Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Oddball]

And another point made went sailing right over another head.

It's you who missed the point...Do you realize what the feds have done, insofar as terms and conditions for people to expatriate are concerned?

I do...They might as well just wave a gun in my face, and tell me to get back down to the galley and swing my oar.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

So, if we can never realistically expect to ever reach a state of Anarchy, what are we left with?

Government.

What do we do about that?

FUCKING KILL MOTHERFUCKERS WHO TAKE MORE CONTROL THAN WE PERMIT!!!!

Until you convince me that Anarchy can happen, I know the only choice I have is violence against the government we have until it obeys and behaves.

There’s only one way true and lasting anarchy can happen - if a significant minority stop supporting and believing in external authority, and express these ideas to others.

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.

I presume you mean the use of aggressive force, not defensive force (which is a necessary solution to the problem of infringement on rights).

Most people are already against this, which is why the overwhelming majority almost never resort to violence in their personal life. The problem is they don’t see government as violence. There’s an indoctrinated blind spot in their thinking. They’ve bought into the con of law and political process as a luandering mechanism for immoral violence.

Ask 100 people who support taxation, border control, drug laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc., if they condone violent domination over the innocent - all of them will probably say “no”.

So the erroneous, dissonant belief in the validity of authority as an exemption from morality is the issue. This must be extracted for true and lasting voluntaryism to replace government. Once that has happened, those people will just do as they’ve always done - refrain from violence - minus that one exception they used to make: mistakingly commiting aggression by proxy via governmental law.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Basically my questions hit the two extremes. Legitimate disputes between honest citizens and criminals.

1) Your town is small. You have a house, fields, a pond and a patch of woods. You have a trail through the woods. You take a walk every day. You don't develop it because you want it the way it is. One day you're taking a walk and a new neighbor is cutting down your trees. You say it's your property, you use it. He says walking through it isn't using it, building houses and farming is and he is going to farm it. What do you do?

2) You go to bed early because you're tired. You wake up, go downstairs, and your wife and kids are dead. What do you do?

You know what? No. You don’t get to justify an inherently invalid and immoral system of coercive violence until someone on a message board satisfies your concerns about how to deal with life’s problems.

This ain’t a goddam sales call. I’ll talk with you all day long about these issues, but only after you understand and accept that full acknowledgement of man’s natural freedom is not optional, and not a moment before.

Saying you have no idea but government is evil is not an answer. Until you want to discuss specifics, I'll banter with you, but until anarchists are willing to do that, you're just pissing in the wind.

I say I want property rights to be respected. Your answer is I can't have that because government is evil.

I say I want my family protected from criminals. Your answer is I can't have that because government is evil.

I pick government in those. Fine, then I pick evil. At least I have a live family and clear property rights. You and oddball can live in the trees and pick flies off each other's coats

Private, voluntarily-funded defense organizations. Could be the same guys doing it now, with the same toys and everything, just no more exemption from morality (i.e. authority).

 

[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

All these issues have been addressed.

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

I addressed multiple times how anarchists keep telling me to read this and it'll explain it.

If you can't explain how it would work, you don't really understand it.

I'm not saying you have to explain every facet to get me interested. Just SOMETHING.

Before another anarchist sends me off to read another book (or in this case link), give me some content to make me interested in doing that ... again ...

I can explain it, but I'm not going to post the equivalent of entire chapters in a book. It's easier to just direct you to the material that explains it. However, we know you aren't going to read it.

I addressed that and you just quoted it. I colored it for you now. You don't want to explain everything, so you're going to explain nothing. I got it. But I'm not going off and reading more books/links based on you explaining nothing. So as I said, we're not moving forward.

Brian won't explain anything. Oddball won't explain anything and he gets insulted to have his views questioned. None of you will explain anything. No wonder you can't convince even a tap in putt like me who would love to be an anarchist, but I won't be until I am convinced by content, which none of you will provide

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

The error occurs at “elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all”. This “representation” is impossible, especially for “all”. No man can validly represent another; it’s simply contrary to reality itself. He would have to become the other and leave himself behind. The idea of becoming numerous people is even more absurd.

I know you just recently arrived, so I will repeat that government is authority - the purported right to rule (not merely the ability). No such right exists. Natural law defines rights, man cannot create them any more than he can create laws of physics. Authority is literally the falsely claimed “right” to do what others do not have the right to do. It is an inequality of rights, which has no rational basis, and is fundamentally immoral.

If you want to establish an organization that only defends natural law rights, that’s great, but that is not government. It does not have authority, and it does not presume rights in excess of those held by any individual.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

You're in constant risk of losing life, injury, loss of property, etc. in even the most minimal of government scenarios...You already have what you fear the most, what do you lose by just letting go?

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

It's like Marxism, except that it's not....M'kay.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

The "social contract" is a mythical and nebulous contradiction in terms....The word "contract" presumes you have willing participants, specifically delineated terms of service, and ways out for the principals, should one or more of the parties renege on their part of the bargain.

And who says that people voluntarily pooling resources to mutual benefit eventuates a government, which acts as a proactive aggressor against all, under the rubric that it's there be our pal?

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

Cool story, but nowhere in that scenario can the things you mentioned not be done on a voluntary and mutually beneficial basis...You're appealing to tradition.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

I know that's the pop culture and the statist's stereotype of anarchy, but just suppose for a moment that's not true....Also, speaking of self-serving people operating within The State, I direct you toward Chapter 10, of F.A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom...To encapsulate: The State will never stop growing and infringing upon the rights of the people. Therefore, this dynamic will ALWAYS attract to it those who seek that power as an end unto itself... Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

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.

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.

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.

That’s because the number of people willing to commit acts of aggression are nigh-unto negligible, contrary to what politicians and their media would have you believe. The fact that government exists and violent crime is rare does not mean violent crime is rare because of government.

You mentiomed law as a deterrent, but law is not the deterent; defensive force is the deterent. Would-be criminals fear cops because cops have guns, and license to use them. Cops represent 1/325th of the population. A free society has more people with guns, all with moral license to use them in a defensive capacity. In other words, a far stronger deterrent.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

Ok. Please present the argument for the validity of the social contract.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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

“Congress shall have power to...”

This is the extent of “logical justification” for governmental authority present in that document.

 

[Foxfyre]

All these issues have been addressed.

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

I addressed multiple times how anarchists keep telling me to read this and it'll explain it.

If you can't explain how it would work, you don't really understand it.

I'm not saying you have to explain every facet to get me interested. Just SOMETHING.

Before another anarchist sends me off to read another book (or in this case link), give me some content to make me interested in doing that ... again ...

I can explain it, but I'm not going to post the equivalent of entire chapters in a book. It's easier to just direct you to the material that explains it. However, we know you aren't going to read it.

I addressed that and you just quoted it. I colored it for you now. You don't want to explain everything, so you're going to explain nothing. I got it. But I'm not going off and reading more books/links based on you explaining nothing. So as I said, we're not moving forward.

Brian won't explain anything. Oddball won't explain anything and he gets insulted to have his views questioned. None of you will explain anything. No wonder you can't convince even a tap in putt like me who would love to be an anarchist, but I won't be until I am convinced by content, which none of you will provide

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

The error occurs at “elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all”. This “representation” is impossible, especially for “all”. No man can validly represent another; it’s simply contrary to reality itself. He would have to become the other and leave himself behind. The idea of becoming numerous people is even more absurd.

I know you just recently arrived, so I will repeat that government is authority - the purported right to rule (not merely the ability). No such right exists. Natural law defines rights, man cannot create them any more than he can create laws of physics. Authority is literally the falsely claimed “right” to do what others do not have the right to do. It is an inequality of rights, which has no rational basis, and is fundamentally immoral.

If you want to establish an organization that only defends natural law rights, that’s great, but that is not government. It does not have authority, and it does not presume rights in excess of those held by any individual.

I think you too are not understanding the concept of natural rights, social contract, or what I have been arguing. But the hour is getting late and I'm headed for bed soon. Do have a good night.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

You're in constant risk of losing life, injury, loss of property, etc. in even the most minimal of government scenarios...You already have what you fear the most, what do you lose by just letting go?

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

It's like Marxism, except that it's not....M'kay.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

The "social contract" is a mythical and nebulous contradiction in terms....The word "contract" presumes you have willing participants, specifically delineated terms of service, and ways out for the principals, should one or more of the parties renege on their part of the bargain.

And who says that people voluntarily pooling resources to mutual benefit eventuates a government, which acts as a proactive aggressor against all, under the rubric that it's there be our pal?

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

Cool story, but nowhere in that scenario can the things you mentioned not be done on a voluntary and mutually beneficial basis...You're appealing to tradition.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

I know that's the pop culture and the statist's stereotype of anarchy, but just suppose for a moment that's not true....Also, speaking of self-serving people operating within The State, I direct you toward Chapter 10, of F.A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom...To encapsulate: The State will never stop growing and infringing upon the rights of the people. Therefore, this dynamic will ALWAYS attract to it those who seek that power as an end unto itself... Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

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.

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.

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.

That’s because the number of people willing to commit acts of aggression are nigh-unto negligible, contrary to what politicians and their media would have you believe. The fact that government exists and violent crime is rare does not mean violent crime is rare because of government.

You mentiomed law as a deterrent, but law is not the deterent; defensive force is the deterent. Would-be criminals fear cops because cops have guns, and license to use them. Cops represent 1/325th of the population. A free society has more people with guns, all with moral license to use them in a defensive capacity. In other words, a far stronger deterrent.

Respectfully disagree. If the social contract does not set parameters as to what is civil, legal, socially acceptable,etc. then everybody decides that differently and that will inevitably lead to conflict, aggression, and sooner or later a society formed out of survival of the fittest.

 

[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.

Ok. Please present the argument for the validity of the social contract.

The social contract is the mutual agreement of what sort of society is most beneficial to all and provides a means of accomplishing it, what services and infrastructure shall be shared, and, to a lesser extent, what is expected of each member of that society.

 

[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

“Congress shall have power to...”

This is the extent of “logical justification” for governmental authority present in that document.

No the social contract contained in the Constitution outlines what authority the people will give the government for the benefit of the people, and limits the authority the government will be allowed by the people. This is so terribly important to understand and, in today's socially engineered environment and group think, apparently is so difficult to teach these days.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Ok. Please present the argument for the validity of the social contract.

The social contract is the mutual agreement of what sort of society is most beneficial to all and provides a means of accomplishing it, what services and infrastructure shall be shared, and, to a lesser extent, what is expected of each member of that society.

Ok, so here we have a description of the social contract, but not an argument for its validity. So please provide the argument, if you would.

As to the description, you claim that it is a "mutual agreement", in the midst of a conversation where multiple people have clearly expressed their lack of agreement. So we may need a new description along with that aforementioned argument.

 

[bripat9643]

I addressed multiple times how anarchists keep telling me to read this and it'll explain it.

If you can't explain how it would work, you don't really understand it.

I'm not saying you have to explain every facet to get me interested. Just SOMETHING.

Before another anarchist sends me off to read another book (or in this case link), give me some content to make me interested in doing that ... again ...

I can explain it, but I'm not going to post the equivalent of entire chapters in a book. It's easier to just direct you to the material that explains it. However, we know you aren't going to read it.

I addressed that and you just quoted it. I colored it for you now. You don't want to explain everything, so you're going to explain nothing. I got it. But I'm not going off and reading more books/links based on you explaining nothing. So as I said, we're not moving forward.

Brian won't explain anything. Oddball won't explain anything and he gets insulted to have his views questioned. None of you will explain anything. No wonder you can't convince even a tap in putt like me who would love to be an anarchist, but I won't be until I am convinced by content, which none of you will provide

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

The error occurs at “elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all”. This “representation” is impossible, especially for “all”. No man can validly represent another; it’s simply contrary to reality itself. He would have to become the other and leave himself behind. The idea of becoming numerous people is even more absurd.

I know you just recently arrived, so I will repeat that government is authority - the purported right to rule (not merely the ability). No such right exists. Natural law defines rights, man cannot create them any more than he can create laws of physics. Authority is literally the falsely claimed “right” to do what others do not have the right to do. It is an inequality of rights, which has no rational basis, and is fundamentally immoral.

If you want to establish an organization that only defends natural law rights, that’s great, but that is not government. It does not have authority, and it does not presume rights in excess of those held by any individual.

I think you too are not understanding the concept of natural rights, social contract, or what I have been arguing. But the hour is getting late and I'm headed for bed soon. Do have a good night.

We understand that you believe in a myth. There is no such thing as the "social contract." 99% of the people you claim consented to it did no such thing. Contracts require consent to be valid, which makes your mythical social contract invalid. Your "America: take it or leave it" argument is the lowest kind of thuggish morality ever uttered in public.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

“Congress shall have power to...”

This is the extent of “logical justification” for governmental authority present in that document.

No the social contract contained in the Constitution outlines what authority the people will give the government for the benefit of the people, and limits the authority the government will be allowed by the people. This is so terribly important to understand and, in today's socially engineered environment and group think, apparently is so difficult to teach these days.

Yes, I agree... the U.S. has strayed so far from the Constitution that it's sort of embarrassing to still have it on display. It would behoove those in power to just burn it and say they lost it.

But noting that the Constitution outlines what authority the people will give the government does not address the issue at hand - the valid origin of its power. People can't just give other people any power they want. I can't give you the power to steal my neighbor's car; that would be immoral and invalid, as I have no claim to ownership over that car, and you would be violating the rights of the person who does by taking that action.

So where in the Constitution does it actually indicate the valid source of the power, and how the transference of this power to government is valid?

 

[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

“Congress shall have power to...”

This is the extent of “logical justification” for governmental authority present in that document.

No the social contract contained in the Constitution outlines what authority the people will give the government for the benefit of the people, and limits the authority the government will be allowed by the people. This is so terribly important to understand and, in today's socially engineered environment and group think, apparently is so difficult to teach these days.

When did I give this "authority" to the government? If anyone suffers from "group think," it's the kind who say "America: love it or leave it"

 

[bripat9643]

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

You're in constant risk of losing life, injury, loss of property, etc. in even the most minimal of government scenarios...You already have what you fear the most, what do you lose by just letting go?

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

It's like Marxism, except that it's not....M'kay.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

The "social contract" is a mythical and nebulous contradiction in terms....The word "contract" presumes you have willing participants, specifically delineated terms of service, and ways out for the principals, should one or more of the parties renege on their part of the bargain.

And who says that people voluntarily pooling resources to mutual benefit eventuates a government, which acts as a proactive aggressor against all, under the rubric that it's there be our pal?

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

Cool story, but nowhere in that scenario can the things you mentioned not be done on a voluntary and mutually beneficial basis...You're appealing to tradition.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

I know that's the pop culture and the statist's stereotype of anarchy, but just suppose for a moment that's not true....Also, speaking of self-serving people operating within The State, I direct you toward Chapter 10, of F.A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom...To encapsulate: The State will never stop growing and infringing upon the rights of the people. Therefore, this dynamic will ALWAYS attract to it those who seek that power as an end unto itself... Why the Worst Get on Top | F. A. Hayek

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.

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.

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.

That’s because the number of people willing to commit acts of aggression are nigh-unto negligible, contrary to what politicians and their media would have you believe. The fact that government exists and violent crime is rare does not mean violent crime is rare because of government.

You mentiomed law as a deterrent, but law is not the deterent; defensive force is the deterent. Would-be criminals fear cops because cops have guns, and license to use them. Cops represent 1/325th of the population. A free society has more people with guns, all with moral license to use them in a defensive capacity. In other words, a far stronger deterrent.

Respectfully disagree. If the social contract does not set parameters as to what is civil, legal, socially acceptable,etc. then everybody decides that differently and that will inevitably lead to conflict, aggression, and sooner or later a society formed out of survival of the fittest.

There is no social contract, and government has already decided differently.

 

[Desperado]

I would describe myself as a libertarian, however I do not agree with the libertarian stance on borders. I strongly believe in national borders and a very small government.
The hell with globalist.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

That’s because the number of people willing to commit acts of aggression are nigh-unto negligible, contrary to what politicians and their media would have you believe. The fact that government exists and violent crime is rare does not mean violent crime is rare because of government.

You mentiomed law as a deterrent, but law is not the deterent; defensive force is the deterent. Would-be criminals fear cops because cops have guns, and license to use them. Cops represent 1/325th of the population. A free society has more people with guns, all with moral license to use them in a defensive capacity. In other words, a far stronger deterrent.

Respectfully disagree. If the social contract does not set parameters as to what is civil, legal, socially acceptable,etc. then everybody decides that differently and that will inevitably lead to conflict, aggression, and sooner or later a society formed out of survival of the fittest.

Erm, well... I hate to be the guy to brush aside a kindness, but it's sort of not respectful to disagree without actually refuting what was said. You kind of owe it to truth itself to establish your position on valid premises and logical arguments.

I could basically just respond to your post with "Says you" and be well within reason, since it's all speculative opinion.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I would describe myself as a libertarian, however I do not agree with the libertarian stance on borders. I strongly believe in national borders and a very small government.
The hell with globalist.

To hell with globalists, indeed. Though it's a shame they usurped what should be a nice idea - one world, and all that. But evil is nothing if not perversion.

Anyway, do you subscribe to the non-aggression principle?

 

[Desperado]

I would describe myself as a libertarian, however I do not agree with the libertarian stance on borders. I strongly believe in national borders and a very small government.
The hell with globalist.

To hell with globalists, indeed. Though it's a shame they usurped what should be a nice idea - one world, and all that. But evil is nothing if not perversion.

Anyway, do you subscribe to the non-aggression principle?

Non Interventionist - I don't think we should be telling people what they can do in their own countries. that is no concern of ours. No World Police.

However, if they attack the US, then non-aggression principle is history and we should nuke them till they glow and then shoot them in the dark