Just What is Libertarianism?

[Dot Com]

its a theory that college Repubs are exposed to in college, sort of like hazing, that MOST discard after becoming adults.

And then the Borg Queen assumes control of the lefty and they become a drone in Borg society......that is why freedom and liberty mean so little to democrats.....

no wonder you changed your user name what w/ zany posts like the above. What did your username used to be again?

 

[rightwinger]

Who said anything about Government?

Government is formed by a society and does the functions that the society requests
At a bare minimum, a society provides what we need to survive

Advanced societies provide what the people want

Government and society are two separate things. You keep saying "society does this," and "society needs that," when what you really mean is government does it. Government performs functions that are beneficial for government. Any claims to the contrary are propaganda.

Society doesn't provide squat. It's an abstract concept. And the idea that welfare makes a society "advanced" is too absurd for words to describe.

Coming from an anarchist.....I see that is what you believe

Read the Constitution. It starts by declaring that "We the People" are forming a government and how that government will be constituted

Government is formed by a society. It allows that society to function. You can't have one without the other

If "we the people" created government, then "we the people" are separate from government. The two things are not synonymous.

Society does not need government to function. Society existed for 10,000 years before the first government ever formed. The later is a parasite that feeds on and afflicts the former.

Read the Constitution

We the People created the Government it IS us
No society at any level has ever operated without a government. The simplest tribe had a government

But why do I argue such things with an anarchist?

Same thing as a no true scotsman fallacy.

You have essentially defined government in a manner that makes it's existence mandatory in any group larger than 1 person.

If an individual acts as the head of your household making the final decisions that does not make them a 'government.' To claim so really makes the word meaningless.

No it doesn't

The family is the simplest unit of a society
A Tribe or clan comes next

Society grows exponentially after that......government is in play at all levels

 

[Dot Com]

They are similar to Repubs in that they want "government on the cheap" EXCEPT for offense spending when repubs are concerned. You can have children go hungry but far be it from them to keep offense contractors from taxpayer $$$

 

[dblack]

The myth upon which Libertarianism is based is the same myth as Communism. That is that human beings will step up and do the right thing if only given the chance. It isn't true.

That's not really it. It's more along the lines of "two wrongs don't make a right". We want a government that represents society's morals - that doesn't act immorally in the name of the "good" of society. To put it another way, we don't want government to do anything we wouldn't feel justified in doing personally if it came to that.

The good of society is the primary goal of the Constitution. Morality is entirely subjective and should not even be a factor. Doing unto others is a wonderful sentiment, but I have seen so many things people are willing to do to others that I don't trust the concept much.

What holds us together is the law. Written down for all to see, interpreted and enforced in the light.

Of course. I'm saying nothing different. Except that we shouldn't endorse anything in the name of the law that we wouldn't feel justified doing personally. In other words, if I see someone attacking an old woman to steal her purse, or worse, I'd feel justified - even obligated - to use force if necessary to prevent it. And I'd want the law to do the same. But, even if I might feel personally obligated to help the poor, or the refugees in Iraq, or any other number of noble causes, I wouldn't feel justified in forcing my neighbors to join me. Likewise I don't think it's right for the law to do it on my behalf just because we had a vote.

You've lost me with the analogy. I have no more moral duty to the old woman with a purse than say the Christians in Syria. Yet, you're saying it's ok to use the force of the state to protect the old lady, but not ok to protect the Syrian Christians?

What am I missing?

I'm not necessarily saying either of those is right or wrong, I'm just saying the we shouldn't allow government to do things we wouldn't feel justified doing ourselves. The libertarian perspective recognizes that the trait that distinguishes government from all other social institutions is the use of force to achieve its ends. Every law we pass depends on it. And we shouldn't use force against others unless it is truly warranted.

The point of my example wasn't to inject personal morals into legal decisions, but to emphasize that voting for laws is voting for the use of force against those who don't abide, and we shouldn't vote for such laws unless we feel they are truly justified, unless we'd feel righteous pulling the trigger ourselves.

 

[bripat9643]

Government and society are two separate things. You keep saying "society does this," and "society needs that," when what you really mean is government does it. Government performs functions that are beneficial for government. Any claims to the contrary are propaganda.

Society doesn't provide squat. It's an abstract concept. And the idea that welfare makes a society "advanced" is too absurd for words to describe.

Coming from an anarchist.....I see that is what you believe

Read the Constitution. It starts by declaring that "We the People" are forming a government and how that government will be constituted

Government is formed by a society. It allows that society to function. You can't have one without the other

If "we the people" created government, then "we the people" are separate from government. The two things are not synonymous.

Society does not need government to function. Society existed for 10,000 years before the first government ever formed. The later is a parasite that feeds on and afflicts the former.

Read the Constitution

We the People created the Government it IS us
No society at any level has ever operated without a government. The simplest tribe had a government

But why do I argue such things with an anarchist?

Same thing as a no true scotsman fallacy.

You have essentially defined government in a manner that makes it's existence mandatory in any group larger than 1 person.

If an individual acts as the head of your household making the final decisions that does not make them a 'government.' To claim so really makes the word meaningless.

No it doesn't

The family is the simplest unit of a society
A Tribe or clan comes next

Society grows exponentially after that......government is in play at all levels

"Government is in play?" He's right, you simply label any grouping of more that one person as "society" and that you claim to be a synonym of "government." Both theories are idiotic.

Government is defined by one thing, and one thing only: the monopoly on the use of force. Anyone who doesn't accept that irrefutable fact is simply too stupid to waste time arguing with.

 

[rightwinger]

Coming from an anarchist.....I see that is what you believe

Read the Constitution. It starts by declaring that "We the People" are forming a government and how that government will be constituted

Government is formed by a society. It allows that society to function. You can't have one without the other

If "we the people" created government, then "we the people" are separate from government. The two things are not synonymous.

Society does not need government to function. Society existed for 10,000 years before the first government ever formed. The later is a parasite that feeds on and afflicts the former.

Read the Constitution

We the People created the Government it IS us
No society at any level has ever operated without a government. The simplest tribe had a government

But why do I argue such things with an anarchist?

Same thing as a no true scotsman fallacy.

You have essentially defined government in a manner that makes it's existence mandatory in any group larger than 1 person.

If an individual acts as the head of your household making the final decisions that does not make them a 'government.' To claim so really makes the word meaningless.

No it doesn't

The family is the simplest unit of a society
A Tribe or clan comes next

Society grows exponentially after that......government is in play at all levels

"Government is in play?" He's right, you simply label any grouping of more that one person as "society" and that you claim to be a synonym of "government." Both theories are idiotic.

Government is defined by one thing, and one thing only: the monopoly on the use of force. Anyone who doesn't accept that irrefutable fact is simply too stupid to waste time arguing with.

Show me any credible definition of government as monopoly on the use of force

Why don't you pull up one of your anarchist websites for me?

 

[bripat9643]

If "we the people" created government, then "we the people" are separate from government. The two things are not synonymous.

Society does not need government to function. Society existed for 10,000 years before the first government ever formed. The later is a parasite that feeds on and afflicts the former.

Read the Constitution

We the People created the Government it IS us
No society at any level has ever operated without a government. The simplest tribe had a government

But why do I argue such things with an anarchist?

Same thing as a no true scotsman fallacy.

You have essentially defined government in a manner that makes it's existence mandatory in any group larger than 1 person.

If an individual acts as the head of your household making the final decisions that does not make them a 'government.' To claim so really makes the word meaningless.

No it doesn't

The family is the simplest unit of a society
A Tribe or clan comes next

Society grows exponentially after that......government is in play at all levels

"Government is in play?" He's right, you simply label any grouping of more that one person as "society" and that you claim to be a synonym of "government." Both theories are idiotic.

Government is defined by one thing, and one thing only: the monopoly on the use of force. Anyone who doesn't accept that irrefutable fact is simply too stupid to waste time arguing with.

Show me any credible definition of government as monopoly on the use of force

Why don't you pull up one of your anarchist websites for me?

Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates), is the defining conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.​

 

[rightwinger]

Read the Constitution

We the People created the Government it IS us
No society at any level has ever operated without a government. The simplest tribe had a government

But why do I argue such things with an anarchist?

Same thing as a no true scotsman fallacy.

You have essentially defined government in a manner that makes it's existence mandatory in any group larger than 1 person.

If an individual acts as the head of your household making the final decisions that does not make them a 'government.' To claim so really makes the word meaningless.

No it doesn't

The family is the simplest unit of a society
A Tribe or clan comes next

Society grows exponentially after that......government is in play at all levels

"Government is in play?" He's right, you simply label any grouping of more that one person as "society" and that you claim to be a synonym of "government." Both theories are idiotic.

Government is defined by one thing, and one thing only: the monopoly on the use of force. Anyone who doesn't accept that irrefutable fact is simply too stupid to waste time arguing with.

Show me any credible definition of government as monopoly on the use of force

Why don't you pull up one of your anarchist websites for me?

Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates), is the defining conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.​

On command........he pulls up an anarchist definition of Government

 

[bripat9643]

Same thing as a no true scotsman fallacy.

You have essentially defined government in a manner that makes it's existence mandatory in any group larger than 1 person.

If an individual acts as the head of your household making the final decisions that does not make them a 'government.' To claim so really makes the word meaningless.

No it doesn't

The family is the simplest unit of a society
A Tribe or clan comes next

Society grows exponentially after that......government is in play at all levels

"Government is in play?" He's right, you simply label any grouping of more that one person as "society" and that you claim to be a synonym of "government." Both theories are idiotic.

Government is defined by one thing, and one thing only: the monopoly on the use of force. Anyone who doesn't accept that irrefutable fact is simply too stupid to waste time arguing with.

Show me any credible definition of government as monopoly on the use of force

Why don't you pull up one of your anarchist websites for me?

Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Max Weber - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates), is the defining conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.​

On command........he pulls up an anarchist definition of Government

Max Weber was not an anarchist, you dumbass. He was one of the most famous sociologists of the 20th Century. His politics were decidedly left-wing.

Max Weber - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

After the First World War, Max Weber was among the founders of the liberal German Democratic Party. He also ran unsuccessfully for a seat in parliament and served as advisor to the committee that drafted the ill-fated democratic Weimar Constitution of 1919. After contracting Spanish flu, he died of pneumonia in 1920, aged 56.[4]​

 

[FA_Q2]

Same thing as a no true scotsman fallacy.

You have essentially defined government in a manner that makes it's existence mandatory in any group larger than 1 person.

If an individual acts as the head of your household making the final decisions that does not make them a 'government.' To claim so really makes the word meaningless.

No it doesn't

The family is the simplest unit of a society
A Tribe or clan comes next

Society grows exponentially after that......government is in play at all levels

"Government is in play?" He's right, you simply label any grouping of more that one person as "society" and that you claim to be a synonym of "government." Both theories are idiotic.

Government is defined by one thing, and one thing only: the monopoly on the use of force. Anyone who doesn't accept that irrefutable fact is simply too stupid to waste time arguing with.

Show me any credible definition of government as monopoly on the use of force

Why don't you pull up one of your anarchist websites for me?

Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates), is the defining conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.​

On command........he pulls up an anarchist definition of Government

By reflex, you demand links and then soundly reject them based on worthless conjecture.

 

[PratchettFan]

The myth upon which Libertarianism is based is the same myth as Communism. That is that human beings will step up and do the right thing if only given the chance. It isn't true.

That's not really it. It's more along the lines of "two wrongs don't make a right". We want a government that represents society's morals - that doesn't act immorally in the name of the "good" of society. To put it another way, we don't want government to do anything we wouldn't feel justified in doing personally if it came to that.

The good of society is the primary goal of the Constitution. Morality is entirely subjective and should not even be a factor. Doing unto others is a wonderful sentiment, but I have seen so many things people are willing to do to others that I don't trust the concept much.

What holds us together is the law. Written down for all to see, interpreted and enforced in the light.

Of course. I'm saying nothing different. Except that we shouldn't endorse anything in the name of the law that we wouldn't feel justified doing personally. In other words, if I see someone attacking an old woman to steal her purse, or worse, I'd feel justified - even obligated - to use force if necessary to prevent it. And I'd want the law to do the same. But, even if I might feel personally obligated to help the poor, or the refugees in Iraq, or any other number of noble causes, I wouldn't feel justified in forcing my neighbors to join me. Likewise I don't think it's right for the law to do it on my behalf just because we had a vote.

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

 

[dblack]

The myth upon which Libertarianism is based is the same myth as Communism. That is that human beings will step up and do the right thing if only given the chance. It isn't true.

That's not really it. It's more along the lines of "two wrongs don't make a right". We want a government that represents society's morals - that doesn't act immorally in the name of the "good" of society. To put it another way, we don't want government to do anything we wouldn't feel justified in doing personally if it came to that.

The good of society is the primary goal of the Constitution. Morality is entirely subjective and should not even be a factor. Doing unto others is a wonderful sentiment, but I have seen so many things people are willing to do to others that I don't trust the concept much.

What holds us together is the law. Written down for all to see, interpreted and enforced in the light.

Of course. I'm saying nothing different. Except that we shouldn't endorse anything in the name of the law that we wouldn't feel justified doing personally. In other words, if I see someone attacking an old woman to steal her purse, or worse, I'd feel justified - even obligated - to use force if necessary to prevent it. And I'd want the law to do the same. But, even if I might feel personally obligated to help the poor, or the refugees in Iraq, or any other number of noble causes, I wouldn't feel justified in forcing my neighbors to join me. Likewise I don't think it's right for the law to do it on my behalf just because we had a vote.

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

I don't buy "love it or leave it". Forcing one's will on another is "original sin" in my view. I don't expect other people to follow my orders, nor yours, regardless of whether those orders are supported by a majority. I appreciate that you don't see it this way, but this is the key to understanding libertarianism. It's essentially a qualified pacifism. We'll fight to defend ourselves, but not to bully others for the sake of convenience.

 

[rightwinger]

No it doesn't

The family is the simplest unit of a society
A Tribe or clan comes next

Society grows exponentially after that......government is in play at all levels

"Government is in play?" He's right, you simply label any grouping of more that one person as "society" and that you claim to be a synonym of "government." Both theories are idiotic.

Government is defined by one thing, and one thing only: the monopoly on the use of force. Anyone who doesn't accept that irrefutable fact is simply too stupid to waste time arguing with.

Show me any credible definition of government as monopoly on the use of force

Why don't you pull up one of your anarchist websites for me?

Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Max Weber - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates), is the defining conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.​

On command........he pulls up an anarchist definition of Government

Max Weber was not an anarchist, you dumbass. He was one of the most famous sociologists of the 20th Century. His politics were decidedly left-wing.

Max Weber - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

After the First World War, Max Weber was among the founders of the liberal German Democratic Party. He also ran unsuccessfully for a seat in parliament and served as advisor to the committee that drafted the ill-fated democratic Weimar Constitution of 1919. After contracting Spanish flu, he died of pneumonia in 1920, aged 56.[4]​

Let's see

A German describing government in preNazi Germany.

Yea......I'll stick with anarchy

 

[bripat9643]

No it doesn't

The family is the simplest unit of a society
A Tribe or clan comes next

Society grows exponentially after that......government is in play at all levels

"Government is in play?" He's right, you simply label any grouping of more that one person as "society" and that you claim to be a synonym of "government." Both theories are idiotic.

Government is defined by one thing, and one thing only: the monopoly on the use of force. Anyone who doesn't accept that irrefutable fact is simply too stupid to waste time arguing with.

Show me any credible definition of government as monopoly on the use of force

Why don't you pull up one of your anarchist websites for me?

Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates), is the defining conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.​

On command........he pulls up an anarchist definition of Government

By reflex, you demand links and then soundly reject them based on worthless conjecture.

It doesn't fit the narrative, so it can't be true. See, government is a good thing. It only brings benefits. It could never do wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

"Government is in play?" He's right, you simply label any grouping of more that one person as "society" and that you claim to be a synonym of "government." Both theories are idiotic.

Government is defined by one thing, and one thing only: the monopoly on the use of force. Anyone who doesn't accept that irrefutable fact is simply too stupid to waste time arguing with.

Show me any credible definition of government as monopoly on the use of force

Why don't you pull up one of your anarchist websites for me?

Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Max Weber - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates), is the defining conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.​

On command........he pulls up an anarchist definition of Government

Max Weber was not an anarchist, you dumbass. He was one of the most famous sociologists of the 20th Century. His politics were decidedly left-wing.

Max Weber - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

After the First World War, Max Weber was among the founders of the liberal German Democratic Party. He also ran unsuccessfully for a seat in parliament and served as advisor to the committee that drafted the ill-fated democratic Weimar Constitution of 1919. After contracting Spanish flu, he died of pneumonia in 1920, aged 56.[4]​

Let's see

A German describing government in preNazi Germany.

Yea......I'll stick with anarchy

You are a true moron, you realize, don't you?

 

[PratchettFan]

The myth upon which Libertarianism is based is the same myth as Communism. That is that human beings will step up and do the right thing if only given the chance. It isn't true.

That's not really it. It's more along the lines of "two wrongs don't make a right". We want a government that represents society's morals - that doesn't act immorally in the name of the "good" of society. To put it another way, we don't want government to do anything we wouldn't feel justified in doing personally if it came to that.

The good of society is the primary goal of the Constitution. Morality is entirely subjective and should not even be a factor. Doing unto others is a wonderful sentiment, but I have seen so many things people are willing to do to others that I don't trust the concept much.

What holds us together is the law. Written down for all to see, interpreted and enforced in the light.

Of course. I'm saying nothing different. Except that we shouldn't endorse anything in the name of the law that we wouldn't feel justified doing personally. In other words, if I see someone attacking an old woman to steal her purse, or worse, I'd feel justified - even obligated - to use force if necessary to prevent it. And I'd want the law to do the same. But, even if I might feel personally obligated to help the poor, or the refugees in Iraq, or any other number of noble causes, I wouldn't feel justified in forcing my neighbors to join me. Likewise I don't think it's right for the law to do it on my behalf just because we had a vote.

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

I don't buy "love it or leave it". Forcing one's will on another is "original sin" in my view. I don't expect other people to follow my orders, nor yours, regardless of whether those orders are supported by a majority. I appreciate that you don't see it this way, but this is the key to understanding libertarianism. It's essentially a qualified pacifism. We'll fight to defend ourselves, but not to bully others for the sake of convenience.

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

 

[rightwinger]

Show me any credible definition of government as monopoly on the use of force

Why don't you pull up one of your anarchist websites for me?

Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Max Weber - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates), is the defining conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.​

On command........he pulls up an anarchist definition of Government

Max Weber was not an anarchist, you dumbass. He was one of the most famous sociologists of the 20th Century. His politics were decidedly left-wing.

Max Weber - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

After the First World War, Max Weber was among the founders of the liberal German Democratic Party. He also ran unsuccessfully for a seat in parliament and served as advisor to the committee that drafted the ill-fated democratic Weimar Constitution of 1919. After contracting Spanish flu, he died of pneumonia in 1920, aged 56.[4]​

Let's see

A German describing government in preNazi Germany.

Yea......I'll stick with anarchy

You are a true moron, you realize, don't you?

You are a true moron, you realize, don't you?

I am not



Mother had me tested

 

[Pete7469]

Coming from an anarchist.....I see that is what you believe

Read the Constitution. It starts by declaring that "We the People" are forming a government and how that government will be constituted

Government is formed by a society. It allows that society to function. You can't have one without the other

If "we the people" created government, then "we the people" are separate from government. The two things are not synonymous.

Society does not need government to function. Society existed for 10,000 years before the first government ever formed. The later is a parasite that feeds on and afflicts the former.

Read the Constitution

We the People created the Government it IS us
No society at any level has ever operated without a government. The simplest tribe had a government

But why do I argue such things with an anarchist?

Same thing as a no true scotsman fallacy.

You have essentially defined government in a manner that makes it's existence mandatory in any group larger than 1 person.

If an individual acts as the head of your household making the final decisions that does not make them a 'government.' To claim so really makes the word meaningless.

No it doesn't

The family is the simplest unit of a society
A Tribe or clan comes next

Society grows exponentially after that......government is in play at all levels

"Government is in play?" He's right, you simply label any grouping of more that one person as "society" and that you claim to be a synonym of "government." Both theories are idiotic.

Government is defined by one thing, and one thing only: the monopoly on the use of force. Anyone who doesn't accept that irrefutable fact is simply too stupid to waste time arguing with.

Wrongwinger is one of the stupidest people I've ever come across, right down there with swallow and nycaretard.

 

[Pete7469]

That's not really it. It's more along the lines of "two wrongs don't make a right". We want a government that represents society's morals - that doesn't act immorally in the name of the "good" of society. To put it another way, we don't want government to do anything we wouldn't feel justified in doing personally if it came to that.

The good of society is the primary goal of the Constitution. Morality is entirely subjective and should not even be a factor. Doing unto others is a wonderful sentiment, but I have seen so many things people are willing to do to others that I don't trust the concept much.

What holds us together is the law. Written down for all to see, interpreted and enforced in the light.

Of course. I'm saying nothing different. Except that we shouldn't endorse anything in the name of the law that we wouldn't feel justified doing personally. In other words, if I see someone attacking an old woman to steal her purse, or worse, I'd feel justified - even obligated - to use force if necessary to prevent it. And I'd want the law to do the same. But, even if I might feel personally obligated to help the poor, or the refugees in Iraq, or any other number of noble causes, I wouldn't feel justified in forcing my neighbors to join me. Likewise I don't think it's right for the law to do it on my behalf just because we had a vote.

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

I don't buy "love it or leave it". Forcing one's will on another is "original sin" in my view. I don't expect other people to follow my orders, nor yours, regardless of whether those orders are supported by a majority. I appreciate that you don't see it this way, but this is the key to understanding libertarianism. It's essentially a qualified pacifism. We'll fight to defend ourselves, but not to bully others for the sake of convenience.

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

If you walked into a grocery store and had people shoving "samples" at you all over the place and you decide to eat a few only to get a bill for $25 before you leave and sick when you get home, then you've been shopping at LiberalMart. They let you believe you're getting something for nothing, but you find out otherwise later on.

Regarding the benefits everyone in the country enjoys, like roads, police, fire ETC. No one should have to pay a higher price than anyone else. Give the poor a break? Why? They likely consume most of the resources. There aren't a lot of domestic police calls to Martha's Vineyard, but there's a shit ton in Baltimore. When everyone is paying for these services, they're more likely to pay attention to how those services are used. It would naturally keep the cost of government at bay. In that circumstance I would have no qualms about forcing my neighbor to pay.

 

[PratchettFan]

The good of society is the primary goal of the Constitution. Morality is entirely subjective and should not even be a factor. Doing unto others is a wonderful sentiment, but I have seen so many things people are willing to do to others that I don't trust the concept much.

What holds us together is the law. Written down for all to see, interpreted and enforced in the light.

Of course. I'm saying nothing different. Except that we shouldn't endorse anything in the name of the law that we wouldn't feel justified doing personally. In other words, if I see someone attacking an old woman to steal her purse, or worse, I'd feel justified - even obligated - to use force if necessary to prevent it. And I'd want the law to do the same. But, even if I might feel personally obligated to help the poor, or the refugees in Iraq, or any other number of noble causes, I wouldn't feel justified in forcing my neighbors to join me. Likewise I don't think it's right for the law to do it on my behalf just because we had a vote.

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

I don't buy "love it or leave it". Forcing one's will on another is "original sin" in my view. I don't expect other people to follow my orders, nor yours, regardless of whether those orders are supported by a majority. I appreciate that you don't see it this way, but this is the key to understanding libertarianism. It's essentially a qualified pacifism. We'll fight to defend ourselves, but not to bully others for the sake of convenience.

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

If you walked into a grocery store and had people shoving "samples" at you all over the place and you decide to eat a few only to get a bill for $25 before you leave and sick when you get home, then you've been shopping at LiberalMart. They let you believe you're getting something for nothing, but you find out otherwise later on.

Regarding the benefits everyone in the country enjoys, like roads, police, fire ETC. No one should have to pay a higher price than anyone else. Give the poor a break? Why? They likely consume most of the resources. There aren't a lot of domestic police calls to Martha's Vineyard, but there's a shit ton in Baltimore. When everyone is paying for these services, they're more likely to pay attention to how those services are used. It would naturally keep the cost of government at bay. In that circumstance I would have no qualms about forcing my neighbor to pay.

If you are saying the current system for determining who pays what is flawed, you will get no argument from me. But that is an issue of process, not concept. If you think the store is requiring you to buy jam with every loaf of bread and that isn't right, then you also have a point. But again, that is not about the concept but about the policies of the store. In that case, you work to change the policies or shop at a different store. Or you can decide that you like the store so much that you just accept sometimes you're going to have to buy jam you don't want.