better."My proposition is that a government by and of the people is better than Anarchy. Because Anarchy is lawless, I hold that a government would then be more efficient since it would be unnecessary to continually reinvent the rules under which honest and just law and order may be maintained. And it still remains your responsibility to show how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?" or, to state clearly what you believe the "implied strawman" is in the question.Next, BAAWA writes, "There's simply no way to limit a government. Not possible. Once you realize the futility of your utopia, you'll come around."You have not supplied any support for your first statement. To the contrary, I refer you to a number of ways that governments have been limited via bills of rights reserved by the people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rightsA utopia is defined as "a name for an ideal community or society", and I have not argued for such a utopia, nor given human imperfection do I believe any Utopia may be achieved. So, BAAWA, your statement fits precisely the definition of a "strawman."And, constitutional governments have been entered into and are observable throughout world history, but no known historical example of an effective, just and efficient Anarchy may be shown, so I submit that your position is actually in greater peril of being regarded as fantasy.BAAWA states, "You're saying that it is ok to initiate force. Prove it."Did you mean force without freedom of redress, and other options? Or did you mean force applied as agreed to by and for the people (ie. police)? The first would be a strawman position, and since you profess expertise in that you must mean the second. So once again, I submit that force granted of and for the people and exercised under just principles is ok.
BAWWA writes, "Honest and uncoerced? WTF? If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail/have your property confiscated."This is why I am not in support of the current system.BAWWA writes, "..governments make legal for itself that which is illegal for the rest of the citizens. This is wholly abhorrent to all moral people."Agreed.BAWWA asks, "What about the minority? What right has the majority to impose that upon the minority? Show me where the majority gets this right.""This of course is at the core of your position in support of Anarchy. I submit that a system of law and order, and justice for all is better for all citizens than lack thereof, and that Anarchy, by definition can never provide such a system.BAWWA writes, "Strawman," in reply to a statement I wrote where I assumed he believed that "unanimous assent should be required for all contracts."So, this means that you do not stand for unanimous assent? Odd that you argue for it in asserting that in majority rule, the conflicting rights of the minority are in question. Illogical. Inefficient. Ineffective.
Ok, perhaps I'm guilty, but the definition of Anarchy at Wikipedia is "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.
PatriotforFreedom:You have not supplied any support for your first statement. To the contrary, I refer you to a number of ways that governments have been limited via bills of rights reserved by the people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights
This is a poor defense since your Bill of Rights did nothing to protect the citizen's of this nation. Here is but one example of direct violation of the citizen's.
I challenge you to cite a single country on this planet where a government's growth and abuse has been restricted and limited?
PatriotforFreedom:And, constitutional governments have been entered into and are observable throughout world history, but no known historical example of an effective, just and efficient Anarchy may be shown, so I submit that your position is actually in greater peril of being regarded as fantasy.
And throughout the history those observed governments have been abusive, every single last one of them. Your not giving yourself much of a defense my friend. I repeat myself
I'd like to repeat your question but directed at you.
Hate to butt in on a this conversation...
1. What makes you think that government will render efficent justice for all? Why would anyone in this government continue to abide by a piece of paper? Indeed, it would be in their interests to violate it, and the probability of a populace resisting this is (Through "legitimate" channels) low, as we have already seen limited states become quite unlimited ones throughout history. There is ALWAYS a probability that a legal system will make unjust rulings, but a monopolist is much less likely to be efficent at this.
2. What "people" do you speak of? When was this people formed? What traits define this people? What is this mystical entity that is continually referenced? Furthermore, even if we have a people that precedes the government, once a government is established in their name, where does their authority come from?
"A straw man* argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." (Wikipedia)
filc asks, that "don't place words in my mouth," after claiming that I was in support of a supposed contract which granted the German government "rights to murder those Jews and it was of no loss to personal liberty to the Jew to die in such a way, as it was completely morally, ethically, and legally in the right to do so."filc then states, "My point is social-contracts can be made to grant abusive powers which are detrimental to the people they are suppose to protect and represent."Such contracts would then not be legal in the best interests of Liberty, and therefore not enforceable.And, since you used the example of a German "social contract" which supposedly made it legal and ethical to unjustly treat Jewish people, please cite the specific social contract to which you referred, and show how it was a legal contract.To the answer, "that we must find better ways to provide checks and balances and so protection. There were some thoughts on this proposed in draft one of the Manifesto including the new right of "citizens' initiatives", and "citizen's oversite boards." filc asks, "So in other words, you offer nothing better then what has already been done."That fits the definition of a "*straw man", since I specifically named two things which have not been done before. And since you are in firm grasp of the tactic of straw men, I can only conclude that it is your preference when it suits you.filc asks, "What if they were property owners and decided they would rather stay on the land that they worked for and earned?"Then they may stay and comply with the laws of the land.To the question, "Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?", filc finally is bold enough to venture an answer, which is really a conclusion with no premises for supporting it: "It will not be consistent, but it will be effecient and probably more just. Errors or wrong doings will be isolated to individuals and perhaps a small group around those individuals."Your first statement that it would not be consistent proves that it could not be just, since principles of justice, such as Liberty, are ideas which do remain consistent in definition and so in regulation. "More just"? You have stated that but proved it not at all. Efficient? How can an inconsistency be efficient? Illogical. filc attempts to this position, I think (?) by writing, "The difference is, when a human being makes a mistake they pay for it one way or another. When the government makes a mistake it's a blanket error for all. That is not just or effecient."You have stated no proof for your belief that a person pays for mistakes but governments don't. In fact, since governments are composed of persons, your position is illogical.filc then asks, "Please explain how a hypothetical "society" with government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?"The justice would be efficient and consistent because the laws would be only encoded (written down for all to see, debate, and reach consensus) once, and they would be based on principles of divine rights for all human beings. When there were flaws in the laws, they could be addressed and changed. This is much more efficient than an "inconsistent" society because you do not have to continually debate and reinvent the law.
PatriotforFreedom:Laughing Man writes, "You presuppose that the government's right to maintain its monopoly over land it never aqcuired is in fact more important then an individual's right to live peaceably on his/her land without molestation by the government."Of course, you have not proven this. Property may be understood as a storage place for value. Since any person is free to sell his property and move on, then the government has not "molested" that individual. And since the same individual is free to petition the government in the court system, plus work for repeal and reform of any encroaching laws, then once again the person is at liberty to address problems and injustice in the system.C'mon. Are you pretending to be completely unaware of court cases won by individuals against government encroachments?
You fail to state that an individual, while on his/her property MUST follow the government by use of complusion. If I am on my own property then I am sovereign. I must only follow natural law and anything else is my choice. The government is not owner of the property I reside on therefore I must not listen to anything they say.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Juan cites a number of powers granted in the US Constitution, then asks, "That's a 'minimal' government ? And who agreed to those terms anyway?"Yes, I believe it is minimal. All thirteen states ratified the constitution.Juan also referred me to a page with the writings of Molinari on which he takes up the problem of "security" for protection of the fruits of labor from other men who would unjustly steal it.Molinari : "Under a regime of liberty, the natural organization of the security industry would not be different from that of other industries. In small districts a single entrepreneur could suffice. This entrepreneur might leave his business to his son, or sell it to another entrepreneur. In larger districts, one company by itself would bring together enough resources adequately to carry on this important and difficult business. If it were well managed, this company could easily last, and security would last with it. In the security industry, just as in most of the other branches of production, the latter mode of organization will probably replace the former, in the end. "I find Molinari's arguement to be absurd on the grounds of the arbitrary nature of what is proposed.Let's say that two different groups contract with a security company and that the two groups and their respective companies disagree as to who owns a particular herd of cattle. This exact example may be researched in the "wild west" period of our history. Molinari has thought of no efficient and principled ways to proceed, and so his whole case falls away.I again submit that an army, navy or police force raised by a government of and by the people and sworn to do justice for the people is better in every way than an independent force of mercenaries like "Blackwater."---------------filc asks, "I challenge you to cite a single country on this planet where a government's growth and abuse has been restricted and limited?"I will give you two citations:
In both cases the current governments growth and abuse was limited, or in effect ended, and restrictions were put in place for the future. I agree with you that the tendency of a government is to grow beyond its boundaries, and so it falls back to the responsibility of the people to address any injustice.----------Mlee now appears in the thread... hello Mlee.Mlee asks:1. What makes you think that government will render efficient justice for all? Why would anyone in this government continue to abide by a piece of paper? Indeed, it would be in their interests to violate it, and the probability of a populace resisting this is (Through "legitimate" channels) low, as we have already seen limited states become quite unlimited ones throughout history. There is ALWAYS a probability that a legal system will make unjust rulings, but a monopolist is much less likely to be efficent at this. It will render more efficient justice for all than Anarchy for reasons consistency previously stated. Your question as to why anyone in government would remain loyal to its constitution is a question of honor, is it not? The same question may be applied to any agreement between two or more persons. Why would either party honor it? The answer is that they will honor it when they believe it is in their interests to honor it.And, Mlee asks further:2. What "people" do you speak of? When was this people formed? What traits define this people? What is this mystical entity that is continually referenced? Furthermore, even if we have a people that precedes the government, once a government is established in their name, where does their authority come from?The people who wrote, then ratified in state government, the constitution of the United States. And, the people who are now born under its laws as citizens. Neither of these bodies are "mystical" in my understanding of that term. The authority for a government comes from its body of governing principles known as a Constitution. Each citizen under a just constitution has the right and duty to challenge and amend it when a better agreement is in order.
Laughing Man wrote, "You fail to state that an individual, while on his/her property MUST follow the government by use of complusion. If I am on my own property then I am sovereign. I must only follow natural law and anything else is my choice. The government is not owner of the property I reside on therefore I must not listen to anything they say."Sir, you fail to make clear that a person on his/her property is also within the borders of a country or state and so bound by the laws of that land as put forth and ratified in the Constitution for same. So, you have also failed to make a case that you are "sovereign" on your own property, since if this were the case you would be in the illogical position of then having to form your own fire department, police force, sewer, water and utility department, etc. and which would then make you a state unto yourself. I ask you two questions:
C'mon. Are you really proposing that each person is their own state and country? Illogical. Arbitrary. Ineffective. I rest my case. ----------------------------To all: Thank you once again for an enjoyable debate.We disagree, but live in a country where we are still free to do so. And in this sense of Liberty, I expect we are all in agreement, so I wish you well on that common ground.
PatriotforFreedom:Sir, you fail to make clear that a person on his/her property is also within the borders of a country or state and so bound by the laws of that land as put forth and ratified in the Constitution for same.
Well I never signed the Constitution so it is not applicable to me.
PatriotforFreedom:So, you have also failed to make a case that you are "sovereign" on your own property, since if this were the case you would be in the illogical position of then having to form your own fire department, police force, sewer, water and utility department, etc. and which would then make you a state unto yourself.
So because I own a house, you rationalize that I must have my own police department or fire department? Must I also make my own shoes in this idiotic scheme?
PatriotforFreedom:How would the boundaries of your land be determined, recorded, and defended, especially when in dispute with a neighbor?
Land titles from homesteading that are enforced in common law court systems.
PatriotforFreedom: If you will not "listen to anything" a government under which you live has to say, and that government does not grant you sovereignity, then how will you conduct any business at all with those around you?
Voluntary exchanges and contracts.
PatriotForFreedom:Yes, I believe it is minimal.
PatriotForFreedom:All thirteen states ratified the constitution.
PatriotForFreedom: I find Molinari's arguement to be absurd on the grounds of the arbitrary nature of what is proposed.
Let's say that two different groups contract with a security company and that the two groups and their respective companies disagree as to who owns a particular herd of cattle.
PatriotforFreedom:And, since you used the example of a German "social contract" which supposedly made it legal and ethical to unjustly treat Jewish people, please cite the specific social contract to which you referred, and show how it was a legal contract.
What is legal and what is illegal is detirmined by the state. Therefore they were acting from within their power. Whether it was yet written down on paper or not is a whole other issue.
Lets take your standpoint, for the sake of argument lets state governments preform illegal acts. What power does the individual have over bringing justice against the state? What difference does it make if a government performs an illegal action if the individual does not have the power to prevent it? In fact historically it was the individual who relinguished their authority to the state which ultimately granted them those abusive powers to begin with.
Pointing out that the state is undergoign illegal activiites doesn't stop then. It didn't work for these people
Example a
Example b
Example c
I could go on but it's not worth my time. Evidence is on my side of the injustices of governments. You could fill an entire football stadium of books written about these injustices.
PatriotforFreedom:filc asks, "What if they were property owners and decided they would rather stay on the land that they worked for and earned?"Then they may stay and comply with the laws of the land.
And what happens when the law asks them to participate in a service or activity they'd rather not participate in. For example, they'd rather not fund your navy due to personal beleifs.
PatriotforFreedom:To the question, "Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?", filc finally is bold enough to venture an answer, which is really a conclusion with no premises for supporting it: "It will not be consistent, but it will be effecient and probably more just. Errors or wrong doings will be isolated to individuals and perhaps a small group around those individuals."Your first statement that it would not be consistent proves that it could not be just, since principles of justice, such as Liberty, are ideas which do remain consistent in definition and so in regulation. "More just"? You have stated that but proved it not at all. Efficient? How can an inconsistency be efficient? Illogical.
I never said it would be just. Life's not fair. Those you beleive life is capable of being fair are still in the 5th grade. My argument is that incorrections effect isolated groups of people, not entire populations. Here is a list of errors that will effect entire populations.
Government Errors
Example A
Example B
Example C
Example D
Example E
I could write a list the length of a book to continue but these are good for examples.
Individual Errors
These however are erros that effect a small isolated group of individuals
Lets compare the two lists.
Education
Lets take use education as our first example. If a nation makes an error in public education your net result is a nation full of idiots. If an individual makes such an error the result is a small group of un-educated individuals. Those individuals are free to seek education elsewhere. The Public education however often times leaves parents with little other options. It's also in their best interest since they are already forcibly paying for that education via taxation. If they saught private education they would in effect be paying twice.
So it's obvious that individuals voluntarily deciding what their education would be is far more effecient. Lets consider some topics often found in education, one strongly pushed in public education.
Calculus
Economics
Savings and Investing
Calculus is well understood to be taught in schools nation wide. There is however a very small demand or need for such a skill. The number of students who actually use calculus is extremely small. I'm not arguing that the skill is not useful or that calculus isn't a great technology for man, I'm arguing that a vast majority of students with that skill will never use it. We forceably make all students learn this skill before entering the real world. Tax payers subsidize this activity and since there is no real competition we continue to pay for and support an ineffecient education system.
Savings. Investing and also Economics on the other hand are two topics which are extremely important to the well being of any person. Far more applicable then calculus. These topics however get pushed aside. Extremely important life long issues are left out of our education, while extremely specialized and obscured skills are pushed in. Not very effecient in my mind.
An individual who has the ability to choose his education can find those topics which he beleives best suites his needs. The public education however operates at error on a nation wide level. The eneficiency involved is immeasurable.
Murder and Theft
Lets compare murder.
When an individual murders he killes a small group of individuals around him. When a nation murders it's genocide. I'd prefer basic murder to genocide, don't know about you. I can always hunt down the murder, I can't however fight a genocidal tyrrant with the support of a full navy.
When an individual steals he harms a single person or a small group of people. When government steals it's called taxation which effects the entire populous.
The drug adict vs FDA
When a druggy becomes adicted he only harms himself, and whoever else he needs to harm in order to maintain his habbit. Consider the devistating consequences of the FDA however. They legalize chemical drugs with radical sideeffects. They legalize drugs known to cause cancer, but make natural drugs illegal. They dictate the medicine market and as a result are a BIG part of the reason why medecine costs so damn much in this country.
They legitimize ilegitimate illness's.
The result is, the entire popultion is mis-lead as to what is healthy or unhealthy, what is safe or unsafe. People have placed their trust in this organization and we are feeling the consequenecs as a result. The druggy hurts himself and a small group around him. The FDA destroy's an entire industry, effects the economy, and hurts anyone who takes bad drugs which have been prematurely legalized and approved by FDA. WORSE they create a premise for universal health care.
Who's being ineffecient now? The druggy? Or the Gov?
healthcare and common goods
If you agree that socialism is in-effecient than you probably agree that universal healthcare will do more harm to individuals than good. The problem is, when this universal healthcare is forced on citizen's they all suffer the consequences. In retrospect, a true free-trade system would offer cheap medecine for all. It's funny how I beleive you would agree with me on many of these economic arguments, yet your still fouled up in this strong beleif that government is needed and is more effecient.
Business
If an individual produces a good business a large array of individuals benefit, perhaps the economy as a whole. If an individual produces a bad business he harms a very small isolated group of people and investors. (Assumign there are no government derrived bubbles)
If government produces a good business, well there is no way of knowing if government has or can produce a good business. Since there is no free market when dealing with the government there is no real baseline from which to measure from. There is nothing they can compare themselves to as they monopolize everything.
If however government produces a bad business, they perpetuate it's existence with cheap justification and make tax payers pick up the tab due to it's ineffeciency. Point in case. Governments than push this ineffeciency out for long periods of time never actually making an effort to improve the problem.
The Post office is but on example of an entire nation bailing out a terrible business model on a yearly basis.
My Point
In our Ancap society, the 5 examples I gave you would not have ever existed. The individual will still make their mistakes as they are predisposed to do so. Their radius of effect is isolated. Government on the other hands radius of effect is drastic.
PatriotforFreedom:You have stated no proof for your belief that a person pays for mistakes but governments don't. In fact, since governments are composed of persons, your position is illogical.
I have provided for you 5 examples above where people pay the tab on ineffeciencies of government. Now, despite all of these errors the government continue's to grow. Explain to me why, with such blatent examples of their inability to competantly manage anything, they continues to grow??? In the ancap world businesses who operate with those ineffecienies would no longer exist. They would have adapted to change out of necessity or gone out of business.
It's shocking to me that you beleive free trade to be a genuinly more effecient solution yet your asking me to prove it to you. Why do you claim you beleive in one case, then ask me to prove it to you on another? Do you really need me to prove to you the ineffeciency's of government?
Finally, security.
Here are some ineffeciency's of your navy you hold so dear. Example A has recently contributed to the devistation of our economy.
And for the record, WWII did NOT bring us out of the depression. It also came at a huge cost of lives and money to the american people.
PatriotforFreedom:The justice would be efficient and consistent because the laws would be only encoded (written down for all to see, debate, and reach consensus) once, and they would be based on principles of divine rights for all human beings. When there were flaws in the laws, they could be addressed and changed. This is much more efficient than an "inconsistent" society because you do not have to continually debate and reinvent the law.
According to whom? and to who's prespective. Yours? You argue for the constitution. What about all the slaves, was it justified that they were SOL back then?
Black folk are a minority, with your system the majority could agree to bring minority directed slavery back into existence. Point is you havn't created something fair at all. You've only created something that a majority will be pleased with. Also, if you read up on public opinion you will learn that those public choice typically chooses the lowest common demoninator.
Watch this
I also strongly urge you to read Chapter 10 of The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayak. The chapter is titled "Why the worst get on Top"
This also may help.
Today's law, justice is not effecient, and it's not just. Since justice is more or less a subjective term, the idea of what is justified is completly opinion base and opinions change on an individual basis. In other words, your entire system is based on your own opinions which isn't fair at all.
If you truely beleived in "divine rights" your socialist commonwealth would not have the authority to kick off private land owners off of their land because they chose not to sign your crappy contract.
Your constitution also neglects differences of religous opinion. Thats not fair or just at all. Your whole premise is opinion based. I recommend reading the first few chapters of Human Action and understanding praxeology.
The following terms you mention are 100% subjective
Fair
Just
Effecient
So 'divine rights' end up being what you preceive is divine and what you personally preceive is right, and not what is truely 'divine right'. If it could be possible that something was truely divinely right I doubt you would have to argue to defend the case.
You then take the roll of god, thinking you know whats best for all and decide whats just, fair, and right for everyone. If your a christian I'd think long and hard about adopting such a responsiblity. I'd hate to think of how you would answer to god when you died.
we have a believer in the magic theory of government
like this one:
http://www.casttv.com/video/nk32tn/government-is-magic-video
http://janhelfeld.com/video/35/bill-richardson-on-goverment-and-rights.html
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
PatriotforFreedom:In reply to this question, Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?", Knight of BAAWA wrote: "I refer you to the fact that your question contains an implicit strawman, meaning it has no reason to be answered."Sir, since you have referred to something, unstated, which you believe I have implied, please state what you believe I implied, so we can see if it does not represent your position.
PatriotforFreedom:To, "Of course, I recognize that in Anarchy, there are no rules", BAWAA replies, "Yet another strawman."Ok, perhaps I'm guilty, but the definition of Anarchy at Wikipedia is "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."
PatriotforFreedom:BAAWA writes, "Clearly, a government doesn't render efficient and consistent justice for all. Since the only other option is anarchy, I fail to see how it could be any worse. It's up to you to show that it would be better."My proposition is that a government by and of the people is better than Anarchy.
PatriotforFreedom: Because Anarchy is lawless, I hold that a government would then be more efficient since it would be unnecessary to continually reinvent the rules under which honest and just law and order may be maintained.
PatriotforFreedom:And it still remains your responsibility
PatriotforFreedom:Next, BAAWA writes, "There's simply no way to limit a government. Not possible. Once you realize the futility of your utopia, you'll come around."You have not supplied any support for your first statement.
PatriotforFreedom: To the contrary, I refer you to a number of ways that governments have been limited via bills of rights reserved by the people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights
PatriotforFreedom:A utopia is defined as "a name for an ideal community or society"
PatriotforFreedom: and I have not argued for such a utopia
PatriotforFreedom:BAAWA states, "You're saying that it is ok to initiate force. Prove it."Did you mean force without freedom of redress, and other options?
PatriotforFreedom:Prove that force granted of and for the people and exercised under just principles is not ok.
PatriotforFreedom:BAWWA writes, "Honest and uncoerced? WTF? If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail/have your property confiscated."This is why I am not in support of the current system.
PatriotforFreedom:BAWWA writes, "..governments make legal for itself that which is illegal for the rest of the citizens. This is wholly abhorrent to all moral people." Agreed.
Agreed.
And could I bother you to learn how to use the quoting option here? It's not that difficult.
PatriotforFreedom:BAWWA asks, "What about the minority? What right has the majority to impose that upon the minority? Show me where the majority gets this right.""This of course is at the core of your position in support of Anarchy. I submit that a system of law and order, and justice for all is better for all citizens than lack thereof, and that Anarchy, by definition can never provide such a system.
PatriotforFreedom:BAWWA writes, "Strawman," in reply to a statement I wrote where I assumed he believed that "unanimous assent should be required for all contracts."So, this means that you do not stand for unanimous assent?
Look, bub: legal positivism leads to a host of problems with which you will find it impossible to deal. You will find yourself supporting Jim Crow (because it was the law) and the Nuremberg Laws (because they were the law). Should you not support them--you're a hypocrite.
PatriotforFreedom:Fluery writes, Because it (the "social contract"), and the whole "love it or leave it" nonsense, ends up being a blank check for a systematic abuse of rights.While I agree with you sir, that there is too much abuse of rights today, the impetus for a Liberty Manifesto, I cannot agree that a fair contract contains any license for abuse.
Would you say the Constitution is a fair contract? I thought contracts were supposed to be consented to by all parties involved, now, perhaps my memory is hazy, but I don't recall agreeing to the Constitution.
Fluery:Would you say the Constitution is a fair contract? I thought contracts were supposed to be consented to by all parties involved, now, perhaps my memory is hazy, but I don't recall agreeing to the Constitution.
It is a 'contract' forced upon you by a band of criminals, thieves and murderers. They show little reluctance in destroying the lives of anyone and everyone who does not bow before them.
not only didnt you agree tothe contract. its government policy to not keep up their end of the non-existant contract
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8-W8inFkqQ#t=13m55s
at 13min55seconds.
what seperates citizens from non-citizens?
the supreme court says 'member of the body politic, that owes allegiance in return for a duty of protection'
'these are reciprical obligations'
i.e. contract.
citizen is contractual relationship, allegiance for protection.
we know if a citizen says i announce my allegiance, he is not entitled to protection.
but look at the other side. what if the other side doesnt live up to their obligation. i.e. the obligation to protect.
case: arizona.
jewellery store owner contracted with off duty officers to protect his story. they let him down and he lost 250k . he sued the off-duty officers. their lawyers tried to dismiss since the off-duty officers had no duty to protect. the store owner, appealled this, it went to the supreme court.
they said, storeowner is right. as sheriffs deputies on the job there is no duty to protect him or anyone but this was different they had private contractual obligation that had nothing to do with you sometimes being an officer, and therefore they had to pony up for the store owners loss.
wait a minute. the state is telling you you have no right to protection, it has no duty to protect you. well what could sustain our allegiance?
nirgrahamUK:wait a minute. the state is telling you you have no right to protection, it has no duty to protect you. well what could sustain our allegiance?
Founding father worship and Constitutional mysticism. For some people, the Constitution is a like a bible, because democracy is literally the God that fails.
PatriotforFreedom:You asked, "Now, you please explain to me how a government that does not have consent of the governed will ever be restrained?"Easy. It won't. That is why I am an advocate for a government by and for the people and so has their consent to govern, although greatly reduced and more restrained than we have today.So, I ask you again: Please explain how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?
The courts would be neutral.
Now, the reason I asked my question, is I am wondering if we differ in opinion at all.
You say that you are an advocate of a government with consent of all those that are governed. The only government that could possibly have consent of the governed would be a government that does not force people to be a part of it. And if you are for this, than I do not think we have any disagreement. If you are not for this, than you are not for a government by and for the people.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Hello all -There are a number of good questions raised, and I thank you for them, but since I am the lone proponent here for Liberty tied to a Constitutional form of government, it is difficult to marshall the time required to reply to the army of thinkers for Anarchy.I have time today to reply briefly to some questions. You have also provided links which I will get to later--------------A couple of you wrote and asked about slavery (Juan and filc).Slavery was an abomination and the very contradiction of the Bill of Rights. It has been corrected.-------------
Juan wondered why I found Molinari's argument for hiring competing bands of mercenaries as "security" for the fruits of labor, absurd.
If the way I've phrased it doesn't suggest the answer, let me be clear: when a person or persons choose to hire mercenaries to represent their interests, the mercenaries are loyal only to the highest bidder, and the employer is only good insofar as his/her interests are honorable and just. So, it is far better, in my opinion, to swear a national navy, for example, to the just and honorable principles of God given Liberty, and so place their allegiance beyond the arbitrary needs or whims of one person or group of persons.Juan also states, "there's no reason why it can't be found out who the actual owner is." He states this regarding a proposed "anarchic system", which I place in quotes to underscore the oxymoronic nature of the two words.
My question to Juan is this: In whose record, and under whose authority would the rightful ownership be determined?------------Juan gave us a quote from Alice in Wonderland, and nirgrahamUK advanced the theory of a "Magic" government.So, in terms of history, I ask both of them which form of government we now debate is more the stuff of fantasy, and why?------------filc you wrote a long response -- thanks. Due to time limits I must pick a couple of points in contention.filc wrote, "Pointing out that the state is undergoing illegal activiites doesn't stop them."Not only have we seen that it "stopped them" in both the French and American revolutions, but there are a number of famous court cases in the US where the state was stopped from the encroachment on the rights of free people. And the abomination of slavery has been addressed. filc wrote, "Evidence is on my side of the injustices of governments."But that response and observation is not an argument against the efficiency and effectiveness of honorable governance -- at best it is a valuable history lesson, again underscoring the need for checks and balances.filc wrote, "I never said it would be just. Life's not fair. Those you beleive life is capable of being fair are still in the 5th grade. My argument is that incorrections effect isolated groups of people, not entire populations."Then sir, if you would not bind persons to justice, as understood quite easily by fifth graders, there would be no need for Molinari's bands of security mercenaries at all, because without justice, what would be their goal? Or maybe, lest I stray into territory of the straw men, you do in fact hold that in Anarchy a good goal would be justice. Who's justice? Under what authority? And what, sir, would you propose if different individuals had opposing views of justice?filc wrote, "Lets take use education as our first example. If a nation makes an error in public education your net result is a nation full of idiots."This of course depends on your definition of "education", which by your argument seems to imply that it might be closer to the definition for indoctrination. Are you actually proposing that an "error" which would produce "idiots" would go undetected by all the free individuals in the education system? Please cite a real-world example where that is the case.
True education honors all viable theories and presents them in the form of honorable debate, as we are doing here, allowing the free citizens/students to make up their own minds. Propaganda and revisionist history have no place in education. Unfortunately, if your next step would be to point out the many examples of it in the schools today, I could only sadly agree. This is another point of common ground for us. But since you are able to find such mistakes, and free to address them, then your argument is not solid. The state, and any other lobbying interest must stay out of the education business and leave that to honorable teachers. But we are still free to expose and correct mistakes in education.filc wrote, "When government steals it's called taxation which effects the entire populous."We are not in agreement that this would be true if the people have entered into an uncoerced contract for services desired. filc wrote, "The Post office is but on example of an entire nation bailing out a terrible business model on a yearly basis."Another point of common ground.filc wrote, "If you truely beleived in "divine rights" your socialist commonwealth would not have the authority to kick off private land owners off of their land because they chose not to sign your crappy contract."Since I have not advanced a theory of av"socialist commonwealth", you have advanced yet another straw man. I believe you are referring to the legal notion of "eminent domain" which I agree is worthy of debate. But when a government takes land for the greater good, as in building a freeway, they do not kick people off their land without first giving them just compensation economically, and they do so for the good of the larger citizenry, not as a penalty for refusing to sign a contract. In fact, since no contract signing is required of our citizens, your argument has once again strayed into the realm of fantasy and illogic.-----------The Knight of BAWAA asked, "why don't you explain how it is that you believe that anarchists believe that there would be efficient and consistent justice for all, i.e. there would never be any problems. Ever."First, recall that you proposed that my question, "how a hypothetical "society" without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?" contained an implicit straw man. Since a straw man is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, your accusation is false -- the only implicit position in my question was my own, not yours -- that Anarchy could not produce as its goal, efficient and consistent justice for all. You have now rendered, in your question for me, support for my position that Anarchy not only cannot produce efficient and consistent justice for all, but that it does not even have that as a goal. Of course I have never said that any system would result in no problems, "ever", so you again use straw man logic when it suits your purpose.But I do hold, and invite you to do your best to refute it, that a government under a constitution such as our own, will produce a society with more efficient and consistent justice for all, than would that of the anarchist school of thought. This is at the core of our argument and separates our two schools of thought, so I will be interested in your best work for a response. And please clear your mind a bit and realize that we agree -- due to the imperfection of all humans, no government or system is capable of producing absolute liberty and justice for all. It is just that some are better at it and so come closer to the mark.The Knight, then responds to my statement, "and I have not argued for such a utopia," by proposing, "Yes, you have. You have argued for limited government. This is an impossibility. So please--don't lie."In order to prove your assertion, Knight, you must first demonstrate historic or current examples of unlimited government, then show how I have argued for same. Please do not allow your failure to do so to cloud your thinking -- an unclear mind is not helpful in education. ------------Fleury writes, "Would you say the Constitution is a fair contract? I thought contracts were supposed to be consented to by all parties involved, now, perhaps my memory is hazy, but I don't recall agreeing to the Constitution."
Spideynw has written: "Now, the reason I asked my question, is I am wondering if we differ in opinion at all."We do. Spideynw continues, "You say that you are an advocate of a government with consent of all those that are governed. The only government that could possibly have consent of the governed would be a government that does not force people to be a part of it. And if you are for this, than I do not think we have any disagreement. If you are not for this, than you are not for a government by and for the people."Our government does not force any person to be a part of it. Any person is free to work for change within it, to petition it with grievances, or to sue it in a court of law. And all citizens are also free to renounce their citizenry and go elsewhere in search of an imaginary anarchic utopia.
The Knight, then responds to my statement, "and I have not argued for such a utopia," by proposing, "Yes, you have. You have argued for limited government. This is an impossibility. So please--don't lie."I wrote: "In order to prove your assertion, Knight, you must first demonstrate historic or current examples of unlimited government, then show how I have argued for same. Please do not allow your failure to do so to cloud your thinking -- an unclear mind is not helpful in education."
I made a mistake in that statement. I should have written: after you show us examples of unlimited government, you must then show, since there is no unlimited government in the US (nor can there be under its Constitution), how limited government is an impossibility.
It seems I am guilty of my own criticism of unclear thinking. I stand corrected.
PatriotforFreedom: And all citizens are also free to renounce their citizenry and go elsewhere in search of an imaginary anarchic utopia.
in other words. "if you dont like it leave it". if you dont like the fact that i rob your house every thursday, leave it. if you dont like the fact that i rape your daughter, send her abroad. or maybe people have no authority to abuse innocents. what do you think?
NirgrahamUK replies, "in other words. "if you dont like it leave it". if you dont like the fact that i rob your house every thursday, leave it. if you dont like the fact that i rape your daughter, send her abroad. or maybe people have no authority to abuse innocents. what do you think?"
Wow, a lot of straw man thinkers in this forum. I of course did not say "like it or leave it," but instead gave other examples of what honorable dissenters are free to do including, petition the government, sue it, or work for change within it.
The rest of your examples are unfortunately for you sir, further examples of a straw man argument. Let's take these fallacious proposals one at a time so you can be clear in your thinking as to where I stand:
No, nirgraham of the UK, if you do not like those options, plus those previous set out, you remain free to leave the country in search of an increasingly imaginary anarchic utopia. Or am I wrong on that point? Does one exist in the real world?
you literally said if citizens dont like their governments they are free to stop being citizens and leave. there is no way this is not like it or leave it.
th fact that you mention otherways that citizens can 'effect' their government dodges the point, that the government have no right to have authority on them in the first place, at all, if i come to your house to rob you and you dont like it, join my criminal gang and change us from the inside, petition the don to leave you alone, write documents to me that have magic words on them that stop me from abusing you.....
PatriotforFreedom:"if you dont like the fact that i rob your house every thursday, leave it." Of course not. Simply exercise your rights under the law and with support of authorities (police) who are sworn to uphold that law.
PatriotforFreedom:"if you dont like the fact that i rape your daughter, send her abroad." No sir, we would send you into the justice system and to jail.
PatriotforFreedom: I think they do not, as evidenced by our Constitution, and the code of law stated and litigated in our justice system.
PatriotforFreedom:f you do not like those options, plus those previous set out, you remain free to leave the country in search of an increasingly imaginary anarchic utopia.
PatriotforFreedom:Wow, a lot of straw man thinkers in this forum.
Not really. You are just misusing the term. I also like this...
PatriotforFreedom:I of course did not say "like it or leave it," but instead gave other examples of what honorable dissenters are free to do including, petition the government, sue it, or work for change within it.
PatriotforFreedom:No, nirgraham of the UK, if you do not like those options, plus those previous set out, you remain free to leave the country in search of an increasingly imaginary anarchic utopia.
nirgrahamUK has responded, "you literally said if citizens dont like their governments they are free to stop being citizens and leave. there is no way this is not like it or leave it."
I am hoping that they have good coffee in the UK, because then it may clear your mind from oaf-like thinking. Since there are other options afforded freely to citizens in the US, then the choice is not simply to stay or leave as your straw man illogic suggests. --------------------
nirgrahamUK wrote "the government have no right to have authority on them in the first place."Again, I find your oaf-like writings in need of clarity. The Government by its Constitution, which is a freely agreed upon contract, does have authority over the lawless in a society. nirgrahamUK wrote "the police are criminals."
You have not proven that -- more coffee or tea is in order, hopefully laced with lots of Caffeine.-------
PatriotforFreedom: "if you dont like the fact that i rape your daughter, send her abroad." No sir, we would send you into the justice system and to jail.nirgrahamUK: "the jailor will send himself to jail?"Again your reply shows lack of clarity. The proposal is not that a jailor will send himself to jail, but that a perpetrator will be sent into the court system, and after receiving a fair trial would then be sent to jail if convicted. I will look forward to a clear thinking critique of this logic.
-----------
PatriotforFreedom: "if you do not like those options, plus those previous set out, you remain free to leave the country in search of an increasingly imaginary anarchic utopia." nirgrahamUK: "nice choice to end on "like it or leave it". you oaf."Since there are other choices than leaving, as we have seen, we are left to ponder whether oafism is simply a projection of your current non-cafienated mind, or whether you are reduced to derogatory labels because all logical argument has failed you. And lest you think I am guilty of deroatory labeling -- I intend you no insult. I am quite hopeful that you will demonstrate the ability to rise above oaf-like illogical straw man debate. After all, it does your cadre here no good when you cannot clearly form a good reply in a debate.
PatriotforFreedom: "Wow, a lot of straw man thinkers in this forum."
Eric: "Not really. You are just misusing the term."
You must first demonstrate how the term has been misused in order to see credible. And thank you for stating your approval of the following:
PatriotforFreedom:Again, I find your oaf-like writings in need of clarity. The Government by its Constitution, which is a freely agreed upon contract, does have authority over the lawless in a society.
the constitution is not a contract, its a piece of paper. do you know what a contract is?
PatriotforFreedom:You have not proven that -- more coffee or tea is in order, hopefully laced with lots of Caffeine.
they have no right to arrest people or take their property, yet they do these things. ergo. criminal. they are paid by involuntary taxation. criminals.
PatriotforFreedom:The proposal is not that a jailor will send himself to jail, but that a perpetrator will be sent into the court system, and after receiving a fair trial would then be sent to jail if convicted. I will look forward to a clear thinking critique of this logic.
your magical government is , a perpetrator. your magical government coerces innocents. perpetrator. will they send themselves to jail?
PatriotforFreedom:Since there are other choices than leaving, as we have seen, we are left to ponder whether oafism is simply a projection of your current non-cafienated mind, or whether you are reduced to derogatory labels because all logical argument has failed you. And lest you think I am guilty of deroatory labeling -- I intend you no insult. I am quite hopeful that you will demonstrate the ability to rise above oaf-like illogical straw man debate. After all, it does your cadre here no good when you cannot clearly form a good reply in a debate.
why can't you grant the option to leave innocents alone.? why are you a petty tyrant?
if your government persecutes an innocent, the innocent can sue the government? is that like if i object to the mafia about their protection racket?
OK. Here is another example of you misusing the term "Straw Man".
filc asks, "So in other words, you offer nothing better then what has already been done."
PatriotforFreedom:That fits the definition of a "*straw man", since I specifically named two things which have not been done before.
There is no straw man. Since he said you offer nothing better than what has already been done.