Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[Arianrhod]

Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.

It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it. The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"

Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.

The quote in question says none of those things.

This is the quote we're talking about, yes?

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."

What do you think it means? What am I missing?

Everything.

Then clarify it...to me, not to your Imaginary Friend.

 

[LOki]

Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.

It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it. The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"

Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.

The quote in question says none of those things.

This is the quote we're talking about, yes?

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."

What do you think it means? What am I missing?

Everything.

Then clarify it...to me, not to your Imaginary Friend.

You are clearly the daintiest of princesses, Princess.

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals."​

What do you think? Reply below.

"And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."​

What do you think? Reply below.

 

[Arianrhod]

Ah, well. LOki's moment of lucidity has passed. Pity. A discussion of anarchy might have been worthy of a thread of its own.

Hmm, where to start it? Politics? Philosophy?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ah, well. LOki's moment of lucidity has passed. Pity. A discussion of anarchy might have been worthy of a thread of its own.

Hmm, where to start it? Politics? Philosophy?

agreed

an anarchy thread is a good idea too

 

[Arianrhod]

Ah, well. LOki's moment of lucidity has passed. Pity. A discussion of anarchy might have been worthy of a thread of its own.

Hmm, where to start it? Politics? Philosophy?

agreed

an anarchy thread is a good idea too

Trying to decide what forum to start it in. Any suggestions?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ah, well. LOki's moment of lucidity has passed. Pity. A discussion of anarchy might have been worthy of a thread of its own.

Hmm, where to start it? Politics? Philosophy?

agreed

an anarchy thread is a good idea too

Trying to decide what forum to start it in. Any suggestions?

yes

give me a minute or two

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ah, well. LOki's moment of lucidity has passed. Pity. A discussion of anarchy might have been worthy of a thread of its own.

Hmm, where to start it? Politics? Philosophy?

agreed

an anarchy thread is a good idea too

Trying to decide what forum to start it in. Any suggestions?

Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

you can state the rules you'd want if any

It would be interesting to see a debate on what people think Anarchy is; a political movement, an ideology, a school of philosophy, whatever an individual says it is, and or any combination of it all

 

[Arianrhod]

^Thanks!

And here we go:

Debate Now - Anarchy: What is it, what is it not? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[dblack]

Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.

It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it. The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"

Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.

The quote in question says none of those things.

This is the quote we're talking about, yes?

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."

What do you think it means? What am I missing?

It's what you're adding that's the problem. It says nothing about government being evil, nothing about overthrowing government, nothing about staging a coup, nothing about assassination. Literally nothing in your response was claimed or alluded to in the quote.

What you're missing is the actually meaning of the sentences. It's saying that government should have no rights denied individuals. It's another formulation of exactly what I posted earlier, that I don't want government doing anything that I wouldn't have the right to do myself. I'd have every right to defend myself, or others, from aggressors and thieves -and so does government. But I'd have no right to force people to buy my products, or hire me, or otherwise give me money against their will, and neither should government.

 

[Arianrhod]

Fair enough...and because you ask where others troll.

It's an honest thought from an anarchist perspective: Government is intrinsically evil, therefore you should overthrow it. The problem with that is, there's never any follow-up, never any "Okay, so what happens next?"

Historically, in my observation, when you stage a coup and don't have a follow-up plan, things get messy, and very often the people leading the coup are assassinated by the next group staging a coup.

The quote in question says none of those things.

This is the quote we're talking about, yes?

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."

What do you think it means? What am I missing?

It's what you're adding that's the problem. It says nothing about government being evil…

I’d think most people would define “trespassers, robbers, or murderers” as evil.

…nothing about overthrowing government, nothing about staging a coup, nothing about assassination. Literally nothing in your response was claimed or alluded to in the quote.

It’s very carefully worded, but unless you ignore all of history to the point where Spooner wrote that, the general tendency of people who feel oppressed by “trespassers, robbers, and murderers” is to rise up against them.

What you're missing is the actually meaning of the sentences. It's saying that government should have no rights denied individuals. It's another formulation of exactly what I posted earlier, that I don't want government doing anything that I wouldn't have the right to do myself.

The problem with that is twofold: Either you’d pretty much have to disband the military, because why should they have tanks and aircraft carriers and missiles and an air force and nukes if you can’t? Or, you’d buy into the “So why can’t I have my own personal missile launcher if I want to, huh, huh?” argument.

I'd have every right to defend myself, or others, from aggressors and thieves—and so does government.

But what if the government is, or is perceived to be, the aggressor and thief? That is implied in Spooner’s statement.

But I'd have no right to force people to buy my products, or hire me, or otherwise give me money against their will, and neither should government.

But the Constitution grants the U.S. government the right to levy taxes, and the First Amendment guarantees the right of people who feel aggrieved about that fact to bore the rest of us with their endless laments about same. They want the privilege of being a member of the club, but they don’t want to pay the dues. Yet none of them ever pick up and move somewhere where they can live tax free. No, they just keep singing their sad songs.

 

[Arianrhod]

Okay, I don't know why, but I keep screwing up the quotes in that post. I've edited it half a dozen times and it still ends up looking like ^that.

 

[dblack]

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."

I’d think most people would define “trespassers, robbers, or murderers” as evil.

I'm sorry, but this is just a problem with reading comprehension. Seriously, read it again. The quote is saying that if someone trespasses, robs and murders it doesn't matter if they call themselves or government or not - they're equally responsible for their acts. We have to be a little smarter than simply taking a line or two out of context and demagoguing it.

…nothing about overthrowing government, nothing about staging a coup, nothing about assassination. Literally nothing in your response was claimed or alluded to in the quote.

It’s very carefully worded, but unless you ignore all of history to the point where Spooner wrote that, the general tendency of people who feel oppressed by “trespassers, robbers, and murderers” is to rise up against them.

Again, you're injecting meaning that isn't there. You're simply eager to discount the argument, and conveniently ignore it, by attacking the source. That's cheap, and not a valid response. Why not actually address the ideas. Do you think government should have the right to initiate violence in situations where an individual wouldn't? Why, or why not? For example, do you think you should have the right to force your neighbors to buy insurance? Should government? What's the difference, in your view? That's the question of the quote - not all the other baggage you're dragging in.

I'd have every right to defend myself, or others, from aggressors and thieves—and so does government.

But what if the government is, or is perceived to be, the aggressor and thief? That is implied in Spooner’s statement.

Spooner is saying that if and when government is the aggressor, they are just as wrong as an individual would be. Government should defend us from bullies, not use it's own power to bully us (even if the claim it's for our own good).

But I'd have no right to force people to buy my products, or hire me, or otherwise give me money against their will, and neither should government.

But the Constitution grants the U.S. government the right to ....

Yep. Spooner is questioning the prevailing interpretation of the Constitution, no doubt about that.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The government has been cutting military medical benefits, especially for retired and inactive veterans, since the end of Viet Nam...

If the government feels it can't take care of military medical care what makes anyone think that the government can provide it for the whole nation?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Arianrhod]

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."

I’d think most people would define “trespassers, robbers, or murderers” as evil.

I'm sorry, but this is just a problem with reading comprehension. Seriously, read it again. The quote is saying that if someone trespasses, robs and murders it doesn't matter if they call themselves or government or not - they're equally responsible for their acts. We have to be a little smarter than simply taking a line or two out of context and demagoguing it.

…nothing about overthrowing government, nothing about staging a coup, nothing about assassination. Literally nothing in your response was claimed or alluded to in the quote.

It’s very carefully worded, but unless you ignore all of history to the point where Spooner wrote that, the general tendency of people who feel oppressed by “trespassers, robbers, and murderers” is to rise up against them.

Again, you're injecting meaning that isn't there. You're simply eager to discount the argument, and conveniently ignore it, by attacking the source. That's cheap, and not a valid response. Why not actually address the ideas. Do you think government should have the right to initiate violence in situations where an individual wouldn't? Why, or why not? For example, do you think you should have the right to force your neighbors to buy insurance? Should government? What's the difference, in your view? That's the question of the quote - not all the other baggage you're dragging in.

I'd have every right to defend myself, or others, from aggressors and thieves—and so does government.

But what if the government is, or is perceived to be, the aggressor and thief? That is implied in Spooner’s statement.

Spooner is saying that if and when government is the aggressor, they are just as wrong as an individual would be. Government should defend us from bullies, not use it's own power to bully us (even if the claim it's for our own good).

But I'd have no right to force people to buy my products, or hire me, or otherwise give me money against their will, and neither should government.

But the Constitution grants the U.S. government the right to ....

Yep. Spooner is questioning the prevailing interpretation of the Constitution, no doubt about that.

Not sure I can answer all of that without screwing up the quote tags again. Will try later...

The government has been cutting military medical benefits, especially for retired and inactive veterans, since the end of Viet Nam...

If the government feels it can't take care of military medical care what makes anyone think that the government can provide it for the whole nation?

*****SMILE*****

Do you have any figures for this? I'd be very interested.

 

[LOki]

Okay, I don't know why, but I keep screwing up the quotes in that post. I've edited it half a dozen times and it still ends up looking like ^that.

You threw in an extra dblack tag.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The government has been cutting military medical benefits, especially for retired and inactive veterans, since the end of Viet Nam...

If the government feels it can't take care of military medical care what makes anyone think that the government can provide it for the whole nation?

*****SMILE*****

Do you have any figures for this? I'd be very interested.[/QUOTE]

When I joined at the end of the Viet Nam war the VA covered optical and dental for retired vets and was the first things they cut.

Over the years the retired vets have had to start paying for the pills they are prescribed, pay more and more of costs for rooms when provided services at the hospital while in their care, etc, etc, etc,...

How many billions (trillions?) do you suppose they saved by Congress changing the deal with the vets because you can't win against city hall?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Arianrhod]

Okay, dblack, in the interim, I’ve been reading bits of No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. It makes a lot more sense now. Spooner’s premise is that government should not exist, and the Constitution has no authority.

Given how many people on this board start squawking about the Founders at the slightest provocation (sorry, but I see “Founders” and I think of this:

), I don’t imagine this would be too popular…except with regard to anything that’s transpired since January 2009.

Now, I may read the entire thing someday, but I’m a little pressed for time this weekend, so I’m still left wondering “What happens next?”

If we agree with Spooner that governments are meaningless and the Constitution should have no authority over us, do we change anything or, like Spooner, do we just go about our business? There doesn’t seem to be any history of vigilantism or even civil disobedience in Spooner’s personal history; the most daring thing he seems to have done is to try – unsuccessfully – to compete with the USPS. (If only he’d waited, he could have founded UPS!) So it seems that anarchy, as embodied in Spooner, is little more than an intellectual exercise.

I can see where he’d have loved the Occupy Movement and they him, though.

 

[Arianrhod]

The government has been cutting military medical benefits, especially for retired and inactive veterans, since the end of Viet Nam...

If the government feels it can't take care of military medical care what makes anyone think that the government can provide it for the whole nation?

*****SMILE*****

Do you have any figures for this? I'd be very interested.

When I joined at the end of the Viet Nam war the VA covered optical and dental for retired vets and was the first things they cut.

Over the years the retired vets have had to start paying for the pills they are prescribed, pay more and more of costs for rooms when provided services at the hospital while in their care, etc, etc, etc,...

How many billions (trillions?) do you suppose they saved by Congress changing the deal with the vets because you can't win against city hall?

*****SMILE*****



[/QUOTE]

Damn, that sucks! Congress has been stealing from Social Security since the Reagan years, too. A big part of the problem, I think, is that voters are unaware of these things and keep reelecting the same clowns who continue their pilfering.

 

[dblack]

Okay, dblack, in the interim, I’ve been reading bits of No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. It makes a lot more sense now. Spooner’s premise is that government should not exist, and the Constitution has no authority.

Given how many people on this board start squawking about the Founders at the slightest provocation (sorry, but I see “Founders” and I think of this:

), I don’t imagine this would be too popular…except with regard to anything that’s transpired since January 2009.

Now, I may read the entire thing someday, but I’m a little pressed for time this weekend, so I’m still left wondering “What happens next?”

If we agree with Spooner that governments are meaningless and the Constitution should have no authority over us, do we change anything or, like Spooner, do we just go about our business? There doesn’t seem to be any history of vigilantism or even civil disobedience in Spooner’s personal history; the most daring thing he seems to have done is to try – unsuccessfully – to compete with the USPS. (If only he’d waited, he could have founded UPS!) So it seems that anarchy, as embodied in Spooner, is little more than an intellectual exercise.

I can see where he’d have loved the Occupy Movement and they him, though.

I don't know anything about Spooner. Nor do I care. The quote, however, makes a good point and raises questions you seem to be side-stepping. Can you address them directly?

 

[Arianrhod]

Okay, dblack, in the interim, I’ve been reading bits of No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. It makes a lot more sense now. Spooner’s premise is that government should not exist, and the Constitution has no authority.

Given how many people on this board start squawking about the Founders at the slightest provocation (sorry, but I see “Founders” and I think of this:

), I don’t imagine this would be too popular…except with regard to anything that’s transpired since January 2009.

Now, I may read the entire thing someday, but I’m a little pressed for time this weekend, so I’m still left wondering “What happens next?”

If we agree with Spooner that governments are meaningless and the Constitution should have no authority over us, do we change anything or, like Spooner, do we just go about our business? There doesn’t seem to be any history of vigilantism or even civil disobedience in Spooner’s personal history; the most daring thing he seems to have done is to try – unsuccessfully – to compete with the USPS. (If only he’d waited, he could have founded UPS!) So it seems that anarchy, as embodied in Spooner, is little more than an intellectual exercise.

I can see where he’d have loved the Occupy Movement and they him, though.

I don't know anything about Spooner. Nor do I care. The quote, however, makes a good point and raises questions you seem to be side-stepping. Can you address them directly?

Ask me one question at a time.