Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Brian Blackwell]

We live with too many people who are dumb as fuck and way too intolerent to ever hope that we can throw off government. It is a sad reality that is hard to come to grips with, but reality it is.

I would almost be in favor of executing all people too stupid or worthless to live free.

You place too much stock in speculation. Every anarchist you’ve spoken with probably used to believe government was necessary or inevitable; but somewhere along the way, they turned a corner. Most people are sheep, so don’t ever believe you have to convince everyone, or even the majority. Once a trend develops, and a couple of celebrities start spouting freedom, it’s just a matter of time.

Right now anarchy is largely off the table. Pervasive mind control has placed it in the tin-foil hat realm. Even the definition of the word has been warped. Once it’s part of the discussion, many, many people will see it and get on board.

This position is rooted in infallible truth and reason. Once the fallacious belief is gone, it ain’t never coming back. The trend only serves to overcome internia; freedom will hold because its sound, just like round Earth, heliocentrism, or the inefficacy of rain dances. In the future they’ll look back on government the way we look at African-American slavery.

 

[Oddball]

Not really. I think a lot of the corruption is handed down from the senior officials to the newer ones. Remove everyone and hopefully that goes away.

As it is now, it will be impossible to remove the corruption without sending a very clear signal. These politicians run their office the way they do because, for the most part, they know they will win every election cycle. They know their base will keep voting for them over and over, there is no incentive for them to change.

Send a message like this and it will wake the newly elected officials up.

The problem.is, we don't hold our government accountable. They sit up there on capitol hill and do as they do, without consequence, for the most part. Then, when things go south as a result of their decisions, we the citizens fight and argue amongst ourselves, as seen here on usmb. For the government, this is a win win. They keep messing up, and we attack each other.

I think it's time we hold then accountable for the actions they take.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely....We have no better example of this than the current train wreck of a president, who chided his predecessor for military intervention without congressional authorization, only to turn around and continue the current bombing of foreign nations, then demand and get more of them, all without congressional approval.

You can change the names, you can change the faces, and we just keep getting the same-old-same-old.

 

[Oddball]

I think it runs a bit deeper than that. Anarchy (and by that I mean the absence of compulsive state government) will require a consensus on the rejection of force as a means of problem solving. And I actually think that is possible. But it will require a radical shift in our social morality, and likely require many years (centuries) before it takes hold.

As an example, cannibalism is a practice considered, by nearly every society on earth, to be beneath humanity. Although there may be some on the books, we really don't need any laws to prohibit the practice. Anyone who even hints at adopting it will be shunned by all civilized people. If the idea of violence against another person reaches that level of "unthinkableness", anarchy might be a viable approach.

The immorality of slavery is not subject to fashion or a majoritarian vote....It is either wrong or it is not...No amount of propagandized proles can change this.

 

[bripat9643]

When I go out to get gas for the car, or pick up a prescription at Walgreens or get groceries, I do not have any kind of fear that I will be held up, robbed, raped, or murdered. Could it happen? Of course. But is it so common that I even think about it? Nope.


Last week we took a 1400 mile round trip through four different states, and at absolutely no time did I fear being held up, robbed, raped, or murdered short of locking the car when we left it unattended. In Arkansas we didn't even lock the doors at night and I had no fear.

So The State is to get the credit for this?...I think not...You've applied the post hoc fallacy...You're using the same argument that the statists use to maintain abominations like the TSA..."Well, we've not had another 9/11 since putting it in place, so it must be working!"...You have to know what a load of crap that is.

That is a precious thing to me and I attribute it to Christian values, a society that mostly prefers peace to violence and/or preying on one another, and a government that has put laws in place that deter most who might do violence to another's person or property were there not legal deterrents in place. Yes there are anarchists out there who care nothing for the rights of others, but they are in a distinct minority and the behavior they sometimes exhibit is by no means encouraged or condoned by society as a whole.

None of which precipitates the existence of The State, as a matter of course, in any way...In fact, The State seeks to inculcate its (arbitrary and capricious) values upon everyone else by force, as though it is God on Earth...How does that go again, about serving two masters?

Yes, the Founders, most especially Jefferson, warned us that it would take constant vigilance by the people to keep a check on government and those in power. When we failed to heed that advice, it was then that government began spiraling out of control. And when we failed to act when it could have been stopped, we gave up all our rights and are now wholly subject to its dictates whether those be harmful or not.

You and I will no doubt remain very divided on that. But I am confident of my position on it and will agree to disagree.

"WE" have done nothing to bring this on ourselves...All of the mechanizations of the current travesty that is The State were set in motion far before than either of us were born...Yet, here we are, expected to tolerate and toil under an yoke of oppression that none of us signed up for, and that the Founders would find intolerable....Yeah, I'll take my chances with nothing at all.

I told you I agree to disagree. Friend to friend however, you attribute arguments to me that I have not made.

I have made a solid argument for social contract that you have not rebutted. You have only cited what happens when people ignore the intent and purpose of the Constitution and corrupt the system for their own purposes. That guns are misused is not a good argument against guns. That security is misused is not a good argument against security. That those entrusted with enforcing the law abuse their power is not a good argument against having laws or people who enforce them. That those in government have corrupted and abused their power is not a good argument against government based on libertarianism/social contract.

You won't change my mind by citing how people are imperfect and do bad things which coincidentally is the best argument there is for why government based on libertarianism/social contract is necessary. My purpose is to encourage those who care to do the right thing and reinstate good government.

But again I will agree to disagree.

There's no need to refute the idea of the "social contract," because it's a complete fiction. It's how statists justify government and using compulsion against innocent people. A contract requires consent by all parties to it. I obviously never consented to the Constitution or to be ruled over by the current corrupt government.

Government isn't security. It's compulsion. You can pay for security without government getting involved in any way.

Government always abuses its power because it's inherently corrupt. The phrase "good government" is an oxymoron.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I don't see you being able to alter the consciousness of people who understand that the basic principle of government is the protection of their freedom.

Man as a natural being has one overarching objective that must be met for his survival. He must acquire the material means for his existence. Out of that concern arises all the other aspects of society, including government. The production and distribution of the material means of our existence (the economy) is one that is predicated on private property. Man puts his faith in government with the express intent of protecting his private property, which in a capitalist society is freedom. Freedom from having to protect what is his from those who would take it in the absence of a legal system that includes policing. You can't convince people to revert back to a state of nature where they will be in a position to violently defend what they believe is rightfully theirs and that others need in order to maintain their own existence and are willing to take violently.

The reason why hope remains is because people don't "understand that the basic principle of government is the protection of their freedom", they misunderstand it. Truth and reason is on our side, and truth persists; shining it's light until man comes around.

The "basic principle of government", the key element that makes it what it is, is the perceived right to act immorally. We call this authority.

You do not need authority to do what you have a right to do. Do you need authority to control your own property, to defend yourself from bodily harm, to do any of a million and one things that you have a natural law right to do? No. You need authority to do what you do not ordinarily have a right to do; like pull people off the road, search their house, take a portion of their income, etc. Authority is inherently invalid and immoral because it is, by definition, the right to do what you don't actually have a right to do.

So how can acting immorally be synonymous with "protecting people's freedom"? Impossible. Government requires that people give up freedom - some if not all - so how can giving up freedom be "protecting people's freedom"? Illogical. Only through mind control do we believe this is so. Twisted logic, obfuscation of truth, euphemism, twisted logic based on false premises, and mass cultural repetition, repetition, repetition...

Freedom from having to protect property does not require authority. Private protection agency. Done. These people are no more authority than a bodyguard, and what's more, they are subject to competition, and thus accountable to their customers in a way that police are not. Law does not prevent infringement on liberty, it is infringement on liberty. Law does not protect anything, defense does, and defense does not require authority.

 

[bripat9643]

Government is the social organizaton authorized to use the monopoly on force. I don't know how you can get any more powerful than that.

...by the consent of the governed.

When did I consent to it?

Notice that no one has tried to answer this question.

 

[Norman]

Government is the social organizaton authorized to use the monopoly on force. I don't know how you can get any more powerful than that.

...by the consent of the governed.

When did I consent to it?

Notice that no one has tried to answer this question.

It's a legitimate question. And shall I add, by using the leftist standard of consent a mere "going along with it" is not enough. We need an explicit document containing the approval for the actions.

Those leftists here who have had action in the bedroom would know how serious the documentation has to be.

I am waiting for the answer as well, can't believe the leftists would want to violate someone's consent.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I wrote an OP which raised the points I have no solution for other than government. None of the anarchists will address how any of them could be done without government.

I'm a practical guy. I believe in free markets, they work. That will for example protects us from discrimination far better than government.

But there must be general agreement as to what constitutes property rights. I see no way for the "market" to solve that. You can't have competing arbiters of property rights because property is a limited resource.

You can't have competing militarizes or law enforcement over the same land. They'd end up fighting each other.

There must be criminal and civil courts to pursue justice, and their decisions must be binding.

Roads are impossible without government. Too many people, too much land.

Not one anarchist will step up and address any of those.

Oddball and Kevin Kennedy are the most moronic saying they can't say how that would work or could work or even have an idea how they would work because they aren't clairvoyant.

I have owned five businesses and I hate government to the level of few Americans. I consider the US government to have now consistently violated the rules the people gave it so repeatedly that I consider our government illegitimate.

I'm a tap in putt for any anarchist who can show me how practically it could actually work. But instead they are getting out their Big Bertha and driving the ball into the trees

They are offering zero content. They keep referring me to books that don't offer real world solutions to those things I haven't solved without government I listed above

We can give some suggestions about how to solve these problems, of course, but there are important reasons why the anarchist is reluctant to do this...

First of all, it's speculative and useless. None of us will claim centralized control over a free society, quite obviously, so what difference does it make what solutions we personally propose? When people say "I'm not clairvoyant" they're pointing to the fact that necessity will birth solutions unimaginable previous to that necessity arising. They're also citing how solutions will develop through consultation and cooperation, and may differ somewhat, in certain regards, from area to area, so asking one person to solve all these problems is unreasonable. And it's no more their responsibility to figure this stuff out than it is yours, so why don't you take a crack at these questions yourself?

It's also a question of morality, which you do not seem to care about at all. To be moral, you've got to take immoral solutions off the table, and think from that standpoint. Your questions are no different than the 19th century southerner who says, "Tell me how we will maintain our economy, and THEN I will consider the abolition of slavery." Um, no. You don't get to keep people in bondage because you don't know how to figure out another way. That's not reasonable practicality, that's simply immorality. Justifying government is no different than the justification for any other criminal act. There is always some benefit, some problem solved, by acting immorally - that's why people do it - so citing this as your justification is just called "being a bad person", just like any common purse-snatcher.

Finally, remember, that the only thing the anarchist is opposed to is authority, not cooperation and organization.

 

[Foxfyre]

When I go out to get gas for the car, or pick up a prescription at Walgreens or get groceries, I do not have any kind of fear that I will be held up, robbed, raped, or murdered. Could it happen? Of course. But is it so common that I even think about it? Nope.


Last week we took a 1400 mile round trip through four different states, and at absolutely no time did I fear being held up, robbed, raped, or murdered short of locking the car when we left it unattended. In Arkansas we didn't even lock the doors at night and I had no fear.

So The State is to get the credit for this?...I think not...You've applied the post hoc fallacy...You're using the same argument that the statists use to maintain abominations like the TSA..."Well, we've not had another 9/11 since putting it in place, so it must be working!"...You have to know what a load of crap that is.

That is a precious thing to me and I attribute it to Christian values, a society that mostly prefers peace to violence and/or preying on one another, and a government that has put laws in place that deter most who might do violence to another's person or property were there not legal deterrents in place. Yes there are anarchists out there who care nothing for the rights of others, but they are in a distinct minority and the behavior they sometimes exhibit is by no means encouraged or condoned by society as a whole.

None of which precipitates the existence of The State, as a matter of course, in any way...In fact, The State seeks to inculcate its (arbitrary and capricious) values upon everyone else by force, as though it is God on Earth...How does that go again, about serving two masters?

Yes, the Founders, most especially Jefferson, warned us that it would take constant vigilance by the people to keep a check on government and those in power. When we failed to heed that advice, it was then that government began spiraling out of control. And when we failed to act when it could have been stopped, we gave up all our rights and are now wholly subject to its dictates whether those be harmful or not.

You and I will no doubt remain very divided on that. But I am confident of my position on it and will agree to disagree.

"WE" have done nothing to bring this on ourselves...All of the mechanizations of the current travesty that is The State were set in motion far before than either of us were born...Yet, here we are, expected to tolerate and toil under an yoke of oppression that none of us signed up for, and that the Founders would find intolerable....Yeah, I'll take my chances with nothing at all.

I told you I agree to disagree. Friend to friend however, you attribute arguments to me that I have not made.

I have made a solid argument for social contract that you have not rebutted. You have only cited what happens when people ignore the intent and purpose of the Constitution and corrupt the system for their own purposes. That guns are misused is not a good argument against guns. That security is misused is not a good argument against security. That those entrusted with enforcing the law abuse their power is not a good argument against having laws or people who enforce them. That those in government have corrupted and abused their power is not a good argument against government based on libertarianism/social contract.

You won't change my mind by citing how people are imperfect and do bad things which coincidentally is the best argument there is for why government based on libertarianism/social contract is necessary. My purpose is to encourage those who care to do the right thing and reinstate good government.

But again I will agree to disagree.

There's no need to refute the idea of the "social contract," because it's a complete fiction. It's how statists justify government and using compulsion against innocent people. A contract requires consent by all parties to it. I obviously never consented to the Constitution or to be ruled over by the current corrupt government.

Government isn't security. It's compulsion. You can pay for security without government getting involved in any way.

Government always abuses its power because it's inherently corrupt. The phrase "good government" is an oxymoron.

I am 100% certain that social contract is not only real, but valid, has been practiced for millenia, and is the ONLY means by which a people can govern themselves as our Founders intended. You will never be able to make a valid argument for how anarchy is the superior condition of a society, because it just simply cannot be.

 

[bripat9643]

When I go out to get gas for the car, or pick up a prescription at Walgreens or get groceries, I do not have any kind of fear that I will be held up, robbed, raped, or murdered. Could it happen? Of course. But is it so common that I even think about it? Nope.


Last week we took a 1400 mile round trip through four different states, and at absolutely no time did I fear being held up, robbed, raped, or murdered short of locking the car when we left it unattended. In Arkansas we didn't even lock the doors at night and I had no fear.

So The State is to get the credit for this?...I think not...You've applied the post hoc fallacy...You're using the same argument that the statists use to maintain abominations like the TSA..."Well, we've not had another 9/11 since putting it in place, so it must be working!"...You have to know what a load of crap that is.

That is a precious thing to me and I attribute it to Christian values, a society that mostly prefers peace to violence and/or preying on one another, and a government that has put laws in place that deter most who might do violence to another's person or property were there not legal deterrents in place. Yes there are anarchists out there who care nothing for the rights of others, but they are in a distinct minority and the behavior they sometimes exhibit is by no means encouraged or condoned by society as a whole.

None of which precipitates the existence of The State, as a matter of course, in any way...In fact, The State seeks to inculcate its (arbitrary and capricious) values upon everyone else by force, as though it is God on Earth...How does that go again, about serving two masters?

Yes, the Founders, most especially Jefferson, warned us that it would take constant vigilance by the people to keep a check on government and those in power. When we failed to heed that advice, it was then that government began spiraling out of control. And when we failed to act when it could have been stopped, we gave up all our rights and are now wholly subject to its dictates whether those be harmful or not.

You and I will no doubt remain very divided on that. But I am confident of my position on it and will agree to disagree.

"WE" have done nothing to bring this on ourselves...All of the mechanizations of the current travesty that is The State were set in motion far before than either of us were born...Yet, here we are, expected to tolerate and toil under an yoke of oppression that none of us signed up for, and that the Founders would find intolerable....Yeah, I'll take my chances with nothing at all.

I told you I agree to disagree. Friend to friend however, you attribute arguments to me that I have not made.

I have made a solid argument for social contract that you have not rebutted. You have only cited what happens when people ignore the intent and purpose of the Constitution and corrupt the system for their own purposes. That guns are misused is not a good argument against guns. That security is misused is not a good argument against security. That those entrusted with enforcing the law abuse their power is not a good argument against having laws or people who enforce them. That those in government have corrupted and abused their power is not a good argument against government based on libertarianism/social contract.

You won't change my mind by citing how people are imperfect and do bad things which coincidentally is the best argument there is for why government based on libertarianism/social contract is necessary. My purpose is to encourage those who care to do the right thing and reinstate good government.

But again I will agree to disagree.

There's no need to refute the idea of the "social contract," because it's a complete fiction. It's how statists justify government and using compulsion against innocent people. A contract requires consent by all parties to it. I obviously never consented to the Constitution or to be ruled over by the current corrupt government.

Government isn't security. It's compulsion. You can pay for security without government getting involved in any way.

Government always abuses its power because it's inherently corrupt. The phrase "good government" is an oxymoron.

I am 100% certain that social contract is not only real, but valid, has been practiced for millenia, and is the ONLY means by which a people can govern themselves as our Founders intended. You will never be able to make a valid argument for how anarchy is the superior condition of a society, because it just simply cannot be.

Where is this document? You say it's real, so post a copy.

Your argument is based on some totally imaginary document, but you claim my argument isn't valid?

 

[Foxfyre]

When I go out to get gas for the car, or pick up a prescription at Walgreens or get groceries, I do not have any kind of fear that I will be held up, robbed, raped, or murdered. Could it happen? Of course. But is it so common that I even think about it? Nope.


Last week we took a 1400 mile round trip through four different states, and at absolutely no time did I fear being held up, robbed, raped, or murdered short of locking the car when we left it unattended. In Arkansas we didn't even lock the doors at night and I had no fear.

So The State is to get the credit for this?...I think not...You've applied the post hoc fallacy...You're using the same argument that the statists use to maintain abominations like the TSA..."Well, we've not had another 9/11 since putting it in place, so it must be working!"...You have to know what a load of crap that is.

That is a precious thing to me and I attribute it to Christian values, a society that mostly prefers peace to violence and/or preying on one another, and a government that has put laws in place that deter most who might do violence to another's person or property were there not legal deterrents in place. Yes there are anarchists out there who care nothing for the rights of others, but they are in a distinct minority and the behavior they sometimes exhibit is by no means encouraged or condoned by society as a whole.

None of which precipitates the existence of The State, as a matter of course, in any way...In fact, The State seeks to inculcate its (arbitrary and capricious) values upon everyone else by force, as though it is God on Earth...How does that go again, about serving two masters?

Yes, the Founders, most especially Jefferson, warned us that it would take constant vigilance by the people to keep a check on government and those in power. When we failed to heed that advice, it was then that government began spiraling out of control. And when we failed to act when it could have been stopped, we gave up all our rights and are now wholly subject to its dictates whether those be harmful or not.

You and I will no doubt remain very divided on that. But I am confident of my position on it and will agree to disagree.

"WE" have done nothing to bring this on ourselves...All of the mechanizations of the current travesty that is The State were set in motion far before than either of us were born...Yet, here we are, expected to tolerate and toil under an yoke of oppression that none of us signed up for, and that the Founders would find intolerable....Yeah, I'll take my chances with nothing at all.

I told you I agree to disagree. Friend to friend however, you attribute arguments to me that I have not made.

I have made a solid argument for social contract that you have not rebutted. You have only cited what happens when people ignore the intent and purpose of the Constitution and corrupt the system for their own purposes. That guns are misused is not a good argument against guns. That security is misused is not a good argument against security. That those entrusted with enforcing the law abuse their power is not a good argument against having laws or people who enforce them. That those in government have corrupted and abused their power is not a good argument against government based on libertarianism/social contract.

You won't change my mind by citing how people are imperfect and do bad things which coincidentally is the best argument there is for why government based on libertarianism/social contract is necessary. My purpose is to encourage those who care to do the right thing and reinstate good government.

But again I will agree to disagree.

There's no need to refute the idea of the "social contract," because it's a complete fiction. It's how statists justify government and using compulsion against innocent people. A contract requires consent by all parties to it. I obviously never consented to the Constitution or to be ruled over by the current corrupt government.

Government isn't security. It's compulsion. You can pay for security without government getting involved in any way.

Government always abuses its power because it's inherently corrupt. The phrase "good government" is an oxymoron.

I am 100% certain that social contract is not only real, but valid, has been practiced for millenia, and is the ONLY means by which a people can govern themselves as our Founders intended. You will never be able to make a valid argument for how anarchy is the superior condition of a society, because it just simply cannot be.

Where is this document? You say it's real, so post a copy.

Your argument is based on some totally imaginary document, but you claim my argument isn't valid?

The Constitution? You'll find the complete text here:

https://usconstitution.net/const.html

 

[bripat9643]

So The State is to get the credit for this?...I think not...You've applied the post hoc fallacy...You're using the same argument that the statists use to maintain abominations like the TSA..."Well, we've not had another 9/11 since putting it in place, so it must be working!"...You have to know what a load of crap that is.

None of which precipitates the existence of The State, as a matter of course, in any way...In fact, The State seeks to inculcate its (arbitrary and capricious) values upon everyone else by force, as though it is God on Earth...How does that go again, about serving two masters?

"WE" have done nothing to bring this on ourselves...All of the mechanizations of the current travesty that is The State were set in motion far before than either of us were born...Yet, here we are, expected to tolerate and toil under an yoke of oppression that none of us signed up for, and that the Founders would find intolerable....Yeah, I'll take my chances with nothing at all.

I told you I agree to disagree. Friend to friend however, you attribute arguments to me that I have not made.

I have made a solid argument for social contract that you have not rebutted. You have only cited what happens when people ignore the intent and purpose of the Constitution and corrupt the system for their own purposes. That guns are misused is not a good argument against guns. That security is misused is not a good argument against security. That those entrusted with enforcing the law abuse their power is not a good argument against having laws or people who enforce them. That those in government have corrupted and abused their power is not a good argument against government based on libertarianism/social contract.

You won't change my mind by citing how people are imperfect and do bad things which coincidentally is the best argument there is for why government based on libertarianism/social contract is necessary. My purpose is to encourage those who care to do the right thing and reinstate good government.

But again I will agree to disagree.

There's no need to refute the idea of the "social contract," because it's a complete fiction. It's how statists justify government and using compulsion against innocent people. A contract requires consent by all parties to it. I obviously never consented to the Constitution or to be ruled over by the current corrupt government.

Government isn't security. It's compulsion. You can pay for security without government getting involved in any way.

Government always abuses its power because it's inherently corrupt. The phrase "good government" is an oxymoron.

I am 100% certain that social contract is not only real, but valid, has been practiced for millenia, and is the ONLY means by which a people can govern themselves as our Founders intended. You will never be able to make a valid argument for how anarchy is the superior condition of a society, because it just simply cannot be.

Where is this document? You say it's real, so post a copy.

Your argument is based on some totally imaginary document, but you claim my argument isn't valid?

The Constitution? You'll find the complete text here:

https://usconstitution.net/const.html

When did I agree to the Constitution?

 

[Norman]

I told you I agree to disagree. Friend to friend however, you attribute arguments to me that I have not made.

I have made a solid argument for social contract that you have not rebutted. You have only cited what happens when people ignore the intent and purpose of the Constitution and corrupt the system for their own purposes. That guns are misused is not a good argument against guns. That security is misused is not a good argument against security. That those entrusted with enforcing the law abuse their power is not a good argument against having laws or people who enforce them. That those in government have corrupted and abused their power is not a good argument against government based on libertarianism/social contract.

You won't change my mind by citing how people are imperfect and do bad things which coincidentally is the best argument there is for why government based on libertarianism/social contract is necessary. My purpose is to encourage those who care to do the right thing and reinstate good government.

But again I will agree to disagree.

There's no need to refute the idea of the "social contract," because it's a complete fiction. It's how statists justify government and using compulsion against innocent people. A contract requires consent by all parties to it. I obviously never consented to the Constitution or to be ruled over by the current corrupt government.

Government isn't security. It's compulsion. You can pay for security without government getting involved in any way.

Government always abuses its power because it's inherently corrupt. The phrase "good government" is an oxymoron.

I am 100% certain that social contract is not only real, but valid, has been practiced for millenia, and is the ONLY means by which a people can govern themselves as our Founders intended. You will never be able to make a valid argument for how anarchy is the superior condition of a society, because it just simply cannot be.

Where is this document? You say it's real, so post a copy.

Your argument is based on some totally imaginary document, but you claim my argument isn't valid?

The Constitution? You'll find the complete text here:

https://usconstitution.net/const.html

When did I agree to the Constitution?

The government itself didn't agree to it passing unconstitutional laws such as Obamacare every year.

Yet this guy expects that a mere individual agreed to it. It's hilariously stupid...

 

[Foxfyre]

I told you I agree to disagree. Friend to friend however, you attribute arguments to me that I have not made.

I have made a solid argument for social contract that you have not rebutted. You have only cited what happens when people ignore the intent and purpose of the Constitution and corrupt the system for their own purposes. That guns are misused is not a good argument against guns. That security is misused is not a good argument against security. That those entrusted with enforcing the law abuse their power is not a good argument against having laws or people who enforce them. That those in government have corrupted and abused their power is not a good argument against government based on libertarianism/social contract.

You won't change my mind by citing how people are imperfect and do bad things which coincidentally is the best argument there is for why government based on libertarianism/social contract is necessary. My purpose is to encourage those who care to do the right thing and reinstate good government.

But again I will agree to disagree.

There's no need to refute the idea of the "social contract," because it's a complete fiction. It's how statists justify government and using compulsion against innocent people. A contract requires consent by all parties to it. I obviously never consented to the Constitution or to be ruled over by the current corrupt government.

Government isn't security. It's compulsion. You can pay for security without government getting involved in any way.

Government always abuses its power because it's inherently corrupt. The phrase "good government" is an oxymoron.

I am 100% certain that social contract is not only real, but valid, has been practiced for millenia, and is the ONLY means by which a people can govern themselves as our Founders intended. You will never be able to make a valid argument for how anarchy is the superior condition of a society, because it just simply cannot be.

Where is this document? You say it's real, so post a copy.

Your argument is based on some totally imaginary document, but you claim my argument isn't valid?

The Constitution? You'll find the complete text here:

https://usconstitution.net/const.html

When did I agree to the Constitution?

You didn't. And if you don't like it, you are completely free to take all your belongings and leave. And you have complete liberty to organize enough Americans who hate the Constitution to form a constitutional convention and write a new one. Don't be surprised, however, if most of us appreciate the genius of the social cntract that the U.S. Constitution is and will have no interest in throwing it out and writing a new one. But the ability to do so is the beauty of a social contract based on unalienable rights.

 

[Oddball]

You didn't. And if you don't like it, you are completely free to take all your belongings and leave. And you have complete liberty to organize enough Americans who hate the Constitution to form a constitutional convention and write a new one. Don't be surprised, however, if most of us appreciate the genius of the social cntract that the U.S. Constitution is and will have no interest in throwing it out and writing a new one. But the ability to do so is the beauty of a social contract based on unalienable rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

You didn't. And if you don't like it, you are completely free to take all your belongings and leave. And you have complete liberty to organize enough Americans who hate the Constitution to form a constitutional convention and write a new one. Don't be surprised, however, if most of us appreciate the genius of the social cntract that the U.S. Constitution is and will have no interest in throwing it out and writing a new one. But the ability to do so is the beauty of a social contract based on unalienable rights.

View attachment 190506

And another point made went sailing right over another head.

 

[bripat9643]

There's no need to refute the idea of the "social contract," because it's a complete fiction. It's how statists justify government and using compulsion against innocent people. A contract requires consent by all parties to it. I obviously never consented to the Constitution or to be ruled over by the current corrupt government.

Government isn't security. It's compulsion. You can pay for security without government getting involved in any way.

Government always abuses its power because it's inherently corrupt. The phrase "good government" is an oxymoron.

I am 100% certain that social contract is not only real, but valid, has been practiced for millenia, and is the ONLY means by which a people can govern themselves as our Founders intended. You will never be able to make a valid argument for how anarchy is the superior condition of a society, because it just simply cannot be.

Where is this document? You say it's real, so post a copy.

Your argument is based on some totally imaginary document, but you claim my argument isn't valid?

The Constitution? You'll find the complete text here:

https://usconstitution.net/const.html

When did I agree to the Constitution?

You didn't. And if you don't like it, you are completely free to take all your belongings and leave. And you have complete liberty to organize enough Americans who hate the Constitution to form a constitutional convention and write a new one. Don't be surprised, however, if most of us appreciate the genius of the social cntract that the U.S. Constitution is and will have no interest in throwing it out and writing a new one. But the ability to do so is the beauty of a social contract based on unalienable rights.

What an idiot. Freedom means I have to leave my home if I don't agree with you controlling what I'm allowed to do and taking my money? That isn't freedom, moron. That's the very definition of tyranny.

Who cares if you agree with it? I don't. You're a fool if you think you can throw it out and rewrite it. The Confederacy tried that, and they got a belly full of lead for their troubles.

The bottom line is that the Constitution isn't a contract. You just admitted that. You also proved that you're no better than any groveling Stalinist bootlicker.

 

[bripat9643]

You didn't. And if you don't like it, you are completely free to take all your belongings and leave. And you have complete liberty to organize enough Americans who hate the Constitution to form a constitutional convention and write a new one. Don't be surprised, however, if most of us appreciate the genius of the social cntract that the U.S. Constitution is and will have no interest in throwing it out and writing a new one. But the ability to do so is the beauty of a social contract based on unalienable rights.

View attachment 190506

And another point made went sailing right over another head.

ROFL! No it didn't. He summed up your view of things quite nicely. You're no better than any "America, love it or leave it" redneck.

 

[Oddball]

I am 100% certain that social contract is not only real, but valid, has been practiced for millenia, and is the ONLY means by which a people can govern themselves as our Founders intended.

Could you be a dear and scare up a copy of it for us?...I'd like to get a look at the terms and conditions, along with the defaults that let me out of it if the other party fails to live up to their end of the deal.

 

[Godboy]

Im all about freedom and individual liberty but i dont consider myself either of those

Yes, i noticed his poll used the "Big L" libertarian as a choice, not "small l"

Do you deem this appropriate? I'm talking about people who only condone the most minimal form of government.

In other words, retards.