Question for believers: Are we within God's jurisdiction?

[Humorme]

You don't have any idea what you are speaking about. The only historical source for equal rights is the bible. There is no other source. Without Jews and Christians the world where we live in is unthinkable, is even unimaginable.

Slavery was condoned in both the NT and the OT. Women to this day can not become priests. People who don't believe go straight to hell according to it. The only real theocracies today are some of the most unequal societies there are. So pray tell what Bible have you read?

And slavery is still condoned today. If you live in America, then YOU are a slave. And who is advocating for a theocracy?

The premise of the OP. If you give a binary choice between laws written by man and laws written by god, one of the options is a theocracy.

America was founded as a constitutional Republic on Christian principles. The founders rejected the idea of a theocracy.

For the Christian the choice is clear:

If you have to choose between obeying people that expect you to violate the laws of the Bible for their favor, and remaining true to your convictions, that answer is clear for Christians:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5: 29

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" Joshua 24: 15

To my mind, it's quite obvious that Jesus felt no obligation toward government or the religious institutions of his day, and no respect for the actions of bankers and their monetary system. It is not enough to say, "Well, we are obliged to follow man's law if it does not directly contradict God's law." If you acknowledge governmental law as an authority then you don't get to pick and choose, even if it contradicts your morality. The law itself makes no provision for cherry-picking, nor does valid logic. If you retain the right to pick and choose based upon your commitment to God's law, then you definitively do not acknowledge government's claim to authority. That doesn't mean you don't coincidentally obey the law, or that you can't defer to law as a kindness (or an act of self-preservation) in matters where it doesn't contradict God's law; but it does mean that you are making the decisions (informed by God's law), and so do not feel bound by governmental authority. I don't see how this can possibly be denied...

Now, if you assert your natural right to make this choice, should you not afford others the same liberty? Should others not be permitted to choose for themselves to shake off governmental authority in favor of their own morality? If you do not acknowledge government's valid claim to authority over you, why would you support it as a valid authority over me? Why would you cast your vote, effectually saying, "I condone this person's right to make law which others are obliged to obey"? To subject your friends, family and neighbors to a false authority that you don't acknowledge yourself is unfair, unjust, and immoral. How you justify this action?

You should rephrase every sentence in English.

We have unalienable Rights. IF you know someone whose Rights are not being respected, you should state a case for them. Allow me a few examples:

In my lifetime, the government threatened Bob Jones University with a revocation of their tax exempt status for not allowing inter-racial dating on campus. My first thought was I thought there was a separation of church and state. Why do you register a church? Funny how that wall works. What those people believed or didn't believe was not the government's business.

Then there are all those anti-gun laws the government passes when the intent of the Second Amendment was unequivocal. The earliest courts said the Right existed without the Constitution. In other words, it is a God given Right. My God will not allow me to leave my family unprotected. So, when they come for our guns, all of us have a Right and a Duty to resist.

Some people really want to defend the Right to Life. And so that battle rages on. We're told a woman can do to her body what she likes, but what has always confused me is that it is a felony offense to disturb an eagle's egg,

What it sounds to me like, you want this silly and simplistic view that if you don't want to do something, you can use any pretext to avoid complying with the law. That is why you need Newspeak metaphors to avoid the real conversation.

Frederic Bastiat had some thoughts on this:

"We are all making some similar request to the Government; but Government cannot satisfy one party without adding to the labor of the others. Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Every one is, more or less, for profiting by the labors of others. No one would dare to express such a sentiment; he even hides it from himself. A medium is thought of; Government is applied to, and every class in its turn comes and says, "You, who can take justifiably and honestly, take from the public, and we will partake.

... But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism." (you can read his book The Law for free online)

You want a simplistic answer to a complex question. If it were that easy, the founders could have hammered out the Constitution in a couple of hours. I think most of our Rights are identified in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. You might do well to read them. But, on a final note, the United States Supreme Court itself opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.


No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

 

[Brian Blackwell]

One of many examples one could point to , there's how many on death row? Seems we had a commandment around for that

But i digress , that 'hook' i speak of goes a lot deeper...

'Bible' stands for 'many books' in Latin , but there's quite a few that didn't make it to press time, because those council(s) of nicaea politicized it to their liking

And it was all 3rd hand when they got ahold of it

My point is , the 'word of God' has literally gone through the campfire circle of interpreters , ends up in the lap of the modern religious hiearchy , and folks want the gub'mit to enforce it as a moral benchmark.

This is why i claim religion and faith mutually exclusive , if not inversely opposed in this day and age

Yes i have faith

But i'll be dipped in sh*t before i bow down to some GubMit official telling me what God wants me to do

thks for playin!

~S~

Jesus was anti-religion, and anti-state, far as I can tell.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
In Jesus' time the law and the Torah were the same thing, so if Jesus says he's not there to change the law he is neither anti-religion nor anti-law. This assuming of course that Jesus was an actual person, something which is by no means a proven fact.

the 'law' crucified the son of God

So in my view, the 'law' IE- authority, whatever , has zero jurisdiction imposing anything out of the bible, or whatever other celestial document they may choose to foist upon us

and that was exactly the jist our FF's sought to impart, after they departed the theocratic bullsh*t England so proudly insisted on

~S~

It’s also worthy of note that not only was it government that killed Jesus, aided by religious leaders, but that the men who actually performed the dark work were order-followers and law enforcers; the Roman equivilent of police and/or military. This is the recipe for evil in our world: False authority (religion/government) + blind obedience = atrocities against all that is good and righteous. The allegorical wisdom of the scriptures should not be casually dismissed, even by atheists.

There's allegorical wisdom in Aesop's fables, stories my parents told me and even Star Trek. I don't think any of them should be taken as a bases for laws. In fact wouldn't star trek be the better bases since at least the good guys in Star Trek don't on occasion come out with stuff that is simply immoral. If you admit that the Bible is open to interpretation wouldn't it be fair to say that Humanism is a better bases?

There is no "basis" for law in the sense you suggest, there is only law - natural law (which one may call "God's law" if they prefer). To cite a "basis" for law is to imply that man may create law, which he cannot. He can pretend he can, however, and thereby commit an unnatural act of evil by mistaking himself for a God. Man's law must either be in perfect accord with natural law, rendering it redundant and irrelevant, or contrary to natural law, which makes it erroneous and immoral. Much like the laws of physics cataloged by men, there is no other option - they either accurately reflect reality, or they do not.

I agree that allegory should be judged on merit, not source. Humanism is a nebulous term which has taken on a materialist connotation; though in the broad sense, it's quite obviously a beneficial perspective. I do not subscribe to the notion that a body of anecdotal evidence stacked to the moon and back, which hints at some greater intelligent power, should be wholly ignored simply because it doesn't currently correspond with our scientific method of understanding. Call it "God" or whatever you want, but I do believe that some insight into the nature of this "spiritual" force can be revealed through scripture, and innumerable other ways. Though this distinction between material and spiritual, in my opinion, merely describes the limit of our own understanding, not a fundamental difference in the nature of the phenomena.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I understand. The Spooner audiobook is somewhat dry, and written in the style of its day, but it outlines an irrefutable case for the invalidity of the Constitution, in my opinion. I have yet to hear valid refutations, in any case.

The problem with "checks and balances" is that they are all on one side of the table. It's a system of government governing itself. The only really check to government is an armed population with a revolutionary spirit, which is quite a drastic check, but works quite well. Even now in the U.S., though the spirit is largely subdued, the arms remain, and I submit that it's the only thing keeping this ambitious, aggressive government from racing headlong into tyranny. Now, there may be an economic check in the sense that it's more profitable to have a system of free-range debt slavery than one of violent domination, which is a dubious hope, but worthy of consideration.

A breakdown in governmental checks and balances is not an unfortunate happenstance, but an inevitability; because it runs counter to the motivations of ambitious power-mongers. The Constitution has failed because it must fail. Whenever you create a seat of power, gangsters, dominators, and other psychopaths will be first in line to sit upon it. The problem is that most people have a moral compass, and they find it difficult to understand the mindset of people who don't. They keep believing that if we can just get the right people into these positions, everything will be OK. But that can never be, because immoral, deceptive scoundrels will edge those people out every time. It's like hoping for a benevolent dictatorship. Freedom and justice can never be served by establishing an institution inherently defined by violent coercion and an inequality of rights.

I'm not quite there yet. Government is a necessary evil but necessary nonetheless. The problem is not the government per se. The problem is with the people themselves. Not to worry though everything balances out in the end.

The checks are still in place and are still working. We the people are the last check but I doubt it will ever get to that because we the people will be humbled well before then.

You sound reluctantly resigned to the fact that government will lead us to a disastrous end, and though you don’t appear to like it, you see us trapped by necessity. If this is so, that necessity damn well better be ironclad.

I don’t believe that it is. I want to draw a distinction between organization and government. We can have organization without government. Government is the “right” to rule. The only thing differentiating it from a mafia or foreign invader is that people believe it is their duty to obey. They believe their claim to power to be legitimate.

This is helped along by the illusion of the democratic process. It’s amazing how much stock people place in voting, when its child’s play for wealthy, powerful misanthropes to hijack this process. Plus you vote every 2-4 years and have no control in-between. How this satisfies, I have no idea, but when the culture dissuades a recognition of individual self-ownership, I suppose it’s not surprising.

Almost everything is run on a voluntary basis, or has private, voluntary alternatives. Business, research and technology, charity, protection, education... what is that key factor that government brings to the table that you deem so incredibly necessary that it justifies the infringements on personal liberties and hundreds of millions of bloody bodies that it’s wracked up throughout history?

All government does is steal people’s money and redistribute it (after taking a huge amount off the top to pay for politician’s lifestyles, and service the debt to big bankers, and a million other things that don’t benefit the people). They produce nothing, create nothing. They punish bad guys, but we can do that. There are far fewer bad guys than people suppose. Mostly they just get in the way with their prohibitive regulations and notorious inefficiency and wastefulness.

What do you suppose they’re doing that’s so essential?

Not really. I'm resigned that humanity will be unable to break the cycle that has existed since the beginning of humanity.

This is speculative (and dubious, as tribal societies didn't have government, exactly). If you truly believe that government is an evil, should you not at least attempt to break the chains of its bondage while hope remains? You do not know that it can't be done, and this is no time to sit idly by while miscreants take over the world, based upon an unsure opinion.

At the very least, you can be the change you wish to see in the world, and cease your support in whatever way possible. Even just not voting and offering this alternative opinion in conversations would have SOME small effect. Believe me, there's a big difference in people's perception between one person saying something, and two people saying it.

But you have claimed it is a "necessary" evil, despite not making a case for this position by addressing my argument to the contrary (which I find surprising - your short reply suggests perhaps you were too busy, but I would like to hear your thoughts on this necessity). So do you support government or not?

I look to the abolition of slavery for hope. I understand the Civil War and Lincoln's selfish motives, but the cultural mindset was changing, and the small abolitionist movement made great strides toward opening people's eyes. Deeply ingrained institutions CAN be changed. Many things once thought normal and essential are now viewed as archaic and insane. If I could somehow go on record for progeny's viewing, I would assert that the notion of government WILL eventually be viewed in this very same way, be it 50 years from now, or 1,000.

Not only is the saeculum cycle not speculative the basis for why it happens is logically sound. I am afraid we are going to have to suffer before we change our ways. It is no different at the societal level than it is for the personal level.

By inspection any gathering of men necessitates a hierarchy. Yes, I support a hierarchy because the alternative is anarchy and they always end in totalitarianism.

The founding fathers believed that slavery was against the law of nature, were unable to end it at the time of founding but took steps towards it's end. That changed in the 1820's when Democrats took control of the government in the 1820's and reversed the efforts of the Founding Fathers. So how does that knowledge change your beliefs?

Because it fits perfectly with mine.

Hierarchy does not imply authoritarianism. A group of men building a house would do well to voluntarily defer to the most experienced person, and they almost always do. They may organize, with some people managing the efforts of others, but this is not government. Government is the right (not just the ability) to rule (not just lead). I also support hierarchy in this context, and hierarchy is not mutually exclusive with anarchy.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers", and cannot, under any circumstances, create totalitarianism. Totalitarianism can only arise where anarchy is abandoned.

American slavery is a topic of personal interest, and I am fairly familiar with its history; though I don't know what relevancy your statement has to the discussion. I admit that I am simply missing your point, not suggesting that your point is not relevant.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. We will probably have to pass through the "Ring of Fire" to burn away these evils, but my hope is that it can be averted through a rise in the cultural consciousness. People already know what they need to know on some level. The overwhelming majority of people do not commit acts of violent aggression toward others; though they have been indoctrinated into believing that it's OK to do so if done by proxy. They believe that the immorality is cleansed via the ritual of governmental process. So a person who would never beat down your door and drag you to a cage for growing pot in your backyard, will vote for someone else to do it with an undeserved clean conscience.

If we can just make them see the cognitive dissonance in simultaneously believing contradictory ideas - that it's wrong for them to do something personally, but right to ask someone else to do it - they will snap out of it, as I did, and stop supporting this institution of inherent immorality. In their private lives they understand their own self-ownership, and respect that of others, but there is a purposefully-imposed blind spot when it comes to government. There need not be a revolution if people will recognize this blind spot; for the moment it is recognized, it is obliterated.

Police and military, in particular, must recognize this to avoid revolution, as they are the ones who will cause the bloodshed that is otherwise destined to come. Politicians, bankers, and old-money capitalists are powerless to assert their will without the aid of the mindless servants who abandon all conscience and reason to become order-followers. This is the greatest evil, and no self-respecting person who understands self-ownership could ever act in this capacity. We should not "support our troops" regardless of what they do; we should denounce their blind obedience, and support their enlightenment by explaining why it's wrong. Our job is to make it culturally taboo to accept such positions, so these otherwise brave, well-intentioned individuals are on the side of justice and freedom. Hard work, but absolutely essential to the future of humanity, and we need only do our own little part, wherever opportunity arises.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

... What does the Bible day [=say] about abortion ... ?

"You shall not kill"

Actually, the translation got it wrong with that one. If you translate what it originally said in Hebrew (original language of the Bible), then you would know that the command isn't "thou shalt not kill" but rather "thou shalt not MURDER".

Translating something from Hebrew to Greek, then to Roman and finally English, you lose something about the original meaning.

What is the defining characteristic of “murder”?

It's when the guy wearing the Halloween costume with more sparkly metal/plastic thingies than yours says: " kill those fuckers" and you scream YES SIR, and simply(simpleton) do it.
That would be murder.
Finding an ape on top of your daughter in the garage or crawling out ta window with the family TV set and blowing it's brains all over the wall would be called. " good parenting". //" I killed the piece of shit".Therein lies the difference

Yeah, that about covers it.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Slavery was condoned in both the NT and the OT. Women to this day can not become priests. People who don't believe go straight to hell according to it. The only real theocracies today are some of the most unequal societies there are. So pray tell what Bible have you read?

And slavery is still condoned today. If you live in America, then YOU are a slave. And who is advocating for a theocracy?

The premise of the OP. If you give a binary choice between laws written by man and laws written by god, one of the options is a theocracy.

America was founded as a constitutional Republic on Christian principles. The founders rejected the idea of a theocracy.

For the Christian the choice is clear:

If you have to choose between obeying people that expect you to violate the laws of the Bible for their favor, and remaining true to your convictions, that answer is clear for Christians:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5: 29

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" Joshua 24: 15

To my mind, it's quite obvious that Jesus felt no obligation toward government or the religious institutions of his day, and no respect for the actions of bankers and their monetary system. It is not enough to say, "Well, we are obliged to follow man's law if it does not directly contradict God's law." If you acknowledge governmental law as an authority then you don't get to pick and choose, even if it contradicts your morality. The law itself makes no provision for cherry-picking, nor does valid logic. If you retain the right to pick and choose based upon your commitment to God's law, then you definitively do not acknowledge government's claim to authority. That doesn't mean you don't coincidentally obey the law, or that you can't defer to law as a kindness (or an act of self-preservation) in matters where it doesn't contradict God's law; but it does mean that you are making the decisions (informed by God's law), and so do not feel bound by governmental authority. I don't see how this can possibly be denied...

Now, if you assert your natural right to make this choice, should you not afford others the same liberty? Should others not be permitted to choose for themselves to shake off governmental authority in favor of their own morality? If you do not acknowledge government's valid claim to authority over you, why would you support it as a valid authority over me? Why would you cast your vote, effectually saying, "I condone this person's right to make law which others are obliged to obey"? To subject your friends, family and neighbors to a false authority that you don't acknowledge yourself is unfair, unjust, and immoral. How you justify this action?

You should rephrase every sentence in English.

We have unalienable Rights. IF you know someone whose Rights are not being respected, you should state a case for them. Allow me a few examples:

In my lifetime, the government threatened Bob Jones University with a revocation of their tax exempt status for not allowing inter-racial dating on campus. My first thought was I thought there was a separation of church and state. Why do you register a church? Funny how that wall works. What those people believed or didn't believe was not the government's business.

Then there are all those anti-gun laws the government passes when the intent of the Second Amendment was unequivocal. The earliest courts said the Right existed without the Constitution. In other words, it is a God given Right. My God will not allow me to leave my family unprotected. So, when they come for our guns, all of us have a Right and a Duty to resist.

Some people really want to defend the Right to Life. And so that battle rages on. We're told a woman can do to her body what she likes, but what has always confused me is that it is a felony offense to disturb an eagle's egg,

What it sounds to me like, you want this silly and simplistic view that if you don't want to do something, you can use any pretext to avoid complying with the law. That is why you need Newspeak metaphors to avoid the real conversation.

Frederic Bastiat had some thoughts on this:

"We are all making some similar request to the Government; but Government cannot satisfy one party without adding to the labor of the others. Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Every one is, more or less, for profiting by the labors of others. No one would dare to express such a sentiment; he even hides it from himself. A medium is thought of; Government is applied to, and every class in its turn comes and says, "You, who can take justifiably and honestly, take from the public, and we will partake.

... But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism." (you can read his book The Law for free online)

You want a simplistic answer to a complex question. If it were that easy, the founders could have hammered out the Constitution in a couple of hours. I think most of our Rights are identified in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. You might do well to read them. But, on a final note, the United States Supreme Court itself opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.


No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

How do you read that passage by Bastiat and still support government taxation of any kind? You believe in individual liberty, and we are largely in agreement on everything, but here is the key difference... You permit an exemption to all you believe when it comes to what you perceive as the valid law of this land.

The Constitution is said to be based on natural law, and it is, in the same way a Hollywood film is based on a true story. How on earth do we get "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes" from natural law? That is an inequality of rights. That is an exemption from morality. I don't care how those people get into Congress, even if every single person agrees they should be there, they do not have the right to claim a percentage of anyone's labor under threat of violence. They can ask for it, and make their case, but they cannot punish anyone for anything other than what natural law permits - acts of aggressive force or fraud, etc.

By establishing a governmental authority of any kind, we have diverged from natural law. Any organizational body that acts exclusively to defend natural law rights is not a government. Government is the right to rule, no matter how limited the capacity. This is immoral. You have ONE right as it regards limiting another's freedom - the right to stop them from infringing upon the rights of others. This is the right to DEFEND. That is the only right you have in this regard, and it is the only right of this nature that you can delegate to anyone else. You cannot validly and morally delegate the right to tax, or to control in any other capacity. This obviates the possibility of moral government, period. You can be moral, or you can support government, but not both.

That is natural law freedom. You either understand this, or you are on the same boat as the socialist, even if sitting on opposite sides.

 

[Humorme]

And slavery is still condoned today. If you live in America, then YOU are a slave. And who is advocating for a theocracy?

The premise of the OP. If you give a binary choice between laws written by man and laws written by god, one of the options is a theocracy.

America was founded as a constitutional Republic on Christian principles. The founders rejected the idea of a theocracy.

For the Christian the choice is clear:

If you have to choose between obeying people that expect you to violate the laws of the Bible for their favor, and remaining true to your convictions, that answer is clear for Christians:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5: 29

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" Joshua 24: 15

To my mind, it's quite obvious that Jesus felt no obligation toward government or the religious institutions of his day, and no respect for the actions of bankers and their monetary system. It is not enough to say, "Well, we are obliged to follow man's law if it does not directly contradict God's law." If you acknowledge governmental law as an authority then you don't get to pick and choose, even if it contradicts your morality. The law itself makes no provision for cherry-picking, nor does valid logic. If you retain the right to pick and choose based upon your commitment to God's law, then you definitively do not acknowledge government's claim to authority. That doesn't mean you don't coincidentally obey the law, or that you can't defer to law as a kindness (or an act of self-preservation) in matters where it doesn't contradict God's law; but it does mean that you are making the decisions (informed by God's law), and so do not feel bound by governmental authority. I don't see how this can possibly be denied...

Now, if you assert your natural right to make this choice, should you not afford others the same liberty? Should others not be permitted to choose for themselves to shake off governmental authority in favor of their own morality? If you do not acknowledge government's valid claim to authority over you, why would you support it as a valid authority over me? Why would you cast your vote, effectually saying, "I condone this person's right to make law which others are obliged to obey"? To subject your friends, family and neighbors to a false authority that you don't acknowledge yourself is unfair, unjust, and immoral. How you justify this action?

You should rephrase every sentence in English.

We have unalienable Rights. IF you know someone whose Rights are not being respected, you should state a case for them. Allow me a few examples:

In my lifetime, the government threatened Bob Jones University with a revocation of their tax exempt status for not allowing inter-racial dating on campus. My first thought was I thought there was a separation of church and state. Why do you register a church? Funny how that wall works. What those people believed or didn't believe was not the government's business.

Then there are all those anti-gun laws the government passes when the intent of the Second Amendment was unequivocal. The earliest courts said the Right existed without the Constitution. In other words, it is a God given Right. My God will not allow me to leave my family unprotected. So, when they come for our guns, all of us have a Right and a Duty to resist.

Some people really want to defend the Right to Life. And so that battle rages on. We're told a woman can do to her body what she likes, but what has always confused me is that it is a felony offense to disturb an eagle's egg,

What it sounds to me like, you want this silly and simplistic view that if you don't want to do something, you can use any pretext to avoid complying with the law. That is why you need Newspeak metaphors to avoid the real conversation.

Frederic Bastiat had some thoughts on this:

"We are all making some similar request to the Government; but Government cannot satisfy one party without adding to the labor of the others. Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Every one is, more or less, for profiting by the labors of others. No one would dare to express such a sentiment; he even hides it from himself. A medium is thought of; Government is applied to, and every class in its turn comes and says, "You, who can take justifiably and honestly, take from the public, and we will partake.

... But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism." (you can read his book The Law for free online)

You want a simplistic answer to a complex question. If it were that easy, the founders could have hammered out the Constitution in a couple of hours. I think most of our Rights are identified in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. You might do well to read them. But, on a final note, the United States Supreme Court itself opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.


No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

How do you read that passage by Bastiat and still support government taxation of any kind? You believe in individual liberty, and we are largely in agreement on everything, but here is the key difference... You permit an exemption to all you believe when it comes to what you perceive as the valid law of this land.

The Constitution is said to be based on natural law, and it is, in the same way a Hollywood film is based on a true story. How on earth do we get "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes" from natural law? That is an inequality of rights. That is an exemption from morality. I don't care how those people get into Congress, even if every single person agrees they should be there, they do not have the right to claim a percentage of anyone's labor under threat of violence. They can ask for it, and make their case, but they cannot punish anyone for anything other than what natural law permits - acts of aggressive force or fraud, etc.

By establishing a governmental authority of any kind, we have diverged from natural law. Any organizational body that acts exclusively to defend natural law rights is not a government. Government is the right to rule, no matter how limited the capacity. This is immoral. You have ONE right as it regards limiting another's freedom - the right to stop them from infringing upon the rights of others. This is the right to DEFEND. That is the only right you have in this regard, and it is the only right of this nature that you can delegate to anyone else. You cannot validly and morally delegate the right to tax, or to control in any other capacity. This obviates the possibility of moral government, period. You can be moral, or you can support government, but not both.

That is natural law freedom. You either understand this, or you are on the same boat as the socialist, even if sitting on opposite sides.

Look Dude, let me make this clear to you:

It's become obvious to me that you draw conclusions without all the facts. Let's talk taxes.

For 25 years I held public meetings wherein we fought against unconstitutional taxes. So impressed by our success, my own U.S. Congressman introduced legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment and get rid of income taxes. In our constitutional / de jure / lawful Republic, the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified.

STUPID people who have no tolerance for foreigners made much ado for the perceived "need" to get rid of those foreigners, supported bad legislation requiring the Socialist Surveillance Number - ooops, "Social Security Number" as your unique identifying number (sic) and so Socialist Security was saved by the people on the political right via the National ID / REAL ID Act.

BEFORE National ID, patriots had figured out legal ways to rescind the SSN and keep their hard earned wages. The anti-immigrant hoopla diverted attention from this effort, but the 16th Amendment was unconstitutionally ratified and the income tax is illegal / immoral / unconstitutional / indefensible / unnecessary and a cancer on a free nation.

Currently we have two basic governments in the United States. The first is the lawful / constitutional / de jure Republic governed by the people via the United States Constitution

The other government is an illegal / immoral / de facto government. It is a Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations.

I cannot alter the fact that an illegal government has control of my country. Having spent years fighting the socialists, it was a disgrace and an embarrassment to me for having spent all those years fighting socialism and communism only to lose those who supporedt the effort for so many years to jump onto the socialist bandwagon for the promise that the government was going to save people from their own stupidity by deporting foreigners at a cost to our freedom and Liberty.

You're preaching to wrong man.

 

[ding]

I'm not quite there yet. Government is a necessary evil but necessary nonetheless. The problem is not the government per se. The problem is with the people themselves. Not to worry though everything balances out in the end.

The checks are still in place and are still working. We the people are the last check but I doubt it will ever get to that because we the people will be humbled well before then.

You sound reluctantly resigned to the fact that government will lead us to a disastrous end, and though you don’t appear to like it, you see us trapped by necessity. If this is so, that necessity damn well better be ironclad.

I don’t believe that it is. I want to draw a distinction between organization and government. We can have organization without government. Government is the “right” to rule. The only thing differentiating it from a mafia or foreign invader is that people believe it is their duty to obey. They believe their claim to power to be legitimate.

This is helped along by the illusion of the democratic process. It’s amazing how much stock people place in voting, when its child’s play for wealthy, powerful misanthropes to hijack this process. Plus you vote every 2-4 years and have no control in-between. How this satisfies, I have no idea, but when the culture dissuades a recognition of individual self-ownership, I suppose it’s not surprising.

Almost everything is run on a voluntary basis, or has private, voluntary alternatives. Business, research and technology, charity, protection, education... what is that key factor that government brings to the table that you deem so incredibly necessary that it justifies the infringements on personal liberties and hundreds of millions of bloody bodies that it’s wracked up throughout history?

All government does is steal people’s money and redistribute it (after taking a huge amount off the top to pay for politician’s lifestyles, and service the debt to big bankers, and a million other things that don’t benefit the people). They produce nothing, create nothing. They punish bad guys, but we can do that. There are far fewer bad guys than people suppose. Mostly they just get in the way with their prohibitive regulations and notorious inefficiency and wastefulness.

What do you suppose they’re doing that’s so essential?

Not really. I'm resigned that humanity will be unable to break the cycle that has existed since the beginning of humanity.

This is speculative (and dubious, as tribal societies didn't have government, exactly). If you truly believe that government is an evil, should you not at least attempt to break the chains of its bondage while hope remains? You do not know that it can't be done, and this is no time to sit idly by while miscreants take over the world, based upon an unsure opinion.

At the very least, you can be the change you wish to see in the world, and cease your support in whatever way possible. Even just not voting and offering this alternative opinion in conversations would have SOME small effect. Believe me, there's a big difference in people's perception between one person saying something, and two people saying it.

But you have claimed it is a "necessary" evil, despite not making a case for this position by addressing my argument to the contrary (which I find surprising - your short reply suggests perhaps you were too busy, but I would like to hear your thoughts on this necessity). So do you support government or not?

I look to the abolition of slavery for hope. I understand the Civil War and Lincoln's selfish motives, but the cultural mindset was changing, and the small abolitionist movement made great strides toward opening people's eyes. Deeply ingrained institutions CAN be changed. Many things once thought normal and essential are now viewed as archaic and insane. If I could somehow go on record for progeny's viewing, I would assert that the notion of government WILL eventually be viewed in this very same way, be it 50 years from now, or 1,000.

Not only is the saeculum cycle not speculative the basis for why it happens is logically sound. I am afraid we are going to have to suffer before we change our ways. It is no different at the societal level than it is for the personal level.

By inspection any gathering of men necessitates a hierarchy. Yes, I support a hierarchy because the alternative is anarchy and they always end in totalitarianism.

The founding fathers believed that slavery was against the law of nature, were unable to end it at the time of founding but took steps towards it's end. That changed in the 1820's when Democrats took control of the government in the 1820's and reversed the efforts of the Founding Fathers. So how does that knowledge change your beliefs?

Because it fits perfectly with mine.

Hierarchy does not imply authoritarianism. A group of men building a house would do well to voluntarily defer to the most experienced person, and they almost always do. They may organize, with some people managing the efforts of others, but this is not government. Government is the right (not just the ability) to rule (not just lead). I also support hierarchy in this context, and hierarchy is not mutually exclusive with anarchy.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers", and cannot, under any circumstances, create totalitarianism. Totalitarianism can only arise where anarchy is abandoned.

American slavery is a topic of personal interest, and I am fairly familiar with its history; though I don't know what relevancy your statement has to the discussion. I admit that I am simply missing your point, not suggesting that your point is not relevant.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. We will probably have to pass through the "Ring of Fire" to burn away these evils, but my hope is that it can be averted through a rise in the cultural consciousness. People already know what they need to know on some level. The overwhelming majority of people do not commit acts of violent aggression toward others; though they have been indoctrinated into believing that it's OK to do so if done by proxy. They believe that the immorality is cleansed via the ritual of governmental process. So a person who would never beat down your door and drag you to a cage for growing pot in your backyard, will vote for someone else to do it with an undeserved clean conscience.

If we can just make them see the cognitive dissonance in simultaneously believing contradictory ideas - that it's wrong for them to do something personally, but right to ask someone else to do it - they will snap out of it, as I did, and stop supporting this institution of inherent immorality. In their private lives they understand their own self-ownership, and respect that of others, but there is a purposefully-imposed blind spot when it comes to government. There need not be a revolution if people will recognize this blind spot; for the moment it is recognized, it is obliterated.

Police and military, in particular, must recognize this to avoid revolution, as they are the ones who will cause the bloodshed that is otherwise destined to come. Politicians, bankers, and old-money capitalists are powerless to assert their will without the aid of the mindless servants who abandon all conscience and reason to become order-followers. This is the greatest evil, and no self-respecting person who understands self-ownership could ever act in this capacity. We should not "support our troops" regardless of what they do; we should denounce their blind obedience, and support their enlightenment by explaining why it's wrong. Our job is to make it culturally taboo to accept such positions, so these otherwise brave, well-intentioned individuals are on the side of justice and freedom. Hard work, but absolutely essential to the future of humanity, and we need only do our own little part, wherever opportunity arises.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The premise of the OP. If you give a binary choice between laws written by man and laws written by god, one of the options is a theocracy.

America was founded as a constitutional Republic on Christian principles. The founders rejected the idea of a theocracy.

For the Christian the choice is clear:

If you have to choose between obeying people that expect you to violate the laws of the Bible for their favor, and remaining true to your convictions, that answer is clear for Christians:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5: 29

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" Joshua 24: 15

To my mind, it's quite obvious that Jesus felt no obligation toward government or the religious institutions of his day, and no respect for the actions of bankers and their monetary system. It is not enough to say, "Well, we are obliged to follow man's law if it does not directly contradict God's law." If you acknowledge governmental law as an authority then you don't get to pick and choose, even if it contradicts your morality. The law itself makes no provision for cherry-picking, nor does valid logic. If you retain the right to pick and choose based upon your commitment to God's law, then you definitively do not acknowledge government's claim to authority. That doesn't mean you don't coincidentally obey the law, or that you can't defer to law as a kindness (or an act of self-preservation) in matters where it doesn't contradict God's law; but it does mean that you are making the decisions (informed by God's law), and so do not feel bound by governmental authority. I don't see how this can possibly be denied...

Now, if you assert your natural right to make this choice, should you not afford others the same liberty? Should others not be permitted to choose for themselves to shake off governmental authority in favor of their own morality? If you do not acknowledge government's valid claim to authority over you, why would you support it as a valid authority over me? Why would you cast your vote, effectually saying, "I condone this person's right to make law which others are obliged to obey"? To subject your friends, family and neighbors to a false authority that you don't acknowledge yourself is unfair, unjust, and immoral. How you justify this action?

You should rephrase every sentence in English.

We have unalienable Rights. IF you know someone whose Rights are not being respected, you should state a case for them. Allow me a few examples:

In my lifetime, the government threatened Bob Jones University with a revocation of their tax exempt status for not allowing inter-racial dating on campus. My first thought was I thought there was a separation of church and state. Why do you register a church? Funny how that wall works. What those people believed or didn't believe was not the government's business.

Then there are all those anti-gun laws the government passes when the intent of the Second Amendment was unequivocal. The earliest courts said the Right existed without the Constitution. In other words, it is a God given Right. My God will not allow me to leave my family unprotected. So, when they come for our guns, all of us have a Right and a Duty to resist.

Some people really want to defend the Right to Life. And so that battle rages on. We're told a woman can do to her body what she likes, but what has always confused me is that it is a felony offense to disturb an eagle's egg,

What it sounds to me like, you want this silly and simplistic view that if you don't want to do something, you can use any pretext to avoid complying with the law. That is why you need Newspeak metaphors to avoid the real conversation.

Frederic Bastiat had some thoughts on this:

"We are all making some similar request to the Government; but Government cannot satisfy one party without adding to the labor of the others. Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Every one is, more or less, for profiting by the labors of others. No one would dare to express such a sentiment; he even hides it from himself. A medium is thought of; Government is applied to, and every class in its turn comes and says, "You, who can take justifiably and honestly, take from the public, and we will partake.

... But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism." (you can read his book The Law for free online)

You want a simplistic answer to a complex question. If it were that easy, the founders could have hammered out the Constitution in a couple of hours. I think most of our Rights are identified in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. You might do well to read them. But, on a final note, the United States Supreme Court itself opined:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.


No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

How do you read that passage by Bastiat and still support government taxation of any kind? You believe in individual liberty, and we are largely in agreement on everything, but here is the key difference... You permit an exemption to all you believe when it comes to what you perceive as the valid law of this land.

The Constitution is said to be based on natural law, and it is, in the same way a Hollywood film is based on a true story. How on earth do we get "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes" from natural law? That is an inequality of rights. That is an exemption from morality. I don't care how those people get into Congress, even if every single person agrees they should be there, they do not have the right to claim a percentage of anyone's labor under threat of violence. They can ask for it, and make their case, but they cannot punish anyone for anything other than what natural law permits - acts of aggressive force or fraud, etc.

By establishing a governmental authority of any kind, we have diverged from natural law. Any organizational body that acts exclusively to defend natural law rights is not a government. Government is the right to rule, no matter how limited the capacity. This is immoral. You have ONE right as it regards limiting another's freedom - the right to stop them from infringing upon the rights of others. This is the right to DEFEND. That is the only right you have in this regard, and it is the only right of this nature that you can delegate to anyone else. You cannot validly and morally delegate the right to tax, or to control in any other capacity. This obviates the possibility of moral government, period. You can be moral, or you can support government, but not both.

That is natural law freedom. You either understand this, or you are on the same boat as the socialist, even if sitting on opposite sides.

Look Dude, let me make this clear to you:

It's become obvious to me that you draw conclusions without all the facts. Let's talk taxes.

For 25 years I held public meetings wherein we fought against unconstitutional taxes. So impressed by our success, my own U.S. Congressman introduced legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment and get rid of income taxes. In our constitutional / de jure / lawful Republic, the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified.

STUPID people who have no tolerance for foreigners made much ado for the perceived "need" to get rid of those foreigners, supported bad legislation requiring the Socialist Surveillance Number - ooops, "Social Security Number" as your unique identifying number (sic) and so Socialist Security was saved by the people on the political right via the National ID / REAL ID Act.

BEFORE National ID, patriots had figured out legal ways to rescind the SSN and keep their hard earned wages. The anti-immigrant hoopla diverted attention from this effort, but the 16th Amendment was unconstitutionally ratified and the income tax is illegal / immoral / unconstitutional / indefensible / unnecessary and a cancer on a free nation.

Currently we have two basic governments in the United States. The first is the lawful / constitutional / de jure Republic governed by the people via the United States Constitution

The other government is an illegal / immoral / de facto government. It is a Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations.

I cannot alter the fact that an illegal government has control of my country. Having spent years fighting the socialists, it was a disgrace and an embarrassment to me for having spent all those years fighting socialism and communism only to lose those who supporedt the effort for so many years to jump onto the socialist bandwagon for the promise that the government was going to save people from their own stupidity by deporting foreigners at a cost to our freedom and Liberty.

You're preaching to wrong man.

It sounds like you fought a good fight. I’m not calling you a socialist by any means, but I’m talking on the level of principle. By what authority does government have any right to govern? Their very existence is a violation of natural law freedom. And if they ONLY defend natural law freedom, they are no longer government, because they hold no authority above and beyond that of any individual.

Everyone on the political spectrum from left to right fails to understand or respect this fundamental truth. Freedom does not have degrees, only slavery does.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You sound reluctantly resigned to the fact that government will lead us to a disastrous end, and though you don’t appear to like it, you see us trapped by necessity. If this is so, that necessity damn well better be ironclad.

I don’t believe that it is. I want to draw a distinction between organization and government. We can have organization without government. Government is the “right” to rule. The only thing differentiating it from a mafia or foreign invader is that people believe it is their duty to obey. They believe their claim to power to be legitimate.

This is helped along by the illusion of the democratic process. It’s amazing how much stock people place in voting, when its child’s play for wealthy, powerful misanthropes to hijack this process. Plus you vote every 2-4 years and have no control in-between. How this satisfies, I have no idea, but when the culture dissuades a recognition of individual self-ownership, I suppose it’s not surprising.

Almost everything is run on a voluntary basis, or has private, voluntary alternatives. Business, research and technology, charity, protection, education... what is that key factor that government brings to the table that you deem so incredibly necessary that it justifies the infringements on personal liberties and hundreds of millions of bloody bodies that it’s wracked up throughout history?

All government does is steal people’s money and redistribute it (after taking a huge amount off the top to pay for politician’s lifestyles, and service the debt to big bankers, and a million other things that don’t benefit the people). They produce nothing, create nothing. They punish bad guys, but we can do that. There are far fewer bad guys than people suppose. Mostly they just get in the way with their prohibitive regulations and notorious inefficiency and wastefulness.

What do you suppose they’re doing that’s so essential?

Not really. I'm resigned that humanity will be unable to break the cycle that has existed since the beginning of humanity.

This is speculative (and dubious, as tribal societies didn't have government, exactly). If you truly believe that government is an evil, should you not at least attempt to break the chains of its bondage while hope remains? You do not know that it can't be done, and this is no time to sit idly by while miscreants take over the world, based upon an unsure opinion.

At the very least, you can be the change you wish to see in the world, and cease your support in whatever way possible. Even just not voting and offering this alternative opinion in conversations would have SOME small effect. Believe me, there's a big difference in people's perception between one person saying something, and two people saying it.

But you have claimed it is a "necessary" evil, despite not making a case for this position by addressing my argument to the contrary (which I find surprising - your short reply suggests perhaps you were too busy, but I would like to hear your thoughts on this necessity). So do you support government or not?

I look to the abolition of slavery for hope. I understand the Civil War and Lincoln's selfish motives, but the cultural mindset was changing, and the small abolitionist movement made great strides toward opening people's eyes. Deeply ingrained institutions CAN be changed. Many things once thought normal and essential are now viewed as archaic and insane. If I could somehow go on record for progeny's viewing, I would assert that the notion of government WILL eventually be viewed in this very same way, be it 50 years from now, or 1,000.

Not only is the saeculum cycle not speculative the basis for why it happens is logically sound. I am afraid we are going to have to suffer before we change our ways. It is no different at the societal level than it is for the personal level.

By inspection any gathering of men necessitates a hierarchy. Yes, I support a hierarchy because the alternative is anarchy and they always end in totalitarianism.

The founding fathers believed that slavery was against the law of nature, were unable to end it at the time of founding but took steps towards it's end. That changed in the 1820's when Democrats took control of the government in the 1820's and reversed the efforts of the Founding Fathers. So how does that knowledge change your beliefs?

Because it fits perfectly with mine.

Hierarchy does not imply authoritarianism. A group of men building a house would do well to voluntarily defer to the most experienced person, and they almost always do. They may organize, with some people managing the efforts of others, but this is not government. Government is the right (not just the ability) to rule (not just lead). I also support hierarchy in this context, and hierarchy is not mutually exclusive with anarchy.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers", and cannot, under any circumstances, create totalitarianism. Totalitarianism can only arise where anarchy is abandoned.

American slavery is a topic of personal interest, and I am fairly familiar with its history; though I don't know what relevancy your statement has to the discussion. I admit that I am simply missing your point, not suggesting that your point is not relevant.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. We will probably have to pass through the "Ring of Fire" to burn away these evils, but my hope is that it can be averted through a rise in the cultural consciousness. People already know what they need to know on some level. The overwhelming majority of people do not commit acts of violent aggression toward others; though they have been indoctrinated into believing that it's OK to do so if done by proxy. They believe that the immorality is cleansed via the ritual of governmental process. So a person who would never beat down your door and drag you to a cage for growing pot in your backyard, will vote for someone else to do it with an undeserved clean conscience.

If we can just make them see the cognitive dissonance in simultaneously believing contradictory ideas - that it's wrong for them to do something personally, but right to ask someone else to do it - they will snap out of it, as I did, and stop supporting this institution of inherent immorality. In their private lives they understand their own self-ownership, and respect that of others, but there is a purposefully-imposed blind spot when it comes to government. There need not be a revolution if people will recognize this blind spot; for the moment it is recognized, it is obliterated.

Police and military, in particular, must recognize this to avoid revolution, as they are the ones who will cause the bloodshed that is otherwise destined to come. Politicians, bankers, and old-money capitalists are powerless to assert their will without the aid of the mindless servants who abandon all conscience and reason to become order-followers. This is the greatest evil, and no self-respecting person who understands self-ownership could ever act in this capacity. We should not "support our troops" regardless of what they do; we should denounce their blind obedience, and support their enlightenment by explaining why it's wrong. Our job is to make it culturally taboo to accept such positions, so these otherwise brave, well-intentioned individuals are on the side of justice and freedom. Hard work, but absolutely essential to the future of humanity, and we need only do our own little part, wherever opportunity arises.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.

So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.

Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).

If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.

To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?

It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?

 

[ding]

Not really. I'm resigned that humanity will be unable to break the cycle that has existed since the beginning of humanity.

This is speculative (and dubious, as tribal societies didn't have government, exactly). If you truly believe that government is an evil, should you not at least attempt to break the chains of its bondage while hope remains? You do not know that it can't be done, and this is no time to sit idly by while miscreants take over the world, based upon an unsure opinion.

At the very least, you can be the change you wish to see in the world, and cease your support in whatever way possible. Even just not voting and offering this alternative opinion in conversations would have SOME small effect. Believe me, there's a big difference in people's perception between one person saying something, and two people saying it.

But you have claimed it is a "necessary" evil, despite not making a case for this position by addressing my argument to the contrary (which I find surprising - your short reply suggests perhaps you were too busy, but I would like to hear your thoughts on this necessity). So do you support government or not?

I look to the abolition of slavery for hope. I understand the Civil War and Lincoln's selfish motives, but the cultural mindset was changing, and the small abolitionist movement made great strides toward opening people's eyes. Deeply ingrained institutions CAN be changed. Many things once thought normal and essential are now viewed as archaic and insane. If I could somehow go on record for progeny's viewing, I would assert that the notion of government WILL eventually be viewed in this very same way, be it 50 years from now, or 1,000.

Not only is the saeculum cycle not speculative the basis for why it happens is logically sound. I am afraid we are going to have to suffer before we change our ways. It is no different at the societal level than it is for the personal level.

By inspection any gathering of men necessitates a hierarchy. Yes, I support a hierarchy because the alternative is anarchy and they always end in totalitarianism.

The founding fathers believed that slavery was against the law of nature, were unable to end it at the time of founding but took steps towards it's end. That changed in the 1820's when Democrats took control of the government in the 1820's and reversed the efforts of the Founding Fathers. So how does that knowledge change your beliefs?

Because it fits perfectly with mine.

Hierarchy does not imply authoritarianism. A group of men building a house would do well to voluntarily defer to the most experienced person, and they almost always do. They may organize, with some people managing the efforts of others, but this is not government. Government is the right (not just the ability) to rule (not just lead). I also support hierarchy in this context, and hierarchy is not mutually exclusive with anarchy.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers", and cannot, under any circumstances, create totalitarianism. Totalitarianism can only arise where anarchy is abandoned.

American slavery is a topic of personal interest, and I am fairly familiar with its history; though I don't know what relevancy your statement has to the discussion. I admit that I am simply missing your point, not suggesting that your point is not relevant.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. We will probably have to pass through the "Ring of Fire" to burn away these evils, but my hope is that it can be averted through a rise in the cultural consciousness. People already know what they need to know on some level. The overwhelming majority of people do not commit acts of violent aggression toward others; though they have been indoctrinated into believing that it's OK to do so if done by proxy. They believe that the immorality is cleansed via the ritual of governmental process. So a person who would never beat down your door and drag you to a cage for growing pot in your backyard, will vote for someone else to do it with an undeserved clean conscience.

If we can just make them see the cognitive dissonance in simultaneously believing contradictory ideas - that it's wrong for them to do something personally, but right to ask someone else to do it - they will snap out of it, as I did, and stop supporting this institution of inherent immorality. In their private lives they understand their own self-ownership, and respect that of others, but there is a purposefully-imposed blind spot when it comes to government. There need not be a revolution if people will recognize this blind spot; for the moment it is recognized, it is obliterated.

Police and military, in particular, must recognize this to avoid revolution, as they are the ones who will cause the bloodshed that is otherwise destined to come. Politicians, bankers, and old-money capitalists are powerless to assert their will without the aid of the mindless servants who abandon all conscience and reason to become order-followers. This is the greatest evil, and no self-respecting person who understands self-ownership could ever act in this capacity. We should not "support our troops" regardless of what they do; we should denounce their blind obedience, and support their enlightenment by explaining why it's wrong. Our job is to make it culturally taboo to accept such positions, so these otherwise brave, well-intentioned individuals are on the side of justice and freedom. Hard work, but absolutely essential to the future of humanity, and we need only do our own little part, wherever opportunity arises.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.

So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.

Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).

If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.

To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?

It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

 

[zaangalewa]

... By establishing a governmental authority of any kind, we have diverged from natural law. ...

Human beings need community. Community needs structure, organization and rules. Who understands not this natural needs of the social life of human beings is on its own dissocial and unnatural. And we are in general not existing on our own for our own. We will have to give answers to god in the end of time. For example is our species - everyone of us personally too - responsible for all and every life of planet Earth. We have enough intellectual capacity for all problems in this context. We are able to protect this planet and its life. I do not think god will accept stupid or criminal answers in the end of time.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

This is speculative (and dubious, as tribal societies didn't have government, exactly). If you truly believe that government is an evil, should you not at least attempt to break the chains of its bondage while hope remains? You do not know that it can't be done, and this is no time to sit idly by while miscreants take over the world, based upon an unsure opinion.

At the very least, you can be the change you wish to see in the world, and cease your support in whatever way possible. Even just not voting and offering this alternative opinion in conversations would have SOME small effect. Believe me, there's a big difference in people's perception between one person saying something, and two people saying it.

But you have claimed it is a "necessary" evil, despite not making a case for this position by addressing my argument to the contrary (which I find surprising - your short reply suggests perhaps you were too busy, but I would like to hear your thoughts on this necessity). So do you support government or not?

I look to the abolition of slavery for hope. I understand the Civil War and Lincoln's selfish motives, but the cultural mindset was changing, and the small abolitionist movement made great strides toward opening people's eyes. Deeply ingrained institutions CAN be changed. Many things once thought normal and essential are now viewed as archaic and insane. If I could somehow go on record for progeny's viewing, I would assert that the notion of government WILL eventually be viewed in this very same way, be it 50 years from now, or 1,000.

Not only is the saeculum cycle not speculative the basis for why it happens is logically sound. I am afraid we are going to have to suffer before we change our ways. It is no different at the societal level than it is for the personal level.

By inspection any gathering of men necessitates a hierarchy. Yes, I support a hierarchy because the alternative is anarchy and they always end in totalitarianism.

The founding fathers believed that slavery was against the law of nature, were unable to end it at the time of founding but took steps towards it's end. That changed in the 1820's when Democrats took control of the government in the 1820's and reversed the efforts of the Founding Fathers. So how does that knowledge change your beliefs?

Because it fits perfectly with mine.

Hierarchy does not imply authoritarianism. A group of men building a house would do well to voluntarily defer to the most experienced person, and they almost always do. They may organize, with some people managing the efforts of others, but this is not government. Government is the right (not just the ability) to rule (not just lead). I also support hierarchy in this context, and hierarchy is not mutually exclusive with anarchy.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers", and cannot, under any circumstances, create totalitarianism. Totalitarianism can only arise where anarchy is abandoned.

American slavery is a topic of personal interest, and I am fairly familiar with its history; though I don't know what relevancy your statement has to the discussion. I admit that I am simply missing your point, not suggesting that your point is not relevant.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. We will probably have to pass through the "Ring of Fire" to burn away these evils, but my hope is that it can be averted through a rise in the cultural consciousness. People already know what they need to know on some level. The overwhelming majority of people do not commit acts of violent aggression toward others; though they have been indoctrinated into believing that it's OK to do so if done by proxy. They believe that the immorality is cleansed via the ritual of governmental process. So a person who would never beat down your door and drag you to a cage for growing pot in your backyard, will vote for someone else to do it with an undeserved clean conscience.

If we can just make them see the cognitive dissonance in simultaneously believing contradictory ideas - that it's wrong for them to do something personally, but right to ask someone else to do it - they will snap out of it, as I did, and stop supporting this institution of inherent immorality. In their private lives they understand their own self-ownership, and respect that of others, but there is a purposefully-imposed blind spot when it comes to government. There need not be a revolution if people will recognize this blind spot; for the moment it is recognized, it is obliterated.

Police and military, in particular, must recognize this to avoid revolution, as they are the ones who will cause the bloodshed that is otherwise destined to come. Politicians, bankers, and old-money capitalists are powerless to assert their will without the aid of the mindless servants who abandon all conscience and reason to become order-followers. This is the greatest evil, and no self-respecting person who understands self-ownership could ever act in this capacity. We should not "support our troops" regardless of what they do; we should denounce their blind obedience, and support their enlightenment by explaining why it's wrong. Our job is to make it culturally taboo to accept such positions, so these otherwise brave, well-intentioned individuals are on the side of justice and freedom. Hard work, but absolutely essential to the future of humanity, and we need only do our own little part, wherever opportunity arises.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.

So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.

Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).

If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.

To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?

It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

 

[Humorme]

Not only is the saeculum cycle not speculative the basis for why it happens is logically sound. I am afraid we are going to have to suffer before we change our ways. It is no different at the societal level than it is for the personal level.

By inspection any gathering of men necessitates a hierarchy. Yes, I support a hierarchy because the alternative is anarchy and they always end in totalitarianism.

The founding fathers believed that slavery was against the law of nature, were unable to end it at the time of founding but took steps towards it's end. That changed in the 1820's when Democrats took control of the government in the 1820's and reversed the efforts of the Founding Fathers. So how does that knowledge change your beliefs?

Because it fits perfectly with mine.

Hierarchy does not imply authoritarianism. A group of men building a house would do well to voluntarily defer to the most experienced person, and they almost always do. They may organize, with some people managing the efforts of others, but this is not government. Government is the right (not just the ability) to rule (not just lead). I also support hierarchy in this context, and hierarchy is not mutually exclusive with anarchy.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers", and cannot, under any circumstances, create totalitarianism. Totalitarianism can only arise where anarchy is abandoned.

American slavery is a topic of personal interest, and I am fairly familiar with its history; though I don't know what relevancy your statement has to the discussion. I admit that I am simply missing your point, not suggesting that your point is not relevant.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. We will probably have to pass through the "Ring of Fire" to burn away these evils, but my hope is that it can be averted through a rise in the cultural consciousness. People already know what they need to know on some level. The overwhelming majority of people do not commit acts of violent aggression toward others; though they have been indoctrinated into believing that it's OK to do so if done by proxy. They believe that the immorality is cleansed via the ritual of governmental process. So a person who would never beat down your door and drag you to a cage for growing pot in your backyard, will vote for someone else to do it with an undeserved clean conscience.

If we can just make them see the cognitive dissonance in simultaneously believing contradictory ideas - that it's wrong for them to do something personally, but right to ask someone else to do it - they will snap out of it, as I did, and stop supporting this institution of inherent immorality. In their private lives they understand their own self-ownership, and respect that of others, but there is a purposefully-imposed blind spot when it comes to government. There need not be a revolution if people will recognize this blind spot; for the moment it is recognized, it is obliterated.

Police and military, in particular, must recognize this to avoid revolution, as they are the ones who will cause the bloodshed that is otherwise destined to come. Politicians, bankers, and old-money capitalists are powerless to assert their will without the aid of the mindless servants who abandon all conscience and reason to become order-followers. This is the greatest evil, and no self-respecting person who understands self-ownership could ever act in this capacity. We should not "support our troops" regardless of what they do; we should denounce their blind obedience, and support their enlightenment by explaining why it's wrong. Our job is to make it culturally taboo to accept such positions, so these otherwise brave, well-intentioned individuals are on the side of justice and freedom. Hard work, but absolutely essential to the future of humanity, and we need only do our own little part, wherever opportunity arises.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.

So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.

Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).

If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.

To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?

It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

I'm on the outside looking in. And I am not taking sides. So don't take this as a personal slight. It is intended only as constructive criticism.

IMO, some of your posts seem to be overly philosophical as opposed to issue specific. Most people will not engage you in that kind of in depth conversation. Many posters think a discussion board is another form of tweeting. If I do ten paragraphs, the bulk of posters are going TLDR. I don't know how to reduce some important points down to a bumper sticker slogan size, so I'm the last to be qualified to criticize you. But, I know where the disconnect is. I have the same problem you do.

 

[Votto]

God is dead. Now fuck off.

Actually, what Nietzche said is "God is dead, and we have killed Him."

Meanwhile. all of us die and God still lives.

Pretty funny stuff.

 

[ding]

Not only is the saeculum cycle not speculative the basis for why it happens is logically sound. I am afraid we are going to have to suffer before we change our ways. It is no different at the societal level than it is for the personal level.

By inspection any gathering of men necessitates a hierarchy. Yes, I support a hierarchy because the alternative is anarchy and they always end in totalitarianism.

The founding fathers believed that slavery was against the law of nature, were unable to end it at the time of founding but took steps towards it's end. That changed in the 1820's when Democrats took control of the government in the 1820's and reversed the efforts of the Founding Fathers. So how does that knowledge change your beliefs?

Because it fits perfectly with mine.

Hierarchy does not imply authoritarianism. A group of men building a house would do well to voluntarily defer to the most experienced person, and they almost always do. They may organize, with some people managing the efforts of others, but this is not government. Government is the right (not just the ability) to rule (not just lead). I also support hierarchy in this context, and hierarchy is not mutually exclusive with anarchy.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers", and cannot, under any circumstances, create totalitarianism. Totalitarianism can only arise where anarchy is abandoned.

American slavery is a topic of personal interest, and I am fairly familiar with its history; though I don't know what relevancy your statement has to the discussion. I admit that I am simply missing your point, not suggesting that your point is not relevant.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. We will probably have to pass through the "Ring of Fire" to burn away these evils, but my hope is that it can be averted through a rise in the cultural consciousness. People already know what they need to know on some level. The overwhelming majority of people do not commit acts of violent aggression toward others; though they have been indoctrinated into believing that it's OK to do so if done by proxy. They believe that the immorality is cleansed via the ritual of governmental process. So a person who would never beat down your door and drag you to a cage for growing pot in your backyard, will vote for someone else to do it with an undeserved clean conscience.

If we can just make them see the cognitive dissonance in simultaneously believing contradictory ideas - that it's wrong for them to do something personally, but right to ask someone else to do it - they will snap out of it, as I did, and stop supporting this institution of inherent immorality. In their private lives they understand their own self-ownership, and respect that of others, but there is a purposefully-imposed blind spot when it comes to government. There need not be a revolution if people will recognize this blind spot; for the moment it is recognized, it is obliterated.

Police and military, in particular, must recognize this to avoid revolution, as they are the ones who will cause the bloodshed that is otherwise destined to come. Politicians, bankers, and old-money capitalists are powerless to assert their will without the aid of the mindless servants who abandon all conscience and reason to become order-followers. This is the greatest evil, and no self-respecting person who understands self-ownership could ever act in this capacity. We should not "support our troops" regardless of what they do; we should denounce their blind obedience, and support their enlightenment by explaining why it's wrong. Our job is to make it culturally taboo to accept such positions, so these otherwise brave, well-intentioned individuals are on the side of justice and freedom. Hard work, but absolutely essential to the future of humanity, and we need only do our own little part, wherever opportunity arises.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.

So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.

Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).

If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.

To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?

It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

Do I really have to explain the figurative speech of what necessary evil means. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers said the same thing.

 

[ding]

Hierarchy does not imply authoritarianism. A group of men building a house would do well to voluntarily defer to the most experienced person, and they almost always do. They may organize, with some people managing the efforts of others, but this is not government. Government is the right (not just the ability) to rule (not just lead). I also support hierarchy in this context, and hierarchy is not mutually exclusive with anarchy.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers", and cannot, under any circumstances, create totalitarianism. Totalitarianism can only arise where anarchy is abandoned.

American slavery is a topic of personal interest, and I am fairly familiar with its history; though I don't know what relevancy your statement has to the discussion. I admit that I am simply missing your point, not suggesting that your point is not relevant.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. We will probably have to pass through the "Ring of Fire" to burn away these evils, but my hope is that it can be averted through a rise in the cultural consciousness. People already know what they need to know on some level. The overwhelming majority of people do not commit acts of violent aggression toward others; though they have been indoctrinated into believing that it's OK to do so if done by proxy. They believe that the immorality is cleansed via the ritual of governmental process. So a person who would never beat down your door and drag you to a cage for growing pot in your backyard, will vote for someone else to do it with an undeserved clean conscience.

If we can just make them see the cognitive dissonance in simultaneously believing contradictory ideas - that it's wrong for them to do something personally, but right to ask someone else to do it - they will snap out of it, as I did, and stop supporting this institution of inherent immorality. In their private lives they understand their own self-ownership, and respect that of others, but there is a purposefully-imposed blind spot when it comes to government. There need not be a revolution if people will recognize this blind spot; for the moment it is recognized, it is obliterated.

Police and military, in particular, must recognize this to avoid revolution, as they are the ones who will cause the bloodshed that is otherwise destined to come. Politicians, bankers, and old-money capitalists are powerless to assert their will without the aid of the mindless servants who abandon all conscience and reason to become order-followers. This is the greatest evil, and no self-respecting person who understands self-ownership could ever act in this capacity. We should not "support our troops" regardless of what they do; we should denounce their blind obedience, and support their enlightenment by explaining why it's wrong. Our job is to make it culturally taboo to accept such positions, so these otherwise brave, well-intentioned individuals are on the side of justice and freedom. Hard work, but absolutely essential to the future of humanity, and we need only do our own little part, wherever opportunity arises.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.

So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.

Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).

If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.

To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?

It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

I'm on the outside looking in. And I am not taking sides. So don't take this as a personal slight. It is intended only as constructive criticism.

IMO, some of your posts seem to be overly philosophical as opposed to issue specific. Most people will not engage you in that kind of in depth conversation. Many posters think a discussion board is another form of tweeting. If I do ten paragraphs, the bulk of posters are going TLDR. I don't know how to reduce some important points down to a bumper sticker slogan size, so I'm the last to be qualified to criticize you. But, I know where the disconnect is. I have the same problem you do.

It isn't his length that is the problem.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Hierarchy does not imply authoritarianism. A group of men building a house would do well to voluntarily defer to the most experienced person, and they almost always do. They may organize, with some people managing the efforts of others, but this is not government. Government is the right (not just the ability) to rule (not just lead). I also support hierarchy in this context, and hierarchy is not mutually exclusive with anarchy.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers", and cannot, under any circumstances, create totalitarianism. Totalitarianism can only arise where anarchy is abandoned.

American slavery is a topic of personal interest, and I am fairly familiar with its history; though I don't know what relevancy your statement has to the discussion. I admit that I am simply missing your point, not suggesting that your point is not relevant.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. We will probably have to pass through the "Ring of Fire" to burn away these evils, but my hope is that it can be averted through a rise in the cultural consciousness. People already know what they need to know on some level. The overwhelming majority of people do not commit acts of violent aggression toward others; though they have been indoctrinated into believing that it's OK to do so if done by proxy. They believe that the immorality is cleansed via the ritual of governmental process. So a person who would never beat down your door and drag you to a cage for growing pot in your backyard, will vote for someone else to do it with an undeserved clean conscience.

If we can just make them see the cognitive dissonance in simultaneously believing contradictory ideas - that it's wrong for them to do something personally, but right to ask someone else to do it - they will snap out of it, as I did, and stop supporting this institution of inherent immorality. In their private lives they understand their own self-ownership, and respect that of others, but there is a purposefully-imposed blind spot when it comes to government. There need not be a revolution if people will recognize this blind spot; for the moment it is recognized, it is obliterated.

Police and military, in particular, must recognize this to avoid revolution, as they are the ones who will cause the bloodshed that is otherwise destined to come. Politicians, bankers, and old-money capitalists are powerless to assert their will without the aid of the mindless servants who abandon all conscience and reason to become order-followers. This is the greatest evil, and no self-respecting person who understands self-ownership could ever act in this capacity. We should not "support our troops" regardless of what they do; we should denounce their blind obedience, and support their enlightenment by explaining why it's wrong. Our job is to make it culturally taboo to accept such positions, so these otherwise brave, well-intentioned individuals are on the side of justice and freedom. Hard work, but absolutely essential to the future of humanity, and we need only do our own little part, wherever opportunity arises.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.

So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.

Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).

If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.

To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?

It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

I'm on the outside looking in. And I am not taking sides. So don't take this as a personal slight. It is intended only as constructive criticism.

IMO, some of your posts seem to be overly philosophical as opposed to issue specific. Most people will not engage you in that kind of in depth conversation. Many posters think a discussion board is another form of tweeting. If I do ten paragraphs, the bulk of posters are going TLDR. I don't know how to reduce some important points down to a bumper sticker slogan size, so I'm the last to be qualified to criticize you. But, I know where the disconnect is. I have the same problem you do.

Thank you. Yes, you’re right about this, whether it be the roadblock in this particular instance or not. I never had the sense that ding was reluctant to read my posts, or that he was not understanding them, but his responses are not as elaborate as mine, which likely indicates a preference that I’m not in accord with.

I actually edit my posts down, and they’re still the way they are. Face-to-face this would be a mere minute or two of speech, but I get that many people don’t have the attention span or earnest willingness to explore a topic in-depth. such they will read through a long post in a world of tweets. Again, I don’t have any reason to believe ding is in this category, but I would prefer that he elaborate more hahaha.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Hierarchy does not imply authoritarianism. A group of men building a house would do well to voluntarily defer to the most experienced person, and they almost always do. They may organize, with some people managing the efforts of others, but this is not government. Government is the right (not just the ability) to rule (not just lead). I also support hierarchy in this context, and hierarchy is not mutually exclusive with anarchy.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers", and cannot, under any circumstances, create totalitarianism. Totalitarianism can only arise where anarchy is abandoned.

American slavery is a topic of personal interest, and I am fairly familiar with its history; though I don't know what relevancy your statement has to the discussion. I admit that I am simply missing your point, not suggesting that your point is not relevant.

Unfortunately, you're probably right. We will probably have to pass through the "Ring of Fire" to burn away these evils, but my hope is that it can be averted through a rise in the cultural consciousness. People already know what they need to know on some level. The overwhelming majority of people do not commit acts of violent aggression toward others; though they have been indoctrinated into believing that it's OK to do so if done by proxy. They believe that the immorality is cleansed via the ritual of governmental process. So a person who would never beat down your door and drag you to a cage for growing pot in your backyard, will vote for someone else to do it with an undeserved clean conscience.

If we can just make them see the cognitive dissonance in simultaneously believing contradictory ideas - that it's wrong for them to do something personally, but right to ask someone else to do it - they will snap out of it, as I did, and stop supporting this institution of inherent immorality. In their private lives they understand their own self-ownership, and respect that of others, but there is a purposefully-imposed blind spot when it comes to government. There need not be a revolution if people will recognize this blind spot; for the moment it is recognized, it is obliterated.

Police and military, in particular, must recognize this to avoid revolution, as they are the ones who will cause the bloodshed that is otherwise destined to come. Politicians, bankers, and old-money capitalists are powerless to assert their will without the aid of the mindless servants who abandon all conscience and reason to become order-followers. This is the greatest evil, and no self-respecting person who understands self-ownership could ever act in this capacity. We should not "support our troops" regardless of what they do; we should denounce their blind obedience, and support their enlightenment by explaining why it's wrong. Our job is to make it culturally taboo to accept such positions, so these otherwise brave, well-intentioned individuals are on the side of justice and freedom. Hard work, but absolutely essential to the future of humanity, and we need only do our own little part, wherever opportunity arises.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.

So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.

Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).

If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.

To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?

It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

Do I really have to explain the figurative speech of what necessary evil means. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers said the same thing.

They did, and I think they meant it literally. These men understood natural law freedom. They explicitly said “all men are created equal” then created a system of inherent inequality. They said men had an “inalienable right” to liberty, then devised the means by which men exchange portions of that liberty for other perceived benefits. They knew what they were doing, and did it anyway. And their apprehension, warnings, and (dare I say) implied regret litters their writings.

What would a figurative connotation even mean? What word would be used in place of “evil” to change it to a literal statement?

 

[Humorme]

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.

So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.

Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).

If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.

To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?

It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

I'm on the outside looking in. And I am not taking sides. So don't take this as a personal slight. It is intended only as constructive criticism.

IMO, some of your posts seem to be overly philosophical as opposed to issue specific. Most people will not engage you in that kind of in depth conversation. Many posters think a discussion board is another form of tweeting. If I do ten paragraphs, the bulk of posters are going TLDR. I don't know how to reduce some important points down to a bumper sticker slogan size, so I'm the last to be qualified to criticize you. But, I know where the disconnect is. I have the same problem you do.

It isn't his length that is the problem.

What if his girlfriend disagrees? I'm sorry. I couldn't pass that one up. Just kidding.

I would like you elaborate more as well, ding. That's a polite way of saying people respect what you say.

 

[Humorme]

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.

So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.

Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).

If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.

To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?

It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

Do I really have to explain the figurative speech of what necessary evil means. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers said the same thing.

They did, and I think they meant it literally. These men understood natural law freedom. They explicitly said “all men are created equal” then created a system of inherent inequality. They said men had an “inalienable right” to liberty, then devised the means by which men exchange portions of that liberty for other perceived benefits. They knew what they were doing, and did it anyway. And their apprehension, warnings, and (dare I say) implied regret litters their writings.

What would a figurative connotation even mean? What word would be used in place of “evil” to change it to a literal statement?

Actually the founders said unalienable Rights. Hate to be a nitpicker, but our Courts have interpreted the two words differently.

I disagree that the founders created a system of inequality. They stated in the Preamble of the Constitution WHO that document was for and about.

Nobody would accuse China of any wrong-doing there; nor Japan; North Korea doesn't get criticized; Zimbabwe - never.

If you check out the earliest court rulings, they said with great specificity that unalienable Rights were absolute and above the law. It wasn't until the United States Supreme Court declared themselves to be the greater branch of government that you started seeing this gradual trend toward socialism and tyranny.