Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians

Human nature, as it stands right now, prevents a non-violent, Stateless society. I am completely willing to revert back to violence every 3-4 years, just to remind the masses the reason that we live in society. Useless, greedy, lazy fucks who want the property of the productive will remember that the truce is not an invitation to plunder freely.

We are at the point right now where we are way past the time to suspend the truce. (At least 100 years). The Statists are working feverishly to remove our ability to do so.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I agree with that. The social contract is just an excuse to justify removal of individual property rights by tyrannical governments who redistribute disproportionate amounts to themselves.

A true liberal or a true conservative would be a political libertarian because that is the only way that they are free to pursue the values they hold.

Now Democrats aren't liberals at all, they are authoritarian leftists. They would never be libertarian, they have no values in common with liberty and freedom

Your comment re social contract--also all others who reject the concept--indicate a woeful lack of information as to what social contract is.

Once again, 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.

Some here have indicated good understanding and knowledge of what social contract is and the history behind it. And some have expressed extremely uninformed opinions about it.

Again, the Constitution is a social contract establishing rules for how the new government would be structured and what its authority would be. Nobody who signed it and/or agreed to live by it got everything they wanted and everybody had to compromise, but as neither monarchy, totalitarian government, nor anarchy was considered acceptable, they reached the best agreement that they could at that time.

Another description of social contract is how the pioneers who settled communities without benefit of roads or help from any other sources and created infrastructure from scratch, mutually chose how they would organize themselves for mutual benefit. They mutually agreed on what laws would determine what would and would not be legal, and they mutually agreed on what resources and services would be shared rather than each person/family having to provide everything themselves--education for children, water supply, city streets, law enforcement, fire protection, etc. etc. etc. No doubt nobody then agreed with every point of the social contract or got everything they wanted, but they were able to negotiate and compromise on an organization that everybody could comfortably live with.

so·cial con·tract
NOUN

1. an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

Those who say they never agreed to any such social contract miss the point completely. How unfeasible would it be for all those joining a particular society to demand that the society reorganize itself to suit them? However a just society does provide means for the people to mutually correct its mistakes, right wrongs, and improve things as does the U.S. Constitution.

We're not really talking about the same thing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is. I'm talking about how it's used. I understand what it is and how John Locke defined it. I'm definitely a believer in most of Locke's theories.

However, it's used to justify the State removing your property and liberty for any reason that it wants. And that it's called a "social" contract makes it easy for authoritarian leftists like the Democrat party to justify removing your property for socialist reasons.

I am saying I don't like the term in today's political environment, it's used for evil not good

When the state confiscates your property for the 'general good' other than what the government must take in order to fulfill its obligations re the social contract, that is in no way social contract. And even when the state imposes necessary taxes, under social contract it is obligated to do so without prejudice or preference to any class or group. When it must impose such fees as necessary to provide specific services to those who choose to use them, in that case those who use the services are the ones who pay for them. The federal government has no constitutional authority to confiscate anybody's property in order to provide benefits to any individual, group, demographic, state etc.

The federal government was given no authority to seize any property without just compensation and outside its authority and restrictions specified in the Constitution.

That the federal government or any other state or local government does illegal things outside its specific authority has nothing to do with social contract. And when we the people allow them to do it with impunity, we have abdicated our obligations and responsibility as U.S. citizens. You can't blame social contract for that either.

Again, we're not actually disagreeing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is and I'm talking about how it's used by the enemies of freedom to justify confiscating and redistributing income because most people don't know what it actually is

All I am saying is that if the society affected does not agree to it, it is not social contract. It doesn't matter when the social contract was made or who has since joined the society. The society chooses to live under the existing social contract, or it can mutually choose to change it, amend it, add to it. Anything outside of that mutual agreement is not social contract at all.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

All I am saying is that if the society affected does not agree to it, it is not social contract. It doesn't matter when the social contract was made or who has since joined the society. The society chooses to live under the existing social contract, or it can mutually choose to change it, amend it, add to it. Anything outside of that mutual agreement is not social contract at all.

And, everyone agrees to the new terms of society, or let the violence resume.

 

[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.

You said you hate government and keep repeating it. That's your whole argument.

I said I hate government and gave you a list of the several things that I see no other way to solve since they require general recognition and whatever form that general recognition takes, it's government.

You must for example have property lines that are respected by the community. There cannot be more than one arbiter of property lines.

You haven't for this example given a whiff of a solution to that problem.

I seriously doubt you hate government more than I do as someone who's owned five businesses. Maybe as much, but I loathe government.

However, that you hate government isn't an argument to specific issues as you seem to believe

He doesn't just say he hates government. He explains why government is evil, and you just dismiss it with a wave of your hand. Explanations have been presented to you, but you refuse to read them. You expect us to regurgitate them in essays that are thousands of words long. That's the whole nut of your argument: you refuse to learn about any proposed alternatives. You're a waste of bandwidth.

 

[bripat9643]

I agree with that. The social contract is just an excuse to justify removal of individual property rights by tyrannical governments who redistribute disproportionate amounts to themselves.

A true liberal or a true conservative would be a political libertarian because that is the only way that they are free to pursue the values they hold.

Now Democrats aren't liberals at all, they are authoritarian leftists. They would never be libertarian, they have no values in common with liberty and freedom

Your comment re social contract--also all others who reject the concept--indicate a woeful lack of information as to what social contract is.

Once again, 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.

Some here have indicated good understanding and knowledge of what social contract is and the history behind it. And some have expressed extremely uninformed opinions about it.

Again, the Constitution is a social contract establishing rules for how the new government would be structured and what its authority would be. Nobody who signed it and/or agreed to live by it got everything they wanted and everybody had to compromise, but as neither monarchy, totalitarian government, nor anarchy was considered acceptable, they reached the best agreement that they could at that time.

Another description of social contract is how the pioneers who settled communities without benefit of roads or help from any other sources and created infrastructure from scratch, mutually chose how they would organize themselves for mutual benefit. They mutually agreed on what laws would determine what would and would not be legal, and they mutually agreed on what resources and services would be shared rather than each person/family having to provide everything themselves--education for children, water supply, city streets, law enforcement, fire protection, etc. etc. etc. No doubt nobody then agreed with every point of the social contract or got everything they wanted, but they were able to negotiate and compromise on an organization that everybody could comfortably live with.

so·cial con·tract
NOUN

1. an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

Those who say they never agreed to any such social contract miss the point completely. How unfeasible would it be for all those joining a particular society to demand that the society reorganize itself to suit them? However a just society does provide means for the people to mutually correct its mistakes, right wrongs, and improve things as does the U.S. Constitution.

We're not really talking about the same thing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is. I'm talking about how it's used. I understand what it is and how John Locke defined it. I'm definitely a believer in most of Locke's theories.

However, it's used to justify the State removing your property and liberty for any reason that it wants. And that it's called a "social" contract makes it easy for authoritarian leftists like the Democrat party to justify removing your property for socialist reasons.

I am saying I don't like the term in today's political environment, it's used for evil not good

When the state confiscates your property for the 'general good' other than what the government must take in order to fulfill its obligations re the social contract, that is in no way social contract. And even when the state imposes necessary taxes, under social contract it is obligated to do so without prejudice or preference to any class or group. When it must impose such fees as necessary to provide specific services to those who choose to use them, in that case those who use the services are the ones who pay for them. The federal government has no constitutional authority to confiscate anybody's property in order to provide benefits to any individual, group, demographic, state etc.

The federal government was given no authority to seize any property without just compensation and outside its authority and restrictions specified in the Constitution.

That the federal government or any other state or local government does illegal things outside its specific authority has nothing to do with social contract. And when we the people allow them to do it with impunity, we have abdicated our obligations and responsibility as U.S. citizens. You can't blame social contract for that either.

Again, we're not actually disagreeing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is and I'm talking about how it's used by the enemies of freedom to justify confiscating and redistributing income because most people don't know what it actually is

All I am saying is that if the society affected does not agree to it, it is not social contract. It doesn't matter when the social contract was made or who has since joined the society. The society chooses to live under the existing social contract, or it can mutually choose to change it, amend it, add to it. Anything outside of that mutual agreement is not social contract at all.

To be a valid contract, every individual would have to agree to it. You admit that doesn't happen. Some guy born 200 years ago doesn't have the moral authority to agree for me. Furthermore, the reality is that a small group of men agreed to the Constitution, not "society." Your premise is pure bullshit. It's based on a fantasy.

 

[bripat9643]

All those things can be done without government, which is merely the central monopoly over violence in a given region. Anarchists have provided ample solutions to the problems you have outlined. How well they work? No one knows...

All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.

How?

When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.

Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?

You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

 

[bripat9643]

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).

This is just fairy dust and hand waiving. You're going need to be a lot more specific than that. There are 2,000 obvious issues that would need to be overcome to have a military which is funded, staffed and armed without eminent domain or any other government capability

That would take a few chapters in a book to explain, and you don't want to read those. Your position is that you insist on remaining ignorant, and that your ignorance proves there are no alternatives.

 

[bripat9643]

The problem isn't the government. The problem is we the people. We get the government we deserve. The more we become like a democracy, the more we become socialized.

The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not to do for the people what they can and should be doing for themselves. The problem is that people who want the government to do for them what they can and should be doing for themselves, elect public servants that will agree to do for them what they should be doing for themselves.

Of course this is untenable over the long haul and will ultimately lead to debauching the dollar and anarchy. Which means we will need government to protect the weak from the strong which was the original basis for government in the first place.

God help us in what that government will look like when this all comes crashing down.

Hi ding. I agree that people get the government they deserve. The problem is that they impose it on those who don’t.

Bullshit. That is a textbook example of an external locus of control. I will take our fucked up government over the anarchy you desire. At least with our fucked up government we have a chance of avoiding anarchy.

Under our current system, the odds that you will be looted, robbed and possibly killed are 100%

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It's funny how you think not having any answers to how your ideology would work in the real world is a virtue. I'm a pragmatist, not an ideologue. It's a failed argument

So, a "pragmatist" is someone who insists on remaining ignorant and shoving his ignorance down everyone's throat?

 

[bripat9643]

All those things can be done without government, which is merely the central monopoly over violence in a given region. Anarchists have provided ample solutions to the problems you have outlined. How well they work? No one knows...

All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.

How?

When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.

Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?

You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it

I gave you a link to a webpage that explains how, but you refuse to read it. You're complaining about your own stubborn ignorance.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I can refer you to the Declaration of Independence and all the other documents that testify to the debates, discussions, and rationale that eventually--it took 11 years and a long bloody war to accomplish--resulted in the social contract all could agree to and live with. It required much compromise, give and take, but they got there.

It was a social contract/agreement of how the new nation would be organized and structured. It was unique in that for the first (and only) time in the entire human history of the world, the people would govern themselves and assign the government the authority it would be allowed instead of the other way around.

It was not bad government that turned that concept on its head, but it was the people themselves who abdicated their responsibility for self governance.

I propose a return to the social contract that the Constitution is intended to be.

You and Bripat seem to want anarchy which you describe as: (dictionary definition) "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

The truth is though, that what you would have is the rest of that dictionary definition: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority." synonyms: lawlessness · absence of government · nihilism · mobocracy · revolution · insurrection · riot ·
rebellion · mutiny · disorder · disorganization · misrule · chaos ·
tumult · turmoil ·

Anarchy creates a terrible society in which the strong/cruel prey upon the weak, and sooner or later the strong/cruel assume dictatorship and there is no more liberty other than what such dictator allows.

I prefer a liberty in which my rights stop precisely where yours begin, and that requires laws and a means of enforcing them, i.e. some form of government.

The first flaw in your theory is that all didn't agree. It's not a valid contract.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Why is it just violent crimes that you find to be a problem, is embezzlement or other forms of theft not important since they are not violent?

The number of people willing to take what is not there is not negligible in this country, if you have ever had the displeasure to work retail you would know this.

The only thing that stops even a few of these people is the fear of jail.

The fear would be from not knowing who you are dealing with. Every transgression would be met by the whim of the one being transgressed. What could go wrong.

We could have public hangings and such held by the transgressed party. WalMart could chop the hand off of shoplifters in a public event, that would surely dissuade further theft.

That guy that walks up on my lawn, well maybe he is going to steal my Amazon package, I better shot him in the head before he has a chance, it is my lawn after all.

The other day someone parked on the road in front of my house but they got too far over and their tire was on my grass, which damaged my grass. I take great pride in my grass, I think that killing my grass is worthy of death.

You're assuming that the guy walking across your lawn doesn't employ an security agency for his protection. For thousands of years Ireland and Scotland had no formal government, yet they managed to resolve their disputes. How is that possible if lack of government always results in chaos?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I can refer you to the Declaration of Independence and all the other documents that testify to the debates, discussions, and rationale that eventually--it took 11 years and a long bloody war to accomplish--resulted in the social contract all could agree to and live with. It required much compromise, give and take, but they got there.

It was a social contract/agreement of how the new nation would be organized and structured. It was unique in that for the first (and only) time in the entire human history of the world, the people would govern themselves and assign the government the authority it would be allowed instead of the other way around.

It was not bad government that turned that concept on its head, but it was the people themselves who abdicated their responsibility for self governance.

I propose a return to the social contract that the Constitution is intended to be.

You and Bripat seem to want anarchy which you describe as: (dictionary definition) "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

The truth is though, that what you would have is the rest of that dictionary definition: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority." synonyms: lawlessness · absence of government · nihilism · mobocracy · revolution · insurrection · riot ·
rebellion · mutiny · disorder · disorganization · misrule · chaos ·
tumult · turmoil ·

Anarchy creates a terrible society in which the strong/cruel prey upon the weak, and sooner or later the strong/cruel assume dictatorship and there is no more liberty other than what such dictator allows.

I prefer a liberty in which my rights stop precisely where yours begin, and that requires laws and a means of enforcing them, i.e. some form of government.

There were numerous cities and towns for thousands of years before the state came into existence. According to you, that should be impossible. The fact is that society came first, and then the state latched onto it like a tick latches onto a bull's testicles.

 

[ding]

The problem isn't the government. The problem is we the people. We get the government we deserve. The more we become like a democracy, the more we become socialized.

The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not to do for the people what they can and should be doing for themselves. The problem is that people who want the government to do for them what they can and should be doing for themselves, elect public servants that will agree to do for them what they should be doing for themselves.

Of course this is untenable over the long haul and will ultimately lead to debauching the dollar and anarchy. Which means we will need government to protect the weak from the strong which was the original basis for government in the first place.

God help us in what that government will look like when this all comes crashing down.

I have to applaud this because you pretty well nailed the situation that currently exists. Of course you left out the other side of the argument which is the anarchists saying that no government can be good government and therefore there should be no government.

But they provide no solution for how the strong will not be deterred or discouraged from preying on the weak and how anything other than violence will determine who will be able to access available resources.

The government the Founders gave us was a government limited to very specific functions such as:

1. The ability to pass such laws and regulation as necessary for the various states to operate as one nation without doing violence to each other. (The strong would not be allowed to prey upon the weak.)

2. The authority to negotiate trade agreements with other nations for the benefit of all.

3. The authority to create a common currency and such infrastructure and policy as necessary to promote the general (everybody's) welfare such as construction of post roads (federal roads) crossing state lines.

4. The responsibility to provide the common defense which included defense of our own borders against intruders and rules by which new states would be allowed to join the union, i.e. those who would respect and honor the U.S. Constitution.

Pretty much everything else was to be left to the various states who could organize themselves into whatever sorts of society they wished to have.

Such was the social contract mutually agreed by those determined to create a nation like no other with unalienable rights and liberties facilitated and uninterferred with by a central government that had never existed until the U.S.A. was formed.

And the people abdicated the social contract and created the corrupt and self serving mess we have now when it allowed the federal government overstep its restraints and be populated with people who would use government to their own personal advantage. And they do so by using the people's money to bribe or bludgeon them into acquiescence.

We have nobody to blame for that but ourselves. And nobody will be able to restore the social contract except for we the people with the courage and determination to do so.

Exactly.

1. Locke believed that most people are good and respect the rights of others because their conscience tells them they should. However, some people are not so good. Sometimes people who are stronger and more skilled abuse those who are weaker or less skilled.

2. Locke believed that in a state of nature, people protect their natural rights – life, liberty and property- by using their own strength and skill. The weaker and less skilled would find it difficult to protect their rights. Instead, the weaker people would try to protect their rights by joining together against the strong.

3. Locke believed that in a state of nature, no one’s life, liberty or property would be safe because there would be no government or laws to protect them. This is why people agreed to form governments. According to Locke, governments do no exist until people create them.

4. Locke believed that in a state of nature, no one would have the right to govern (rule over) you, and you would not have the right to govern anyone else. According to Locke, the only way the people get the right to govern anyone else is when the people give their consent (approval/permission). If the people have not given their consent to create a government, the government is not lawful or legal. In other words, the power of a lawful government comes from the consent (permission) of the people.

Why do people agree to form a social contract?

Although people agree everyone has natural rights (life, liberty and property), they worry about how those rights will be protected. In a state of nature, people might feel free to do anything they want to do. However, their rights would not be protected and that would make them feel insecure.

For John Locke, the great problem was to find a way to protect each person’s natural rights so that everyone could enjoy them and live at peace with each other. He felt that the best way to solve this problem is for each person to agree with others and create a government that gives it the power to make and enforce laws. Locke called this kind of agreement a social contact.

As in all contracts, you must give up something to get something (compromise). In a social contract everyone promises to give up the right to do everything they want in exchange for security that can be provided by a government. Each person agrees to obey the limits placed on them by the laws of the government. Everyone gains the security of knowing that their rights to life, liberty, and property are protected.

According to Locke, the main purpose of government is to protect those natural rights that the individual cannot effectively protect in a state of nature.

Well said.

I only differ from Locke in that I believe that people form society as a "truce" from the violence that would occur in a natural state. Government is formed to resolve disputes so that truce remains in place.

I believe that the first attempt to control and suppress is religion.

I know you disagree, based on our discussion elsewhere, but if you believe Locke was correct, you and I could still work very will together despite those minor difference.

I can also work very well with Anarchists like Blackwell (the OP) because I believe he understands that humans need lots of education and self reflection before we can get to a Stateless state. He and I dissagree only on whether getting to that state is possible.

Correct me if I am wrong, Blackwell.

I can work well with almost anyone. Objective truth is arrived at through a conflict and confusion process. Honest men can have honest differences of opinion. Your opinion on the merits of religion do not offend me. I suspect my opinion of people who try to subordinate religion do offend you. Reason and experience tell us that liberty and freedom cannot exist without virtue and morality and that virtue and morality can exist without religion. Our founding fathers believed this and the founding fathers of communism believed this. This is not a matter of taste or opinion, these are cold hard facts. Virtue is the ultimate organizing principle among men. When societies become devoid of virtue they descend into disorder and chaos. I am not making a case for a theocracy. I am making a case for the idiocy of subordinating religion.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I agree with that. The social contract is just an excuse to justify removal of individual property rights by tyrannical governments who redistribute disproportionate amounts to themselves.

A true liberal or a true conservative would be a political libertarian because that is the only way that they are free to pursue the values they hold.

Now Democrats aren't liberals at all, they are authoritarian leftists. They would never be libertarian, they have no values in common with liberty and freedom

The problem with your theory is that the term "limited government" is an oxymoron. The state you propose is purely a temporary phenomenon. It never lasts for more than a few decades before various malefactors get their hands on the machinery of government and engineer it to serve their own ends. The "limited state" always turns into the plunder state.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Why is it just violent crimes that you find to be a problem, is embezzlement or other forms of theft not important since they are not violent?

The number of people willing to take what is not there is not negligible in this country, if you have ever had the displeasure to work retail you would know this.

The only thing that stops even a few of these people is the fear of jail.

The fear would be from not knowing who you are dealing with. Every transgression would be met by the whim of the one being transgressed. What could go wrong.

We could have public hangings and such held by the transgressed party. WalMart could chop the hand off of shoplifters in a public event, that would surely dissuade further theft.

That guy that walks up on my lawn, well maybe he is going to steal my Amazon package, I better shot him in the head before he has a chance, it is my lawn after all.

The other day someone parked on the road in front of my house but they got too far over and their tire was on my grass, which damaged my grass. I take great pride in my grass, I think that killing my grass is worthy of death.

You're assuming that the guy walking across your lawn doesn't employ an security agency for his protection. For thousands of years Ireland and Scotland had no formal government, yet they managed to resolve their disputes. How is that possible if lack of government always results in chaos?

They resolved disputes by the one walking away alive being the winner.

I never took you for an anarchist, guess just goes to show it is hard to know who we are dealing with.

 

[bripat9643]

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

Saying that property recognition can be done privately as a solution to replacing government with no further description of how that would work is a logical fallacy called begging the question.

I'll ask you the obvious question, but I'm not going to keep doing your work for you.

Two companies decide to be property recognition companies. They draw different lines between you and your neighbor.

Now what?

Then they will have to settle the dispute. One of them fucked up pretty bad, not even understanding the definition of a line.

Since people generally won't tolerate these kinds of fuck ups, such companies are pretty unlikely to exist. Heck, even the government always gets the lines right. If government gets it right, basically a retard will get it right. The McDonalds of private law agencies would get it right...

Maybe focus on a bit more interesting questions... it's absurd to claim that the companies would not know how to draw a line. Your scenario would only be a possibility if humans took five steps back in evolution and occupied trees. In that case I am not sure that there would be much to draw...

Not all lines are so clear. Some are, some are not. Not everyone lives in a subdivision. And that it's clear as your response doesn't answer the question.

So you just want to be reasonable. One of the property lines gives him most of the space between your houses. The other is in the middle. You knock on his door and point that out. You're a reasonable guy, but property line should be in the middle. He tells you he likes the other line, that's what you are both going to follow. Then he tells you to fuck off and slams the door in your face.

The next day he builds a fence and starts digging a pool in the property you think is yours. You go to your other neighbors and they say wow, you were screwed. They aren't getting involved. He's 6'5 and 280 and has a bad temper and holds grudges. They tell you good luck.

So what do you do now?

My response does not answer the question... on how to draw a line?

Dude, if you can't figure that out, you should not be participating here. We can't possibly hold your hand all the way through the process.

Rest assumed, there are plenty of people perfectly equipped to deal with lines.

Clearly there will be a similar rule that exists now. IE the one who first cultivates the property gets to draw the line. Since most property with any relevance is already owned there won't ever be an issue. You are pretending to be clueless focusing on stuff even a leftist would know how to solve.

All you said is "they will have to settle the dispute." You said nothing about how they do that. The world is filled with unreasonable people. Our whole current government is based on it. People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians who promise them that.

You thought that saying "they will have to settle the dispute" answered the question? Seriously?

The anwer you're looking for is here:

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

Educate yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Why is it just violent crimes that you find to be a problem, is embezzlement or other forms of theft not important since they are not violent?

The number of people willing to take what is not there is not negligible in this country, if you have ever had the displeasure to work retail you would know this.

The only thing that stops even a few of these people is the fear of jail.

The fear would be from not knowing who you are dealing with. Every transgression would be met by the whim of the one being transgressed. What could go wrong.

We could have public hangings and such held by the transgressed party. WalMart could chop the hand off of shoplifters in a public event, that would surely dissuade further theft.

That guy that walks up on my lawn, well maybe he is going to steal my Amazon package, I better shot him in the head before he has a chance, it is my lawn after all.

The other day someone parked on the road in front of my house but they got too far over and their tire was on my grass, which damaged my grass. I take great pride in my grass, I think that killing my grass is worthy of death.

You're assuming that the guy walking across your lawn doesn't employ an security agency for his protection. For thousands of years Ireland and Scotland had no formal government, yet they managed to resolve their disputes. How is that possible if lack of government always results in chaos?

They resolved disputes by the one walking away alive being the winner.

I never took you for an anarchist, guess just goes to show it is hard to know who we are dealing with.

That's not true. You're only demonstrating your ignorance.

I've said many times in this forum that I'm an anarchist.

 

[bripat9643]

People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians

Human nature, as it stands right now, prevents a non-violent, Stateless society. I am completely willing to revert back to violence every 3-4 years, just to remind the masses the reason that we live in society. Useless, greedy, lazy fucks who want the property of the productive will remember that the truce is not an invitation to plunder freely.

We are at the point right now where we are way past the time to suspend the truce. (At least 100 years). The Statists are working feverishly to remove our ability to do so.

Human nature prevents the so-called "limited government" that you propose.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why is it just violent crimes that you find to be a problem, is embezzlement or other forms of theft not important since they are not violent?

The number of people willing to take what is not there is not negligible in this country, if you have ever had the displeasure to work retail you would know this.

The only thing that stops even a few of these people is the fear of jail.

The fear would be from not knowing who you are dealing with. Every transgression would be met by the whim of the one being transgressed. What could go wrong.

We could have public hangings and such held by the transgressed party. WalMart could chop the hand off of shoplifters in a public event, that would surely dissuade further theft.

That guy that walks up on my lawn, well maybe he is going to steal my Amazon package, I better shot him in the head before he has a chance, it is my lawn after all.

The other day someone parked on the road in front of my house but they got too far over and their tire was on my grass, which damaged my grass. I take great pride in my grass, I think that killing my grass is worthy of death.

You're assuming that the guy walking across your lawn doesn't employ an security agency for his protection. For thousands of years Ireland and Scotland had no formal government, yet they managed to resolve their disputes. How is that possible if lack of government always results in chaos?

They resolved disputes by the one walking away alive being the winner.

I never took you for an anarchist, guess just goes to show it is hard to know who we are dealing with.

That's not true. You're only demonstrating your ignorance.

I've said many times in this forum that I'm an anarchist.

Somehow I missed those times.

Funny as hell an anarchist also being a Trump worshiper who supports government sanctioned tariffs!

You have some crazy voices in that head of yours