How can you delegate to the government a right you don't have?

[madfranks]

If you don't like guns, why don't you tell all your neighbors that they're not allowed to have them, and if they fail to comply you'll fine them, and if they resist you'll throw them in a cage, and if they resist further, you'll kill them. Most people would realize that they don't have the right to do this to their neighbors, so under the presumption that we have a government of, by, and for the people, how come many people would consider such actions proper for the government to engage in when they would not engage in them themselves? In other words, how does something which is illegitimate when performed by the individual become legitimate when performed by government? If the individual doesn't have the authority to ban others from owning guns, where does the government get that authority from? Obviously not from the people, because you can't delegate to someone else the authority to perform a duty that you yourself have no right to perform.

[chad]

i use this anaology all the time. let's say i have a rich neighbor and i want his stuff. if i went over and stole it, i'd get arrested. but, if i get all of the neighborhood together and we have a party and "vote" to decide to take his stuff, then it's perfectly fine, and we can throw him in jail if he decides not to let us take it.

[Son-of-Liberty]

I agree.

I don't have the right to steal my neighbors stuff. If I get together with all my neighbors and we all agree to do it most people would still see that as wrong. But call it government and magically it is OK. It is basically a religion. It really only exists on paper but we give it rights and powers that all the people do not have and most people will defend the governments rights and actions right to the end.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[Twisted Titan]

i use this anaology all the time. let's say i have a rich neighbor and i want his stuff. if i went over and stole it, i'd get arrested. but, if i get all of the neighborhood together and we have a party and "vote" to decide to take his stuff, then it's perfectly fine, and we can throw him in jail if he decides not to let us take it.


You just described a Democracy. .......which is why nowhere in our founding documents will you find it.


Which is i laugh my butt off everytime i here the tag line: America is the greatest Democracy on the face of the earth

[Twisted Titan]

Larken Rose said it much better


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[JohnQPublic]

A government that acts outside the bounds of law is an illegitimate government.

[iOWNme]

The US Constitution is full of Rights delegated that never existed by the common man:

-The power to Tax
-The power to steal private property through emminent domain.
-The power to conscript men to War
-The power to fight insurrection and rebellion


ALL of these are powers that no man has over another, yet most people never question them because it is 'The Law'.

[Hatha Sunahara]

The real law, universally, is the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Any law that is 'legislated' and violates this principle is not a real 'law'. People give power to stupid laws by obeying them.


Hatha

[madfranks]

It's amazing if you think about it. This simple, logical deduction basically refutes the legitimacy of any and all governments, period. If it's criminal for the individual, it's criminal to the state.

[Twisted Titan]

It's amazing if you think about it. This simple, logical deduction basically refutes the legitimacy of any and all governments, period. If it's criminal for the individual, it's criminal to the state.


Beware of being Too Rational in the Country of the insane, the fully integrated person is not made King or Queen.......... THEY GET LYNCHED


A. Huxley

[midnight rambler]

If you don't like guns, why don't you tell all your neighbors that they're not allowed to have them, and if they fail to comply you'll fine them, and if they resist you'll throw them in a cage, and if they resist further, you'll kill them. Most people would realize that they don't have the right to do this to their neighbors, so under the presumption that we have a government of, by, and for the people, how come many people would consider such actions proper for the government to engage in when they would not engage in them themselves? In other words, how does something which is illegitimate when performed by the individual become legitimate when performed by government? If the individual doesn't have the authority to ban others from owning guns, where does the government get that authority from? Obviously not from the people, because you can't delegate to someone else the authority to perform a duty that you yourself have no right to perform.

It's not being done by the government, it's being done by the STATE.

[madfranks]

It's not being done by the government, it's being done by the STATE.

I do admit, I usually use those words interchangeably; perhaps I need to be more prudent with my use of words in the future.

[kiffertom]

You just described a Democracy. .......which is why nowhere in our founding documents will you find it.


Which is i laugh my butt off everytime i here the tag line: America is the greatest Democracy on the face of the earth i hat how that word is used. the newsreaders(reporters/anchors) use democracy instead of republic. the greeks realized that with a democracy the minority gets f*cked! thats why our founders wanted a republic!!

[iOWNme]

It's not being done by the government, it's being done by the STATE.


Can you please show me the difference?

The most authoritarian Government of the last century was the Communist. All 10 planks describe the power of the STATE which derives its power from the labor class or the 'people'.

[Carl]

"In the name of...."

And

"In consent of..."

Are not the same things.

Government does a lot of things "in the name of the people", regardless of consent.

Please explain how you would go about getting 300 million people to agree to follow one set of rules independent of government or violence.

[palani]

Please explain how you would go about getting 300 million people to agree to follow one set of rules independent of government or violence.

Only approximately 535 of them are "citizens" with full voting privileges. There are 299,999,465 who are "inhabitants" (foreigners) with no real political power.

[madfranks]

Please explain how you would go about getting 300 million people to agree to follow one set of rules independent of government or violence.

You can't. That's why there is no such thing as a "one size fits all" rulebook for 300 million people without forced participation.

[Carl]

You can't. That's why there is no such thing as a "one size fits all" rulebook for 300 million people without forced participation. What about willing compromise? With 300 million differing opinions as to what constitutes the rules by which people should conduct their lives, combined with an innate desire for order over chaos, one would assume that electing a nonpartisan group of individuals to apply an agreed upon set of rules would be the best course of action, with the least amount of conflict involved for all, don't you think? Of course, you would have to authorize their use of force if necessary.

Either that or we could let the 300 million fight it out amongst themselves and let the temporary winners take all. And of course, you would also have to assume that the other 7 billion people on the planet with their governments will not take advantage.

[madfranks]

What about willing compromise? With 300 million differing opinions as to what constitutes the rules by which people should conduct their lives, combined with an innate desire for order over chaos, one would assume that electing a nonpartisan group of individuals to apply an agreed upon set of rules would be the best course of action, with the least amount of conflict involved for all, don't you think? Of course, you would have to authorize their use of force if necessary.

Back to the original question - how can you give an elected, nonpartisan group of individuals rights that you do not have? If you don't have the right to enforce a set of rules upon everyone else, how do the "nonpartisan elected officials" get those rights?

[Carl]

Back to the original question - how can you give an elected, nonpartisan group of individuals rights that you do not have? If you don't have the right to enforce a set of rules upon everyone else, how do the "nonpartisan elected officials" get those rights? What rights are you referring to, the delegated authority (not a "right") to protect life and property? To settle disputes as they arise?

Government has no "rights", period. They are supposed to exercise a delegated, delineated (common laws) authority.

[madfranks]

What rights are you referring to, the delegated authority (not a "right") to protect life and property? To settle disputes as they arise?

Let's take a simple one: taxation. The government believes it has the right to tax pretty much anything in this country. Do you or I have the ability to tax our neighbors, in other words, take money from them forcibly against their will? We would call that theft, and we do not have the right to relieve our neighbors of their property against their will. So how do the delegated authorities get that "right"? Not from the people, because the people don't have that right to give. My belief is that they (the delegated authorities) don't have that right, and that taxation is tantamount to theft, morally it's the same thing.


Government has no "rights", period. They are supposed to exercise a delegated, delineated (common laws) authority.

I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure I interpret this the same way you mean it. The delegated, delineated authorizations granted to them can only be legitimate if they are authorities rightfully owned by the people first and secondly delegated to their representatives. Any power, right, permission, authorization, license, sanction, mandate, etc. that the government claims which the people never had to give them is illegitimate.

[Carl]

Let's take a simple one: taxation. The government believes it has the right to tax pretty much anything in this country. Do you or I have the ability to tax our neighbors, in other words, take money from them forcibly against their will? We would call that theft, and we do not have the right to relieve our neighbors of their property against their will. So how do the delegated authorities get that "right"? Not from the people, because the people don't have that right to give. My belief is that they (the delegated authorities) don't have that right, and that taxation is tantamount to theft, morally it's the same thing. Taxes are supposed to be a pooled resource used to finance specific assigned tasks and functions of government, that's how civilizations are built. Government is nothing more than elected managers of the people's pooled resources. That they are elected to manage the resources, does not give them title to the resources, those still belong to the people who pay the taxes.

Government is our paid servant, we need to start treating it as such.



I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure I interpret this the same way you mean it. The delegated, delineated authorizations granted to them can only be legitimate if they are authorities rightfully owned by the people first and secondly delegated to their representatives. Any power, right, permission, authorization, license, sanction, mandate, etc. that the government claims which the people never had to give them is illegitimate. No, you read and interpreted it correctly.

[madfranks]

Taxes are supposed to be a pooled resource used to finance specific assigned tasks and functions of government, that's how civilizations are built. Government is nothing more than elected managers of the people's pooled resources. That they are elected to manage the resources, does not give them title to the resources, those still belong to the people who pay the taxes.

You have to admit there is a HUGE difference between pooled resources freely and voluntarily given versus pooled resources extracted forcibly from the unwilling at the point of a gun. The first is legitimate, the second is not. Unfortunately, it is primarily the second that we have in this country.

You are right that civilizations are built through the cooperation and pooled resources of the people in those civilizations. Don't make the mistake in believing that a government is needed to manage this though; people are more than capable of freely volunteering and cooperating without being forced to do so by a government.

[Carl]

Don't make the mistake in believing that a government is needed to manage this though; people are more than capable of freely volunteering and cooperating without being forced to do so by a government.
Yes, small tribes of people living a basic structured life are more than capable of freely volunteering and cooperating without being forced to do so. A complex society, not so much. Can you imagine the entire population of Dallas having to meet every time an issue that affects them all needs to be addressed? How about the entire population of the U.S.?

What do you do with people who partake of, but feel no obligation to pay for the services created and rendered by the society?

You live there, use the services, you pay, it's as simple as that. Unless you're a thief and if that's the case, how should society react to mooching thieves? Give them a welfare check as well? This is also the primary purpose behind a free market, free enterprise system, to afford the greatest amount of opportunities to the greatest amount of people so that they can afford to pay the taxes to keep the system of services functioning with the least amount of moochers involved.

If you don't want to pay for the services, if you don't want running water, flushing toilets, paved lighted streets, sewage treatment plants, water purification plants, fire fighting services or any semblence of order, then go find yourself a hole somewhere to live in as you please.

[iOWNme]

Can you imagine the entire population of Dallas having to meet every time an issue that affects them all needs to be addressed? How about the entire population of the U.S.?


Would Christmas be better with or without Santa Clause?

I know we disagree Carl, but your question is irrelevant to morality.

[Carl]

Would Christmas be better with or without Santa Clause?

I know we disagree Carl, but your question is irrelevant to morality.

With over 7 billion morality variations to pick from, whose morality are we suppose to follow, and how will it be implemented?

[palani]

You live there, use the services, you pay, it's as simple as that.
Do you discharge your debts or do you extinguish them?

Paying a debt is as simple as handing over a negotiable instrument in the form of an IOU. The promise to pay is the payment.

[jimswift]

people are more than capable of freely volunteering and cooperating without being forced to do so by a government.

Funny, I had this very thought cross my mind this morning. I couldn't think of a more natural thing that occurs between humans.

Also, currently there are plenty of moochers to go around and I'm with Carl, they are thieves. moocher = parasite

My mom would say this to me over and over and over again growing up: "You have to be self supporting upon your own contributions."

[madfranks]

With over 7 billion morality variations to pick from, whose morality are we suppose to follow, and how will it be implemented?

Follow your own, and to the extent that your own beliefs and morality matches those around you, associate and contract with them to implement conditions that you find preferable to existing conditions. To the extent that your beliefs and morality clash with those around you, don't associate with them, nor contract with them.

If you want roads, contract with those who are providing them. If you want police protection, contract with firms offering security services. If you want fire protection, contract with firms offering fire fighting services. If you want defense, get an insurance policy that pays you if your property is destroyed. If you want your kids to go to school, contract with companies providing schools that best provide what you want.

If you want other people to pay for these things for you, get the government to force them to pay on your behalf.

[Carl]

Follow your own, and to the extent that your own beliefs and morality matches those around you, associate and contract with them to implement conditions that you find preferable to existing conditions. To the extent that your beliefs and morality clash with those around you, don't associate with them, nor contract with them.

If you want roads, contract with those who are providing them. If you want police protection, contract with firms offering security services. If you want fire protection, contract with firms offering fire fighting services. If you want defense, get an insurance policy that pays you if your property is destroyed. If you want your kids to go to school, contract with companies providing schools that best provide what you want.

If you want other people to pay for these things for you, get the government to force them to pay on your behalf.
You're funny, I almost fell for it but I finally caught on, good joke...\uu\

[madfranks]

You're funny, I almost fell for it but I finally caught on, good joke...\uu\

You've never read Mises' Human Action, have you?

[iOWNme]

With over 7 billion morality variations to pick from, whose morality are we suppose to follow, and how will it be implemented?

The truth is Carl is YOU decide what your own morals are. Can you handle that? If you just live your own life and mind your own damn business, exercising your own talents, pursuing your own dreams, striving to be what you believe you should be, treating others as you would want to be treated, what possible use for 'implementation' could there possibly be? The Statist side of you shines through when you think you need to 'implement' others morals for them. Do you actually even think about the words you say?

Carl - Can I be morally obligated to do the wrong thing?

[iOWNme]

Also, currently there are plenty of moochers to go around and I'm with Carl, they are thieves. moocher = parasite


Jim im not trying to be a dick, but do you vote? Voting = THEFT.

This isnt directed at you: But i have noticed that some of the most hardcore STATIST are Libertarians and Constitutionalists. They believe that stealing and violence are perfectly acceptable as long as it is done withing the confines of 'The Law'. Utterly incompatible with morals, completely irrational and self contradictory.

[Carl]

You've never read Mises' Human Action, have you?

I've thumbed through it a few times, I perfer fiction to be a little more scifi.

Have you ever read any history, which refutes about 99% of Mises' musings?

(Marx - Thesis) + (Mises - Antithesis) = The Current World We Live In.

Ever heard of situational ethics? That's the morality being taught in schools today.

I'm sure you've heard the saying; "there are two types of people in this world, those who want to be left alone and those who won't leave them alone."

The people who won't leave them alone far, far outnumber the ones who want to be left alone.

"Paint Your Wagon" was not a history lesson.

[palani]

You can dictate to the government.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f32_1355777163 .... arresting a UK judge

I bet he was shaking in his boots.

They had this little custom called "breaking on a wheel" back 500 years ago. Wouldn't take too much to bring it back.

[Carl]

The truth is Carl is YOU decide what your own morals are. Can you handle that? If you just live your own life and mind your own damn business, exercising your own talents, pursuing your own dreams, striving to be what you believe you should be, treating others as you would want to be treated, what possible use for 'implementation' could there possibly be? The Statist side of you shines through when you think you need to 'implement' others morals for them. Do you actually even think about the words you say?

Carl - Can I be morally obligated to do the wrong thing? You are really naive.

Under your system, I, being a government of one, could construe any action you may endeavor to undertake within my vicinity as a direct threat to my life and property, (my property being defined as the area I can stake claim to and hold with force of arms) which would require my killing you on the spot, and I would be morally justified in doing so. How are you going to argue your position after you're dead?

There are people on this world that will kill you dead for your shoes, do you honestly believe government makes them do it?

[madfranks]

Have you ever read any history, which refutes about 99% of Mises' musings?

To the best of my knowledge we've never had an unhampered market economy, or a completely voluntary society where people cooperated under their own volition. So I wouldn't say history refutes Mises, I'd say history rejects Mises.


I'm sure you've heard the saying; "there are two types of people in this world, those who want to be left alone and those who won't leave them alone."

The people who won't leave them alone far, far outnumber the ones who want to be left alone.

On this we agree, which is why a truly free society has never existed.

The freest people on the face of the earth are those who are able to successfully ignore their governments.

[iOWNme]

You are really naive.

Under your system, I, being a government of one, could construe any action you may endeavor to undertake within my vicinity as a direct threat to my life and property, (my property being defined as the area I can stake claim to and hold with force of arms) which would require my killing you on the spot, and I would be morally justified in doing so. How are you going to argue your position after you're dead?

There are people on this world that will kill you dead for your shoes, do you honestly believe government makes them do it?

Im naive because i believe that each man owns himself?

If you were holding your own area with arms, why would i try and enter it? It is YOURS. I just CRUSHED your entire argument because in that scenario i would be the criminal trying to enter private property.

And again, if there are men who will kill me 'dead for my shoes' THEN WE CANNOT HAVE A THING CALLED GOVERNMENT, because those people will get into it and use it for evil. That same person could only cause MINIMAL damage on his own. After he figures out he can rob and pillage MILLIONS at a time, it is GAME OVER for the individual and liberty. How can you not possibly see that? And in your opinion in order for you to be protected from that evil man I HAVE TO BE ROBBED AT GUNPOINT?

Who's naive?

Your only position whenever I show you the truth is that 'we need roads', 'we need running water'. In ALL of your scenarios, violence is justified so you can have some water and a road to drive on. WAKE UP MAN!!!!

There is no moral position to take when it comes to arguing against self ownership. The only position is that of a STATIST.

[iOWNme]

One of my favorite quotes is from Madfranks:


Interestingly enough, did you know that the US Constitution only mentions private property twice, and in both instances it's discussing how the government can legally deprive you of it?

[Carl]

Im naive because i believe that each man owns himself? No, you're naive for believing that your interpretation of what constitutes morality is a universal law. And there are about 2.1 billion Muslims and about 885 million Hindus that would probably contest the concept of self ownership.


If you were holding your own area with arms, why would i try and enter it? It is YOURS. I just CRUSHED your entire argument because in that scenario i would be the criminal trying to enter private property.Who said anything about you entering upon my property as being a prerequisite for my actions? You could be on what you may consider to be your property installing a dam on a stream that would block water to my land.


And again, if there are men who will kill me 'dead for my shoes' THEN WE CANNOT HAVE A THING CALLED GOVERNMENT, because those people will get into it and use it for evil. That same person could only cause MINIMAL damage on his own. After he figures out he can rob and pillage MILLIONS at a time, it is GAME OVER for the individual and liberty. How can you not possibly see that? And in your opinion in order for you to be protected from that evil man I HAVE TO BE ROBBED AT GUNPOINT? One guy killing you for your shoes, turns into a gang of guys, turns into an army, turns into government...And history repeats...

There you go being naive again. Please explain how your beliefs, (absent a standard in law and a system of enforcement and justice) will prevent people from forming into groups and imposing their beliefs upon others (as history repeatedly demonstrates that people do)? Why do you believe that people will simply play nice once government and the rule of law is removed from the picture? Do you have any historical evidence to support the postulation that complex societies form and continue to function without government?

And you keep claiming "I HAVE TO BE ROBBED AT GUNPOINT". Who is robbing you at gunpoint?


Who's naive? Still you.


Your only position whenever I show you the truth is that 'we need roads', 'we need running water'. In ALL of your scenarios, violence is justified so you can have some water and a road to drive on. WAKE UP MAN!!!!
There is no moral position to take when it comes to arguing against self ownership. The only position is that of a STATIST.But you haven't shown the truth, all you've shown is your opinion wrapped in a cloak of naive assumptions.

My argument isn't for government, it is for the rule of law in support of liberty, because relying upon individual opinions on what they believe is moral or just is a piss poor substitute.

With the rule of law, you can believe as you please and I'm left free to ignore you.

Unfortunately, government is necessary for the rule of law to work, and you do have to pay for services rendered.

[iOWNme]

No, you're naive for believing that your interpretation of what constitutes morality is a universal law. And there are about 2.1 billion Muslims and about 885 million Hindus that would probably contest the concept of self ownership.

Oh really? If i went to those Muslims homes and took their children from them to FORCE them to become Christians, you dont think they would have a FULL UNDERSTANDING of self ownership? Are you for real? Ive destroyed your argument again.


Who said anything about you entering upon my property as being a prerequisite for my actions? You could be on what you may consider to be your property installing a dam on a stream that would block water to my land.

Then in your scenario we would have to figure this out between us. And in the worst case scenario, if i knew this was going to stop you from having water, thus depriving you of life, you would be justified in doing what you needed to to survive. Although you wont like this answer, and it may seem harsh, we still are only dealing with a VERY SMALL number of people who may be killed - compared to HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS being starved out and murdered via DEMOCIDE = Government killing its own citizens. Or Government BRAINWASHING its citizens to go kill people half way around the world that they have never met before. You are actually advocating that millions of people be stolen from, enslaved or even killed in order that one guy somewhere can be 'protected' by some common criminal. Something that could NEVER be accomplished in a system of anarchy.

Its real easy to figure out: With no 'Government' there is a chance you may be robbed of the fruits of your labor by criminals. With 'Government' it is a 100% certainty of you being robbed of the fruits of your labor by criminals. And you are still going to advocate for 'Law'? This is INSANITY.


One guy killing you for your shoes, turns into a gang of guys, turns into an army, turns into government...And history repeats...

WRONG! You just described a group of criminal THUGS. I thought you thought Government was legitimate? Damn you go in circles with your logic. I hope you realize you just squashed your own argument BY ADMITTING GOVERNMENT = VIOLENCE. Carl what is the difference between the de jure US Government, and the Bloods or the Crips?


There you go being naive again. Please explain how your beliefs, (absent a standard in law and a system of enforcement and justice) will prevent people from forming into groups and imposing their beliefs upon others (as history repeatedly demonstrates that people do)? Why do you believe that people will simply play nice once government and the rule of law is removed from the picture? Do you have any historical evidence to support the postulation that complex societies form and continue to function without government?

Again, i dont have to tell you how to solve the problem to know that all forms of Government are immoral and unjust. Just like i didnt need to know how the cotton was going to be picked in order to know that slavery was WRONG in the 1860's. YOU are the guy screaming "We cant let the slaves go free because who will pick the cotton?" in 1862. Let that one sink in.


And you keep claiming "I HAVE TO BE ROBBED AT GUNPOINT". Who is robbing you at gunpoint? YOU ARE by supporting a psuedo-religious mythical entity called 'Government' who thinks it has the moral right to legislate its way around MORALITY. You know for a FACT that Government uses coercion and violence to get what it wants. So why are you acting as if you dont know what i mean when i say 'I am being robbed at gunpoint'?


Still you.

Instead of me calling you names im going to tell you that i think you are incredibly smart and very intelligent. And the road to hell is paved by good intentions.


But you haven't shown the truth, all you've shown is your opinion wrapped in a cloak of naive assumptions.

I have absolutely 100% shown you the truth. You have chosen not to see it. ANY argument you give me that someone somewhere will not agree with 'my morals' is BUNK. Because that very same person will agree that i cannot steal from them. SO STEALING IS WRONG AND IMMORAL AND IT EXISTS IN REALITY. That very same person will agree that i cannot murder them. SO MURDER IS WRONG AND IMMORAL AND IT EXISTS IN REALITY. Stop acting like there are whole nations of people who want to be stolen from, murdered and enslaved. It doesnt matter what color their skin is, what religion they practice or what language they speak. Morals are UNIVERSAL and you cannot argue your way around this.


My argument isn't for government, it is for the rule of law in support of liberty, because relying upon individual opinions on what they believe is moral or just is a piss poor substitute.

Rule of Law? The NAZIS had 'Laws' that allowed them to round up and kill people in the name of 'German Liberty'. Mao had many 'Laws' that legalized the slaughter and murder of tens of millions of people in the name of 'Chinese Liberty'. Stalin enacted 'Laws' that made it perfectly ok to starve out and kill 60 million people in the name of 'Russian Liberty'. So exactly what 'Law' are you talking about? If you agree that these regimes were WRONG and IMMORAL then you have backed yourself into a corner of having to admit that morals exist in reality, and have NOTHING to do with 'The Rule of Law'. Again, i have shown you that 'Law' is nothing more than the wishes of a politician and have NOTHING to do with morals.


With the rule of law, you can believe as you please and I'm left free to ignore you.

Oh really? Could the undesirables in NAZI Germany be 'left alone' because the German Parliament had enacted 'The Rule of Law'? But i thought they had 'Law'? Could the Chinese people under the brutal Communist regime of Mao be 'left alone' because the Peoples Republic of China had passed 'The Rule of Law'? How about the Soviet system of collectivism? Could the tens of millions of Christians who were starved out and murdered be 'left alone' because the Bolshevik Politburo had 'The Rule of Law'? THE ANSWER IS NO. Ive just showed you AGAIN that morals exist and are universal. With anarchy (Which is how you live your own life every single day) you can believe as you want and i am free to ignore you.


Unfortunately, government is necessary for the rule of law to work, and you do have to pay for services rendered.

LOL. The NAZI's, the Communist Chinese and the Soviets ALL HAD THE RULE OF LAW. How did that work out for them? I have now demonstrated to you that the only difference between you and the most brutal regimes in history is that you believe that your 'system' is superior to the other systems tried throughout history. Yet they both function off of the very same platform: Government using FORCE and COERCION to control their own citizens like SHEEP. The next step in our 'Rule of Law' is to send million of those sheep to the slaughter house - JUST LIKE THE NAZIS AND COMMUNIST DID.

[Carl]

oO***[(:)]:{y[])0(


It's funny how you refute your own arguments while doggedly clinging to the belief that you're justifying them.

You're a funny, fanatical, totalitarianist dude, reminiscent of Pol Pot.

It's fortunate for us that we have the rule of law that prevents you from imposing your fanatical beliefs upon others....

[madfranks]

It's fortunate for us that we have the rule of law that prevents you from imposing your fanatical beliefs upon others....

So a guy who wants to leave you alone and wants you to leave him alone is trying to impose fanatical beliefs upon you? Now I've heard it all.

I appreciate this thread because there is some really good discussion and exchange of ideas going on, but I suspect now Carl that you're not even trying to understand.

[Carl]

So a guy who wants to leave you alone and wants you to leave him alone is trying to impose fanatical beliefs upon you? Now I've heard it all.

I appreciate this thread because there is some really good discussion and exchange of ideas going on, but I suspect now Carl that you're not even trying to understand. Understanding on my part, is not the problem.

The problem stems from my attempt to reason with an unreasonable fanatic who keeps insisting that I must believe as he believes, *and he believes the whole world already believes as he does and I'm the only one out of line.

If we were to have this conversation face to face, he probably would've already physically attacked me for not capitulating to his world view.

[iOWNme]

It's funny how you refute your own arguments while doggedly clinging to the belief that you're justifying them.

You're a funny, fanatical, totalitarianist dude, reminiscent of Pol Pot.

It's fortunate for us that we have the rule of law that prevents you from imposing your fanatical beliefs upon others....

Carl i destroyed all of your arguments using logic and reason. Then you come back with ad-hominem attacks and name calling. I know what i say challenges your entire belief system, but that does not mean i want to impose my will upon you, in fact quite the opposite. I asked you many times if you had your own 'perfect' Government what you would do to people like me who PEACEFULLY refuse to acknowledge it, and you have constantly replied with things like 'We need roads' or 'we need running water'. Basically admitting that you endorse a certain amount of violence into society to 'make it work', and i simply say that adding more violence to 'society' is NOT the answer. You are either being purposefully dishonest, or you just refuse to let go of your preconceived notions.

Roads and water lines will get built by people because that is who builds them right now anyway. Do you actually think 'Government' does ANYTHING? Does Santa make Christmas better? To think that man just could not do anything on his won without the FORCE and COERCION of Government is silly and based in a illogical and self contradictory world. A 'mythical' world in my opinion.

I do apologize if i said anything that was a personal attack.

[iOWNme]

Understanding on my part, is not the problem.

The problem stems from my attempt to reason with an unreasonable fanatic who keeps insisting that I must believe as he believes, *and he believes the whole world already believes as he does and I'm the only one out of line.

If we were to have this conversation face to face, he probably would've already physically attacked me for not capitulating to his world view.


More name calling and ad-hominem attacks. This is indisputable evidence THAT YOU HAVE LOST THE ARGUMENT.

I have CONSTANTLY preached non-violence and the non aggression principle to you. You are a VERY dishonest poster when it comes to your own belief system. I gave you a compliment by stating i think you are highly intelligent and very smart. And what did you reply with?

I am no longer going to reply to you. The members of GSUS can read through this thread and come to their own conclusions because i WILL NOT force anyone to do anything. I simply try and show people their own inner self contradictions. It is up to you to be honest with yourself about these issues. I know for a fact you are capable of doing so, and i truly hope you do.

PEACE,

[Santa]

"Carl i destroyed all of your arguments using logic and reason. Roads and water lines will get built by people because that is who builds them right now anyway."
http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/ac358/jackconrad/junk/file-57.jpg

[jimswift]

but do you vote?

no.

[Carl]

You're confused Sui Juris, I have not used ad-hominem attacks against you, I have simply pointed out your demonstrated, documented and observed fanaticism.

You argue an individual's perspective, 'PEOPLE' ARE NOT AN INDIVIDUALS. PEOPLE, given the motivation and opportunity, will fuk over an INDIVIDUAL in a heartbeat. Why can't you comprehend this?

Morals are universal like assholes, everyone has their own, why do you refuse to understand that? Why do you refuse to comprehend the implications?

Why do you insist upon denying reality?

If you were to gather a group of people together who believes exactly like you do, I would safely bet my life that within three months someone in a dominant economic position, will assert their superior position as authority over the rest, and everyone else will capitulate to that claim... defacto government

[Santa]

Pretending there is no government.
Say you have a bunch of people who want to build a road so they can get to their job sites faster and more safely.
So they hire a private contractor to build it for them. Seems quite reasonable.
But my home and property are sitting smack in the middle of the peoples planned roadway and the people have already spent a bundle on the plans.

I'm not moving.

[Carl]

"Carl i destroyed all of your arguments using logic and reason. Roads and water lines will get built by people because that is who builds them right now anyway."
Your claimed destruction of my arguments is a false boast, a hollow bit of bravado in service to your wounded ego.

You are not going to win an argument discussing reality by proffering a utopianist based ideal.

[madfranks]

Pretending there is no government.
Say you have a bunch of people who want to build a road so they can get to their job sites faster and more safely.
So they hire a private contractor to build it for them. Seems quite reasonable.
But my home and property are sitting smack in the middle of the peoples planned roadway and the people have already spent a bundle on the plans.

I'm not moving.

Read this book. The "private roads" topic is far too complicated to sufficiently address here.

https://mises.org/store/Assets/ProductImages/SS428.jpg

[madfranks]

You are not going to win an argument discussing reality by proffering a utopianist based ideal.

I would like to point out that the original question as illustrated in the name of this thread is philosophical in nature, where ideas and ideals can be freely proffered.

[Santa]

Read this book. The "private roads" topic is far too complicated to sufficiently address here.

https://mises.org/store/Assets/ProductImages/SS428.jpg

Lol... Yeah, so?... The premise of this entire thread is far too complicated to sufficiently address here.

If you can't answer the question about road building just say so... no need to stonewall.

But to simplify the argument as I see it, Sui is in favor of a non defined Anarchy, you're in favor of some sort of a Mises style Capitalist/Libertarianism, which is essentially contradictory, or as Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and wage slavery, which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer, and then there's Carl's position, which is in favor of Constitutional Government, or a blend of Democratic and Republican principals based on a Government Of, By and For the People.

Without a Constitutional Government, there are no "People." There is no "Public" in a Republic. There is no method for "people" to address their grievances or protect themselves from the force that the accumulation of private capital brings with it.

The Rothschild Empire itself is the classic example of the validity of that statement.

[madfranks]

Lol... Yeah, so?... The premise of this entire thread is far too complicated to sufficiently address here.

If you can't answer the question about road building just say so... no need to stonewall.

Fair enough. I'm in the building/planning industry and I can tell you that developers don't spend money planning developments on property they don't own. If a road developer wanted to build a road that went through your property and you wouldn't sell it to him, he would be a fool to spend money drawing up the plans and coordinating construction of such a road. Could it happen? Sure, but it's more likely to happen when gov't officials are playing with other peoples money than private developers investing their own money.

[Carl]

Lol... Yeah, so?... The premise of this entire thread is far too complicated to sufficiently address here.

If you can't answer the question about road building just say so... no need to stonewall.

But to simplify the argument as I see it, Sui is in favor of a non defined Anarchy, you're in favor of some sort of a Mises style Capitalist/Libertarianism, which is essentially contradictory, or as Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and wage slavery, which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer, and then there's Carl's position, which is in favor of Constitutional Government, or a blend of Democratic and Republican principals based on a Government Of, By and For the People.

Without a Constitutional Government, there are no "People." There is no "Public" in a Republic. There is no method for "people" to address their grievances or protect themselves from the force that the accumulation of private capital brings with it.

The Rothschild Empire itself is the classic example of the validity of that statement. That's deep.

A very good assessment.

[Carl]

Fair enough. I'm in the building/planning industry and I can tell you that developers don't spend money planning developments on property they don't own. If a road developer wanted to build a road that went through your property and you wouldn't sell it to him, he would be a fool to spend money drawing up the plans and coordinating construction of such a road. Could it happen? Sure, but it's more likely to happen when gov't officials are playing with other peoples money than private developers investing their own money. Who pays for the roads and their upkeep, how is it paid and to whom, and are there any consequences for using the roads without paying?

[Santa]

Fair enough. I'm in the building/planning industry and I can tell you that developers don't spend money planning developments on property they don't own. If a road developer wanted to build a road that went through your property and you wouldn't sell it to him, he would be a fool to spend money drawing up the plans and coordinating construction of such a road. Could it happen? Sure, but it's more likely to happen when gov't officials are playing with other peoples money than private developers investing their own money.

Roadways, by there very nature are not private developments. People can't travel or go about there personal business at all without Public roadways and access. So, in that a roadway is a Public access endeavor, the Public would need to pay for extensive studies to determine the most economical and useful approach and direction of a road. Same with waterways. Again, it's a Public concern and not a private property concern.

Here's my point. If we are to have Private Property at all, then there will have to be Public Property, if for no other reason than access to or around Private Property... which requires some form of public governance.

Flip sides of the same coin.

[Santa]

Who pays for the roads and their upkeep, how is it paid and to whom, and are there any consequences for using the roads without paying?
Yeah, and what pisses me off most is that taxes aren't really even going to pay for roadways anymore. They're going to pay the interest on money we illegitimately supposedly borrowed from a cabal of lying scumbags who have nearly complete control over the production and distribution of the worlds money supply.

[iOWNme]

If you can't answer the question about road building just say so... no need to stonewall.

Nobody needs to know how every aspect of society will work in order to know that using violence against non violent people (forced taxation for roads) is wrong, immoral, self-contradictory, irrational and unjust. Just like nobody needed to know how the cotton was going to get picked in order to know that slavery was immoral and wrong in 1862. Did people need to predict the future of mechanical robots fueled by dinosaur bones to pick the cotton in order for people to see that slavery was wrong? Come on man. Anarchy means there is no 'central control' so by default nobody else can tell you how to live your life. Maybe you want nice roads and you will voluntarily choose to fund them (i would to) or help build them. It is not as complicated as you make it out to be.


Without a Constitutional Government, there are no "People." There is no "Public" in a Republic. There is no method for "people" to address their grievances or protect themselves from the force that the accumulation of private capital brings with it.

What does this even mean? Do you even comprehend the words you type? 'Constitutional Government' is a FICTION. Words written on paper. 'People' exist in reality. You have it completely backwards. Without 'Government' (fiction) there are no people?(reality) Who created the fiction known as 'Government'? And you are Right, there is no such thing as 'the public' or 'society', there are ONLY individual people who each OWN THEMSELVES.


The Rothschild Empire itself is the classic example of the validity of that statement.

Are you sure you understand the reality of 'the free market'? The ENTIRE Rothschild dynasty was not built under free trade and COMPETITION. It was built using GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY. We would NEVER have this type of wealth transfer if it were not for the use of VIOLENCE by "Government' to restrict access to markets. There is no way you dont understand this, but i am not going to assume you are being deliberately dishonest. Do you actually not understand that the ONLY way wealth is collected in such a massive way is because of 'Government', and not the lack of it?

[Carl]

Nobody needs to know how every aspect of society will work in order to know that using violence against non violent people (forced taxation for roads) is wrong, immoral, self-contradictory, irrational and unjust. Just like nobody needed to know how the cotton was going to get picked in order to know that slavery was immoral and wrong in 1862. Did people need to predict the future of mechanical robots fueled by dinosaur bones to pick the cotton in order for people to see that slavery was wrong? Come on man. Anarchy means there is no 'central control' so by default nobody else can tell you how to live your life. Maybe you want nice roads and you will voluntarily choose to fund them (i would to) or help build them. It is not as complicated as you make it out to be. Circular reasoning: is fallacious because reasoning and justification must start with the known and then determine the unknown - in the case of circular reasoning, it starts with the known and ends up with the equally known, thus it proves nothing.

Get it?

I've been attempting to get you to take your ideology from what you think you know into the unknown, it's called extrapolation.


The ENTIRE Rothschild dynasty was not built under free trade and COMPETITION. It was built using GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY.

It appears that you've just nulified your entire argument.

Rothschild, didn't build their empire using government monopoly, they created a monopoloy through money lending and used it to build and/or destroy governments.