The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce & the Duty

[iOWNme]

I recently came across this book on Amazon and ordered it, I thought it was worth sharing for some GSUS'ers.


The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey



"Modern states commonly deploy coercion in a wide array of circumstances in which the resort to force would clearly be wrong for any private agent. What entitles the state to behave in this manner? And why should citizens obey its commands? This book examines theories of political authority, from the social contract theory, to theories of democratic authorization, to fairness- and consequence-based theories. Ultimately, no theory of authority succeeds, and thus no government has the kind of authority often ascribed to governments."

"Huemer has produced not just a brilliant work of political philosophy, but a gripping page-turner. With an engaging style and sharp wit, Huemer demolishes two entrenched dogmas: that we have a duty to obey the law, and the state has the right to force us to obey. Huemer's conclusions may be controversial, but he makes them seem like commonsense.' - Jason Brennan, Georgetown University, USA 'Michael Huemer is my favorite philosopher. The Problem of Political Authority is his best book yet. Using moral premises you probably already accept, and clear but subtle arguments, Huemer leads you step-by-step to a radical yet compelling conclusion: government as we know it is an unnecessary evil. If you're tired of political books that merely preach to the choir, prepare to be amazed.".

http://www.amazon.com/The-Problem-Political-Authority-Examination/dp/1137281650

http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/Contents.pdf - PDF here

[iOWNme]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmCn2vP-DEo

"The best way to defend libertarianism is not through economic arguments; nor appeals to general, abstract theories about the nature of morality; nor through the non-aggression axiom. The best way to defend libertarianism is through appeal to common sense morality."

[madfranks]

Just picked up a copy of the book, thanks for the recommendation. How did you run into this book?

[iOWNme]

Just picked up a copy of the book, thanks for the recommendation. How did you run into this book?

I heard the book mentioned in another talk by someone. (i forget who)

Did you listen to his speech? He goes through all of the different arguments for Libertarianism and Anarchism. He used some examples that even made me have to rethink my position on several issues.

He goes on to conclude that there is no such thing as 'Political Authority', and proves it quite easily. And sums it up by saying the best arguments for Libertarianism and Anarchy are common sense based. Not political, economic, social, ect.

[Hypertiger]

"A privateer or "corsair" was a private person or ship authorized by a government by letters of marque to attack foreign vessels during wartime."

"In the days of fighting sail, a letter of marque and reprisal was a government license authorizing a person (known as a privateer) to attack and capture enemy vessels and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. Cruising for prizes with a letter of marque was considered an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit (Righteous), in contrast to unlicensed piracy, which was universally reviled. (Evil)"

The subjects of every state (Bottom/servants and slaves) ought to contribute towards the support of the government (TOP/Master), as nearly as possible in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."--Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations 1776

"Governments of the absolute capitalistic hierarchical food powered make work enterprise are administration systems of the enterprise constructed and sustained by the bottom or employees at the demand of the top or owners of the absolute capitalistic hierarchical food powered make work enterprise"--Hypertiger

In a legal system or system based on rules like a game.

You can do something illegal as long as you are not caught and you can do something wrong as long as it's legal.

Like promoting the lie that chopping down trees faster than they regrow as the path to salvation and eternal life is Truth.

Or that taking more power than you give...or plunder..."is an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit"

A group of men calling themselves "WE THE PEOPLE" in Manhattan, New York on Wall Street gave a thing they called congress the ABOLUTE POWER to...

Article 1, section 8, clause 11.

"declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make "Rules" concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

“Be cautious in your words and carriage, that the most penetrating stranger shall not be able to discover or find out what is not proper intimated; and sometimes you shall divert a discourse, and manage it prudently for the honour of the worshipful fraternity.”--Masonic initiate indoctrination instruction.

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"When plunder (Taking more power than you give or absolute capitalism) becomes a way of life for a group of men (Worshipful absolute capitalist masters) living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a (Rule) legal system that authorizes it and a moral code (Religion) that glorifies it." --Frederic Bastiat...The LAW

Take a byte of the forbidden fruit of logic an gain awareness of 1 and 0.

Good and evil.

Good is the supply of power or positive and evil that wants to become good is the demand for power or negative

Life an death

Life is the supply of power or positive and death that wants to become life is the demand for power or negative

Truth and lies

Truth is the supply of power or positive and a lie that wants to become Truth is the demand for power or negative

Logic and reason.

Logic is the supply of power or positive and reason that wants to become logic is the demand for power or negative

LAW and rules.

LAW is the supply of power or positive and a rule that wants to become LAW is the demand for power or negative

People have no power to make or break LAW

All that people have the power to make or break are rules and claim that rules are LAW

But when a rule attempts to break LAW.

LAW will break the rule.

"Cruising for prizes with a letter of marque (license or right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness) was considered an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit, in contrast to unlicensed piracy, which was universally reviled"

The people that are so called LAW abiding citizens or rules of the game followers = privateers or legal plunderers according to the game you all are playing for fun and profit.

The people that are so called LAW breakers or rules of the game rejecters = Pirates/criminals or illegal plunderers according to the game you all are playing for fun an profit.

Allow me to take more power than I give from another or plunder people and I care not who makes or breaks the rules of the pathetic game you all are playing.

Because over time I will legally plunder the power from the hands of the many into the hands of the few or one.

Then those with the power will make and break the rules of the pathetic game you all are playing.

Lets say I choose to help another person that wants help...I choose to tell this person something I believe is true but it is false...and they choose to believe the lie I told them is Truth and they are blinded for life.

Sorry...that was not my intention...it was an accident...forgive me.

That is dumb...or ignorant.

Lets say I choose to help another person that wants help...I choose to tell this person something I know is false...and they choose to believe the lie I told them is Truth and they are blinded for life.

Sorry...that was not my intention...it was an accident...forgive me.

That is playing dumb....or ignorant.

See regardless of good or evil intention the logical conclusion is the same.

There is never a lasting victory over lies/ignorance while the war against Truth/knowledge has no exit strategy and always ends in defeat.

Ignorance of Truth is the root of all evil.

Absolute capitalists or those ignorant of Truth...Choose to search for reasons and/or the means to make mistakes and then choose to search for reasons and/or the means to limit or attempt escape from the consequences.

If after the absolute capitalist exchange for mutual benefit between me an you...In which I gain more power from you and you gain less power from me...but you are shaking my hand and thanking me with tears of joy streaming down your cheeks believing you obtained victory...That is a legal absolute capitalist exchange for mutual benefit.

Or legal plunder.

In the market of lies promoted as Truth it's...

...Caveat emptor--Latin for "Let the buyer beware"

You all have been trained to be consumers of lies promoted as Truth...and you all shop for what you want till the day you drop.

After years of study of the founding fathers of the USA.

I can use them as a measurement or ruler.

When I use my invisible ruler to measure the so called worshipful masters or wannbe be lords of the Universe that exist now.

They do not even equal the bowel movement of the founding fathers.

[Hypertiger]

I should count all the books or programs I have read, decoded and downloaded into my hard drive so that when I cease to exist or return back into thin air where I came from...The number of lies promoted as truth I have studied can be chiseled onto my tombstone...If a lie promoted as Truth is left behind of course...

Then any observers searching for Truth or what they claim to be looking for but do not want to ever find... Can at least see the number of lies promoted as Truth or programs demanding to be accepted as Truth and followed to the logical conclusion I rejected as lies promoted as truth.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AjvGIBgpF8

I'm not trying to wake anyone up.

Since the only person that has the absolute power to wake you up was born the instant you were born and you can begin the long painful search to find this mysterious person you can not see by looking into the nearest mirror.

[Hypertiger]

The subjects of every state (Bottom/servants and slaves) ought to contribute towards the support of the government (TOP/Master), as nearly as possible in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."--Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations 1776

"Governments of the absolute capitalistic hierarchical food powered make work enterprise are administration systems of the enterprise constructed and sustained by the bottom or employees at the demand of the top or owners of the absolute capitalistic hierarchical food powered make work enterprise"--Hypertiger

The autonomous absolute capitalist drones within every absolute capitalist Matrix (Bottom/servants and slaves) ought to contribute towards the support of the absolute capitalist Matrix system (TOP/Master), as nearly as possible in proportion to the supply of or yield of power which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the absolute capitalist Matrix system state of existance."--Agent Smith.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn6cxaKRwtk

Yardbirds of a feather flock together.

[iOWNme]

The subjects of every state (Bottom/servants and slaves) ought to contribute towards the support of the government (TOP/Master), as nearly as possible in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."--Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations 1776

Adam Smith was a devout STATIST. And from reading all of your posts, you seem to agree with him.


"Governments of the absolute capitalistic hierarchical food powered make work enterprise are administration systems of the enterprise constructed and sustained by the bottom or employees at the demand of the top or owners of the absolute capitalistic hierarchical food powered make work enterprise"--Hypertiger

First of all, there is no such thing a 'Government'. The video i posted proves it beyond any logical or rational doubt. But since you didnt watch it, you now look foolish. I literlly posted a video that said 'Pigs cant fly', and you instantly replied to tell me how they can fly because you have seen them. Why do you keep IMAGINING something called 'Government' into existence?

Ive challenged you to a debate many times. Each time you go hibernate like a good kitty for the winter. For someone who trolls peoples threads and is convinced that they have some keen insight into reality, you sure do cowardly run away from people like me who want to debate you live so the reast of the world can see your position and the inherent contradictions in them.

There is no top. There is no bottom. STOP IMAGINING there is.

[Hypertiger]

You seem to agree with him since you are the state or master trying to govern me by claiming 1+1 is 3...

The top attempting to rule the bottom.

The Non aggression principle...does not exist...

That is a wonderful lie or fantasy believed to be Truth or reality that you have fallen in love with.

A cherished delusion.

You will fight to the death to protect what you cherish from harm.

Which is why you materialized.

A demon of darkness masquerading as an angel of light.

When a person refuses to believe a lie you promote as Truth is Truth that is a personal attack.

If the 3% of the population that are farmers or bottom/slaves decided to stop supplying the demand for yield by the 97% of the population or top/master that taxes the farmers or slaves to sustain the existence of the top/master.

that would be considered an act of aggression by the bottom against the top and the starving population of demons masquerading as angels would most likely demand Satan or their most worshipful lord and master to force the farmers or slaves to stop supplying NO to the demand for YES by the master and resume supplying YES to the demand by the master for YES.

Truth needs to supply power to the demand for power by the paradox or lie that wants to become Truth and never die.

Truth is the supply which governs the life and death of the lie which is the demand for power to live forever an never die.

Unfortunately when fantasy masquerading as reality demands reality for infinite power to sustain the war against reality attempting to defeat reality in order to become reality to obtain absolute power over all and everything.

Reality supplies NO to the demand by fantasy for YES.

The eternal optimist of YES is then forced to become a pessimist.

"In finance, the rule of 72 and the rule of 69 are methods for estimating an investment's doubling time. The rule number (e.g., 72) is divided by the interest percentage per period to obtain the approximate number of periods (usually years) required for doubling. Although scientific calculators and spreadsheet programs have functions to find the accurate doubling time, the rules are useful for mental calculations and when only a basic calculator is available"

These rules apply to exponential growth (hyperinflation) and are therefore used for compound interest. They can also be used for exponential decay to obtain a halving time or half life (hyperdeflation) The choice of number is mostly a matter of preference, 69 is more accurate for continuous compounding, while 72 works well in common interest situations and is more easily divisible. There are a number of variations to the rules that improve accuracy.

69 is more accurate for continuous or infinite compounding or doubling or exponential growth.

5 x 72 = 360.

6 x 72 = 432

432 reversed = 234.

234 + 432 = 666

5 x 69 = 345

345 reversed is 543

543 + 345 = 888

"The Möbius strip or Möbius band also Mobius or Moebius, is a surface with only one side and only one boundary component. The Möbius strip has the mathematical property of being non-orientable. It can be realized as a ruled surface. It was discovered independently by the German mathematicians August Ferdinand Möbius and Johann Benedict Listing in 1858"

36 x 10 = 360

72 x 10 = 720 or 2 x 360...or double.

two circles combined that meet and connect at a cross...the singularity point

36 x 10 = 360

72 x 5 = 360

72 x 10 = 720 or 2 x 360...or double.

There have been several technical applications for the Möbius strip. Giant Möbius strips have been used as conveyor belts that last longer because the entire surface area of the belt gets the same amount of wear, and as continuous-loop recording tapes (to double the playing time).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma

[Hypertiger]

something needs to govern nothing that wants to become something.

"The Hellfire Club was a name for several exclusive clubs for high society rakes established in Britain and Ireland in the 18th century"

Liberal men...are hot...like flaming homos...especially once you add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_(cocktail)

1969...Oh mama...

6+9 = 15 or 5+5+5

9/6 = 1.5 or 0.5+0.5 + 0.5

3/2 = 1.5

2/3 = 0.666666666666666666666666666666 forever and ever...You can choose to find the end...or choose not to.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjxSCAalsBE

Summit of mans knowledge = dawn/light or absolute 1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeIhmnOpPqg

Pit of mans fears = dusk/shadow or absolute 0

Stick the absolute 1 into the right absolute 0 or hole to reach the goal.

6590

6591

See the dollar sign.

"The club motto was Fais ce que tu voudras (Do what thou wilt), a philosophy of life associated with François Rabelais' fictional abbey at Thélème and later used by Aleister Crowley."

"François Rabelais ( c. 1483 – 9 April 1553) was a major French Renaissance writer, doctor, Renaissance humanist, monk and Greek scholar. He has historically been regarded as a writer of fantasy, satire, the grotesque, bawdy jokes and songs"

A liberal...or a gradual absolute capitalist...A person that demands paper to write master programs which are lies promoted as Truth or fantasies for slaves to follow...The light bulb of false illumination or fantasy.

As opposed to

A conservative...or violent absolute capitalist...A person or slave that chops down trees to supply the demand for paper by the master...The power plant or reality that supplies power to the demand for power by the fantasy masquerading as reality.

Yes you can do what thou wilt...

You can choose to use the power of GOD to obtain what you need from the Universe.

or

You can choose to abuse the power of GOD to attempt to obtain what you want from the Universe.

But you can only obtain what you want from the Universe when what you need and want are the same.

You can always obtain what you need...but you can not always obtain what you want.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiyiJzpa4Fk

6589

Like Caesar/liberal Master mind/top...The demand for power...and all his Pavlov's dogs/slave minds/bottom...the supply of power.

Taking him to the bright glorious future...wheeee....gently down the stream...Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily...Life is but a dream.

Of course the dogs that refuse to supply the demand of the government or top are euthanized off camera....So as not to startle the baby seals with reality.

[Hypertiger]

The Problem of Political Authority...

"It is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control them.-Zbigniew Brzezinski

If I go around telling people how easy or hard it is to kill a million people...I'm considered a psycho nut bar...He does it and is worshiped...But he gets paid to dream up of ways to kill or rule a million Pavlov's dogs...It's how he obtains a ration of monkey chow apparently.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO2U9jJoWsM

“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”--Zbigniew Brzezinski...Between Two Ages: The Technetronic Era, 1971.

1941 to 1971 = spring or march...333

1971 to 2001 = Summer or June...666

2001 to 2031 = fall or September...999

“If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.”-Tesla

2001 to 2008 was Indian summer.

"An Indian summer is a heat wave that occurs in the autumn. It refers to a period of above-normal temperatures, accompanied by dry and hazy conditions, usually after there has been a killing frost....the Nasdaq hitting the singularity in 2000 and collapsing down into 2001 911...was the killing frost.

6592

December 7 1941 where the false flag of Pearl harbor happened to the controlled demolition of Lehmans on September 15, 2008.

Was the global warming of spring + summer + Indian summer...that turned into the climate change of fall...On the way down to the global cooling of winter.

Or December around 203...Winter...or 0 and 1...where the cycle ends and begins again...of course late fall begins following 2020.

37 x 9 = 333...March

37 x 18 = 666...June

37 x 27 = 999...September

37 x 36 = 1332...December x 5 = 6660

360/5 = 72

365/5 = 73

"Don't be deceived when they tell you things are better now. Even if there's no poverty to be seen because the poverty's been hidden. Even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which industries foist on you and even if it seems to you that you never had so much, that is only the slogan of those who still have much more than you. Don't be taken in when they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say that there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason to fight because if you believe them they will be completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretense of bringing them culture. Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they'll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces."--From a play about Jean Paul Marat, 18th Century French Visionary.

The invisible order or reality of the basic system operating in the background "governs" the visible chaos of the graphical user interface or fantasy believed to be reality in the foreground.

"In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder a secret order."--Carl Jung

[Hypertiger]

The tragedy of the common sense.

"The tragedy of the commons is an economics theory by Garrett Hardin, according to which individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group's long-term best interests by depleting some common resource."

"The concept is often cited in connection with sustainable development"

"The tragedy of the commons has particular relevance in analyzing behavior in the fields of economics, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, game theory, politics, taxation, and sociology. Some also see the "tragedy" as an example of emergent behavior, the outcome of individual interactions in a complex system."

I employ responsible altruistic LOGIC to solve the problem of continued existence...since that is what the mythological entities called Human beings are supposed to employ...since Human beings...it is claimed...Share power as equally as possible...or follow the path of most effort...I'm knowledgeable of Truth...and since Truth is infinite...I think big and small and in-between.

Now lighting bolts...water flowing from the mountains to the Sea...mice...bacteria...monkeys...or what are called animals...employ absolute self indulgent REASON to solve the problem of continued existence...or follow the path of least effort...the default or mindless path...all that is ignorant of Truth follow...and since lies are finite...they think small.

The tyranny of small minds.

"The tyranny of small decisions refers to a phenomenon explored in an essay by that name, published in 1966 by the American economist Alfred E. Kahn.[1] The article describes a situation where a number of decisions, individually small in size and time perspective, cumulatively result in an outcome which is not optimal nor desired. It is a situation where a series of small, individually rational decisions can negatively change the context of subsequent choices, even to the point where desired alternatives are irreversibly destroyed."

What does the tragedy of common sense combined with the tyranny of small minds look like.

The FED has been tracking the progress of Bretton woods since 1944 and releasing the data every 3 months for 70 years now.

6593

It's the exact same pathological or exponential growth curve that bacteria in a petri dish follow...

6594

What "governs" this?

The take more power than is given equation at the core of the absolute capitalist hierarchical food powered make work enterprise...the matrix or what you call civilization.

Those that employ absolute self indulgent reason...take more power that they give to sustain continued existence...Absolute or negative capitalism.

The same as chopping down trees faster than they regrow or causing deflation/implosions to supply power to inflation/explosion up to absolute 1.

the logical conclusion is always eternal death...short term...it's sustainable...long term it's unsustainable.

Those that employ responsible altruistic logic...Share power as equally as possible to sustain continued existence.

The same as chopping down trees as fast as or slower than they regrow to sustain continued existence...Responsible or positive capitalism.

Since there is no logical conclusion the result is eternal life...but short term it is unsustainable...long term in is sustainable.

the paradox is that you can not chop down 1 tree as fast as or slower than it regrows...but you eventually have to switch from chopping down trees faster than they regrow or taking more power than you give to sharing power as equally as possible or chopping down trees as fast as or slower than they regrow.

because once you pass the point of no return...the negative consequences of switching or stopping exponentially grow.

that is the good news.

the bad news is that the point of no return was passed way back in 1944.

that is where the best spot was for full disclosure.

now...get ready to kiss it all goodbye...because the Bretton woods global trade agreement reached maximum potential back in 2008...and the collapse back to 1944 to try again...is not going to be the slightest bit positive...for all the devout worshipers of the just think positive ignore negative religion.

[Hypertiger]

You see those people on TV in Gaza turning their head up to the sky and screaming...when their cherished delusions for a bight glorious future are blown out like a candle?

practice doing that so you will be ready when you arrive at the logical conclusion or defeat of the reasonable assumption of victory.

since you all are and have been marching to doom with glee for decades and decades now.

and on paper mathematically it all points to 2021-2031 as being the singularity point you all are marching to...oblivious...judgment day is closing in faster and faster.

But with what I see currently...I find it hard to believe you all can make it that far before you collapse under the strain.

Then there will be no need for me to point out the obvious to the oblivious anymore...

You will be forced to accept what you do not want to accept at the logical conclusion of the reasonable assumption.

[Libertytree]

Another fucking litterbox for the shitty kitty.

I'll say what no one else will...FUCK YOU tigger! Nothing but a self important, full of shit spammer.

[EE_]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmCn2vP-DEo

"The best way to defend libertarianism is not through economic arguments; nor appeals to general, abstract theories about the nature of morality; nor through the non-aggression axiom. The best way to defend libertarianism is through appeal to common sense morality."

My take on the video...

Mr. Huemer starts off with examples of Utilitarianism. He asks one group is it acceptable to kill a healthy patient for the good of five. His group says no.

If he were to ask a different group consisting of politicians, bankers, the elite, they would all agree to kill the healthy patient, (you) for the good of them...that's what they've done since the beginning of time!
So, I conclude Utilitarianism is good for one group and very much a part of our society.

Huemer also states the some government policies commit aggression. I would correct him and say all government policies commit aggression!

The cabin in the woods analogy: My view, it is perfectly moral to break into an abandon cabin to keep from starving to death. However you should do it with the intent to make the cabin owner whole again, as soon as you are able.
In fact, I would want you to break into my cabin to save yourself from dying. I consider this a natural moral right.

The other side of that coin, if the cabin owner were to arrive while you are inside his cabin, he has the right to stop you, or even shoot you if he feels threatened. Both parties have a moral right.

Heumer gives another hypothetical example of what is permissible for the greater good. He says you should throw the switch on a trolley track to kill one person in order to save five. I very much disagree with his answer!
This is where we part ways as libertarians. If this is libertarian thinking, then I am no libertarian!
I believe you do not have a moral right to murder one person to save five! Who made you God?

Heumer states the government has a moral right to over ride the rights of some, for the greater good of all.
What he leaves out is, if you are the one that has rights being trampled, you have the moral right to defend yourself!
And knowing that any time government over-rides your rights, they commit aggression with the threat of death.
It is your choice and moral right to kill the aggressor...in this case 'the enforcer'. There are consequence to every action.

Huemer asks, why do we accept tax laws or drug prohibition? The answer is not that we allow/accept it because we don't do or say anything about it...simply put, self-preservation. You concede, or you die, or you can kill the aggressors and die.

So what is government? Government is a large body of self appointed, or installed by elite money. They are people that have created laws to protect themselves and those that have installed them. They employ a superior force of militarized enforcers, to enforce their laws by committing aggression/threat of death on everyone else.
They do this under the facade that it is for the greater good of all. Call them whatever you want...they call themselves 'government'.

Political Authority = Aggression by Threat of Death
Moral Authority = Your right to stop acts of aggression by the political authority with acts of aggression.

[madfranks]

Another fucking litterbox for the shitty kitty.

I'll say what no one else will...FUCK YOU tigger! Nothing but a self important, full of shit spammer.

Yeah I can't take the spamming anymore. 30 days this time.

[Libertarian_Guard]

Yeah I can't take the spamming anymore. 30 days this time.

30 days is nuts.

Its like we're all kids here and can't just skip over something which others find interesting.

[EE_]

30 days is nuts.

Its like we're all kids here and can't just skip over something which others find interesting.

Do you think he provides any value to this forum?

[Libertytree]

30 days is nuts.

Its like we're all kids here and can't just skip over something which others find interesting.

Then he should start his own interesting threads, why dump on others threads that have little to do with the OP?

[iOWNme]

Whats funny is Hypertiger never rebutted ANYTHING i said. It just posted random dribble to try and derail any real discussion about this issue.

I also dont think it should have been banned. I can choose to read its posts, or not. I dont like banning people, because i would rather intellectually engage them and see where it can lead us. 'Banning' is just another form of getting rid of the undesirables in society. I say we engage the undesirables and actually talk to them, see what positions they hold and see if there are any contradictions or irrational premises. I truly believe that only then can we actually figure out the world. Its called 'Philosophy', and it was built the entire Western Classical Libertarian era.

[iOWNme]

This is one of your best replys i have ever read.



My take on the video...

Mr. Huemer starts off with examples of Utilitarianism. He asks one group is it acceptable to kill a healthy patient for the good of five. His group says no.

If he were to ask a different group consisting of politicians, bankers, the elite, they would all agree to kill the healthy patient, (you) for the good of them...that's what they've done since the beginning of time!
So, I conclude Utilitarianism is good for one group and very much a part of our society.

Lets change the example around to where the group of banksters, politicians and elite had to kill one of themselves for the good of them. Would the outcome remain the same? In other words, what if the banker,politician or elitist was told they had to kill themselves in order to make sure their diabolical plans moved forward? Would they be jumping up to volunteer to die? LOL


Huemer also states the some government policies commit aggression. I would correct him and say all government policies commit aggression!

Yep! Agree. Why do you advocate for a limited 'Government' then?


The cabin in the woods analogy: My view, it is perfectly moral to break into an abandon cabin to keep from starving to death. However you should do it with the intent to make the cabin owner whole again, as soon as you are able.
In fact, I would want you to break into my cabin to save yourself from dying. I consider this a natural moral right.

This is where is disagree with you. Morals cannot be altered by hunger. It doesnt matter how hungry you are. 'Bad' doesnt change into 'Good', because you havent eaten in a while. This is exactly the type of insane, irrational and self contradictory nonsense that 'Government' uses to run your life.

Now, would i break into the cabin to eat food so i didnt die? Maybe. Probably. But as i was eating stolen food to survive, i wouldnt IMAGINE that i was doing something virtuous. Because i know that my hunger cannot alter morality.



The other side of that coin, if the cabin owner were to arrive while you are inside his cabin, he has the right to stop you, or even shoot you if he feels threatened. Both parties have a moral right.

Nope. You do not have a moral right to steal from somebody. No matter how hungry you are. You may do it out of self preservation, instinct and survival. But it can never be made into a moral action.



Heumer gives another hypothetical example of what is permissible for the greater good. He says you should throw the switch on a trolley track to kill one person in order to save five. I very much disagree with his answer!
This is where we part ways as libertarians. If this is libertarian thinking, then I am no libertarian!
I believe you do not have a moral right to murder one person to save five! Who made you God?

I agree with you here, but this a contradiction to what you posted above. So in your first example, it would be morally virtuous for you to steal someones food. (you could be killing them by eating their food). But in the second scenario you recognize it would be wrong for you to kill an innocent person. Can you see a contradiction here?

This example is one where i said i had to rethink my position. Its a tricky one, and is really just a hypothetical, since there are a million variables. But this is the nature of Philosophy. To talk about things and think about things.



Heumer states the government has a moral right to over ride the rights of some, for the greater good of all.

No, he postulated that by using social, economic and moral arguments, one can always find a way around them. (another point i disagree with him on) So he goes with 'common sense' based arguments.


What he leaves out is, if you are the one that has rights being trampled, you have the moral right to defend yourself!
And knowing that any time government over-rides your rights, they commit aggression with the threat of death.
It is your choice and moral right to kill the aggressor...in this case 'the enforcer'. There are consequence to every action.

I totally agree with you. You sound like an Anarchist now. :)



Huemer asks, why do we accept tax laws or drug prohibition? The answer is not that we allow/accept it because we don't do or say anything about it...simply put, self-preservation. You concede, or you die, or you can kill the aggressors and die.

Again, i agree. The only difference is that I will never IMAGINE any legitimacy to the gang called 'Government'. No matter how 'small and limited' they become. But most Americans think there is some shred of legitimacy behind 'Government'. And if people didnt IMAGINE this, they would resist 'Government' the same way they resist every other form of aggression.


So what is government? Government is a large body of self appointed, or installed by elite money. They are people that have created laws to protect themselves and those that have installed them. They employ a superior force of militarized enforcers, to enforce their laws by committing aggression/threat of death on everyone else.
They do this under the facade that it is for the greater good of all. Call them whatever you want...they call themselves 'government'.

Which really means there is no such thing as 'Government'. Ive said it a million times. Why dont we call the 'Bloods and Crips' or the 'Mafia' or any 'Drug Cartels' 'Government? Why dont we refer to their decrees as 'Law'? Why dont we obey their commands with a sense of moral obligation?

Answer these querstions and you will see not only is there no such thing as 'Government', it is an absolutely insane irrational self contradictory idea that does not come from rationality or logic. It comes from the BELIEF in a super human deity with Rights that no mortal man has. In other words, it is a superstition. it is a faith based indocturnation. A Myth. A Cult. A Religion.


Political Authority = Aggression by Threat of Death
Moral Authority = Your right to stop acts of aggression by the political authority with acts of aggression.


Again, i disagree. Each individual has the right to issue threats of violence to protect his person, family or property. But that not what 'Political Authority' is. 'Political Authority' is the IMAGINED moral right to use violence in other situations beyond what a mere mortal man would be allowed to do. And THAT is what is considered to be the Most Dangerous Superstition.

[BrewTech]

I just put HT on ignore... thankfully nobody quotes his posts. Makes threads shorter and I don't have to deal with it. If others find it interesting... well, that's fine I guess.

Every board (posted rules aside) develops certain standards of posting etiquette that members tend to follow.

On this board, making six or seven posts in a row essentially calling other members morons in a cryptic, abstract manner not only violates that etiquette, but doesn't add anything to the flow of discussion. The guy is bloviating, and clearly has a delusional, inflated sense of self-worth, yet doesn't seem to add much value, at least here.

I believe that is the reason for the ban... not whatever undefinable opinion he may or may not hold.

[iOWNme]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlTyOC32-vs

Exploring Economic Freedom Lecture Series: The Illusion of Authority
Speaker: Michael Huemer, University of Colorado, Department of Philosophy

[Dogman]

I just put HT on ignore... thankfully nobody quotes his posts. Makes threads shorter and I don't have to deal with it. If others find it interesting... well, that's fine I guess.

Every board (posted rules aside) develops certain standards of posting etiquette that members tend to follow.

On this board, making six or seven posts in a row essentially calling other members morons in a cryptic, abstract manner not only violates that etiquette, but doesn't add anything to the flow of discussion. The guy is bloviating, and clearly has a delusional, inflated sense of self-worth, yet doesn't seem to add much value, at least here.

I believe that is the reason for the ban... not whatever undefinable opinion he may or may not hold.

Who in the hell wants to scroll through a mile of mostly babble searching for maybe a thoughtful nugget?

Every now and then there is a real person that peeks out and interacts with us peons, but the rest is mostly physio babble.

Quoting him/her would just accelerate the wear and tear of our mouse scroll wheels!

[EE_]

This is one of your best replys i have ever read.




Lets change the example around to where the group of banksters, politicians and elite had to kill one of themselves for the good of them. Would the outcome remain the same? In other words, what if the banker,politician or elitist was told they had to kill themselves in order to make sure their diabolical plans moved forward? Would they be jumping up to volunteer to die? LOL

There is no honor between politicians, bankers and the elite. They would surely kill each other to survive. Look how many bankers were killed in just the past year.




This is where is disagree with you. Morals cannot be altered by hunger. It doesnt matter how hungry you are. 'Bad' doesnt change into 'Good', because you havent eaten in a while. This is exactly the type of insane, irrational and self contradictory nonsense that 'Government' uses to run your life.

Now, would i break into the cabin to eat food so i didnt die? Maybe. Probably. But as i was eating stolen food to survive, i wouldnt IMAGINE that i was doing something virtuous. Because i know that my hunger cannot alter morality.
Nope. You do not have a moral right to steal from somebody. No matter how hungry you are. You may do it out of self preservation, instinct and survival. But it can never be made into a moral action.

You've altered Huemer's hypothetical situation of certain death by starvation to just hunger.
What if you broke into the cabin ate only enough to stave off death, left a note with your contact info and that you would pay the cabin owner back. Then secured the cabin when you left. I'd say you acted morally.









I agree with you here, but this a contradiction to what you posted above. So in your first example, it would be morally virtuous for you to steal someones food. (you could be killing them by eating their food). But in the second scenario you recognize it would be wrong for you to kill an innocent person. Can you see a contradiction here?

This example is one where i said i had to rethink my position. Its a tricky one, and is really just a hypothetical, since there are a million variables. But this is the nature of Philosophy. To talk about things and think about things.

Big difference between murdering someone and taking just enough of their food to keep from dying.

When it comes to choosing who dies, 5 is not more then 1. In the hypothetical trolly track, you do not know who is on the tracks.
For all you know the five on one track are Obama, Hillary Clinton, David Rockefeller, George Soros and Henry Kissinger?
The one on other track could be Mother Teresa, or someone that has just found the cure for cancer?

[singular_me]

ditto... there are many posters on here that dont agree with me... I just skip them when I do see fit

I agree with HT on the fundamentals but he should find much better ways to get his word out.


30 days is nuts.

Its like we're all kids here and can't just skip over something which others find interesting.

[iOWNme]

This book is really good so far.

On the cover, it seems this book is very similar to Larken Rose' 'The Most Dangerous Superstition'. But one only needs to read the first chapter to see that Huemer takes an entirely different stance. Larken's book came out in 2011, while Huemers came out in 2012. Larken's take is that 'Authority' does not, and cannot exist by simply using reason and logic. Huemers conclusion is the same, but he gets there by using what he calls 'common sense morality'.

Here is a quote i found very intriguing, Chapter 1 , part 4: The Significance of Coercion and the Reach of Authority.

"Direct physical violence is rarely used as a punishment. Nevertheless, violence plays a crucial role in the system, because without the threat of violence, lawbreakers could, simply choose not to suffer punishment. For example, The Government commands that drivers stop before red lights. If you violate this rule, you might be punished with a $200 fine. But this is simply another command. If you didnt obey the command to stop before all red lights, why would you obey the command to pay $200 to the Government? Perhaps the second command may be enforced by a third command: the government may threaten to revoke your driver’s license if you do not pay the fine. In other words, it may command you to stop driving. But if you violated the first two commands, why would you follow the third? Well, the command to stop driving may be enforced by a threat of imprisonment if you continue to drive without a license. As these examples illustrate, commands are often enforced with threats to issue further commands, yet that cannot be all there is to it. At the end of the chain must come a threat that the violator literally cannot defy. The system as a whole must be anchored by a non-voluntary intervention, a harm that the state can impose regardless of the individual’s choices."

[Horn]

Ahhh so this is the thread wherein HT was coerced into complicity.

Yet the prosecution supports its own rhetorical content.

Spam and trolling judgement banning, the designated censor form of violent coercion.

6638

[Horn]

Then he should start his own interesting threads, why dump on others threads that have little to do with the OP?

Again the thread provider and owner (OP) should be entitled to his own judgement of transgression and sentencing, invitations from peanut galleries and those granted moderation entitlement withstanding.

Especially for those of us with such empty headed belief in moderatorless forums...

Was there a report by OP as to any infraction or personal injury submitted in writing?

Certain immediate frustrations incurred by the entitled or its usurpers have nothing admissible to the case, and for all intensive purposes stricken from the record with those posts physically deleted by auto-bot moderation, the quoted above included in such an instance.

[madfranks]

Two more great quotes from the book:

"The social contract theory cannot account for political authority. The theory of an actual social contract fails because no state has provided reasonable means of opting out - means that do not require dissenters to assume large costs that the state has no independent right to impose. All modern states, in refusing to recognize explicit dissent, render their relationships with their citizens non-voluntary."

"This is the final intervention that the individual cannot choose to defy. One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be taken away. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it."