Does it bother you that our entire government is based on forcing people via gunpoint

[LibertyLemming]

anarchy?

What about anarchy? Are you asking if I personally want anarchy? Think it is superior to forced coercion? Spit it out?

Why can you never stay on the fucking topic?

because your principles always seem to be all over the place

Do explain.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

34 views and zero replies. I guess it doesn't bother people. Maybe because the gun isn't actually in your face

It's a zero post. You're a drama queen begging for attention.

 

[Nosmo King]

When the premise of an argument is based in fear and paranoia, one wonders how that fear and paranoia got there in the first place.

If the premise is: "I don't agree with every law passed, every program promulgated, every regulation enacted and therefore I believe I will be literally forced at gun point to comply." I say welcome to America! I don't claim to be overly prescient, but I thought invading Iraq on flimsy and ginned up stories was a mistake. Did I stop paying taxes and thus revoke my support for the poor policy decision? No. Because I know that some of my taxes will help pay for better roads and schools and put a hot meal into the belly of the hungry and a roof over the head of some homeless. I consider those things necessary for society.

If the premise is: "I don't agree with all the laws and regulations and I therefore believe that such laws constitute tyranny." I say you have no idea what tyranny really is. Tyranny happened to the Native Americans, to Japanese Americans and to Black Americans as well as other minorities here. Disagreement over policy does not rise to the threshold of tyranny.

 

[Sallow]

George Washington and the founding fathers and the Shays and Whiskey rebellions?

There is no debate on this. It has been this way since the very beginning. The alarmist rhetoric coming from misfits aside, we the people grant government the right to act by force of arms in our name.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution

closed case

Yeah nobody is saying laws aren't there or any other bullshit you just put forth. Despite circumstances being as they are, people can still discuss other ideas.

I also don't recall signing, agreeing to, ratifying the Constitution.

Which is part of the cool thing about it.

It doesn't prohibit you from leaving the country if you don't like it.

 

[PratchettFan]

I feel it is quite unjust and immoral to force people at gunpoint to follow any agenda, no matter how well intentioned or successful it may or may not be.

Does it bother you that I can't rape and murder your daughter without someone arresting me and calling it a crime.

LOL!!!

The better question is, do you think raping and murdering my daughter is harder because government exists? The answer is no. It's not like the police are sitting outside my fictitious daughter's house right now protecting her from your dangerous intentions!

With or without it, bitches be getting raped.

Well, we have certainly we established the veracity of your avatar. "Me" the people indeed. Yet another person who just doesn't get that they are not the only person who exists.

 

[g5000]

34 views and zero replies. I guess it doesn't bother people. Maybe because the gun isn't actually in your face

What do you expect? Your OP is vague, undirected, non-specific.

My bad I missed the part in the TOS where you had to make a very specific OP. If I'm being general it would seem you could pick any issue and relate it to the topic.

This is perhaps the most frustrating thing about Libertarians. Their blindness to the fact they are speaking a different language to other people.

I hope this has been made crystal clear to you now based on the responses you have received. You are a poor communicator, like most Libertarians.

When you speak of a government forcing people "at gunpoint" to other Libertarians, they all instantly understand what you mean because you all spend a lot of time talking about the underlying principle behind that rhetorical shortcut. Volumes and volumes and years and years and years of discussion in the tiny Libertarian community are behind that phrase.

But "at gunpoint" is like an inside joke. If you tell it to someone outside the group, they don't get it. It falls flat. They sort of get the overarching idea, but they do not have the years and years and years of discussion as background.

 

[g5000]

I feel it is quite unjust and immoral to force people at gunpoint to follow any agenda, no matter how well intentioned or successful it may or may not be.

That's the whole point of a government...projection of force to defend against outside enemies and keep domestic order.

While a good society will use lesser means, such as societal pressure, non-lethal force to restrain contain, economic sanctions (fines, penalties, etc) at the end there is always the threat of lethal force. You cannot have a society otherwise.

You can certainly have society without government lol. In fact, a "good" society wouldn't need threats of violence to subordinate the citizens because "good" people behave morally.

There is no such society. And that is the second most frustrating thing about Libertarians. Their complete ignorance of human nature.

 

[g5000]

How am I loony? Where did I ever say that people would all of a sudden become good because of something? lol.

What was this all about then?

You can certainly have society without government lol. In fact, a "good" society wouldn't need threats of violence to subordinate the citizens because "good" people behave morally.

This is true - in world where everyone lived within their rights and respected the rights of others, there's be no need for government.

But since there is no such world in this Universe, and never can be, there will always be a need for some level of government force.

 

[g5000]

I feel it is quite unjust and immoral to force people at gunpoint to follow any agenda, no matter how well intentioned or successful it may or may not be.

Exactly what has the government forced YOU to do "at gunpoint" that is so against your moral, social and economic values that has you in such a state of angst?

I cannot speak for him, buit I can speak of one example for me:
Pay taxes to support the welfare state.

Have you ever read Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice?

 

[g5000]

I feel it is quite unjust and immoral to force people at gunpoint to follow any agenda, no matter how well intentioned or successful it may or may not be.

Exactly what has the government forced YOU to do "at gunpoint" that is so against your moral, social and economic values that has you in such a state of angst?

Forced to let them take upwards of 30% of my income, therefor them taking ownership over 30% of my time and labor.

There are more but I'll keep it simple. Basically, anything I want to to that isn't harming other people, yet I am prohibited from doing.

Again, that is very vague. Everyone is prevented from running about naked and pissing on trees as part of the social contract. We give up a portion of our state of nature as the price of joining into that contract.

 

[g5000]

This is true - in world where everyone lived within their rights and respected the rights of others, there's be no need for government.

While that may be true, most of us live in the real world and my question stands, "how do you enforce laws, if someone absolutely refuses to comply?"

I think I would prefer social justice to organized institutional forced justice. I would hope it would be more just in only going after people who actually cause harm. Doubtful with the lack of morality though, as previously mentioned. Still, I'll take my chance against some thugs.

"Social justice" is just another way of saying mob justice.

 

[LibertyLemming]

What do you expect? Your OP is vague, undirected, non-specific.

My bad I missed the part in the TOS where you had to make a very specific OP. If I'm being general it would seem you could pick any issue and relate it to the topic.

This is perhaps the most frustrating thing about Libertarians. Their blindness to the fact they are speaking a different language to other people.

I hope this has been made crystal clear to you now based on the responses you have received. You are a poor communicator, like most Libertarians.

When you speak of a government forcing people "at gunpoint" to other Libertarians, they all instantly understand what you mean because you all spend a lot of time talking about the underlying principle behind that rhetorical shortcut. Volumes and volumes and years and years and years of discussion in the tiny Libertarian community are behind that phrase.

But "at gunpoint" is like an inside joke. If you tell it to someone outside the group, they don't get it. It falls flat. They sort of get the overarching idea, but they do not have the years and years and years of discussion as background.

So why not ask for a clarification ?

As for your comments about human nature.

Let me list a few things the "Stateless" society achieved without the state during the nearly 10,000 years before the advent of a Central Government. 1. Writing 2. The Plow 3. Domestication of plants 4. Domestication of animials 5. Discovery of fire 6. Navagation 7. Architecture 8. Tools 9. The Wheel 10. Irrigation 11. Permanent villages 12. Metallurgy 13. Art 14. Music 15. Language 16. Mathematics 17. Money, Barter, & Trade 18. Religon 19. Medical Treatment 20. Governement & Law

Please tell me why the lack of an entire society in my viewpoint means it doesn't work? There are no perfect panarchies either so by that logic our current government ignores human nature. All pieces of a libertarian ideal society been tried. I'm more of an anarcho-capitalist more than a libertarian, but if we are going to have a government, they have the best of it.

 

[LibertyLemming]

While that may be true, most of us live in the real world and my question stands, "how do you enforce laws, if someone absolutely refuses to comply?"

I think I would prefer social justice to organized institutional forced justice. I would hope it would be more just in only going after people who actually cause harm. Doubtful with the lack of morality though, as previously mentioned. Still, I'll take my chance against some thugs.

"Social justice" is just another way of saying mob justice.

Which is different from government in the ways that individuals are deciding what is best for themselves and taking their own security and justice into their hands instead of being forced into other's ideals at gun point.

 

[LibertyLemming]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaEtW6_BVUE]Show me a society without government! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LibertyLemming]

Exactly what has the government forced YOU to do "at gunpoint" that is so against your moral, social and economic values that has you in such a state of angst?

I cannot speak for him, buit I can speak of one example for me:
Pay taxes to support the welfare state.

Have you ever read Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice?

Have you ever read Thomas Hobbes' The Leviathan?

 

[g5000]

I would prefer a system that didn't give me the option of a) getting put in a cage by armed people with badges or b) sending away 30%+ of my money (aka my time and labor is being owned). If some people want to get together privately and invest in some sort of insurance for their twilight years, fine by me, just don't force me to participate if I don't want to.

And when their 401k's are wiped out by crooks on Wall Street just as they getting ready to retire, and now they are wiped out, tough shit!

There were many more financial panics in the 19th century than the 20th century. And they were deeper and longer. And they threw many millions of people into poverty. The economy was in constant upheaval.

No thanks. I'd rather not go back to those days.

 

[hazlnut]

I feel it is quite unjust and immoral to force people at gunpoint to follow any agenda, no matter how well intentioned or successful it may or may not be.

No, paranoid delusions held by others don't bother me.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I would prefer a system that didn't give me the option of a) getting put in a cage by armed people with badges or b) sending away 30%+ of my money (aka my time and labor is being owned). If some people want to get together privately and invest in some sort of insurance for their twilight years, fine by me, just don't force me to participate if I don't want to.

And when their 401k's are wiped out by crooks on Wall Street just as they getting ready to retire, and now they are wiped out, tough shit!

There were many more financial panics in the 19th century than the 20th century. And they were deeper and longer. And they threw many millions of people into poverty. The economy was in constant upheaval.

No thanks. I'd rather not go back to those days.

You act as if governments didn't exist then lol

 

[LibertyLemming]

I feel it is quite unjust and immoral to force people at gunpoint to follow any agenda, no matter how well intentioned or successful it may or may not be.

No, paranoid delusions held by others don't bother me.

Uh, what exactly did I say that is paranoid? Try not paying your taxes or breaking other retarded laws and see if you don't end up dead or in a cage.

 

[g5000]

My bad I missed the part in the TOS where you had to make a very specific OP. If I'm being general it would seem you could pick any issue and relate it to the topic.

This is perhaps the most frustrating thing about Libertarians. Their blindness to the fact they are speaking a different language to other people.

I hope this has been made crystal clear to you now based on the responses you have received. You are a poor communicator, like most Libertarians.

When you speak of a government forcing people "at gunpoint" to other Libertarians, they all instantly understand what you mean because you all spend a lot of time talking about the underlying principle behind that rhetorical shortcut. Volumes and volumes and years and years and years of discussion in the tiny Libertarian community are behind that phrase.

But "at gunpoint" is like an inside joke. If you tell it to someone outside the group, they don't get it. It falls flat. They sort of get the overarching idea, but they do not have the years and years and years of discussion as background.

So why not ask for a clarification ?

As for your comments about human nature.

Let me list a few things the "Stateless" society achieved without the state during the nearly 10,000 years before the advent of a Central Government. 1. Writing 2. The Plow 3. Domestication of plants 4. Domestication of animials 5. Discovery of fire 6. Navagation 7. Architecture 8. Tools 9. The Wheel 10. Irrigation 11. Permanent villages 12. Metallurgy 13. Art 14. Music 15. Language 16. Mathematics 17. Money, Barter, & Trade 18. Religon 19. Medical Treatment 20. Governement & Law

Please tell me why the lack of an entire society in my viewpoint means it doesn't work? There are no perfect panarchies either so by that logic our current government ignores human nature. All pieces of a libertarian ideal society been tried. I'm more of an anarcho-capitalist more than a libertarian, but if we are going to have a government, they have the best of it.

I see you were careful to use the words Central Government, and not just Government in general. That, to me, is an admission we do need government to achieve great things.

So you think feudal states are superior, eh? Slavery, too, I guess.

And for an ancient city, the chief IS the central government. And he was about as dictatorial as it gets. Talk about at spearpoint!

And they frequently went to war against other tribes, slaughtering men, women and children for gain.

I don't think you have put much thought into your philosophy.