What does it mean to "love your country"?

[Correll]

No. The group must be ready to deal with those who take and do not give, or it will not be sustainable.

Resources, protection, anything and everything.

First I would point out that the freeloader problem is hardly a sufficient concern to justify an immense, invalid, immoral institution of coercive violence. Government is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths (Stalin alone probably killed 50 million under a constitution not wholly unlike our own: 1936 Soviet Constitution - Wikipedia). This is way, way more than would ever be possible in a free society, so I think we should weigh our concerns rationally before noting freeloaders as significant enough crisis to warrant this monstrosity.

Sure. Imagine no coercion in society. The first thing that would happen is we release all the criminals from the prisons, they join their fellow criminals in society, and they, since the cops are no more, then go on a murderous robbery and rape spree, until gunned down by angry mobs of victims.

THe mobs secure their neighborhoods, and place armed guards at their borders, and form communities to protect them selves and your "Free Society" fragments into thousands of communities willing to protect themselves, is a sea of barbarism.



In my rational opinion, that is reason to support having a government with it's police forces.

But even if we had no way of combating freeloading without government, consider how a free market operates... If a town wishes to build a bridge, it will solicit its people to voluntarily contribute toward that effort. Those who don't sufficiently want it may refuse to pay (being willing to risk not having it for the benefit of not paying for it), while those who deem it essential will be willing to absorb the cost of those who refuse to pay. If that demand is sufficiently compelling, the bridge will get built. The worst case scenario is that there will be no bridge; and since there wasn't one before, there's no loss, and no one was coerced by threat of violence,

Once built, what difference does it make if people who did not pay get to use it? The people who wanted it achieved their goal and get to use it. Even if freeloaders put wear and tear on the bridge and the time comes when it needs repair, the same scenario arises whereby the demand of those who wish to maintain the bridge will either be sufficient enough that they will be willing to pay for repairs, or it will not. This accurately reflects the strength of demand, be it a little among a lot of people, or a lot among few. Even if you don't put a toll and just choose to scowl at the people who don't pay, we have the peace of non-violence in any case, and the potential prosperity of the bridge.

And that would be the last time any significant investment in the community would be done. Because people do not want to spend their resources supporting those who take but give nothing back.


That community would immediately begin to decay. The economy would collapse due to lack of infrastructure.

Compare that to our current system whereby the bridge is built via taxation, which robs everyone under threat of violence to pay for it whether they want it or not. Then a portion of that money goes toward limousines, "business lunches", and a salary for the politician, who grants the contract to his brother-in-law for three times the fair market value of a bridge. The brother-in-law's company is getting paid no matter what, and having no accountability to the customer, his guys take 2 hour lunches, go home at 3 o'clock, and the bridge takes twice as long to get built. Then a toll is put on the bridge indefinitely which everyone must pay, even if they already paid to have it built. And of course, we have the issue of this institution doing a million and one other corrupt and immoral things while we justify its existence by citing our need for bridges and freeloader control.

Our current political class is completely corrupt and incompetent. THis is a failing of our political class and does need to be dealt with.

But it is a problem of our current leadership, not a demonstration that the idea of nations is flawed.

It's really just a matter of weighing our values. The innocent dead in Iraq are real people, just like you and me.They woke up one morning and saw the death of their children that afternoon. You and I are complicit in this if we support the institution that committed the act. The fact that we "don't like it" is irrelevant if we continue to support the overall system with our words and our votes, regardless of who those votes are for. The robbery of 300 million people to pay for it is immoral and not in keeping with our true values, as we would never rob someone directly, but condone it when done by proxy. Lies are required to gain our compliance, and on some level we all know it's not to defend anyone's freedom. And this is just one of a million immoralities that are born of governmental authority, never mind the fact that it has no valid basis to begin with; as it claims to derive its power from "the people" while none of "the people" have such rights individually (to tax each other, to make law for each other, to kill each other outside the scope of self-defense), such that they may delegate those rights to others.

We need a serious reality check about what we've been made to believe concerning the legitimacy, morality, and necessity of governmental authority as an overall concept; as no amount of well-meaning efforts to make it work better can change its inherent nature.

Groups clash and fight. This is a part of human nature.


It is not in our values to disarm and allow our enemies to wage war on us and not fight back.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Despite the intent, the government does not - and cannot - serve the people. For a government to BE a government, it must have authority. By definition, this means the people serve the government, not the other way around. Masters make rules, slaves obey rules; is this not correct?

In America the ultimate authority is the Constitution. The government(s) and the military are sworn to protect and defend it.
The Constitution exists to define and limit governmental authority. When we swear allegiance we swear to the flag; not the government.

As for being ungrateful, I'm not sure what you want people to be grateful for. I suspect it's for not being more harshly dominated than they are. At least that's what I gather when I hear people say "try living in Somalia - we have the best government in the world".

Those Americans who came before you made this Country and passed it into your care. Certainly something to be grateful for. You have made it very clear that you are totally clueless when it comes to concepts like slavery and oppression freedom and rights. Hence the Somalia references.

Freedom does not have degrees .
Freedom does not include murdering people because...
Untrue. There is no such thing as totally unrestricted freedom nor should there be. I think that it's kinda nice that people are not free to murder whomever they please whenever they please.

I understand the purported function of the Constitution, but does the Constitution actually do that? Does it limit government in the way it was intended? We are light years from what the founders had in mind, and the Constitution did nothing to stop it. As you well know, lawyers and judges can logically justify anything based upon premises that creatively interpret the Constitution.

Does an oath stop politicians, police, and military from doing whatever they want? Of course not. Never has, never will. Oaths are nothing more than a religious ritual, the Constitution is just ancient scripture, and the flag is an icon. How well have those things worked out for religion? All manner of insanity has resulted, just like with government.

Tell me how I’m clueless regarding freedom, slavery, etc. If another man can claim a portion of my labor under threat of violence, I am not free. I don’t know how that could be any clearer. If I demand 100% of a man’s labor under threat of violence, that is obviously slavery, is it not? So how about if I only claim 99% or 84, or 45? At what point is it no longer slavery and why? I submit to you that on a principle level, demanding 1% is slavery, differing only in degree from the 100% demand, but not in the fundamental nature of the interaction.

Freedom does not include murdering people because that imposes on the freedom of another, at which point it becomes a self-defense issue (defense of his freedom). Conflicting freedoms clearly cannot overlap (your freedom to swing your fists must end where my nose begins, or my freedom is violated), so this defines the limits of freedom by logical necessity; by nature itself. Similarly, freedom does not mean freedom to fly without wings because that’s just not how the universe works. But this is very different than freedom being limited by the dictates of another man and backed up by unwarranted violent aggression.

I understand the purported function of the Constitution, but does the Constitution actually do that?

Yes, to a rather amazing (and hopefully growing) extent it does. It is the law intended to govern government and that is the critical importance of everyone being sworn to defend it instead of the government. Government officials can and should be held accountable to the law the same as everyone else. Yes there is still corruption and probably always will be. But whose fault is that? Just as We the People share responsibility for what our Nation does overseas we also share it for what it does here at home. If we don't care enough to see that the law is enforced it is the fault of neither the Constitution nor the system.

Freedom does not have degrees .
Freedom does not include murdering people because...

Either freedom can-and sometimes should-be restricted or it can't. Can't have it both ways.
You seem to find defensive violence (self defense) acceptable but offensive and defensive are types of tactics or strategy; not types of violence and one is easily mistaken or misrepresented as the other. I see The War on Terror as self defense and entirely justified as were our attacks on Japan and Germany during WWII. War is a classic example of the people of a nation being held responsible for the actions of their government.

 

[WillMunny]

To me, patriotic love of one's country is saying "thank you" to our forebears' hard work and sacrifice, which resulted in the comfy, 1st world life we now enjoy today. And wanting the best for this country because of what it has given us.

 

[MarathonMike]

I used the term 'contract' in a very loose context. But at a fundamental level that is what you have in any sort of societal organization. You have a contract, either written or implied that in effect states "As a member of this society you will abide by our rules. In return you will garner the benefits of being a member of the society". Again take the simple case of a primitive tribe. They may not have a written Constitution but I guarantee you they have a structure, rules and expectations for all members of the tribe. In this case you are born into the contract, there is no 'me' levying a contract on 'you'. If you don't like the terms of the contract, you can live outside the society but that is a hard road to travel. In the case of a primitive tribe it probably means death.

I agree with you that government is not necessary for societal organization. I was assuming you would want to have the resources of a country managed properly for it's citizens. For example, without our Constitution and government, the USA would resemble Africa which is run essentially by criminal politicians and warlords. For all of it's flaws, I'll take our society and it's infringements upon my freedoms any day of the week.

I agree about tribal societies, and that I'll take our current situation over worse conditions, but these are very low standards of evaluation for a sentient, moral, progressive species. If our goal is to have a truly peaceful, prosperous world, we'll need to employ greater imagination than merely noting what's come before.

My concern is what you and I are doing personally, right now, to effect change in the direction we both desire. I'm not saying we need to champion some cause and make our lives about it like Gandhi, but it behooves us to establish our position upon firm ground, and make our own small choices from that stable basis.

Even in the broadest possible context, the contract you describe is unilateral - one side makes the rules, the other must follow. I understand there are ritualistic, faux-philosophical work-arounds to make the old monarchy more appealing to modern audiences, and so instead of the "divine right of Kings" we have the oligarchical democratic republic. Now we "get to" pull a lever and feel like we're part of the process. We are even "allowed" to sue the government if we feel we were wronged (whereby, at the highest levels of the court, the defendant itself will determine resolution of the plaintiff's complaint). This helps vent some of the revolutionary spirit that might develop in the face of injustice. Very wise move on the part of the ruling class.

In keeping with our duty to establish a firm basis for supporting this system (after all, we are subjecting ourselves, our children, our neighbors, and the world at large to the immense power of this government), the following point, which I will repeat, must be addressed directly; as it is the bedrock upon which the validity of the system is founded:

"...could you explain how government gets its power? Most would say “from the people”, but do the people have these powers, such that they may give them to government? You may give your consent for them to rule you, but can you give your consent for them to rule me? How does one validly delegate a right he doesn’t have to begin with? Can I delegate the right for my brother to paint your house pink? If not, why not? Because I don’t have that right, and neither does he. The delegation must be rooted in a right actually possessed - so who among us has the right to personally claim a portion of their neighbor’s labor such that they may choose a delegate to execute that right?"

Did we have a right to push the Indians off of their ancestral lands and onto reservations? Yes. That is the right of war and the Indians were the conquered nation. Did we have a right to fight England and declare our independence from them? It depends what side you were on at the time. We certainly thought so. Did the Founding Fathers have the right to grant powers to a newly formed government that they themselves didn't have? Yes because they were creating a country. And as in any human creation it is the right of the originator(s) to design it any way he wants. "Rights" are a very broad and abstract concept. There are basic human rights, rights to property, rights to privacy, rights of rescission, etc etc. Every modern society defines a set of rights and laws for it's citizens. This is a necessity because humans are inherently wicked. We are fortunate to have been granted a large set of rights and fairly non-intrusive laws. By contrast citizens of North Korea have a very small set of rights and extremely oppressive laws.

 

[jasonnfree]

I think it's so much b.s. in the long run just like religion. We're indoctrinated on this love of country from an early age by being forced to say the pledge, for example. It makes for willing volunteers who will work for peanuts and even be proud to die for our war machine.

 

[sparky]

that fine line betwixt patriot and jingoist is always being prostituted by who ever holds power and always will

~S~

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No. The group must be ready to deal with those who take and do not give, or it will not be sustainable.

Resources, protection, anything and everything.

First I would point out that the freeloader problem is hardly a sufficient concern to justify an immense, invalid, immoral institution of coercive violence. Government is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths (Stalin alone probably killed 50 million under a constitution not wholly unlike our own*). This is way, way more than would ever be possible in a free society, so I think we should weigh our concerns rationally before noting freeloaders as significant enough crisis to warrant this monstrosity.

Sure. Imagine no coercion in society. The first thing that would happen is we release all the criminals from the prisons, they join their fellow criminals in society, and they, since the cops are no more, then go on a murderous robbery and rape spree, until gunned down by angry mobs of victims.

THe mobs secure their neighborhoods, and place armed guards at their borders, and form communities to protect them selves and your "Free Society" fragments into thousands of communities willing to protect themselves, is a sea of barbarism.



In my rational opinion, that is reason to support having a government with it's police forces.

But even if we had no way of combating freeloading without government, consider how a free market operates... If a town wishes to build a bridge, it will solicit its people to voluntarily contribute toward that effort. Those who don't sufficiently want it may refuse to pay (being willing to risk not having it for the benefit of not paying for it), while those who deem it essential will be willing to absorb the cost of those who refuse to pay. If that demand is sufficiently compelling, the bridge will get built. The worst case scenario is that there will be no bridge; and since there wasn't one before, there's no loss, and no one was coerced by threat of violence,

Once built, what difference does it make if people who did not pay get to use it? The people who wanted it achieved their goal and get to use it. Even if freeloaders put wear and tear on the bridge and the time comes when it needs repair, the same scenario arises whereby the demand of those who wish to maintain the bridge will either be sufficient enough that they will be willing to pay for repairs, or it will not. This accurately reflects the strength of demand, be it a little among a lot of people, or a lot among few. Even if you don't put a toll and just choose to scowl at the people who don't pay, we have the peace of non-violence in any case, and the potential prosperity of the bridge.

And that would be the last time any significant investment in the community would be done. Because people do not want to spend their resources supporting those who take but give nothing back.


That community would immediately begin to decay. The economy would collapse due to lack of infrastructure.

Compare that to our current system whereby the bridge is built via taxation, which robs everyone under threat of violence to pay for it whether they want it or not. Then a portion of that money goes toward limousines, "business lunches", and a salary for the politician, who grants the contract to his brother-in-law for three times the fair market value of a bridge. The brother-in-law's company is getting paid no matter what, and having no accountability to the customer, his guys take 2 hour lunches, go home at 3 o'clock, and the bridge takes twice as long to get built. Then a toll is put on the bridge indefinitely which everyone must pay, even if they already paid to have it built. And of course, we have the issue of this institution doing a million and one other corrupt and immoral things while we justify its existence by citing our need for bridges and freeloader control.

Our current political class is completely corrupt and incompetent. THis is a failing of our political class and does need to be dealt with.

But it is a problem of our current leadership, not a demonstration that the idea of nations is flawed.

It's really just a matter of weighing our values. The innocent dead in Iraq are real people, just like you and me.They woke up one morning and saw the death of their children that afternoon. You and I are complicit in this if we support the institution that committed the act. The fact that we "don't like it" is irrelevant if we continue to support the overall system with our words and our votes, regardless of who those votes are for. The robbery of 300 million people to pay for it is immoral and not in keeping with our true values, as we would never rob someone directly, but condone it when done by proxy. Lies are required to gain our compliance, and on some level we all know it's not to defend anyone's freedom. And this is just one of a million immoralities that are born of governmental authority, never mind the fact that it has no valid basis to begin with; as it claims to derive its power from "the people" while none of "the people" have such rights individually (to tax each other, to make law for each other, to kill each other outside the scope of self-defense), such that they may delegate those rights to others.

We need a serious reality check about what we've been made to believe concerning the legitimacy, morality, and necessity of governmental authority as an overall concept; as no amount of well-meaning efforts to make it work better can change its inherent nature.

Groups clash and fight. This is a part of human nature.


It is not in our values to disarm and allow our enemies to wage war on us and not fight back.

First we have to recognize that we're securely in the realm of speculation here. Our predictions are ultimately just a best guess (having no practical examples of a free society in the modern technological west), but I'm sure we can both agree that it behooves us to root them in sound reason.

That being said, I think you're drastically overestimating government's positive contributions to our current society. Why do you suppose that without governmental police forces we would be reduced to small townships fending off maniacs in a "sea of barbarism"? This sounds like the residual worldview-poisoning effects of Hollywood depictions of anarchy like "The Purge", coupled with political propaganda. Approximately 1.2 million violent crimes were committed in the U.S. in 2016*, which means that only 0.004% of the population experienced a violent crime (given the 325 million U.S. population). The prisoners you fear being released from correctional institutions represent a nigh-unto negligible portion of our population - hardly a threat that could dismantle a civilized society. And this is all occurring in a country where the highest populated areas - the areas with the most violent crimes - are rendered practically defenseless by wide-scale disarmament.

I also challenge the rationality of the opinion that a lack of police would create a greater incentive for violent offenders. An offender knows that he need only avoid police (about 0.003% of the population)* to have a high likelihood of committing a successful crime, and even if caught, need only throw his hands up to avoid the strongest disincentive - getting hurt or killed. Instead, he will be returned to an environment he's likely already familiar with (prison) and receive three square meals a day at no cost to himself. When confronted with the self-defense of an armed victim, however, the offender cannot be so sure of enjoying this luxury.

"A study funded by the Department of Justice... found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed." *

Even given the minuscule number of violent crimes committed, it's important to recognize how government is itself responsible for much of this violence. The "War on Drugs", for example, creates an immense violent black market, which incentivizes criminal activity for people in low-income areas. Drugs represent the most viable means to financial success in these areas by far, due to the skewed profit potential born of prohibition. Being denied police protection by the illegality of the activity, participants are required to illegally arm themselves for self-defense, and the result is a violent underworld that would otherwise not exist. If there were no legal drug restrictions, Amazon would put this entire criminal industry out of business overnight. And if there's any question as to the validity of this reasoning, we need only look to the historical example of alcohol prohibition to see the before, during, and after effects of these policies. When was the last time you heard about liquor store owners having gun battles in the streets?

You've also suggested that people would cease to invest in their communities simply because freeloaders enjoyed the fruits of their investment. Do you really believe that the entire population would rather see the country fall to rubble all around them then to abide freeloaders? Is biting off one's nose to spite their face the defining characteristic of humanity? Of course not. Humanity overcomes. That's what they do. If they can come back from the atrocities leveled upon them by governments (mass genocides, atomic bombings, etc.) I think they can survive a few deadbeats in their midst.

It's a mistake to believe that it's simply the "current leadership" that's the problem. People have been thinking this for thousands of years, but there just never seems to be the right people at the top. How long until we realize that it's not the people, but the process? Governmental authority is fundamentally invalid, having no rational basis, whether we're talking about the "divine right of Kings", or our democratic republic. I have yet to hear a valid logical refutation to the argument that people cannot delegate rights they don't have in the first place*, and this delegation is the very bedrock of our government's claim to legitimacy. It is also inherently immoral, as it establishes an inequality of rights, and is wholly comprised of a claimed exemption from morality, i.e. the "right" to do things that would be immoral if anyone else did them.*

The doomsday scenario you've presented of collapsed economies and maniacal mayhem requires more careful consideration before it would serve as a reasonable justification for an invalid and immoral system of free-range slavery. We need not disorganize or disarm in order to be free. The only thing that must be put aside is the institutionalization of violent coercion. Simply stated, we need only acknowledge our inherent self-ownership, and respect the self-ownership of others. Of course, we still have the right to defend against those who refuse to respect this, even in a highly organized and technologically advanced fashion. The only difference being that we would do so through true cooperation, which honors the moral imperative of mutual consent. This is how humanity will transition into the next stage of our social evolution, and make possible a truly peaceful and prosperous world community.



*Cited Sources

-Incarciration in the United States (“Violent and Nonviolent Crime” section)
Incarceration in the United States - Wikipedia

-Law Enforcement in the Unites States ("Number of Police" section)
Law enforcement in the United States - Wikipedia

-Myths About Gun Control
RealClearPolitics - Commentary - Myths About Gun Control By John Stossel

-Delegation of Rights thread
CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 2: Delegation of Powers

-Law and Morality thread
CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I understand the purported function of the Constitution, but does the Constitution actually do that?

Yes, to a rather amazing (and hopefully growing) extent it does. It is the law intended to govern government and that is the critical importance of everyone being sworn to defend it instead of the government. Government officials can and should be held accountable to the law the same as everyone else. Yes there is still corruption and probably always will be. But whose fault is that? Just as We the People share responsibility for what our Nation does overseas we also share it for what it does here at home. If we don't care enough to see that the law is enforced it is the fault of neither the Constitution nor the system.

Freedom does not have degrees .
Freedom does not include murdering people because...

Either freedom can-and sometimes should-be restricted or it can't. Can't have it both ways.
You seem to find defensive violence (self defense) acceptable but offensive and defensive are types of tactics or strategy; not types of violence and one is easily mistaken or misrepresented as the other. I see The War on Terror as self defense and entirely justified as were our attacks on Japan and Germany during WWII. War is a classic example of the people of a nation being held responsible for the actions of their government.

Yes, self-defense and offensive violence are both acts of physical force, but so is pushing a couch against a wall. To compare them on that basis alone ignores other qualities that confirm differentiation. Offensive force is an act of targeted aggression with the intent of violating another person's "God-given" "unalienable" rights. Defensive force is a protection of those rights. These are two very different actions from a moral perspective. Calling them tactics or strategies is fine, as long as you're acknowledging the moral difference between such strategies. And of course you would certainly do so if you were both mugged at gunpoint, and successfully defended against that mugging by an armed neighbor in the same encounter. You would say the mugger did something wrong, and the neighbor did something right. This distinction is self-evident and innate.

Did you understand my argument about conflicting freedoms being unable to co-exist? Your freedom to shoot your gun ends at the point where your bullets would touch my skin (or my property, which is an extension of me by way of its connection to my labor). Were your freedom able to cross that boundary, it would limit or deny my freedom. Freedom is one thing, despite our use of the terms "yours" and "mine" (which merely describe instances of its expression). Freedom cannot impose upon itself and still be freedom. This is a naturally-occurring limitation on freedom, just as gravity and other forces have naturally-occurring limitations. Man does not devise this limitation; it exists by natural and logical necessity.

The War on Terror is not self-defense, in fact it has no valid rationale whatsoever, having no defined parameters. How do you win this war? You cannot, and that's precisely the point of it. War profiteers have established an excuse for unending opportunity, and the nation have been made to by into this racket by the events of 9/11. Self-defense would have been scrambling jets to take out those hijacked planes, but where were the jets on that fateful morning? You may want to look into that for yourself. Self-defense requires a present, active attacker. It is not self-defense to preemptively attack another country, killing thousands of innocent people who have not threatened us at all. Think about how politicians obfuscate ideas and warp words to have alternate - even opposite - meanings. Freedom is slavery, war is peace... where have I heard this before?

Carefully examine this reply to my question, "Does the Constitution actually do what it's intended to do?":

"Yes, to a rather amazing (and hopefully growing) extent it does. It is the law intended to govern government and that is the critical importance of everyone being sworn to defend it instead of the government. Government officials can and should be held accountable to the law the same as everyone else."

Intentions, possibilities, supplications... Where does this demonstrate that it actually serves the cited purpose? Do you see how we're made to believe that because of this intent being written somewhere, or people taking oaths to that effect, that we actually live under this system? We have the intent and the reality scrambled in our minds because all the political and educational rhetoric pounds us with this idea from the time we're old enough to talk. It is not so. A piece of parchment does nothing to assure this intent; an oath does nothing. The reality is that our government does not exist under this limitation any more than Stalin was bound by his (1936 Soviet Constitution - Wikipedia).

The Supreme Court is government, not a neutral third party. So government is expected to limit itself. A bit of a conflict of interests, no? Sometimes it erects the facade that it is keeping congress in check, because if it didn't, we'd have ourtight revolution. But by degrees, by a tip-toe effect, it permits a distancing from those originating ideals; a process slow enough as to escape the people's awareness (or at least their resistance). If you're really interested in evaluating the strength of the culturally-sanctioned, civics class position on this matter, perhaps you will be willing to consider the following two videos at your leisure:

 

[Brian Blackwell]

In keeping with our duty to establish a firm basis for supporting this system (after all, we are subjecting ourselves, our children, our neighbors, and the world at large to the immense power of this government), the following point, which I will repeat, must be addressed directly; as it is the bedrock upon which the validity of the system is founded:

"...could you explain how government gets its power? Most would say “from the people”, but do the people have these powers, such that they may give them to government? You may give your consent for them to rule you, but can you give your consent for them to rule me? How does one validly delegate a right he doesn’t have to begin with? Can I delegate the right for my brother to paint your house pink? If not, why not? Because I don’t have that right, and neither does he. The delegation must be rooted in a right actually possessed - so who among us has the right to personally claim a portion of their neighbor’s labor such that they may choose a delegate to execute that right?"

Did we have a right to push the Indians off of their ancestral lands and onto reservations? Yes. That is the right of war and the Indians were the conquered nation. Did we have a right to fight England and declare our independence from them? It depends what side you were on at the time. We certainly thought so. Did the Founding Fathers have the right to grant powers to a newly formed government that they themselves didn't have? Yes because they were creating a country. And as in any human creation it is the right of the originator(s) to design it any way he wants. "Rights" are a very broad and abstract concept. There are basic human rights, rights to property, rights to privacy, rights of rescission, etc etc. Every modern society defines a set of rights and laws for it's citizens. This is a necessity because humans are inherently wicked. We are fortunate to have been granted a large set of rights and fairly non-intrusive laws. By contrast citizens of North Korea have a very small set of rights and extremely oppressive laws.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so we have:

-The "right of war".
-The right to declare independence is dependent upon which side you're on.
-The right to grant powers you don't have being valid if you're creating a country.
-The right of "originators" to design anything they want.
-Society defining rights.
-People (government) granting rights to other people.

Are you comfortable with this as representative of your position so far? I think this discussion is hampered by the fact that we have not established a definition of rights, which necessarily requires a statement as to their origin. So what do you cite as the origin or rights?

As a side note, I want to address the notion that "Humans are inherently wicked". I'm not sure how broad your definition of "wicked" is, but is this consistent with your first-hand experience? When you are at a concert, or at the mall, or shopping at the grocery store, do you experience expressions of this wickedness? Do you consider yourself to be wicked? Howso?

And if humans are inherently wicked, how do you suppose that a rational solution to that problem is to create a seat of immense power and place some from among that wicked throng upon it? Wouldn't this only magnify their wickedness? Wouldn't it be better to keep the playing field level so that everyone at least has a fighting chance?

 

[Correll]

No. The group must be ready to deal with those who take and do not give, or it will not be sustainable.

Resources, protection, anything and everything.

First I would point out that the freeloader problem is hardly a sufficient concern to justify an immense, invalid, immoral institution of coercive violence. Government is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths (Stalin alone probably killed 50 million under a constitution not wholly unlike our own*). This is way, way more than would ever be possible in a free society, so I think we should weigh our concerns rationally before noting freeloaders as significant enough crisis to warrant this monstrosity.

Sure. Imagine no coercion in society. The first thing that would happen is we release all the criminals from the prisons, they join their fellow criminals in society, and they, since the cops are no more, then go on a murderous robbery and rape spree, until gunned down by angry mobs of victims.

THe mobs secure their neighborhoods, and place armed guards at their borders, and form communities to protect them selves and your "Free Society" fragments into thousands of communities willing to protect themselves, is a sea of barbarism.



In my rational opinion, that is reason to support having a government with it's police forces.

But even if we had no way of combating freeloading without government, consider how a free market operates... If a town wishes to build a bridge, it will solicit its people to voluntarily contribute toward that effort. Those who don't sufficiently want it may refuse to pay (being willing to risk not having it for the benefit of not paying for it), while those who deem it essential will be willing to absorb the cost of those who refuse to pay. If that demand is sufficiently compelling, the bridge will get built. The worst case scenario is that there will be no bridge; and since there wasn't one before, there's no loss, and no one was coerced by threat of violence,

Once built, what difference does it make if people who did not pay get to use it? The people who wanted it achieved their goal and get to use it. Even if freeloaders put wear and tear on the bridge and the time comes when it needs repair, the same scenario arises whereby the demand of those who wish to maintain the bridge will either be sufficient enough that they will be willing to pay for repairs, or it will not. This accurately reflects the strength of demand, be it a little among a lot of people, or a lot among few. Even if you don't put a toll and just choose to scowl at the people who don't pay, we have the peace of non-violence in any case, and the potential prosperity of the bridge.

And that would be the last time any significant investment in the community would be done. Because people do not want to spend their resources supporting those who take but give nothing back.


That community would immediately begin to decay. The economy would collapse due to lack of infrastructure.

Compare that to our current system whereby the bridge is built via taxation, which robs everyone under threat of violence to pay for it whether they want it or not. Then a portion of that money goes toward limousines, "business lunches", and a salary for the politician, who grants the contract to his brother-in-law for three times the fair market value of a bridge. The brother-in-law's company is getting paid no matter what, and having no accountability to the customer, his guys take 2 hour lunches, go home at 3 o'clock, and the bridge takes twice as long to get built. Then a toll is put on the bridge indefinitely which everyone must pay, even if they already paid to have it built. And of course, we have the issue of this institution doing a million and one other corrupt and immoral things while we justify its existence by citing our need for bridges and freeloader control.

Our current political class is completely corrupt and incompetent. THis is a failing of our political class and does need to be dealt with.

But it is a problem of our current leadership, not a demonstration that the idea of nations is flawed.

It's really just a matter of weighing our values. The innocent dead in Iraq are real people, just like you and me.They woke up one morning and saw the death of their children that afternoon. You and I are complicit in this if we support the institution that committed the act. The fact that we "don't like it" is irrelevant if we continue to support the overall system with our words and our votes, regardless of who those votes are for. The robbery of 300 million people to pay for it is immoral and not in keeping with our true values, as we would never rob someone directly, but condone it when done by proxy. Lies are required to gain our compliance, and on some level we all know it's not to defend anyone's freedom. And this is just one of a million immoralities that are born of governmental authority, never mind the fact that it has no valid basis to begin with; as it claims to derive its power from "the people" while none of "the people" have such rights individually (to tax each other, to make law for each other, to kill each other outside the scope of self-defense), such that they may delegate those rights to others.

We need a serious reality check about what we've been made to believe concerning the legitimacy, morality, and necessity of governmental authority as an overall concept; as no amount of well-meaning efforts to make it work better can change its inherent nature.

Groups clash and fight. This is a part of human nature.


It is not in our values to disarm and allow our enemies to wage war on us and not fight back.

First we have to recognize that we're securely in the realm of speculation here. Our predictions are ultimately just a best guess (having no practical examples of a free society in the modern technological west), but I'm sure we can both agree that it behooves us to root them in sound reason.

That being said, I think you're drastically overestimating government's positive contributions to our current society. Why do you suppose that without governmental police forces we would be reduced to small townships fending off maniacs in a "sea of barbarism"? This sounds like the residual worldview-poisoning effects of Hollywood depictions of anarchy like "The Purge", coupled with political propaganda. Approximately 1.2 million violent crimes were committed in the U.S. in 2016*, which means that only 0.004% of the population experienced a violent crime (given the 325 million U.S. population). The prisoners you fear being released from correctional institutions represent a nigh-unto negligible portion of our population - hardly a threat that could dismantle a civilized society. And this is all occurring in a country where the highest populated areas - the areas with the most violent crimes - are rendered practically defenseless by wide-scale disarmament.

1. Not sure why you limited it to violent crimes.

2. That number is the number of crimes committed with the knowledge that a huge and powerful government would be looking to find, capture and punish the criminals in question.

I also challenge the rationality of the opinion that a lack of police would create a greater incentive for violent offenders. An offender knows that he need only avoid police (about 0.003% of the population)* to have a high likelihood of committing a successful crime, and even if caught, need only throw his hands up to avoid the strongest disincentive - getting hurt or killed. Instead, he will be returned to an environment he's likely already familiar with (prison) and receive three square meals a day at no cost to himself. When confronted with the self-defense of an armed victim, however, the offender cannot be so sure of enjoying this luxury.

"A study funded by the Department of Justice... found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed." *

Which does not minimize the threat of prison. Being less threatening that a panic man with a gun, is not a very low bar.

Even given the minuscule number of violent crimes committed, it's important to recognize how government is itself responsible for much of this violence. The "War on Drugs", for example, creates an immense violent black market, which incentivizes criminal activity for people in low-income areas. Drugs represent the most viable means to financial success in these areas by far, due to the skewed profit potential born of prohibition. Being denied police protection by the illegality of the activity, participants are required to illegally arm themselves for self-defense, and the result is a violent underworld that would otherwise not exist. If there were no legal drug restrictions, Amazon would put this entire criminal industry out of business overnight. And if there's any question as to the validity of this reasoning, we need only look to the historical example of alcohol prohibition to see the before, during, and after effects of these policies. When was the last time you heard about liquor store owners having gun battles in the streets?

If in your scenario, some drug dealer was trying to sell drugs in my child's school, I would go and put a stop to it with violence.


If I was warned that he was dangerous, or in a pack, I would first assemble as group of like minded parents and stop them all, with violence.

You've also suggested that people would cease to invest in their communities simply because freeloaders enjoyed the fruits of their investment. Do you really believe that the entire population would rather see the country fall to rubble all around them then to abide freeloaders? Is biting off one's nose to spite their face the defining characteristic of humanity? Of course not. Humanity overcomes. That's what they do. If they can come back from the atrocities leveled upon them by governments (mass genocides, atomic bombings, etc.) I think they can survive a few deadbeats in their midst.

You are incorrect. I just paid my taxes. It was quite a sacrifice. I am not happy that such a high percentage of my fellow citizens do not pay taxes.

If my taxes were voluntary, I would pay much less, as I would not want my money going to people who were not productive members of my group, and obviously are hostile to me.

It's a mistake to believe that it's simply the "current leadership" that's the problem. People have been thinking this for thousands of years, but there just never seems to be the right people at the top. How long until we realize that it's not the people, but the process? Governmental authority is fundamentally invalid, having no rational basis, whether we're talking about the "divine right of Kings", or our democratic republic. I have yet to hear a valid logical refutation to the argument that people cannot delegate rights they don't have in the first place*, and this delegation is the very bedrock of our government's claim to legitimacy. It is also inherently immoral, as it establishes an inequality of rights, and is wholly comprised of a claimed exemption from morality, i.e. the "right" to do things that would be immoral if anyone else did them.*

People have their rights in the first place.

The doomsday scenario you've presented of collapsed economies and maniacal mayhem requires more careful consideration before it would serve as a reasonable justification for an invalid and immoral system of free-range slavery. We need not disorganize or disarm in order to be free. The only thing that must be put aside is the institutionalization of violent coercion. Simply stated, we need only acknowledge our inherent self-ownership, and respect the self-ownership of others. Of course, we still have the right to defend against those who refuse to respect this, even in a highly organized and technologically advanced fashion. The only difference being that we would do so through true cooperation, which honors the moral imperative of mutual consent. This is how humanity will transition into the next stage of our social evolution, and make possible a truly peaceful and prosperous world community....ty

Strongly stating your belief system is not a supporting argument.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No. The group must be ready to deal with those who take and do not give, or it will not be sustainable.

Resources, protection, anything and everything.

First I would point out that the freeloader problem is hardly a sufficient concern to justify an immense, invalid, immoral institution of coercive violence. Government is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths (Stalin alone probably killed 50 million under a constitution not wholly unlike our own*). This is way, way more than would ever be possible in a free society, so I think we should weigh our concerns rationally before noting freeloaders as significant enough crisis to warrant this monstrosity.

Sure. Imagine no coercion in society. The first thing that would happen is we release all the criminals from the prisons, they join their fellow criminals in society, and they, since the cops are no more, then go on a murderous robbery and rape spree, until gunned down by angry mobs of victims.

THe mobs secure their neighborhoods, and place armed guards at their borders, and form communities to protect them selves and your "Free Society" fragments into thousands of communities willing to protect themselves, is a sea of barbarism.



In my rational opinion, that is reason to support having a government with it's police forces.

But even if we had no way of combating freeloading without government, consider how a free market operates... If a town wishes to build a bridge, it will solicit its people to voluntarily contribute toward that effort. Those who don't sufficiently want it may refuse to pay (being willing to risk not having it for the benefit of not paying for it), while those who deem it essential will be willing to absorb the cost of those who refuse to pay. If that demand is sufficiently compelling, the bridge will get built. The worst case scenario is that there will be no bridge; and since there wasn't one before, there's no loss, and no one was coerced by threat of violence,

Once built, what difference does it make if people who did not pay get to use it? The people who wanted it achieved their goal and get to use it. Even if freeloaders put wear and tear on the bridge and the time comes when it needs repair, the same scenario arises whereby the demand of those who wish to maintain the bridge will either be sufficient enough that they will be willing to pay for repairs, or it will not. This accurately reflects the strength of demand, be it a little among a lot of people, or a lot among few. Even if you don't put a toll and just choose to scowl at the people who don't pay, we have the peace of non-violence in any case, and the potential prosperity of the bridge.

And that would be the last time any significant investment in the community would be done. Because people do not want to spend their resources supporting those who take but give nothing back.


That community would immediately begin to decay. The economy would collapse due to lack of infrastructure.

Compare that to our current system whereby the bridge is built via taxation, which robs everyone under threat of violence to pay for it whether they want it or not. Then a portion of that money goes toward limousines, "business lunches", and a salary for the politician, who grants the contract to his brother-in-law for three times the fair market value of a bridge. The brother-in-law's company is getting paid no matter what, and having no accountability to the customer, his guys take 2 hour lunches, go home at 3 o'clock, and the bridge takes twice as long to get built. Then a toll is put on the bridge indefinitely which everyone must pay, even if they already paid to have it built. And of course, we have the issue of this institution doing a million and one other corrupt and immoral things while we justify its existence by citing our need for bridges and freeloader control.

Our current political class is completely corrupt and incompetent. THis is a failing of our political class and does need to be dealt with.

But it is a problem of our current leadership, not a demonstration that the idea of nations is flawed.

It's really just a matter of weighing our values. The innocent dead in Iraq are real people, just like you and me.They woke up one morning and saw the death of their children that afternoon. You and I are complicit in this if we support the institution that committed the act. The fact that we "don't like it" is irrelevant if we continue to support the overall system with our words and our votes, regardless of who those votes are for. The robbery of 300 million people to pay for it is immoral and not in keeping with our true values, as we would never rob someone directly, but condone it when done by proxy. Lies are required to gain our compliance, and on some level we all know it's not to defend anyone's freedom. And this is just one of a million immoralities that are born of governmental authority, never mind the fact that it has no valid basis to begin with; as it claims to derive its power from "the people" while none of "the people" have such rights individually (to tax each other, to make law for each other, to kill each other outside the scope of self-defense), such that they may delegate those rights to others.

We need a serious reality check about what we've been made to believe concerning the legitimacy, morality, and necessity of governmental authority as an overall concept; as no amount of well-meaning efforts to make it work better can change its inherent nature.

Groups clash and fight. This is a part of human nature.


It is not in our values to disarm and allow our enemies to wage war on us and not fight back.

First we have to recognize that we're securely in the realm of speculation here. Our predictions are ultimately just a best guess (having no practical examples of a free society in the modern technological west), but I'm sure we can both agree that it behooves us to root them in sound reason.

That being said, I think you're drastically overestimating government's positive contributions to our current society. Why do you suppose that without governmental police forces we would be reduced to small townships fending off maniacs in a "sea of barbarism"? This sounds like the residual worldview-poisoning effects of Hollywood depictions of anarchy like "The Purge", coupled with political propaganda. Approximately 1.2 million violent crimes were committed in the U.S. in 2016*, which means that only 0.004% of the population experienced a violent crime (given the 325 million U.S. population). The prisoners you fear being released from correctional institutions represent a nigh-unto negligible portion of our population - hardly a threat that could dismantle a civilized society. And this is all occurring in a country where the highest populated areas - the areas with the most violent crimes - are rendered practically defenseless by wide-scale disarmament.

1. Not sure why you limited it to violent crimes.

2. That number is the number of crimes committed with the knowledge that a huge and powerful government would be looking to find, capture and punish the criminals in question.

I also challenge the rationality of the opinion that a lack of police would create a greater incentive for violent offenders. An offender knows that he need only avoid police (about 0.003% of the population)* to have a high likelihood of committing a successful crime, and even if caught, need only throw his hands up to avoid the strongest disincentive - getting hurt or killed. Instead, he will be returned to an environment he's likely already familiar with (prison) and receive three square meals a day at no cost to himself. When confronted with the self-defense of an armed victim, however, the offender cannot be so sure of enjoying this luxury.

"A study funded by the Department of Justice... found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed." *

Which does not minimize the threat of prison. Being less threatening that a panic man with a gun, is not a very low bar.

Even given the minuscule number of violent crimes committed, it's important to recognize how government is itself responsible for much of this violence. The "War on Drugs", for example, creates an immense violent black market, which incentivizes criminal activity for people in low-income areas. Drugs represent the most viable means to financial success in these areas by far, due to the skewed profit potential born of prohibition. Being denied police protection by the illegality of the activity, participants are required to illegally arm themselves for self-defense, and the result is a violent underworld that would otherwise not exist. If there were no legal drug restrictions, Amazon would put this entire criminal industry out of business overnight. And if there's any question as to the validity of this reasoning, we need only look to the historical example of alcohol prohibition to see the before, during, and after effects of these policies. When was the last time you heard about liquor store owners having gun battles in the streets?

If in your scenario, some drug dealer was trying to sell drugs in my child's school, I would go and put a stop to it with violence.


If I was warned that he was dangerous, or in a pack, I would first assemble as group of like minded parents and stop them all, with violence.

You've also suggested that people would cease to invest in their communities simply because freeloaders enjoyed the fruits of their investment. Do you really believe that the entire population would rather see the country fall to rubble all around them then to abide freeloaders? Is biting off one's nose to spite their face the defining characteristic of humanity? Of course not. Humanity overcomes. That's what they do. If they can come back from the atrocities leveled upon them by governments (mass genocides, atomic bombings, etc.) I think they can survive a few deadbeats in their midst.

You are incorrect. I just paid my taxes. It was quite a sacrifice. I am not happy that such a high percentage of my fellow citizens do not pay taxes.

If my taxes were voluntary, I would pay much less, as I would not want my money going to people who were not productive members of my group, and obviously are hostile to me.

It's a mistake to believe that it's simply the "current leadership" that's the problem. People have been thinking this for thousands of years, but there just never seems to be the right people at the top. How long until we realize that it's not the people, but the process? Governmental authority is fundamentally invalid, having no rational basis, whether we're talking about the "divine right of Kings", or our democratic republic. I have yet to hear a valid logical refutation to the argument that people cannot delegate rights they don't have in the first place*, and this delegation is the very bedrock of our government's claim to legitimacy. It is also inherently immoral, as it establishes an inequality of rights, and is wholly comprised of a claimed exemption from morality, i.e. the "right" to do things that would be immoral if anyone else did them.*

People have their rights in the first place.

The doomsday scenario you've presented of collapsed economies and maniacal mayhem requires more careful consideration before it would serve as a reasonable justification for an invalid and immoral system of free-range slavery. We need not disorganize or disarm in order to be free. The only thing that must be put aside is the institutionalization of violent coercion. Simply stated, we need only acknowledge our inherent self-ownership, and respect the self-ownership of others. Of course, we still have the right to defend against those who refuse to respect this, even in a highly organized and technologically advanced fashion. The only difference being that we would do so through true cooperation, which honors the moral imperative of mutual consent. This is how humanity will transition into the next stage of our social evolution, and make possible a truly peaceful and prosperous world community....ty

Strongly stating your belief system is not a supporting argument.

No. The group must be ready to deal with those who take and do not give, or it will not be sustainable.

Resources, protection, anything and everything.

First I would point out that the freeloader problem is hardly a sufficient concern to justify an immense, invalid, immoral institution of coercive violence. Government is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths (Stalin alone probably killed 50 million under a constitution not wholly unlike our own*). This is way, way more than would ever be possible in a free society, so I think we should weigh our concerns rationally before noting freeloaders as significant enough crisis to warrant this monstrosity.

Sure. Imagine no coercion in society. The first thing that would happen is we release all the criminals from the prisons, they join their fellow criminals in society, and they, since the cops are no more, then go on a murderous robbery and rape spree, until gunned down by angry mobs of victims.

THe mobs secure their neighborhoods, and place armed guards at their borders, and form communities to protect them selves and your "Free Society" fragments into thousands of communities willing to protect themselves, is a sea of barbarism.



In my rational opinion, that is reason to support having a government with it's police forces.

But even if we had no way of combating freeloading without government, consider how a free market operates... If a town wishes to build a bridge, it will solicit its people to voluntarily contribute toward that effort. Those who don't sufficiently want it may refuse to pay (being willing to risk not having it for the benefit of not paying for it), while those who deem it essential will be willing to absorb the cost of those who refuse to pay. If that demand is sufficiently compelling, the bridge will get built. The worst case scenario is that there will be no bridge; and since there wasn't one before, there's no loss, and no one was coerced by threat of violence,

Once built, what difference does it make if people who did not pay get to use it? The people who wanted it achieved their goal and get to use it. Even if freeloaders put wear and tear on the bridge and the time comes when it needs repair, the same scenario arises whereby the demand of those who wish to maintain the bridge will either be sufficient enough that they will be willing to pay for repairs, or it will not. This accurately reflects the strength of demand, be it a little among a lot of people, or a lot among few. Even if you don't put a toll and just choose to scowl at the people who don't pay, we have the peace of non-violence in any case, and the potential prosperity of the bridge.

And that would be the last time any significant investment in the community would be done. Because people do not want to spend their resources supporting those who take but give nothing back.


That community would immediately begin to decay. The economy would collapse due to lack of infrastructure.

Compare that to our current system whereby the bridge is built via taxation, which robs everyone under threat of violence to pay for it whether they want it or not. Then a portion of that money goes toward limousines, "business lunches", and a salary for the politician, who grants the contract to his brother-in-law for three times the fair market value of a bridge. The brother-in-law's company is getting paid no matter what, and having no accountability to the customer, his guys take 2 hour lunches, go home at 3 o'clock, and the bridge takes twice as long to get built. Then a toll is put on the bridge indefinitely which everyone must pay, even if they already paid to have it built. And of course, we have the issue of this institution doing a million and one other corrupt and immoral things while we justify its existence by citing our need for bridges and freeloader control.

Our current political class is completely corrupt and incompetent. THis is a failing of our political class and does need to be dealt with.

But it is a problem of our current leadership, not a demonstration that the idea of nations is flawed.

It's really just a matter of weighing our values. The innocent dead in Iraq are real people, just like you and me.They woke up one morning and saw the death of their children that afternoon. You and I are complicit in this if we support the institution that committed the act. The fact that we "don't like it" is irrelevant if we continue to support the overall system with our words and our votes, regardless of who those votes are for. The robbery of 300 million people to pay for it is immoral and not in keeping with our true values, as we would never rob someone directly, but condone it when done by proxy. Lies are required to gain our compliance, and on some level we all know it's not to defend anyone's freedom. And this is just one of a million immoralities that are born of governmental authority, never mind the fact that it has no valid basis to begin with; as it claims to derive its power from "the people" while none of "the people" have such rights individually (to tax each other, to make law for each other, to kill each other outside the scope of self-defense), such that they may delegate those rights to others.

We need a serious reality check about what we've been made to believe concerning the legitimacy, morality, and necessity of governmental authority as an overall concept; as no amount of well-meaning efforts to make it work better can change its inherent nature.

Groups clash and fight. This is a part of human nature.


It is not in our values to disarm and allow our enemies to wage war on us and not fight back.

First we have to recognize that we're securely in the realm of speculation here. Our predictions are ultimately just a best guess (having no practical examples of a free society in the modern technological west), but I'm sure we can both agree that it behooves us to root them in sound reason.

That being said, I think you're drastically overestimating government's positive contributions to our current society. Why do you suppose that without governmental police forces we would be reduced to small townships fending off maniacs in a "sea of barbarism"? This sounds like the residual worldview-poisoning effects of Hollywood depictions of anarchy like "The Purge", coupled with political propaganda. Approximately 1.2 million violent crimes were committed in the U.S. in 2016*, which means that only 0.004% of the population experienced a violent crime (given the 325 million U.S. population). The prisoners you fear being released from correctional institutions represent a nigh-unto negligible portion of our population - hardly a threat that could dismantle a civilized society. And this is all occurring in a country where the highest populated areas - the areas with the most violent crimes - are rendered practically defenseless by wide-scale disarmament.

1. Not sure why you limited it to violent crimes.

2. That number is the number of crimes committed with the knowledge that a huge and powerful government would be looking to find, capture and punish the criminals in question.

I also challenge the rationality of the opinion that a lack of police would create a greater incentive for violent offenders. An offender knows that he need only avoid police (about 0.003% of the population)* to have a high likelihood of committing a successful crime, and even if caught, need only throw his hands up to avoid the strongest disincentive - getting hurt or killed. Instead, he will be returned to an environment he's likely already familiar with (prison) and receive three square meals a day at no cost to himself. When confronted with the self-defense of an armed victim, however, the offender cannot be so sure of enjoying this luxury.

"A study funded by the Department of Justice... found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed." *

Which does not minimize the threat of prison. Being less threatening that a panic man with a gun, is not a very low bar.

Even given the minuscule number of violent crimes committed, it's important to recognize how government is itself responsible for much of this violence. The "War on Drugs", for example, creates an immense violent black market, which incentivizes criminal activity for people in low-income areas. Drugs represent the most viable means to financial success in these areas by far, due to the skewed profit potential born of prohibition. Being denied police protection by the illegality of the activity, participants are required to illegally arm themselves for self-defense, and the result is a violent underworld that would otherwise not exist. If there were no legal drug restrictions, Amazon would put this entire criminal industry out of business overnight. And if there's any question as to the validity of this reasoning, we need only look to the historical example of alcohol prohibition to see the before, during, and after effects of these policies. When was the last time you heard about liquor store owners having gun battles in the streets?

If in your scenario, some drug dealer was trying to sell drugs in my child's school, I would go and put a stop to it with violence.


If I was warned that he was dangerous, or in a pack, I would first assemble as group of like minded parents and stop them all, with violence.

You've also suggested that people would cease to invest in their communities simply because freeloaders enjoyed the fruits of their investment. Do you really believe that the entire population would rather see the country fall to rubble all around them then to abide freeloaders? Is biting off one's nose to spite their face the defining characteristic of humanity? Of course not. Humanity overcomes. That's what they do. If they can come back from the atrocities leveled upon them by governments (mass genocides, atomic bombings, etc.) I think they can survive a few deadbeats in their midst.

You are incorrect. I just paid my taxes. It was quite a sacrifice. I am not happy that such a high percentage of my fellow citizens do not pay taxes.

If my taxes were voluntary, I would pay much less, as I would not want my money going to people who were not productive members of my group, and obviously are hostile to me.

It's a mistake to believe that it's simply the "current leadership" that's the problem. People have been thinking this for thousands of years, but there just never seems to be the right people at the top. How long until we realize that it's not the people, but the process? Governmental authority is fundamentally invalid, having no rational basis, whether we're talking about the "divine right of Kings", or our democratic republic. I have yet to hear a valid logical refutation to the argument that people cannot delegate rights they don't have in the first place*, and this delegation is the very bedrock of our government's claim to legitimacy. It is also inherently immoral, as it establishes an inequality of rights, and is wholly comprised of a claimed exemption from morality, i.e. the "right" to do things that would be immoral if anyone else did them.*

People have their rights in the first place.

The doomsday scenario you've presented of collapsed economies and maniacal mayhem requires more careful consideration before it would serve as a reasonable justification for an invalid and immoral system of free-range slavery. We need not disorganize or disarm in order to be free. The only thing that must be put aside is the institutionalization of violent coercion. Simply stated, we need only acknowledge our inherent self-ownership, and respect the self-ownership of others. Of course, we still have the right to defend against those who refuse to respect this, even in a highly organized and technologically advanced fashion. The only difference being that we would do so through true cooperation, which honors the moral imperative of mutual consent. This is how humanity will transition into the next stage of our social evolution, and make possible a truly peaceful and prosperous world community....ty

Strongly stating your belief system is not a supporting argument.

I’m sorry, but I feel we’re having a failure to communicate. I don’t see how your responses address the core points being made, and I’m not willing to invest further time in the conversation. No hard feelings.

 

[danielpalos]

What is meant by saying you love your country?

Does it mean you love:
-The government?
-The people inhabiting a particular area of land?
-The land itself?
-The culture (language, entertainment, beliefs, etc.)

All things considered, I don't believe there is anyone who would say they love any of these things in total, or to the exclusion of all other examples throughout the world. It seems reasonable to presume that there are things you like about your culture, for instance, and things that you do not like about it. But that could also be said about many other cultures. For instance, most people enjoy some of the food popular in their culture, but not all of them; but they also like some Italian foods, and not all of them. I think this could be said of any aspect of a "country" such that the expression does not seem to mean anything particular at all.

I suspect it may just refer to an emotional state that is connected with a nebulous notion of "the country". Precisely what constitutes the country is difficult to define. What do we really mean? Where does this idea come from? Did it originate within ourselves, or is it just something we picked up from the culture itself?

To love your Republic at least as much as you love your guns, gun lovers.

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”
― G.K. Chesterton

 

[Brian Blackwell]

To love your Republic at least as much as you love your guns, gun lovers.

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”
― G.K. Chesterton

Rome wasn’t great at all; it was a nightmare of bloodshed, domination, and debauchery. Chesterton is romanticizing outright evil, and you’re regurgitating it like so much vomitus.

I can hardly think of anything more disgusting than the notion of loving a Republic. Somewhat less repulsive is a chattel-bondage slave loving his master - at least there’s some twisted basis for such affection, living amongst each other so intimately.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I understand the purported function of the Constitution, but does the Constitution actually do that?

Yes, to a rather amazing (and hopefully growing) extent it does. It is the law intended to govern government and that is the critical importance of everyone being sworn to defend it instead of the government. Government officials can and should be held accountable to the law the same as everyone else. Yes there is still corruption and probably always will be. But whose fault is that? Just as We the People share responsibility for what our Nation does overseas we also share it for what it does here at home. If we don't care enough to see that the law is enforced it is the fault of neither the Constitution nor the system.

Freedom does not have degrees .
Freedom does not include murdering people because...

Either freedom can-and sometimes should-be restricted or it can't. Can't have it both ways.
You seem to find defensive violence (self defense) acceptable but offensive and defensive are types of tactics or strategy; not types of violence and one is easily mistaken or misrepresented as the other. I see The War on Terror as self defense and entirely justified as were our attacks on Japan and Germany during WWII. War is a classic example of the people of a nation being held responsible for the actions of their government.

Yes, self-defense and offensive violence are both acts of physical force, but so is pushing a couch against a wall. To compare them on that basis alone ignores other qualities that confirm differentiation. Offensive force is an act of targeted aggression with the intent of violating another person's "God-given" "unalienable" rights. Defensive force is a protection of those rights. These are two very different actions from a moral perspective. Calling them tactics or strategies is fine, as long as you're acknowledging the moral difference between such strategies. And of course you would certainly do so if you were both mugged at gunpoint, and successfully defended against that mugging by an armed neighbor in the same encounter. You would say the mugger did something wrong, and the neighbor did something right. This distinction is self-evident and innate.

Did you understand my argument about conflicting freedoms being unable to co-exist? Your freedom to shoot your gun ends at the point where your bullets would touch my skin (or my property, which is an extension of me by way of its connection to my labor). Were your freedom able to cross that boundary, it would limit or deny my freedom. Freedom is one thing, despite our use of the terms "yours" and "mine" (which merely describe instances of its expression). Freedom cannot impose upon itself and still be freedom. This is a naturally-occurring limitation on freedom, just as gravity and other forces have naturally-occurring limitations. Man does not devise this limitation; it exists by natural and logical necessity.

The War on Terror is not self-defense, in fact it has no valid rationale whatsoever, having no defined parameters. How do you win this war? You cannot, and that's precisely the point of it. War profiteers have established an excuse for unending opportunity, and the nation have been made to by into this racket by the events of 9/11. Self-defense would have been scrambling jets to take out those hijacked planes, but where were the jets on that fateful morning? You may want to look into that for yourself. Self-defense requires a present, active attacker. It is not self-defense to preemptively attack another country, killing thousands of innocent people who have not threatened us at all. Think about how politicians obfuscate ideas and warp words to have alternate - even opposite - meanings. Freedom is slavery, war is peace... where have I heard this before?

Carefully examine this reply to my question, "Does the Constitution actually do what it's intended to do?":

"Yes, to a rather amazing (and hopefully growing) extent it does. It is the law intended to govern government and that is the critical importance of everyone being sworn to defend it instead of the government. Government officials can and should be held accountable to the law the same as everyone else."

Intentions, possibilities, supplications... Where does this demonstrate that it actually serves the cited purpose? Do you see how we're made to believe that because of this intent being written somewhere, or people taking oaths to that effect, that we actually live under this system? We have the intent and the reality scrambled in our minds because all the political and educational rhetoric pounds us with this idea from the time we're old enough to talk. It is not so. A piece of parchment does nothing to assure this intent; an oath does nothing. The reality is that our government does not exist under this limitation any more than Stalin was bound by his (1936 Soviet Constitution - Wikipedia).

The Supreme Court is government, not a neutral third party. So government is expected to limit itself. A bit of a conflict of interests, no? Sometimes it erects the facade that it is keeping congress in check, because if it didn't, we'd have ourtight revolution. But by degrees, by a tip-toe effect, it permits a distancing from those originating ideals; a process slow enough as to escape the people's awareness (or at least their resistance). If you're really interested in evaluating the strength of the culturally-sanctioned, civics class position on this matter, perhaps you will be willing to consider the following two videos at your leisure:

I did in fact watch the second video (couldn't get sound on the first) and found it interesting if long. Used up what time I have to spend online at the moment. Will comment tomorrow.

 

[Billo_Really]

What is meant by saying you love your country?

Does it mean you love:
-The government?
-The people inhabiting a particular area of land?
-The land itself?
-The culture (language, entertainment, beliefs, etc.)

All things considered, I don't believe there is anyone who would say they love any of these things in total, or to the exclusion of all other examples throughout the world. It seems reasonable to presume that there are things you like about your culture, for instance, and things that you do not like about it. But that could also be said about many other cultures. For instance, most people enjoy some of the food popular in their culture, but not all of them; but they also like some Italian foods, and not all of them. I think this could be said of any aspect of a "country" such that the expression does not seem to mean anything particular at all.

I suspect it may just refer to an emotional state that is connected with a nebulous notion of "the country". Precisely what constitutes the country is difficult to define. What do we really mean? Where does this idea come from? Did it originate within ourselves, or is it just something we picked up from the culture itself?

Well, the first thing to realize, is that "love" is not about feelings, it's about action. And when you love your country, you live your life embracing the countries values. Truth and justice, is the American way. Love of country, comes before partisan politics.

 

[danielpalos]

To love your Republic at least as much as you love your guns, gun lovers.

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”
― G.K. Chesterton

Rome wasn’t great at all; it was a nightmare of bloodshed, domination, and debauchery. Chesterton is romanticizing outright evil, and you’re regurgitating it like so much vomitus.

I can hardly think of anything more disgusting than the notion of loving a Republic. Somewhat less repulsive is a chattel-bondage slave loving his master - at least there’s some twisted basis for such affection, living amongst each other so intimately.

the right wing, loves their republic, even less.

thank goodness our Founding Fathers did such a good job.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

What is meant by saying you love your country?

Does it mean you love:
-The government?
-The people inhabiting a particular area of land?
-The land itself?
-The culture (language, entertainment, beliefs, etc.)

All things considered, I don't believe there is anyone who would say they love any of these things in total, or to the exclusion of all other examples throughout the world. It seems reasonable to presume that there are things you like about your culture, for instance, and things that you do not like about it. But that could also be said about many other cultures. For instance, most people enjoy some of the food popular in their culture, but not all of them; but they also like some Italian foods, and not all of them. I think this could be said of any aspect of a "country" such that the expression does not seem to mean anything particular at all.

I suspect it may just refer to an emotional state that is connected with a nebulous notion of "the country". Precisely what constitutes the country is difficult to define. What do we really mean? Where does this idea come from? Did it originate within ourselves, or is it just something we picked up from the culture itself?

Well, the first thing to realize, is that "love" is not about feelings, it's about action. And when you love your country, you live your life embracing the countries values. Truth and justice, is the American way. Love of country, comes before partisan politics.

Thank you. What exactly do you mean when you say “country”?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

To love your Republic at least as much as you love your guns, gun lovers.

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”
― G.K. Chesterton

Rome wasn’t great at all; it was a nightmare of bloodshed, domination, and debauchery. Chesterton is romanticizing outright evil, and you’re regurgitating it like so much vomitus.

I can hardly think of anything more disgusting than the notion of loving a Republic. Somewhat less repulsive is a chattel-bondage slave loving his master - at least there’s some twisted basis for such affection, living amongst each other so intimately.

the right wing, loves their republic, even less.

thank goodness our Founding Fathers did such a good job.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean.

 

[WEATHER53]

Means I hold it in high regard and hope for its well being

 

[Billo_Really]

Thank you. What exactly do you mean when you say “country”?

Well, I'm not talking about blue grass.

The country you're a citizen of.