From Minarchism to Anarchism in Ten Easy Steps - A Guide for Constitutionalists

[RevolutionSD]

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/95076

Any questions or further arguments from the minarchists here?

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul

:D

[RevolutionSD]

Ron Paul

:D

Is that a question or an argument? :)

[LibertyEagle]

Is that a question or an argument? :)

It's a comment, as Ron Paul is not an anarchist. And since he has asked that we engage in activism to reinstate the Constitution, by getting involved in the political process, I'm not sure what it is that you are attempting to do. Care to explain?

[RevolutionSD]

It's a comment, as Ron Paul is not an anarchist. And since he has asked that we engage in activism to reinstate the Constitution, by getting involved in the political process, I'm not sure what it is that you are attempting to do. Care to explain?

I'm attempting to spread the good meme of no government. Yes I supported RP on his campaign and I think the best thing that came out of it was being able to educate more people on what the issues are, aka, wake people up, via national exposure.

But small government is still a pipe dream. Government, by nature, attracts people who are authoritarian sociopaths (RP, Kokesh, etc. are exceptions to the rule, not the norm). So shrinking gov't is asking these power-hungry authoritarians to give up their power. But, you see, this is impossible, as it is part of them.

As long as we allow others to have power over us, we will always have a government that turns tyrannical in a very short time. Because, government, after all, by nature, is force, and can only operate from extortion. Should we allow this, or fight for what is really right? Pragmatism fails miserably here. By voting in elections, we are playing their game and assuming we need people to have power over us puny individuals. Collectivism is the name of the game when it comes to government, and I'd rather fight for individualism than a lesser form of collectivism.

This is all about striking the root rather than cutting off a few branches on the tree.

[LibertyEagle]

We'll have to agree to disagree, as I do not think anarchy is the best solution.

But hey, why don't you go try to pitch it to some of the Obama-lovers or neocons.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/95076

Any questions or further arguments from the minarchists here?

You are beating a dead horse. If anyone knows enough to think of themselves as a Minarchist (vs. Anarcho-Capitalist), they are also familiar with Rothbardian arguments. You aren't going to change anyone's mind.

[Number19]

Anarchism hasn't a snow ball's chance in hell of ever being achieved. Reducing government to our original Constitution's limits will be very challenging. If we can actually CUT the size of government by 25%, this would represent a major victory. Liberalism wasn't foisted on America overnight, but has been a 100 year effort. Government will only be reduced by a similar effort. The single greatest road block is that the educational system is controlled by government, the necessity of which was recognized by Marx.

[Brian4Liberty]

But hey, why don't you go try to pitch it to some of the Obama-lovers or neocons.

And that may be dangerous. Many of the Anarcho-Capitalist arguments and scenarios focus on the evil of State vs. State warfare. Obama lovers have a solution to that and are working on it's implementation: a one-world state (the UN was a stepping stone to that goal). Neo-cons want a single dominant State (US/Israel Hegemony). Reading Rothbard will probably re-enforce most of their views.

[Theocrat]

The idea of private courts is very impractical, to me. It makes justice a matter of subjective opinion. For example, Person A murders Person B. Person B's family goes to a private court and wants to have Person A tried for murder. Person A doesn't believe what he did to Person B was murder, justifying it as his own right to kill whomever he pleases.

How then does the private court subpoena Person A to its private court, especially since (1) Person A is not privately funding the court, (2) Person A doesn't believe his actions were defined as "murder", and (3) the court cannot send officers to apprehend Person A because that action would violate the property rights of Person A (trespassing)?

That is just one small problem I see in the whole paradigm of the anarchy utopia.

[MRoCkEd]

I plan to read these soon. Thanks

[Epic]

With no government, the people who want to live in a minarchy can live in a minarchy, the people who want socialism can do that, the people who want communism can live in a commune, and the people who just want to be free can just do that.

Anarchy/Voluntaryism allows everyone to live in the type of system that they choose - even the minarchist.

And by the way, I don't know that Ron Paul isn't a closet anarchist. He converted me to anarchism. Obviously, if he were, he wouldn't be able to say so politically. Ron Paul has probably converted the most people to anarchism of all people living today (Lew Rockwell and Mises Institute close behind).

So when people criticize Ron Paul for working in the system, presumably like me they are anarchists. But if you are an anarchist, you should love Ron Paul!! He has converted the most people to anarchism - and the ones who are still minarchists have been exposed to websites and organization like LewRockwell.com and Mises.org which are anarchist.

[sailor]

Anarchism hasn't a snow ball's chance in hell of ever being achieved. Reducing government to our original Constitution's limits will be very challenging. If we can actually CUT the size of government by 25%, this would represent a major victory.

Ever? Ever is a long time.

Introducing anarchy through political participation is indeed impossible, but you are failing to account for the fact that anarchism is a revolutionary movement.

You are quite right however that reducing the government to its constitutional powers through political participation is very unlikely.



Liberalism wasn't foisted on America overnight, but has been a 100 year effort. Government will only be reduced by a similar effort.

I think liberalism was hoisted upon America with the American revolution. Government reducing itself is an extremley rare phenomena. In the wast mayority of cases where the government was made smaller it was made so via a revolution. Not politics.

[RevolutionSD]

We'll have to agree to disagree, as I do not think anarchy is the best solution.

But hey, why don't you go try to pitch it to some of the Obama-lovers or neocons.

Why don't you give me your best argument(s) for minarchism? You may want to check out some of the articles on the link that that I posted.

[RevolutionSD]

Anarchism hasn't a snow ball's chance in hell of ever being achieved. Reducing government to our original Constitution's limits will be very challenging. If we can actually CUT the size of government by 25%, this would represent a major victory. Liberalism wasn't foisted on America overnight, but has been a 100 year effort. Government will only be reduced by a similar effort. The single greatest road block is that the educational system is controlled by government, the necessity of which was recognized by Marx.

How are you going to stop them from stealing money from us? How are you going to stop them from creating inflation and stealing more money from us?

Minarchism has zero chance of working on any medium or long-term basis because the idea of government is fundamentally flawed.

[RevolutionSD]

With no government, the people who want to live in a minarchy can live in a minarchy, the people who want socialism can do that, the people who want communism can live in a commune, and the people who just want to be free can just do that.

Anarchy/Voluntaryism allows everyone to live in the type of system that they choose - even the minarchist.

And by the way, I don't know that Ron Paul isn't a closet anarchist. He converted me to anarchism. Obviously, if he were, he wouldn't be able to say so politically. Ron Paul has probably converted the most people to anarchism of all people living today (Lew Rockwell and Mises Institute close behind).

So when people criticize Ron Paul for working in the system, presumably like me they are anarchists. But if you are an anarchist, you should love Ron Paul!! He has converted the most people to anarchism - and the ones who are still minarchists have been exposed to websites and organization like LewRockwell.com and Mises.org which are anarchist.

RP has stated on record that if it came down to a small government vs. anarchy, he would side with the anarchists, but he believes working within the system is the only way to get there. I obviously disagree with him on this.

40+ years of libertarianism in politics and the gov't is bigger than it ever has been.

[sailor]

From the political arena there can arise changes for the better as well as for the worse, but in the long term the trend is always toward the growth of the state and changes for the better are therefore always only temporary. In a long enough time-frame every state turns into a Leviathan.

The only reason why all states today are not maximum (totalitarian) states are past proto-libertarian revolutions, uprisings, secessions, revolts... Which are really the only dramatic setbacks state power can face, but even these setbacks will remain to be temporary until one that is fully libertarian in its nature.

[Theocrat]

From the political arena there can arise changes for the better as well as for the worse, but in the long term the trend is always toward the growth of the state and changes for the better are therefore always only temporary. In a long enough time-frame every state turns into a Leviathan.

The only reason why all states today are not maximum (totalitarian) states are past proto-libertarian revolutions, uprisings, secessions, revolts... Which are really the only dramatic setbacks state power can face, but even these setbacks will remain to be temporary until one that is fully libertarian in its nature.

The problem is the people, not the institution. The problem is the people, not the institution. The problem is the people, not the institution. The problem is the people, not the institution. Let that soak in the minds of the anarchists for a while.

Even if we lived in anarchy, eventually, somebody would complain or reason that we need a more centralized system of government which protected the rights of every one equally (maybe because of the strongest in society [unrestrained by the rule of law in their hearts] always getting away with having things their own way, while others are helpless to stop it). Civil government is an inevitability as long as humans remain sinful and rebellious to their Creator. There is simply always going to be people who make themselves god in place of God, and therefore, they will impose their values or materials upon others in society, due to unrestrained internal lusts.

[LibertyEagle]

RP has stated on record that if it came down to a small government vs. anarchy, he would side with the anarchists, but he believes working within the system is the only way to get there. I obviously disagree with him on this.



And by the way, I don't know that Ron Paul isn't a closet anarchist. He converted me to anarchism. Obviously, if he were, he wouldn't be able to say so politically. Ron Paul has probably converted the most people to anarchism of all people living today (Lew Rockwell and Mises Institute close behind).

Uh, guys, as much as you may want it to be true, Ron Paul is not an anarchist. If you doubt it, ask HIM, or ask his best friend, Lew Rockwell. Dr. Paul is a constitutionalist and always has been.

[sailor]

Even if we lived in anarchy, eventually, somebody would complain or reason that we need a more centralized system of government which protected the rights of every one equally (maybe because of the strongest in society [unrestrained by the rule of law in their hearts] always getting away with having things their own way, while others are helpless to stop it). Civil government is an inevitability as long as humans remain sinful and rebellious to their Creator. There is simply always going to be people who make themselves god in place of God, and therefore, they will impose their values or materials upon others in society, due to unrestrained internal lusts.

I am sorry, but are you saying that civil government is borne out of sin? Made of people who make themselves god in place of God, and therefore impose their values or materials upon others in society?




Even if we lived in anarchy, eventually, somebody would complain or reason that we need a more centralized system of government...

They can complain all they want. I`m complaining all the time right now, for all the good it does me. It is not about wether somebody will complain, but about wether somebody will be able to do something about it.

[torchbearer]

our current government is lawless. just a private mob running things. seems like what anarchy is- a bunch of mobs fighting for power- and still just 3-10% of the people who want to be left alone like now.

[acptulsa]

Made of people who make themselves god in place of God, and therefore impose their values or materials upon others in society?

Maybe the government is composed of them, and maybe the government is composed of the greedy and power mad, and they find these would-be gods muttering 'there ought to be a law' every time someone irritates them to be very, very useful in helping them draw power and money unto themselves. Does it matter which?

[tremendoustie]

our current government is lawless. just a private mob running things. seems like what anarchy is- a bunch of mobs fighting for power- and still just 3-10% of the people who want to be left alone like now.


That's why we see the failures in cases like somalia. If government were simply toppled for some other reason, with public opinion as it is, the result would be mobs fighting for power. Similarly, if we somehow had a minarchist government, with public sentiment the way it is, it would very quickly increase in power to current levels.

The only long term solution is to change public sentiment. In a society where coersive government is eliminated not because of unrest or financial collapse, but because that 3-10% has grown to 90%, there will be no bunch of mobs fighting for power, because the majority of the power will rest in the hands of people who want to be left alone.

In any even somewhat free society, the power really rests with the majority. If that majority believes in nearly complete control over the lives of others -- as ours does -- that is what we will have. If they believe in limited control over the lives of others, as in a minarchy, that is what we will have. And, if they believe violence is only justified in self defense, that is what we will have.

I believe we will reach that point someday as inevitably as slavery was abolished. Free all the slaves in a society where 90% believe in slavery -- and you get chaos, and slavery returns very quickly. Yet, slavery has been largely, and permanently eliminated in the world, through a change in public sentiment.

Stealing money from people by force, as in taxes, will be viewed some day as slavery is now, I have no doubt.

[torchbearer]

That's why we see the failures in cases like somalia. If government were simply toppled for some other reason, with public opinion as it is, the result would be mobs fighting for power. Similarly, if we somehow had a minarchist government, with public sentiment the way it is, it would very quickly increase in power to current levels.

The only long term solution is to change public sentiment. In a society where coersive government is eliminated not because of unrest or financial collapse, but because that 3-10% has grown to 90%, there will be no bunch of mobs fighting for power, because the majority of the power will rest in the hands of people who want to be left alone.

In any even somewhat free society, the power really rests with the majority. If that majority believes in nearly complete control over the lives of others -- as ours does -- that is what we will have. If they believe in limited control over the lives of others, as in a minarchy, that is what we will have. And, if they believe violence is only justified in self defense, that is what we will have.

I believe we will reach that point someday as inevitably as slavery was abolished. Free all the slaves in a society where 90% believe in slavery -- and you get chaos, and slavery returns very quickly. Yet, slavery has been largely, and permanently eliminated in the world, through a change in public sentiment.

Stealing money from people by force, as in taxes, will be viewed some day as slavery is now, I have no doubt.

Yup- i think of it like this-
You can change the form of government(or lack of one), but that doesn't change the people on this planet. You won't get a world filled with Stefan's- you get a world filled with power hunger, ignorant, hairless apes.
Knowing that- i opt for a constitutional republic. one with a law that is higher than any man. and is based on natural law. the only just purpose of that government will be in the protection of the natural rights of its people.

[Number19]

There are actually two areas to this topic. One area is simply a discussion/debate on political philosophy. The other is the effort to actually create/achieve the best government we can that provides the most freedom to the individual.

The absolute most that can be achieved within existing social conditions would be to closely duplicate the founding fathers. By this, I mean that we need to take advantage of the social turmoil that we anticipate to be coming in the next few decades, and to persuade a majority of the voting public that smaller government and the greatest freedom maximizes prosperity and the human condition. If we are able to achieve this much, then the next step would be to secure this new found freedom by building on the past mistakes and writing a new constitution with more secure safeguards. Our current Constitution performed pretty well for about 150 years. If we could only do as well.

[sailor]

That's why we see the failures in cases like somalia. If government were simply toppled for some other reason, with public opinion as it is, the result would be mobs fighting for power. Similarly, if we somehow had a minarchist government, with public sentiment the way it is, it would very quickly increase in power to current levels.

The only long term solution is to change public sentiment. In a society where coersive government is eliminated not because of unrest or financial collapse, but because that 3-10% has grown to 90%, there will be no bunch of mobs fighting for power, because the majority of the power will rest in the hands of people who want to be left alone.

In any even somewhat free society, the power really rests with the majority. If that majority believes in nearly complete control over the lives of others -- as ours does -- that is what we will have. If they believe in limited control over the lives of others, as in a minarchy, that is what we will have. And, if they believe violence is only justified in self defense, that is what we will have.

I disagree with all of this. What examples do you have to back it up?

Did mayority public opinion in Russia want Bolshevism?

[tremendoustie]

Yup- i think of it like this-
You can change the form of government(or lack of one), but that doesn't change the people on this planet. You won't get a world filled with Stefan's- you get a world filled with power hunger, ignorant, hairless apes.

On the contrary, I think people can change. You might have said in 1843 that we cannot get a world filled with Frederick Douglasses, and so slavery can never be ended. We still may not have that, yet we have got a world who has listened to the Frederick Douglasses, and that has been enough.

This debate is backwards. The people must change, and the government will follow. Changing government without changing public sentiment only results in unrest, then a return to the old ways.

[sailor]

The absolute most that can be achieved within existing social conditions would be to closely duplicate the founding fathers. By this, I mean that we need to take advantage of the social turmoil that we anticipate to be coming in the next few decades, and to persuade a majority of the voting public that smaller government and the greatest freedom maximizes prosperity and the human condition.

I think you are right, but I also think you are failing to allow for an additional factor. I any social turmoil the state does not watch on haplessly. Instead it tries to fight back and anwsers with repression and escalation of its existing policies. In that situation the public in reaction to that too becomes increasingly radicalised. So it is possible that after such a radicalisation a significant part of the public will be willing to go further than the founding fathers did which opens up a window for something more than just a reset to 1787.

[torchbearer]

On the contrary, I think people can change. You might have said in 1843 that we cannot get a world filled with Frederick Douglasses, and so slavery can never be ended. We still may not have that, yet we have got a world who has listened to the Frederick Douglasses, and that has been enough.

This debate is backwards. The people must change, and the government will follow. Changing government without changing public sentiment only results in unrest, then a return to the old ways.

I didn't say people can't change, societies do change slowly over time.
But it doesn't change that fast. and anarchy now or in our lifetimes will be with the same ignorant, power hungry assholes we have around us today.

[tremendoustie]

I disagree with all of this. What examples do you have to back it up?

Did mayority public opinion in Russia want Bolshevism?

A significant portion did. Bolshevik actually means "majority" in Russia.

The question is of who has the power, and whether they are willing to use it. Although perhaps possible, it would be an oppressed people indeed where the majority does not hold the power, if they were willing to wield it.

Governments may exist which oppose majority opinion, but only if the majority is willing to permit it.

[heavenlyboy34]

The idea of private courts is very impractical, to me. It makes justice a matter of subjective opinion. For example, Person A murders Person B. Person B's family goes to a private court and wants to have Person A tried for murder. Person A doesn't believe what he did to Person B was murder, justifying it as his own right to kill whomever he pleases.

How then does the private court subpoena Person A to its private court, especially since (1) Person A is not privately funding the court, (2) Person A doesn't believe his actions were defined as "murder", and (3) the court cannot send officers to apprehend Person A because that action would violate the property rights of Person A (trespassing)?

That is just one small problem I see in the whole paradigm of the anarchy utopia.

You still haven't read the literature on private justice I gave you, I see. :( No wonder you still don't get it.

[acptulsa]

I think you are right, but I also think you are failing to allow for an additional factor. I any social turmoil the state does not watch on haplessly. Instead it tries to fight back and anwsers with repression and escalation of its existing policies. In that situation the public in reaction to that too becomes increasingly radicalised. So it is possible that after such a radicalisation a significant part of the public will be willing to go further than the founding fathers did which opens up a window for something more than just a reset to 1787.

The danger is, when this is going on we get a nice, democratic mob and what comes out of this period could be better than what went before (a la here in 1787) or it could be worse (a la Russia in 1917). I personally think we've done a lot to immunize the nation against the latter. But we aren't through with that job yet.

[Theocrat]

I am sorry, but are you saying that civil government is borne out of sin? Made of people who make themselves god in place of God, and therefore impose their values or materials upon others in society?

No, I'm saying that civil government is necessary to restrain the lusts of humans in society because we are naturally sinful creatures. However, this puts a right emphasis on self-government, first, because individuals must be able to rightly govern themselves in their personal conduct before they can govern others. That is made possible by spiritual regeneration, which comes from God alone. Our hearts must be changed, and, as tremendoustie has mentioned, then government will follow.


They can complain all they want. I`m complaining all the time right now, for all the good it does me. It is not about wether somebody will complain, but about wether somebody will be able to do something about it.

I forgot to add that people will make efforts to overcome the strongest by instituting another form of government which upholds some level of equality for everyone. That is where the rule of law comes in. In anarchy, there is no rule of law which everyone is obligated to live by and accountable to for appeals. There is just the rule of power by the strongest, who themselves have no reason to submit to an absolute rule of law. As torchbearer has explained, in some ways our current federal government acts in such a manner.

[Theocrat]

You still haven't read the literature on private justice I gave you, I see. :( No wonder you still don't get it.

I did read it and consider it, and that is why I have laid out my problems with the system that Rothbardians try to assure us will work.

[ChaosControl]

You still haven't read the literature on private justice I gave you, I see. :( No wonder you still don't get it.

Considering this is basically the only area of anarchism that I'm not sure how it would work, even though I now consider myself an anarchist, what is some such material?

[sailor]

The danger is, when this is going on we get a nice, democratic mob and what comes out of this period could be better than what went before (a la here in 1787) or it could be worse (a la Russia in 1917). I personally think we've done a lot to immunize the nation against the latter. But we aren't through with that job yet.

You are very right. But I try to look at it from a more minimalist perspective. Ie, secession, rather than a wide and uniform revolution.

[torchbearer]

Considering this is basically the only area of anarchism that I'm not sure how it would work, even though I now consider myself an anarchist, what is some such material?

are you going to show up for a citation at a private court? think about it.
what are they going to do to you if you don't show up? use force on you?
from what authority?
Private justice my ass. mob justice.

[Theocrat]

are you going to show up for a citation at a private court? think about it.
what are they going to do to you if you don't show up? use force on you?
from what authority?
Private justice my ass. mob justice.

+1, and torchbearer scores again.

[tremendoustie]

I didn't say people can't change, societies do change slowly over time.
But it doesn't change that fast. and anarchy now or in our lifetimes will be with the same ignorant, power hungry assholes we have around us today.

I do not propose to eliminate government, and see what happens. That is not feasible, and would likely result in a situation like that in Somalia. Coersive government will not end while most people support it anyway.

I propose to educate and convince people that government people are not magically exempt from moral laws, like those against violent theft. It may be slow, as you say, but I will try to make it as fast as possible.

Some arrogant power hungry assholes will always exist. I propose to stop endorsing the power structure that allows them to easily rule over others, and stop turning a blind eye to their obviously immoral actions.

Once the politician's (aka power hungry asshole's) letters demanding money from innocent people, on pain of jail or homelessness, are met with the same reaction as mine would be were I to send them, I think the power hungry assholes may have to get a real job.

Also, please use the term 'voluntaryism', or 'elimination of coersive government', because these are much more descriptive. Anarchy has taken on meanings which do not match my beliefs. Even if you currently oppose an idea, it's best to use the correct term -- for example, even a neocon should recognize that we are noninterventionists, and not isolationists.

[torchbearer]

I do not propose to eliminate government, and see what happens. That is not feasible, and would likely result in a situation like that in Somalia. Coersive government will not end while most people support it anyway.

I propose to educate and convince people that government people are not magically exempt from moral laws, like those against violent theft. It may be slow, as you say, but I will try to make it as fast as possible.

Some arrogant power hungry assholes will always exist. I propose to stop endorsing the power structure that allows them to easily rule over others, and stop turning a blind eye to their obviously immoral actions.

Once the politician's (aka power hungry asshole's) letters demanding money from innocent people, on pain of jail or homelessness, are met with the same reaction as mine would be were I to send them, I think the power hungry assholes may have to get a real job.

we definitely need an intellectual revolution before any other revolution.

[sailor]

A significant portion did. Bolshevik actually means "majority" in Russia.

The question is of who has the power, and whether they are willing to use it. Although perhaps possible, it would be an oppressed people indeed where the majority does not hold the power, if they were willing to wield it.

Governments may exist which oppose majority opinion, but only if the majority is willing to permit it.

Mayority in the case of the Bolsheviks refers to the mayority of the cadre of the Social Democratic Party. The Bolsheviks were actualy soundly defeated in the only election they permitted by agrarian populists who garnered more than twice their votes.

What sort of the government rules over a people has nothing to do with what the people are like, how well they are educated or what their stances are. People are much the same everywhere, have always been much the same, and always will be much the same.

You talk about slavery as something that existed because the people wanted it, but there was slavery in the US when it had never existed in the Habsburg Empire. Do you really think Americans were so much behind on the learning curve behind the Austrians of their time? That it was that why they stil tolerated slavery?

Thinking that a government a people has is such and such because the people desire such and such government is well... racist. Do you really think Russians desired Stalin`s terror and the gulags? Somehow the collective spirit of the Russian people actually really wanted millions be sent to Siberia? So if you took two dozen 1930s era Russians and dumped them on a deserted island they would go on to form a Stalinist dictatorship, because that is what they deep down wanted?

Governments do not exist and do not grow because that is actually what the people want. Governments are possible because people are rational and rationality includes following the line of least resistance. Everybody follows the line of least resistance. Even the mightiest army will not advance accross mountains if it can advance accross valleys instead.

It is perfectly rational for a bank owner to at gun point give up his money to robbers rather than risk injury to himself or his employees. It is perfectly rational for a slave to toil rather than be executed. Equaly so it is nearly always a perfectly rational decision for people to go along with an increase in the size of the state and an increase in agression against them or others because they are in a disadvantaged position and resisting (fighting back or fighting for) would be extremely hard and therefore just not worth it.

I am sure 75% of people in every country in the world think taxes are too high, but they go along paying them. Not because they deep down want such high taxes, but because they don`t think they can fight back or do anything at all about it. That is they know that theorethicaly they can resist, but the downside is just so much greater than the upside. (But the upside is greater the more idealistic you are politicaly so that is where ideology comes into play to a certain extent.)

Historicaly people will revolt only when a government oversteps. That does not mean that it goes too far with demands. But that it goes too far with its demands compared to the disadvantage the people is in at the moment.

Thus king George overstepped, where Stalin did not, despite his much mildier policies, because his subjects were in a much less disadvantaged position (power wise) compared to him.

[tremendoustie]

are you going to show up for a citation at a private court? think about it.
what are they going to do to you if you don't show up? use force on you?
from what authority?
Private justice my ass. mob justice.

Torch, we have mob justice now. The most powerful people, aka bureaucrats, do what they want, because they have the guns. Government IS a private proection agency, so to speak. It's one that has grown so powerful it has become immune to market forces -- it can force people to subscribe to it, prohibit competitors, and serve mainly its own interests, rather than the people it 'serves'.

All I propose is to allow people to choose a different protection agency if they want. If I'd like to choose one which does not blow up pakistanis, subsidize saudi arabia, or imprison drug users, I should be able to do so.

See, right now you're supporting quashing anyone who stops paying for government, and decides to subscribe to a private protection agency instead.

You can oppose my protection agency if it becomes rogue, just as I oppose the government because it has become rogue.

I only ask that you do not oppose it simply because it exists as an alternative, and advocate using violence to protect the government monopoly, and force me to subscribe to it.

Give it a chance, let me stop funding the government, and pay for my own service, which I promise will only protect me from actual theft or violence. Support quashing it if it goes rogue, as I will. Only do not quash it simply because it is an alternative.

[tremendoustie]

Mayority in the case of Bolsheviks refers to the mayority of the cadre of the Social Democratic Party. The Bolsheviks were actuall soundly defeated in the only election they permitted by agrarian populists who garnered more than twice their votes.

What sort of the government rules over a people has nothing to do with what the people are like, how well they are educated or what their stances are. People are much the same everywhere, have always been much the same, and always will be much the same.

You talk about slavery as something that existed because the people wanted it, but there was slavery in the US when it had never existed in the Habsburg Empire. Do you really think Americans were so much behind on the learning curve behind the Austrians of their time? That it was that why they stil tolerated slavery?

Thinking that a government a people has is such and such because the people desire such and such government is well... racist. Do you really think Russians desired Stalin`s terror and the gulags? Somehow the collective spirit of the Russian people actually really wanted millions be sent to Siberia? So if you took twp dozen 1930s era Russians and dumped them on a deserted island they would go on to form a Stalinist dictatorship, because that is what they deep down wanted?

Governments do not exist and do not grow because that is actually what the people want. Governments are possible because people are rational and rationality includes following the line of least resistance. Everybody follows the line of least resistance. Even the mightiest army will not advance accross mountains if it can advance accross valleys instead.

It is perfectly rational for a bank owner to at gun point give up his money to robbers rather than risk injury to himself or his employees. It is perfectly rational for a slave to toil rather be executed. Equaly so it is nearly always a perfectly rational decision for people to go along with an increase in the size of the state and an increase in agression against them or others because they are in a disadvantaged position and resisting (fighting back or fighting for) would be extremely hard and therefore just not worth it.

I am sure 75% of people in every country in the world think taxes are too high, but they go along paying them. Not because they deep down want such high taxes, but because they don`t think they can fight back or do anything at all about it. That is they know that theorethicaly they can resist, but the downside is just so much greater than the upside.)

Historicaly people will revolt only when a government oversteps. That does not mean that it goes too far with demands. But that it goos too far with its demands compared to the disadvantage the people is in at the moment.

Thus king George overstepped where Stalin did not despite his much mildier policies, because his subjects were in a much less disadvantaged position (power wise) compared to him.


I agree, people are often apathetic. That's why I say, Governments may exist which oppose majority opinion, but only if the majority is willing to permit it.

Many people may have opposed Stalin, but they were not willing to do anything about it. That's why we still have the government we do today.

If enough people come along, who are willing to act upon their moral principles, and love for liberty, to end the greatest violent mob in the country (government), those same people will surely be able to maintain what they have from petty theives and gangs. Of course, later generations may always regress, as they have in our country.

I do not mean that they will end it violently, by the way, only that they will remove consent, and stop submitting to government demands. I think the peaceful approach is best, when it comes to opposing government.

[torchbearer]

Torch, we have mob justice now.

I think I already said that in a previous post on this thread.
we have mob rule today.
We do not have a society that is bound by a law that is higher than any man.
We have a nation ruled by men- not by law.

[tremendoustie]

I think I already said that in a previous post on this thread.
we have mob rule today.
We do not have a society that is bound by a law that is higher than any man.
We have a nation ruled by men- not by law.

I agree that we are ruled by men. But what is rule by law, then? Do not men make laws?

Suppose we were a nation of laws -- judges and police obeyed and enforced them fasidiously, without personal bias. Now, suppose the majority supported and passed a law banning the consumption of carrot sticks.

Would you support the use of violence to enforce such a law?

Or, suppose the majority supported and passed a law permitting theft.

Would theft be moral in that case, or would defense against it suddenly become immoral?



Laws do not define morality. What determines whether one should support an action is not the number of people who support it, the titles of the people who act on behalf of it, whether they act according to rules or arbitrarily, or anything else, other than the morality of the actions themselves.

Therefore, I support any protection agency which interacts with its customers on a voluntary basis, and provides only defense from agression, or other moral services.

I oppose any protection agency which interacts with its customers through extortion, violently deposes competitors, and provides immoral services like the bombing of innocent people, or occupation of other countries.

All I ask is that you let me choose to not support a government which I consider immoral, and instead choose to hire a protection agency which will only protect me from attack.

Can you really, morally, use force to prevent me from doing so?

[sailor]

I agree, people are often apathetic. That's why I say, Governments may exist which oppose majority opinion, but only if the majority is willing to permit it.

Many people may have opposed Stalin, but they were not willing to do anything about it. That's why we still have the government we do today.

If enough people come along, who are willing to act upon their moral principles, and love for liberty, to end the greatest violent mob in the country (government), those same people will surely be able to maintain what they have from petty theives and gangs. Of course, later generations may always regress, as they have in our country.

I do not mean that they will end it violently, by the way, only that they will remove consent, and stop submitting to government demands. I think the peaceful approach is best, when it comes to opposing government.

You understood nothing then. It has nothing to do with apathy. A bank owner handing over his money to the Dalton brothers is anything but apathetic. I assure you nobody was "apathetic" under Stalin.

It`s called R-E-S-I-G-N-A-T-I-O-N.

[torchbearer]

I agree that we are ruled by men. But what is rule by law, then? Do not men make laws?

Suppose we were a nation of laws -- judges and police obeyed and enforced them fasidiously, without personal bias. Now, suppose the majority supported and passed a law banning the consumption of carrot sticks.

Would you support the use of violence to enforce such a law?

Or, suppose the majority supported and passed a law permitting theft.

Would theft be moral in that case, or would defense against it suddenly become immoral?



Laws do not define morality. What determines whether one should support an action is not the number of people who support it, the titles of the people who act on behalf of it, whether they act according to rules or arbitrarily, or anything else, other than the morality of the actions themselves.

Therefore, I support any protection agency which interacts with its customers on a voluntary basis, and provides only defense from aggression, or other moral services.

I oppose any protection agency which interacts with its customers through extortion, violently deposes competitors, and provides immoral services like the bombing of innocent people, or occupation of other countries.

All I ask is that you let me choose to not support a government which I consider immoral, and instead choose to hire a protection agency which will only protect me from attack.

Can you really, morally, use force to prevent me from doing so?

All government and rules are man made. They are "imaginary" things. Not tangible.
If a group of clans came together in a protection pact- they would agree to rules they would follow in order to continue that pact.
If the clans decide they want peace- they will live under those rules. Those laws would be above all men- so even the greatest among them shall be held to them.
All equal under the law. Blind Justice.
What happens the first time a single man is held above the law?
Anarchy. Mob Rule. A land ruled by men- not by the Law. Not by contract. Not by peaceful coexistence and respect for property and the agreements we make.
Welcome to America 2009. not 1776.
We need a mechanism by which to seek out, under the law- those who put themselves above it.

[Annihilia]

While I'm open to any new ideas, at this moment I just can't see how anarchism and human nature are compatible.

Maybe somebody can help me, but to me, it seems like there's a fundamental flaw in the philosophy which doesn't take into account the vast spectrum of human nature. I don't think it would be a very sustainable society either, as people have pointed out eventually groups will grow tired of the myriad of evil things others do and establish government to mitigate the number of problems. Even today, people forget lessons learned one election cycle ago let alone the entire span of human history.

[Theocrat]

I agree that we are ruled by men. But what is rule by law, then? Do not men make laws?

Suppose we were a nation of laws -- judges and police obeyed and enforced them fasidiously, without personal bias. Now, suppose the majority supported and passed a law banning the consumption of carrot sticks.

Would you support the use of violence to enforce such a law?

Or, suppose the majority supported and passed a law permitting theft.

Would theft be moral in that case, or would defense against it suddenly become immoral?



Laws do not define morality. What determines whether one should support an action is not the number of people who support it, the titles of the people who act on behalf of it, whether they act according to rules or arbitrarily, or anything else, other than the morality of the actions themselves.

Therefore, I support any protection agency which interacts with its customers on a voluntary basis, and provides only defense from agression, or other moral services.

I oppose any protection agency which interacts with its customers through extortion, violently deposes competitors, and provides immoral services like the bombing of innocent people, or occupation of other countries.

All I ask is that you let me choose to not support a government which I consider immoral, and instead choose to hire a protection agency which will only protect me from attack.

Can you really, morally, use force to prevent me from doing so?

If I may interject, the answer to your question about the rule of law is that it is derived from an eternal, divine Law. That means that men cannot make laws based on their own finite wisdom and sinful feelings as standards of civil behavior. Our Founders believed that to be so, and our early laws of the republic reflected that thinking.

Also, laws are inherently religious, and because of that, they reflect some system of morality. Laws forbidding murder in America come from the Biblical more of "Thou shalt not kill", for instance. Laws are just civil expressions of a particular moral code which every person in that society is expected to live by.

The reason why men are obligated to live under and support civil government is because it is a righteous institution given to us by God to restrain evil in civil society. Since there is always going to be evil men who use their lusts to overcome others (lacking self-government), there needs to be a system of government to punish those evildoers and reward the innocent by protecting God-given rights to life, liberty, property, etc.

However, that civil government should be limited because there are other governments which God has ordained (family and church) that have other kinds of jurisdiction over men. There needs to be a balance of all governmental powers in society, and the key to doing that is self-government under God.

[sailor]

No, I'm saying that civil government is necessary to restrain the lusts of humans in society because we are naturally sinful creatures.

And that would be something that Jesus said? "Go out and be civil servants and forcefully restrain other people`s lusts"?

And who restrains the government BTW?


I forgot to add that people will make efforts to overcome the strongest by instituting another form of government which upholds some level of equality for everyone.

It is a helluva job to create a state where there is none. It`s usually called "nation-building" and tends to end in a mess and failure. And that is with billions of dollars thrown in. What chance do your lonesome commies have imposing themselves on an anarchy?

[tremendoustie]

All government and rules are man made. They are "imaginary" things. Not tangible.
If a group of clans came together in a protection pact- they would agree to rules they would follow in order to continue that pact.
If the clans decide they want peace- they will live under those rules. Those laws would be above all men- so even the greatest among them shall be held to them.
All equal under the law. Blind Justice.
What happens the first time a single man is held above the law?
Anarchy. Mob Rule. A land ruled by men- not by the Law. Not by contract. Not by peaceful coexistence and respect for property and the agreements we make.
Welcome to America 2009. not 1776.
We need a mechanism by which to seek out, under the law- those who put themselves above it.

Torch,

I have no objection to laws which enforce contracts, peaceful coexistance, and respect for property. Action in defense of these rules would be moral when taken by an individual, on behalf of a "clan", or government, because they are self-defensive.

The problem is this: The position you are holding places some men above the moral law. Most men cannot morally use violence to force others to subscribe and pay for their service, but it is imagined that some men are above this moral law. Most men cannot morally violently eliminate peaceful competitors, but it is proposed that some men can do so morally.

You did not respond to any of my questions in my last post directly. Could you answer them please?

[Theocrat]

And that would be something that Jesus said? "Go out and be civil servants and forcefully restrain other people`s lusts"?

And who restrains the government BTW?

I would go back to Romans 13, where it states that civil magistrates are ordained by God to execute the sword against evildoers. The foundation of that passage I believe is found in other passages in Scripture where God teaches that man is inherently sinful and then gives examples of times in Biblical history where nations were run by people who did that which was right in their own eyes. God eventually judged those nations because they either had no universal law or forgot the universal Law which God gave to them.

As I've already mentioned, the restraints of government is placed upon the people involved in the government itself. They have to self-governed themselves, regenerated by God's Holy Spirit and grounded in His word. I'm not saying that makes them perfect, but it ensures that we will have men who will make laws based in righteousness by the rule of law and in the fear of God, for the most part. If a man does not fear (reverence) God, then he will make himself god and inherently cause others to fear him, either intentionally or unwittingly.


It is a helluva job to create a state where there is none. It`s usually called "nation-building" and tends to end in a mess and failure. And that is with billions of dollars thrown in. What chance do your lonesome commies have imposing themselves on an anarchy?

How were our early settlers (the Puritans) so successful in establishing their commonwealths in America before there was any formal civil government? All it takes is like-minded men and women with a common law to begin a State, whether it's for weal or ill.

The strongest or richest in society where anarchy is the norm is how the syle of government can be changed. They put all of their resources together and implement what their civil goals are by some form of force to accomplish their new regime or whatever.

[torchbearer]

The position you are holding places some men above the moral law. Most men cannot morally use violence to force others to subscribe and pay for their service, but some men are above this moral law. Most men cannot morally violently eliminate peaceful competitors, but some men can do so morally.

You did not respond to any of my questions in my last post directly. Could you answer them please?

Why should I answer them- you are not even understanding what i'm writing.

[heavenlyboy34]

I would go back to Romans 13, where it states that civil magistrates are ordained by God to execute the sword against evildoers.


ROMANS CHAPTER 13






By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
August 10, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose President Bush or any other political leader really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.
For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?
So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)
By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.
Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.
Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.




Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil authority--is limited.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.
Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.
Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.
This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:
"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.


(http://www.newswithviews.com/DonateNWV.htm)

Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column (See: Read (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html)), Biblical principles form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.
As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities.


(newsforyou-list-subscribe@newswithviews.com)

The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.
Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?

[tremendoustie]

While I'm open to any new ideas, at this moment I just can't see how anarchism and human nature are compatible.

Maybe somebody can help me, but to me, it seems like there's a fundamental flaw in the philosophy which doesn't take into account the vast spectrum of human nature. I don't think it would be a very sustainable society either, as people have pointed out eventually groups will grow tired of the myriad of evil things others do and establish government to mitigate the number of problems. Even today, people forget lessons learned one election cycle ago let alone the entire span of human history.

It is a matter of morality. I believe it is wrong to intiate violence or the threat of it against a peaceful person who has not harmed others. I will not do so myself, nor will I support it being done. I will seek to accomplish social goals without resorting to this kind of violence.

It is illogical to propose to stick a gun to someones head, and demand their money, so that it may be used to protect them from theft.

Some people are inclined to seek abusive power over others. What's missed is, far from protecting the average person from this sort of man, government makes it easier for people seeking power to obtain it.

If men are not angels, why would we imagine that the men in government will be? Government is the only organization allowed to use agressive force to exert power. Wouldn't we expect the least angellic among us, not the most angellic, to be attracted to such an organization?

[Theocrat]

ROMANS CHAPTER 13






By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
August 10, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose President Bush or any other political leader really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.
For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?
So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)
By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.
Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.
Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.




Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil authority--is limited.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.
Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.
Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.
This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:
"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.


(http://www.newswithviews.com/DonateNWV.htm)

Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column (See: Read (http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html)), Biblical principles form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.
As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities.


(newsforyou-list-subscribe@newswithviews.com)

The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.
Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?

I agree with Dr. Baldwin's article there. Notice he doesn't argue that we should have no government, but that government should be limited. That's what I've been saying all along.

[heavenlyboy34]

And that would be something that Jesus said? "Go out and be civil servants and forcefully restrain other people`s lusts"?

And who restrains the government BTW?



It is a helluva job to create a state where there is none. It`s usually called "nation-building" and tends to end in a mess and failure. And that is with billions of dollars thrown in. What chance do your lonesome commies have imposing themselves on an anarchy?

Theo isn't citing Yeshua's teachings seriously, you see. He's espousing his own flimsy, Statist views while his avowed religion to give him an air of (undeserved) moral authority. Torch has a similar problem, but he touts the State religion. (note how both of them purposefully misreprsent anarchism to advance their Statist agenda)

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree with Dr. Baldwin's article there. Notice he doesn't argue that we should have no government, but that government should be limited. That's what I've been saying all along.

Yes, but I consider this only the starting point (much like RP's work is only a starting point). After power is stripped from the State viz a viz the restoration of civil law, individuals can begin building up a Stateless, more civil society by building up a coherent understanding of how it works.

[tremendoustie]

Why should I answer them- you are not even understanding what i'm writing.

I didn't mean to offend. Why would you not be happy to answer questions about what you believe? Perhaps it would help me understand you.

You underlined where I said, "The position you are holding places some men above the moral law", so I assume this is what you object to.

Let me try to explain. I would say that mugging someone is immoral. That is, the moral law says it's wrong to threaten violence against someone who has not harmed you in order to extort money from them. You appear to be saying that while it would be immoral for me to do so, it is moral for certain members of government. This is an example of placing some men above the moral law.

Or, I would say that using violence against someone to prevent them from eating carrot sticks is immoral. Certainly, if I were to do so it would be immoral. Yet, you appear to be saying that if a majority, or supermajority, pass a law declaring it to be illegal, then it becomes moral for the policeman to use violence against someone to prevent them from eating carrot sticks. Again, this appears to me to be an example of placing some men above the moral law.

[Number19]

I think you are right, but I also think you are failing to allow for an additional factor. I any social turmoil the state does not watch on haplessly. Instead it tries to fight back and anwsers with repression and escalation of its existing policies. In that situation the public in reaction to that too becomes increasingly radicalised. So it is possible that after such a radicalisation a significant part of the public will be willing to go further than the founding fathers did which opens up a window for something more than just a reset to 1787.I absolutely agree with this, and represents one of the wild cards in this contest of ideology. The Bush Administration put the pieces in play - Homeland Security. How far the radical left is willing to go - their outright use of violence - to prevent the success of our peaceful revolution will determine this. My thinking is that we will have sufficient political success in 2010 and 2012 that the country will not quite cross this line. But all bets are off if, not just us but the Republican Party in general, are unable to dampen this liberal onslaught of the Obama Administration.

[Theocrat]

Yes, but I consider this only the starting point (much like RP's work is only a starting point). After power is stripped from the State viz a viz the restoration of civil law, individuals can begin building up a Stateless, more civil society by building up a coherent understanding of how it works.

HB34, give it up. There is no way you're going to have an anarchical society in America. There are some of us who simply will not allow that to happen. Why not just move to Somalia where there is still vestiges of anarchy left?

[RevolutionSD]

Uh, guys, as much as you may want it to be true, Ron Paul is not an anarchist. If you doubt it, ask HIM, or ask his best friend, Lew Rockwell. Dr. Paul is a constitutionalist and always has been.

You read what I said. I didn't say he was an anarchists but that he would side with us in the choice between the two. Let's stick to the facts here of what we are saying. Now, can you present an argument for minarchism that disputes the post I linked to (which, btw was on the Daily Paul!)

[tremendoustie]

You understood nothing then. It has nothing to do with apathy. A bank owner handing over his money to the Dalton brothers is anything but apathetic. I assure you nobody was "apathetic" under Stalin.

It`s called R-E-S-I-G-N-A-T-I-O-N.


That's a fair point. I should say that not only do we need a large majority to oppose the initiation of violence, even when used by government, we need a majority which is neither apathetic nor resigned.

Indeed, I doubt government will stop coercing people because we are all sitting in our la-z-boys and wishing hard.

What I was trying to convey is that fundamentally, the majority does hold the power, if they are willing and able to wield it. I suppose a true tyranny could exist, where a small number of people could truly supress a widespread, motivated rejection of their authority, but I do not think we live in one today.

[RevolutionSD]

The problem is the people, not the institution. The problem is the people, not the institution. The problem is the people, not the institution. The problem is the people, not the institution. Let that soak in the minds of the anarchists for a while.

Even if we lived in anarchy, eventually, somebody would complain or reason that we need a more centralized system of government which protected the rights of every one equally (maybe because of the strongest in society [unrestrained by the rule of law in their hearts] always getting away with having things their own way, while others are helpless to stop it). Civil government is an inevitability as long as humans remain sinful and rebellious to their Creator. There is simply always going to be people who make themselves god in place of God, and therefore, they will impose their values or materials upon others in society, due to unrestrained internal lusts.

How's that theocracy thing working out for you?

If I don't believe in god or government, where do I fit in in your society?

Anarchists are about letting people do what they want. What you want to to force people into your belief system. If you wanted to start your own little small government christian cult, you'd be free to do that in an anarcho-capitalist society.

But in your society I, as an anarchist, would be shot and killed for acting on my beliefs.

[Theocrat]

Theo isn't citing Yeshua's teachings seriously, you see. He's espousing his own flimsy, Statist views while his avowed religion to give him an air of (undeserved) moral authority. Torch has a similar problem, but he touts the State religion. (note how both of them purposefully misreprsent anarchism to advance their Statist agenda)

You still have not given me an explanation of how private courts will work under an anarchy. Torchbearer and I keep showing the fallacy of such a concept, but you Rothbardian utopians keep skipping over the huge gaping hole in your system of justice within an anarchical society. Why is that, I wonder...

[RevolutionSD]

HB34, give it up. There is no way you're going to have an anarchical society in America. There are some of us who simply will not allow that to happen. Why not just move to Somalia where there is still vestiges of anarchy left?

So what are you going to do to stop the anarchists? Use violence?

Somalia is under tribalism, nothing to do with the anarcho-capitalism that we are talking about.

[RevolutionSD]

You still have not given me an explanation of how private courts will work under an anarchy. Torchbearer and I keep showing the fallacy of such a concept, but you Rothbardian utopians keep skipping over the huge gaping hole in your system of justice within an anarchical society. Why is that, I wonder...

You're calling anarchists 'utopians' while arguing for a theocratic libertarian society. Hmm. :confused:

[Number19]

we definitely need an intellectual revolution before any other revolution.Agreed, but how is this achieved when the educational system is controlled by the government. Marxism 101. It is vitally imperative that the Republican Party work toward true educational reform. The Dept of Education was created during the Carter Administration. A major campaign slogan for Reagan was to eliminate it. This is no longer an issue for mainstream Republicans.

[Theocrat]

How's that theocracy thing working out for you?

If I don't believe in god or government, where do I fit in in your society?

Anarchists are about letting people do what they want. What you want to to force people into your belief system. If you wanted to start your own little small government christian cult, you'd be free to do that in an anarcho-capitalist society.

But in your society I, as an anarchist, would be shot and killed for acting on my beliefs.

I don't want to force anyone to do anything in society, at least not by violent force. On a private level, we persuade people through love and logic to change their worldview, and we don't need the State to evangelize for us.

In my ideal society, anarchists would be welcomed, but I doubt they would want to participate civilly in the system of government that is established. Anarchists would not be shot, so I have no idea where you're getting such an extremist view from.

By the way, our republic was based on the Christian religion, but now humanism is seeking to destroy our heritage and principles which made our republic the best in the history of mankind.

[RevolutionSD]

are you going to show up for a citation at a private court? think about it.
what are they going to do to you if you don't show up? use force on you?
from what authority?
Private justice my ass. mob justice.

You've heard of private security?
We have mob justice right now. Literally. There is NOTHING fair or just about our current justice system. You are going to court and the judges work for the same institution as the cops, including the one who gave you a ticket. How likely is it that you will be able to fight and win a case when a so-called public official is involved?

Private arbitration and private courts would be a far superior system than the complete joke of a system we have now.

[RevolutionSD]

I don't want to force anyone to do anything in society, at least not by violent force. On a private level, we persuade people through love and logic to change their worldview, and we don't need the State to evangelize for us.

In my ideal society, anarchists would be welcomed, but I doubt they would want to participate civilly in the system of government that is established. Anarchists would not be shot, so I have no idea where you're getting such an extremist view from.

By the way, our republic was based on the Christian religion, but now humanism is seeking to destroy our heritage and principles which made our republic the best in the history of mankind.

Ok, so in your society, if I chose to not pay your taxes to fund your government, what would you do with me? Is it voluntary or not?

[Theocrat]

So what are you going to do to stop the anarchists? Use violence?

Somalia is under tribalism, nothing to do with the anarcho-capitalism that we are talking about.

If the anarchists use violence first, then yes. However, I don't think any anarchist wants to do that. We stop anarchy by reason, prayer, and education on all levels of government, self, family, church, and civil. America was not established to be an anarchy, and our Founders understood very well what anarchy was, especially because of what was going on over in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution) at the time. Thus, they did everything to avoid it, as they did democracy.

[RevolutionSD]

Agreed, but how is this achieved when the educational system is controlled by the government. Marxism 101. It is vitally imperative that the Republican Party work toward true educational reform. The Dept of Education was created during the Carter Administration. A major campaign slogan for Reagan was to eliminate it. This is no longer an issue for mainstream Republicans.

Neither is a small government an issue for mainstream Republicans.

We will not achieve 1 ounce more of freedom through political parties.

[torchbearer]

You've heard of private security?
We have mob justice right now. Literally. There is NOTHING fair or just about our current justice system. You are going to court and the judges work for the same institution as the cops, including the one who gave you a ticket. How likely is it that you will be able to fight and win a case when a so-called public official is involved?

Private arbitration and private courts would be a far superior system than the complete joke of a system we have now.

Do you know how many fucking times I have pointed out that we have mob rule today. in this thread alone. the only thing any anarchist can say is 'you have mob rule today'- never can they say- "private security" is double speak for mob rule.
We have the very thing that you are begging for.
You are all insane.
Instead of showing people how we can have a country like in 1776- when we had a rule of law- you are advocating going back to a more blackwater type city-state mob rule.
The only thing you would be doing is tearing the labels off of the old jars. It will be the same turds inside.

[RevolutionSD]

If the anarchists use violence first, then yes. However, I don't think any anarchist wants to do that. We stop anarchy by reason, prayer, and education on all levels of government, self, family, church, and civil. America was not established to be an anarchy, and our Founders understood very well what anarchy was, especially because of what was going on over in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution) at the time. Thus, they did everything to avoid it, as they did democracy.

Again, if I choose not to participate in the society you advocate, what happens to me? I don't even believe in god so the prayer thing is enough for me to not want to fund your system.

What do you do with me?

[RevolutionSD]

Do you know how many fucking times I have pointed out that we have mob rule today. in this thread alone. the only thing any anarchist can say is 'you have mob rule today'- never can they say- "private security" is double speak for mob rule.
We have the very thing that you are begging for.
You are all insane.
Instead of showing people how we can have a country like in 1776 had a rule of law- you are advocating going back to a more blackwater type city-state mob rule.
The only thing you would be doing is tearing the labels off of the old jars. It will be the same turds inside.

If we are "all insane", why are you arguing with insane people? When someone uses an ad-hominem attack, that's pretty much end of argument.

Blackwater has nothing to do with the free market and you torchbearer as a libertarian are well aware of this. To use that argument you sound no different than your typical democrat.

[Theocrat]

You're calling anarchists 'utopians' while arguing for a theocratic libertarian society. Hmm. :confused:

There is nothing wrong with working towards a utopia, per se, but what counts is what kind of utopia is being worked towards. I just don't agree that Rothbard's utopia is the correct one. In fact, it is immoral and impractical on so many levels. On such level is the area of civil justice by means of private courts. I would think Rothbards were joking about that if I didn't know them any better.

[sailor]

...as people have pointed out eventually groups will grow tired of the myriad of evil things others do and establish government to mitigate the number of problems.

And how well has that been working out for you?

[tremendoustie]

You still have not given me an explanation of how private courts will work under an anarchy. Torchbearer and I keep showing the fallacy of such a concept, but you Rothbardian utopians keep skipping over the huge gaping hole in your system of justice within an anarchical society. Why is that, I wonder...

Firstly, please stop calling it anarchy. If you do so because you want to apply all of that baggage that has come to be associated with that word, which you know I don't believe in, it's dishonest, something like a neocon calling us isolationists.

How about, "how private courts will work without government". That's easy enough, right?

This book has some pretty good ideas, although I recommend starting at at least chapter 3, to avoid what I consider to be the phisosophical pseudoreligious mumbo jumbo, at the beginning.

To really cut to the chase of what I believe your question is, start at chapter 7.

http://www.mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf (http://www.mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf)


Yes, people, if necessary, could morally be compelled to attend court. Someone can't just "opt out" and keep stealing from people. It's self defense to legally go after someone who has harmed you.

[Theocrat]

Ok, so in your society, if I chose to not pay your taxes to fund your government, what would you do with me? Is it voluntary or not?

It depends on what the tax was. If it were an unjust tax, the law would be judged in courts and repealed for imposing the tax. If it were a just tax, you would probably be fined or jailed, especially if it were something in which you were using publicly yourself. Not all taxes are evil.

[sailor]

Do you know how many fucking times I have pointed out that we have mob rule today. in this thread alone. the only thing any anarchist can say is 'you have mob rule today'- never can they say- "private security" is double speak for mob rule.
We have the very thing that you are begging for.
You are all insane.
Instead of showing people how we can have a country like in 1776- when we had a rule of law- you are advocating going back to a more blackwater type city-state mob rule.
The only thing you would be doing is tearing the labels off of the old jars. It will be the same turds inside.

Nice try. 1776 was mob rule. Only slightly more enlightened than today.

[torchbearer]

If we are "all insane", why are you arguing with insane people? When someone uses an ad-hominem attack, that's pretty much end of argument.

Blackwater has nothing to do with the free market and you torchbearer as a libertarian are well aware of this. To use that argument you sound no different than your typical democrat.

I'm trying to help the insane. you don't understand what you are asking for if you don't realize what the unintended consequences will be.
remove tonight- all the labels and "authority" of the current power structures of the world. You still have the same people, controlling the same amounts of wealth and resources, you will still have people carry rifles for them because they are paid to.
You will still have a super-majority of people around you who think it is ok to rob you- either themselves, or by proxy security agencies.
Getting rid of the government won't get rid of this nightmare we are living in... this is why you are insane. you don't see the very real things in front of you-you just see an idea that sounds really nice.

[torchbearer]

Nice try. 1776 was mob rule. Only slightly more enlightened than today.

prove it.

[Number19]

...After power is stripped from the State viz a viz the restoration of civil law, individuals can begin building up a Stateless, more civil society by building up a coherent understanding of how it works.I agree. First things first. I don't see much point in debating what can come after when we haven't yet achieved the first.

[Theocrat]

Again, if I choose not to participate in the society you advocate, what happens to me? I don't even believe in god so the prayer thing is enough for me to not want to fund your system.

What do you do with me?

I guess you would move if you didn't like my society. Do you continue staying in a movie that you dislike? Do you continue to eat a restaurant that you don't enjoy? Do you continue paying for services at a auto shop that doesn't satisfy your expectations? The choice is up to you, not society. If you break the laws, then you're punished accordingly, but you're still free to live somewhere else, which I'm sure you would do.

[tremendoustie]

I'm trying to help the insane. you don't understand what you are asking for if you don't realize what the unintended consequences will be.
remove tonight- all the labels and "authority" of the current power structures of the world. You still have the same people, controlling the same amounts of wealth and resources, you will still have people carry rifles for them because they are paid to.
You will still have a super-majority of people around you who think it is ok to rob you- either themselves, or by proxy security agencies.
Getting rid of the government won't get rid of this nightmare we are living in... this is why you are insane. you don't see the very real things in front of you-you just see an idea that sounds really nice.


You're exactly right. That's why it wouldn't be productive or lasting to just leave the super-majority of people the way they are, and yank government away.

Incidentally, we don't even have the capability to "yank government away" until a supermajority opposing coersive government exists. If that supermajority is educated and motivated enought to end coersion by the state, the largest and most powerful mob on earth, you can bet they'll be able to fend off wannabe mob startups.

Again, pretend you opposed slavery at a time when it was overwhelmingly popular. You would work to educate people, and convince them that it was wrong -- knowing that if you gained a strong majority, not only would it be made illegal, but it would become socially unacceptable.

[Annihilia]

It is a matter of morality. I believe it is wrong to intiate violence or the threat of it against a peaceful person who has not harmed others. I will not do so myself, nor will I support it being done. I will seek to accomplish social goals without resorting to this kind of violence.

It is illogical to propose to stick a gun to someones head, and demand their money, so that it may be used to protect them from theft.

Some people are inclined to seek abusive power over others. What's missed is, far from protecting the average person from this sort of man, government makes it easier for people seeking power to obtain it.

If men are not angels, why would we imagine that the men in government will be? Government is the only organization allowed to use agressive force to exert power. Wouldn't we expect the least angellic among us, not the most angellic, to be attracted to such an organization?

I understand this point and I'm familiar with the argument.

How about this example of a rudimentary government. Let me know if this is simply a valid contract or theft through taxation:

The people cede to an external body comprised of its own, certain responsibilities to ensure protection of life and property. With citizenship serving as a contract between this body and the people (they enter voluntarily into this arrangement), it can collect a small amount of maintenance money as per the rules agreed to in the contract of citizenship (let's say, what's listed in this arrangement's constitution). Any attempts made to collect more money constitutes a breach of the contract and the people can remove those holding public office.

[sailor]

I would go back to Romans 13, where it states that civil magistrates are ordained by God to execute the sword against evildoers. The foundation of that passage I believe is found in other passages in Scripture where God teaches that man is inherently sinful and then gives examples of times in Biblical history where nations were run by people who did that which was right in their own eyes. God eventually judged those nations because they either had no universal law or forgot the universal Law which God gave to them.

As I've already mentioned, the restraints of government is placed upon the people involved in the government itself. They have to self-governed themselves, regenerated by God's Holy Spirit and grounded in His word. I'm not saying that makes them perfect, but it ensures that we will have men who will make laws based in righteousness by the rule of law and in the fear of God, for the most part. If a man does not fear (reverence) God, then he will make himself god and inherently cause others to fear him, either intentionally or unwittingly.

In other words, you can`t find anything from the Messiah directly. You have to go to second hand writtings to find something suitable.

[sailor]

prove it.

Whiskey Rebellion.

Case closed.

[torchbearer]

You're exactly right. That's why it wouldn't be productive or lasting to just leave the super-majority of people the way they are, and yank government away.

Fortunately, we don't even have the capability to "yank government away" until a supermajority opposing coersive government exists. If that supermajority is educated and motivated enought to end coersion by the state, the largest and most powerful mob on earth, you can bet they'll be able to fend off wannabe mob startups.

Using this philosophy- you would say Lew's focus on education has more value than our pursuit of the power centers. Unless we plan to decieve people to acquire the power.
But do see that if we obtain the power-and remove all the myriads of laws on us, we will still need a basic government to protect freedom.
If we relinquish power. Say we want nothing to do with it. Evil men will still exist and they will use that power as they are doing today.
This is a fight of ideas- those who want a free society- and those we want to rule others.
The odd thing about it- you can't free society unless you have the power to protect it.

[RevolutionSD]

It depends on what the tax was. If it were an unjust tax, the law would be judged in courts and repealed for imposing the tax. If it were a just tax, you would probably be fined or jailed, especially if it were something in which you were using publicly yourself. Not all taxes are evil.

Here's where the problem comes in. In order to live in your society, I must agree with you on what a "just" and what an "unjust" tax is. If you tell me that it is just to pay a tax to fund religious education and I object, you use the threat of violence against me to make me pay. If I still refuse to pay, men with guns are sent to my house. If I try to defend myself, I'm shot and killed.

How is this a moral and peaceful society?

[torchbearer]

Case closed.

Closed for sailor- who can't prove his point.

[Theocrat]

Firstly, please stop calling it anarchy. If you do so because you want to apply all of that baggage that has come to be associated with that word, which you know I don't believe in, it's dishonest, something like a neocon calling us isolationists.

How about, "how private courts will work without government". That's easy enough, right?

This book has some pretty good ideas, although I recommend starting at at least chapter 3, to avoid what I consider to be the phisosophical pseudoreligious mumbo jumbo, at the beginning.

To really cut to the chase of what I believe your question is, start at chapter 7.

http://www.mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf (http://www.mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf)


Yes, people, if necessary, could morally be compelled to attend court. Someone can't just "opt out" and keep stealing from people. It's self defense to legally go after someone who has harmed you.

Criminals do not send themselves to jail. They have to be apprehended. However, your society would not make that possible because if someone hurt or killed another person, they could choose whether or not to go to court. Also, apprehension of a criminal would itself go against the very idea of voluntaryism in your society. Meanwhile, the victim or victim's family has to hope the criminal is morally responsible to turn himself in? That makes no sense whatsoever, and with all due respect, that is a naive notion about the nature of men.

[tremendoustie]

I guess you would move if you didn't like my society. Do you continue staying in a movie that you dislike? Do you continue to eat a restaurant that you don't enjoy? Do you continue paying for services at a auto shop that doesn't satisfy your expectations? The choice is up to you, not society. If you break the laws, then you're punished accordingly, but you're still free to live somewhere else, which I'm sure you would do.

Would you kick people off land you own, or any land your guns can obtain control over?

Restaurants, auto shops, movie theatres, etc, exist on land obtained by them by free exchange.

[tremendoustie]

Criminals do not send themselves to jail. They have to be apprehended. However, your society would not make that possible because if someone hurt or killed another person, they could choose whether or not to go to court. Also, apprehension of a criminal would itself go against the very idea of voluntaryism in your society. Meanwhile, the victim or victim's family has to hope the criminal is morally responsible to turn himself in? That makes no sense whatsoever, and with all due respect, that is a naive notion about the nature of men.

No, voluntaryism means no initiation of force -- apprehending a criminal is defensive force.

I absolutely support the use of force to bring to justice those who commit violent crimes against another person or their property.

[heavenlyboy34]

HB34, give it up. There is no way you're going to have an anarchical society in America. There are some of us who simply will not allow that to happen. Why not just move to Somalia where there is still vestiges of anarchy left?

Why should I? I have as much right to do so as you have a right to argue for a repressive State. Besides, the State is dying, and there needs to be a sensible alternative. :cool:

Why don't YOU go move somewhere else and try to start a constitutional archy rather than try to restrain the fascists/communists in power and oppress those of us who prefer not to be governed? (see how foolish your ultimatum is, especially considering that you advocate violence-the State-and I don't?)

Plus, anarchism has a much better track record than Statism does in respecting individual rights.

[Theocrat]

Here's where the problem comes in. In order to live in your society, I must agree with you on what a "just" and what an "unjust" tax is. If you tell me that it is just to pay a tax to fund religious education and I object, you use the threat of violence against me to make me pay. If I still refuse to pay, men with guns are sent to my house. If I try to defend myself, I'm shot and killed.

How is this a moral and peaceful society?

In my society, you wouldn't have to pay for Christian education, if you didn't want to. However, if you gave your word that you would, and there was a punishment for not paying the money, then you would be sanctioned. Education in my society would be on the families responsibility to fund, anyway.

[RevolutionSD]

I'm trying to help the insane. you don't understand what you are asking for if you don't realize what the unintended consequences will be.
remove tonight- all the labels and "authority" of the current power structures of the world. You still have the same people, controlling the same amounts of wealth and resources, you will still have people carry rifles for them because they are paid to.
You will still have a super-majority of people around you who think it is ok to rob you- either themselves, or by proxy security agencies.
Getting rid of the government won't get rid of this nightmare we are living in... this is why you are insane. you don't see the very real things in front of you-you just see an idea that sounds really nice.

Instead of calling me insane, why not try to counter with actual arguments? I feel like you are very angry and upset at this whole thing and are simply losing patience and are taking it out on me.

I don't mind if people defend themselves with rifles, or hire others to carry rifles to defend them. In our current system, we have given the monopoly on violence to a select group. And we are forced at gunpoint to pay for this so-called security.

Spontaneous order works much better than a coercive system. Check out the Stossel special on this on Youtube sometime.

[RevolutionSD]

In my society, you wouldn't have to pay for Christian education, if you didn't want to. However, if you gave your word that you would, and there was a punishment for not paying the money, then you would be sanctioned. Education in my society would be on the families responsibility to fund, anyway.

How exactly would I be "sanctioned" without the use of violence?

So in your society, can I opt out if I so choose?

I just want to clear this point up.

[Kraig]

Law written by man, enforced by man, and judged by man is never going to be higher than man.

Fucking religion and it's judgment clouding non-sense.

[sailor]

How about this example of a rudimentary government. Let me know if this is simply a valid contract or theft through taxation:

The people cede to an external body comprised of its own, certain responsibilities to ensure protection of life and property. With citizenship serving as a contract between this body and the people (they enter voluntarily into this arrangement), it can collect a small amount of maintenance money as per the rules agreed to in the contract of citizenship (let's say, what's listed in this arrangement's constitution). Any attempts made to collect more money constitutes a breach of the contract and the people can remove those holding public office.

Depends. Do you by "the people" mean the actual induviduals who signed this document?

[Theocrat]

No, voluntaryism means no initiation of force -- apprehending a criminal is defensive force.

I absolutely support the use of force to bring to justice those who commit violent crimes against another person or their property.

What happens to the person who kills those for trying to apprehend him to a trial because he perceives it as an initiation of force upon himself? Defensive force is a two-way street, depending on which way the traffic is flowing.

[heavenlyboy34]

Law written by man, enforced by man, and judged by man is never going to be higher than man.

Fucking religion and it's judgment clouding non-sense.

Sadly, Theo is not citing his religion to back his case-he is citing his personal, Statist opinion. It's a damn shame too, because he is giving Yeshua a bad rap. :(

[Kraig]

Instead of calling me insane, why not try to counter with actual arguments? I feel like you are very angry and upset at this whole thing and are simply losing patience and are taking it out on me.

I don't mind if people defend themselves with rifles, or hire others to carry rifles to defend them. In our current system, we have given the monopoly on violence to a select group. And we are forced at gunpoint to pay for this so-called security.

Spontaneous order works much better than a coercive system. Check out the Stossel special on this on Youtube sometime.

If you think about it, people here are so in favor of gun ownership yet at the same time think a society where everyone is personally responsible for their own security "would not work". Hilarious.

What can you do besides /facepalm?

[Theocrat]

How exactly would I be "sanctioned" without the use of violence?

So in your society, can I opt out if I so choose?

I just want to clear this point up.

You would be sanctioned because of the rule of law. It could be a fine or jail, but not death or anything like that. If you chose to opt out, then you would be able to do so, of course. All schools would be privately funded, anyway, so the sanctions of the State would not even be an issue.

[Kraig]

You would be sanctioned because of the rule of law. It could be a fine or jail, but not death or anything like that. If you chose to opt out, then you would be able to do so, of course. All schools would be privately funded, anyway, so the sanctions of the State would not even be an issue.

lol and who enforces, creates, and judges your beloved rule of law?

if you break the law the constitution itself is going to come after you? why doesn't it go after Obama?

[sailor]

Closed for sailor- who can't prove his point.

All the proof that a honest mind needs. But to a closed mind all the proof in the world is in vain anyways.

[tremendoustie]

Using this philosophy- you would say Lew's focus on education has more value than our pursuit of the power centers. Unless we plan to decieve people to acquire the power.
But do see that if we obtain the power-and remove all the myriads of laws on us, we will still need a basic government to protect freedom.
If we relinquish power. Say we want nothing to do with it. Evil men will still exist and they will use that power as they are doing today.
This is a fight of ideas- those who want a free society- and those we want to rule others.
The odd thing about it- you can't free society unless you have the power to protect it.


I support political activity. I do think you will need to educate people in order to succeed, and in your success, you will educate yet more people. I definitely vote -- in fact I would certainly vote for you with your current views, since I believe you'd move us in a more moral direction.

I have no problem with having the power to protect society. I only object to the use of that power to extort money, eliminate peaceful competition, or enforce immoral laws.

If you do not fund your government by force, and you only use it to defend people from agression, I am all for it. All I am saying is, no matter how much power you have, immorality is immorality. If I use my gun to defend an innocent person, it's moral. If I use it to rob my neighbor, it's immoral. The same applies no matter how many "guns" I have.

[Theocrat]

Why should I? I have as much right to do so as you have a right to argue for a repressive State. Besides, the State is dying, and there needs to be a sensible alternative. :cool:

Why don't YOU go move somewhere else and try to start a constitutional archy rather than try to restrain the fascists/communists in power and oppress those of us who prefer not to be governed? (see how foolish your ultimatum is, especially considering that you advocate violence-the State-and I don't?)

Plus, anarchism has a much better track record than Statism does in respecting individual rights.

America was established as a constitutional republic, HB34. If anything, I have more of a right to be here than you do, especially with your continual rantings about an impossible status of society for America. I'm not saying you can't talk about anarchy. I'm just saying what it would take to establish such a form in society is futile. There is no rule of law in anarchy. There is no objective system of justice in anarchy. It is just a pipe dream, so stop inhaling it and wake up to reality.

[Annihilia]

Depends. Do you by "the people" mean the actual induviduals who signed this document?

The individuals who accepted citizenship into this arrangement knowing what was involved. This can mean people other than those who were present in drafting the terms of the agreement.

[Kraig]

So much intellectual dishonesty here it is making me sick.

Gotta go puke BRB

[Theocrat]

lol and who enforces, creates, and judges your beloved rule of law?

if you break the law the constitution itself is going to come after you? why doesn't it go after Obama?

People do, under the guidance and providence of God.

[RevolutionSD]

You would be sanctioned because of the rule of law. It could be a fine or jail, but not death or anything like that. If you chose to opt out, then you would be able to do so, of course. All schools would be privately funded, anyway, so the sanctions of the State would not even be an issue.

So you are for the use of state violence.

You just said I would be fined or jailed. Say I don't agree with the fine and refuse to pay. What happens? You send out men in guns to come get me. If I try to defend myself, I get shot.

In your society, there is no self-ownership, and there is still a violent state that all must conform to.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, you could have your own religious cult, and hire full fledged security for you and your group, and no one would bother you.

Why do you insist violently that we all conform to what you want?

[tremendoustie]

What happens to the person who kills those for trying to apprehend him to a trial because he perceives it as an initiation of force upon himself? Defensive force is a two-way street, depending on which way the traffic is flowing.

We are not only responsible for acting according to our moral principles, but also having right moral principles. If we are deficient in either moral judgement, or moral courage, we are liable to act immorally.

It's the same situation that exists now. If a person really believed themselves to be the victim of immoral police abuse and corruption, they might defend themselves against police. The morality of the situation would depend on the facts of the case.

Similarly, one student may believe 2+2=4, another may believe 2+2=5. The fact that they disagree does not change the fact that there is a right and wrong answer.

Also, it should be noted, that self-defense is not an imperative. As an innocent man, if I were apprehended by an officer of a just court, I would likely willingly attend, in order that the facts might be known and I could clear my name.

[sailor]

The individuals who accepted citizenship into this arrangement knowing what was involved. This can mean people other than those who were present in drafting the terms of the agreement.

That`s fine then. In fact if your read some of the first four titles on the list that is how many thinkers speculate defense and security would be provided in an anarhic society.

[Theocrat]

So you are for the use of state violence.

You just said I would be fined or jailed. Say I don't agree with the fine and refuse to pay. What happens? You send out men in guns to come get me. If I try to defend myself, I get shot.

In your society, there is no self-ownership, and there is still a violent state that all must conform to.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, you could have your own religious cult, and hire full fledged security for you and your group, and no one would bother you.

Why do you insist violently that we all conform to what you want?

The real question is why should you be allowed or obligated to do whatever you want without any universal law or government to restrain you, especially given that you're a sinful creature just as everyone else is. Why should we trust that you or anyone else won't harm anybody or violate the rights of others in society without universal law? You greatly underestimate your own human nature, and to me, that is a dangerous thing.

[Theocrat]

We are not only responsible for acting according to our moral principles, but also having right moral principles. If we are deficient in either moral judgement, or moral courage, we are liable to act immorally.

It's the same situation that exists now. If a person really believed themselves to be the victim of immoral police abuse and corruption, they might defend themselves against police. The morality of the situation would depend on the facts of the case.

Similarly, one student may believe 2+2=4, another may believe 2+2=5. The fact that they disagree does not change the fact that there is a right and wrong answer.

Also, it should be noted, that self-defense is not an imperative. As an innocent man, if I were apprehended by an officer of a just court, I would likely willingly attend, in order that the facts might be known and I could clear my name.

And how are the right moral principles ascertained in a society? Also, you may willingly attend a private court, but you can't generalize it to make a case that therefore all men would willingly attend just as you would. I would venture to say that most would not go to court to be punished for something they don't believe they did wrongly. If you let a kid continue doing wrong things, do they eventually go up to Mommy and Daddy and admit their errors? No, and neither do sinful men.

[RevolutionSD]

The real question is why should you be allowed or obligated to do whatever you want without any universal law or government to restrain you, especially given that you're a sinful creature just as everyone else is. Why should we trust that you or anyone else won't harm anybody or violate the rights of others in society without universal law? You greatly underestimate your own human nature, and to me, that is a dangerous thing.

Ok, now you're calling me a sinner, and you don't even know me! This is just a silly ad-hominem attack, and you are doing yourself a huge disservice.

Let me ask you a question:

If you were given the power in your society, and it was up to you to decide whether or not to shoot me for not conforming to your rules, would you do it? This is assuming I got several threatening letters, and the thugs with guns were being sent to my house. Would you pull the trigger or order my death if I tried to defend myself against the cops?

[sailor]

If you think about it, people here are so in favor of gun ownership yet at the same time think a society where everyone is personally responsible for their own security "would not work". Hilarious.

What can you do besides /facepalm?

To carry your thinking further...

Anyone who is against the NWO is an Anarchist. For they want there to be anarchy in the international arena rather than a coercive government. How come all the objections they have against anarchy suddenly disappear when we are talking about nations?

Shouldn`t we be in favour of a constitutionaly limited NWO?? Otherwise, can you imagine the complications if a Brazilian comitts a crime against a Frenchman?? Who is going to make him appear in court?? :rolleyes:

[tremendoustie]

The individuals who accepted citizenship into this arrangement knowing what was involved. This can mean people other than those who were present in drafting the terms of the agreement.

Wait, so, say at the beginning of the world myself and two neighbors find ourselves living near each other, on our own plots of land, which we homestead. Now, my first neighbor and I decide we want neighbor #2's stuff, and farmhouse. We get together and construct the constitution of our new nation, which says all of his stuff now belongs to us, and from here on out, he'll be our slave. We'll tell him that we're going to do it beforehand, but whether he shows up or not, it's going to be approved by at least 2/3 majority.

He knew what was involved, so he's got to give us his stuff, or get out, right? I mean, if he sticks around, he's accepted "citizenship" in our little fiefdom, so we own him, right?

Legalized theft is fun! I think I'll start a government on my street!

[Theocrat]

Ok, now you're calling me a sinner, and you don't even know me! This is just a silly ad-hominem attack, and you are doing yourself a huge disservice.

Let me ask you a question:

If you were given the power in your society, and it was up to you to decide whether or not to shoot me for not conforming to your rules, would you do it? This is assuming I got several threatening letters, and the thugs with guns were being sent to my house. Would you pull the trigger or order my death if I tried to defend myself against the cops?

You're a sinner because of the fact that you've broken God's laws, summarized in His Ten Commandments. It is not meant to be a personal attack, but just a matter of fact.

If I were given "the power" in society, I would let the laws of the land judge you, if they were just in accordance with God's law. I would not shoot you. If you refused to conform (and even that depends on what you're refusing to conform to), then you would be apprehended to a court and tried (depending on what law you broke). If you shot the cops, then I would expect the citizens (who themselves would be armed) to arrest you and turn you over to the proper authorities. If you killed any of the cops, then you would be capitally punished for murder.

[Theocrat]

Wait, so, say at the beginning of the world myself and two neighbors find ourselves living near each other, on our own plots of land, which we homestead. Now, my first neighbor and I decide we want neighbor #2's stuff, and farmhouse. We get together and construct the constitution of our new nation, which says all of his stuff now belongs to us, and from here on out, he'll be our slave. We'll tell him that we're going to do it beforehand, but whether he shows up or not, it's going to be approved by at least 2/3 majority.

He knew what was involved, so he's got to give us his stuff, or get out, right? I mean, if he sticks around, he's accepted "citizenship" in our little fiefdom, so we own him, right?

Legalized theft is fun! I think I'll start a government on my street!

There have been societies where every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Those societies soon became filled with violence, greed, and horrible lusts. Soon enough, people began to realize that if society is to be civilized, there has to be a universal standard of law that every person is obligated to live by. From there, people established forms of government in an attempt to maintain some level of peace and stability in society.

Civil governments are "referees" of civic living, if you will. Every thing we do in our existence is based on rules, and that includes how we live in civilization with other people. There has to be rules which keep things in order, and when we throw out rulebooks, the game or system or nature or whatever else becomes chaotic and destructive. For some reason, anarchists believe it is okay to live without rules in society and that rules should not have enforcement upon others. Rules are inescapable and cannot be avoided. That is the nature of the universe we live in.

The key is who determines the rules. Because many here reject God, that question will always be a stumblingblock to them because the answer is obvious.

[tremendoustie]

And how are the right moral principles ascertained in a society? Also, you may willingly attend a private court, but you can't generalize it to make a case that therefore all men would willingly attend just as you would. I would venture to say that most would not go to court to be punished for something they don't believe they did wrongly. If you let a kid continue doing wrong things, do they eventually go up to Mommy and Daddy and admit their errors? No, and neither do sinful men.

Right moral principles are defined by God (or nature, for those who prefer), but certainly not by society. The majority opinion, as we have seen, is really no indication of morality at all. It would not become immoral to eat a carrot stick if it were made illegal, and it would not become moral to murder if it were made legal. Good men determine their behavior by what is moral, not by what is popular, or endorsed by government.

As I say, I do support the forcible apprehention of those who have clearly agressed against others, which is what we do now. It may be that people end up going because it is not feasible to resist, rather than because they choose to do so, which is again, what happens now. And, courts might forcibly apprehend innocent people, which is what happens now, and it would be immoral when it occurs.

All I am asking is that we eliminate immorality where we know it exists.

I think it is obvious that to use violence to extract money from a peaceful person who has not harmed you, is immoral. So, let's stop doing it!

If a person wants to use their own money, which we are no longer taking from them, to hire protection, as long as that protection behaves peacably does not initiate violence against others, it would be immoral to use violence to stop them. So let's not do it!

[Number19]

And how are the right moral principles ascertained in a society?..A starting point for this would be humanity's common law. I'm going to make an educated guess and state that every society in human history has had some form of restriction on killing and theft.

[Annihilia]

Wait, so, say at the beginning of the world myself and two neighbors find ourselves living near each other, on our own plots of land, which we homestead. Now, my first neighbor and I decide we want neighbor #2's stuff, and farmhouse. We get together and construct the constitution of our new nation, which says all of his stuff now belongs to us, and from here on out, he'll be our slave. We'll tell him that we're going to do it beforehand, but whether he shows up or not, it's going to be approved by at least 2/3 majority.

He knew what was involved, so he's got to give us his stuff, or get out, right? I mean, if he sticks around, he's accepted "citizenship" in our little fiefdom, so we own him, right?

Legalized theft is fun! I think I'll start a government on my street!

I think you're twisting this around and don't understand the nature of the arrangement. That is nothing close to what I described in the previous post. Attaining citizenship would be a voluntary act that is no more evil than a contract between individuals. Guy 3, should he choose to enter into this arrangement, would understand that he would relinquish a small amount of his property in taxes for maintenance of the organization. If this organization decided to take more than laid out in the "constitution", it would be unwarranted initiation of force / theft and they will be dealt with accordingly.

[Theocrat]

Right moral principles are defined by God (or nature, for those who prefer), but certainly not by society. The majority opinion, as we have seen, is really no indication of morality at all. It would not become immoral to eat a carrot stick if it were made illegal, and it would not become moral to murder if it were made legal. Good men determine their behavior by what is moral, not by what is popular, or endorsed by government.

As I say, I do support the forcible apprehention of those who have clearly agressed against others, which is what we do now. It may be that people end up going because it is not feasible to resist, rather than because they choose to do so, which is again, what happens now. And, courts might forcibly apprehend innocent people, which is what happens now, and it would be immoral when it occurs.

All I am asking is that we eliminate immorality where we know it exists.

I think it is obvious that to use violence to extract money from a peaceful person who has not harmed you, is immoral. So, let's stop doing it!

If a person wants to use their own money, which we are no longer taking from them, to hire protection, as long as that protection behaves peacably does not initiate violence against others, it would be immoral to use violence to stop them. So let's not do it!

Well, if a person has a problem with paying certain taxes, they should stop paying them. If they go to court, then they should put the law requiring the tax on trial and reason why it is unjust (assuming the judge will have the same method of reasoning as they do, which may be another problem). If a person doesn't want to pay any taxes, then that person should probably just leave because it's highly unlikely that they aren't going to pay any taxes, and especially without government intervention.

Some people think taxes are immoral, but what is that to the next person who says taxes are moral and necessary? Whose standard of morality makes taxes immoral, in the first place? Most importantly, what should such a standard be the norm for others who believe taxes are not immoral? A person can claim something is immoral, but that doesn't mean it is. That gets back to your statement that right moral principles are based on God. So, if you truly believe that, then what in God's word teaches that all taxes are immoral to begin with?

[heavenlyboy34]

America was established as a constitutional republic, HB34. If anything, I have more of a right to be here than you do, especially with your continual rantings about an impossible status of society for America. I'm not saying you can't talk about anarchy. I'm just saying what it would take to establish such a form in society is futile. There is no rule of law in anarchy. There is no objective system of justice in anarchy. It is just a pipe dream, so stop inhaling it and wake up to reality.


Again, you show your ignorance. You should have read the literature I gave you-it disproves everything you've said here. Having actual knowledge of this subject would prevent you from making a fool of yourself like this.

Who's paying you to lie like this, Theo? :confused::eek:

[RevolutionSD]

You're a sinner because of the fact that you've broken God's laws, summarized in His Ten Commandments. It is not meant to be a personal attack, but just a matter of fact.

If I were given "the power" in society, I would let the laws of the land judge you, if they were just in accordance with God's law. I would not shoot you. If you refused to conform (and even that depends on what you're refusing to conform to), then you would be apprehended to a court and tried (depending on what law you broke). If you shot the cops, then I would expect the citizens (who themselves would be armed) to arrest you and turn you over to the proper authorities. If you killed any of the cops, then you would be capitally punished for murder.

You keep avoiding my question.

First, I am NOT a sinner, just because you call me one. That is not FACT, unless you can empiracally prove that I am a sinner, drop the nonsense accusations.

Second, I told you the law that I broke in your society: I refused to pay a tax. You keep twisting it into me shooting cops or initiating violence.

AGAIN, if I refused to pay a tax in your society, and you had the power to shoot me or not, would you use violence against me to enforce the law? Please answer the question and stop with the evasion.

[RevolutionSD]

Well, if a person has a problem with paying certain taxes, they should stop paying them. If they go to court, then they should put the law requiring the tax on trial and reason why it is unjust (assuming the judge will have the same method of reasoning as they do, which may be another problem). If a person doesn't want to pay any taxes, then that person should probably just leave because it's highly unlikely that they aren't going to pay any taxes, and especially without government intervention.

Some people think taxes are immoral, but what is that to the next person who says taxes are moral and necessary? Whose standard of morality makes taxes immoral, in the first place? Most importantly, what should such a standard be the norm for others who believe taxes are not immoral? A person can claim something is immoral, but that doesn't mean it is. That gets back to your statement that right moral principles are based on God. So, if you truly believe that, then what in God's word teaches that all taxes are immoral to begin with?

Is theft immoral in your book Theocrat?

[sailor]

The key is who determines the rules. Because many here reject God, that question will always be a stumblingblock to them because the answer is obvious.

Sin is an affront to God. The greater the sin the greater the affront. The greater the affront the greater the punishment that God in his wisdom meets out. But of all affronts to God there is no greater than for a man to in his pride put himself on equal footing with God and assume he can meet out punishment which is only for God in his infinite wisdom to meet out! Thus God shall deal with no one more severely than with the blasphemer who would put himself in His place and meet out punishment for affronts against God as well as for crimes against men.

[Theocrat]

Again, you show your ignorance. You should have read the literature I gave you-it disproves everything you've said here. Having actual knowledge of this subject would prevent you from making a fool of yourself like this.

Who's paying you to lie like this, Theo? :confused::eek:

How many threads do I have to start on this forum to prove the Christian foundations and heritage of our republic, HB34? Do I have to quote Congressman Paul, too? It is you who shows your ignorance about that subject, my friend.

Admittedly, I have not read everything you've given me about Rothbard's anarchy (or "voluntaryism" to tremendoustie), but those subjects which have the most interest to me, like the notion of private courts, I have delved into. I simply do not have the time to read every single article you post.

Quite frankly, HB34, I find it a tad lazy on your part that you simply post a link to an article rather than being able to explain what it is about in a summarized format. It reminds me of how Truth Warrior used to "argue". Undoubtedly, if I told you to read the entire Bible to understand my worldview, you would be hard-pressed to do that in understanding every nuance and precept of my beliefs. Yet, somehow I feel that is all you expect of me when you recommend book after book or article after article as proof that your anarchy beliefs are true. Am I to assume that you have no opinions on the subject separate from those of the authors you post? Otherwise, I would expect you to explain your position in piece-by-piece way that is not simply a "Read these articles and you'll see" attitude.

[tremendoustie]

There have been societies where every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Those societies soon became filled with violence, greed, and horrible lusts. Soon enough, people began to realize that if society is to be civilized, there has to be a universal standard of law that every person is obligated to live by. From there, people established forms of government in an attempt to maintain some level of peace and stability in society.

Civil governments are "referees" of civic living, if you will. Every thing we do in our existence is based on rules, and that includes how we live in civilization with other people. There has to be rules which keep things in order, and when we throw out rulebooks, the game or system or nature or whatever else becomes chaotic and destructive. For some reason, anarchists believe it is okay to live without rules in society and that rules should not have enforcement upon others. Rules are inescapable and cannot be avoided. That is the nature of the universe we live in.

The key is who determines the rules. Because many here reject God, that question will always be a stumblingblock to them because the answer is obvious.

I encourage you to really engage and respond to the scenario I proposed, rather than switch to generalities. Would me and my first neighbor have the moral right to enslave my other neighbor?

I will respond to what you say here, however:

The moral law is the rulebook. Rules and behavior which are in accordance with the moral law are moral -- those which are not are not. That is, if the rules are going to be enforced using violence, they need to only prohibit actions which can be morally responded to violently -- e.g. murder, theft.

If the law uses violence immorally, I will point out its immorality. I will not pretend morality, which is instituted by God (or nature), is subject to the revision of popular opinion -- that somehow, if enough people think it is so, any form of immorality can become a-ok.

Everything Hitler did was legal. Thank goodness for the men and women of the white rose society who chose do what was right, rather than what was legal. Slavery was legal. Thank goodness for the men and women of the underground railroad who chose to do what was right, rather than what was legal. Segregation was legal. Thank goodness for the men and women of the civil rights movement who chose to do what was right, rather than what was legal. The rights recognized in the constiution existed before they were recognized, and good men opposed the enforcement of laws which abridged them even at that time. The government does not define right and wrong, and it is a very dangerous trend when the people begin to believe it is so. Stand up for what is right, if necessary, against what is legal.

"Referees" are not gods.

[tremendoustie]

I think you're twisting this around and don't understand the nature of the arrangement. That is nothing close to what I described in the previous post. Attaining citizenship would be a voluntary act that is no more evil than a contract between individuals. Guy 3, should he choose to enter into this arrangement, would understand that he would relinquish a small amount of his property in taxes for maintenance of the organization. If this organization decided to take more than laid out in the "constitution", it would be unwarranted initiation of force / theft and they will be dealt with accordingly.

What if Guy 3 doesn't want any part of this arrangement. Would it be A-ok for us to throw him in a prison cell, or run him off his farm?

[Theocrat]

You keep avoiding my question.

First, I am NOT a sinner, just because you call me one. That is not FACT, unless you can empiracally prove that I am a sinner, drop the nonsense accusations.

Second, I told you the law that I broke in your society: I refused to pay a tax. You keep twisting it into me shooting cops or initiating violence.

AGAIN, if I refused to pay a tax in your society, and you had the power to shoot me or not, would you use violence against me to enforce the law? Please answer the question and stop with the evasion.

The Bible says that "Thou shalt not bear false witness," or lie, to put it simply. I know you've told lies, so that is breaking one of God's commandments. By God's definition, that makes you a sinner. I could take you through the other commandments, but that one is sufficient to prove my point.

To answer your question simply, no, I would not shoot you for not paying taxes. I don't see any Biblical warrant for that. I would pray that you would be obedient to the ministry of government that protects your rights by punishing evil, which is a necessary reason to pay taxes to them by God's standards, Who is the Giver of our rights.


Is theft immoral in your book Theocrat?

Yes, theft is immoral in the Bible, but the Bible does not classify taxes as theft. It is you who is making that claim, and that arbitrarily.

[Theocrat]

Sin is an affront to God. The greater the sin the greater the affront. The greater the affront the greater the punishment that God in his wisdom meets out. But of all affronts to God there is no greater than for a man to in his pride put himself on equal footing with God and assume he can meet out punishment which is only for God in his infinite wisdom to meet out! Thus God shall deal with no one more severely than with the blasphemer who would put himself in His place and meet out punishment for affronts against God as well as for crimes against men.

It sure sounds to me like you're putting yourself on equal footing with God in asserting your judgment there about others whom you accuse of doing so. ;)

[sailor]

It sure sounds to me like you're putting yourself on equal footing with God in asserting your judgment there about others whom you accuse of doing so. ;)

Is there any particular reason why are you avoiding the implications of what I wrote? Have you recognised yourself in there?

[Theocrat]

I encourage you to really engage and respond to the scenario I proposed, rather than switch to generalities. Would me and my first neighbor have the moral right to enslave my other neighbor?

I will respond to what you say here, however:

The moral law is the rulebook. Rules and behavior which are in accordance with the moral law are moral -- those which are not are not. That is, if the rules are going to be enforced using violence, they need to only prohibit actions which can be morally responded to violently -- e.g. murder, theft.

If the law uses violence immorally, I will point out its immorality. I will not pretend morality, which is instituted by God (or nature), is subject to the revision of popular opinion -- that somehow, if enough people think it is so, any form of immorality can become a-ok.

Everything Hitler did was legal. Thank goodness for the men and women of the white rose society who chose do what was right, rather than what was legal. Slavery was legal. Thank goodness for the men and women of the underground railroad who chose to do what was right, rather than what was legal. Segregation was legal. Thank goodness for the men and women of the civil rights movement who chose to do what was right, rather than what was legal. The rights recognized in the constiution existed before they were recognized, and good men opposed the enforcement of laws which abridged them even at that time. The government does not define right and wrong, and it is a very dangerous trend when the people begin to believe it is so. Stand up for what is right, if necessary, against what is legal.

"Referees" are not gods.

No, because involuntary slavery is wrong if there is no crime to warrant such a status. However, I would need to understand what you mean by "slavery" in order to give an answer which would satisfy you because you and I have different presuppositions on the nature and necessity of government.

I do not believe that civil government defines what is right and wrong. However, I believe that there needs to be (and is) a moral, eternal standard which defines civil government as right or wrong outside of mere human opinion and feelings. Civil governments are only supposed to enforce what is right and wrong based on the absolute standards of God's law. That is the basis for any just law, even if finite human opinions do not agree with it.

Referees are not gods, yes, but they do have a legitimate authority to see that the rules (which they themselves did not make) are followed in the ways they were intended.

[tremendoustie]

To answer your question simply, no, I would not shoot you for not paying taxes. I don't see any Biblical warrant for that. I would pray that you would be obedient to the ministry of government that protects your rights by punishing evil, which is a necessary reason to pay taxes to them by God's standards, Who is the Giver of our rights.


Would you support sending men with guns to take a person's house if they don't pay, or throwing them in a prison cell?



Yes, theft is immoral in the Bible, but the Bible does not classify taxes as theft. It is you who is making that claim, and that arbitrarily.

The Bible also doesn't say slavery is immoral, yet, I am quite certain that it is not moral, based on my knowledge of the whole of scripture, and the moral code that God has put on my heart.

Our understanding of morality evolves, and improves. God instituted the law of "an eye for an eye" in the OT, and then, when we were ready for it, Jesus said, "turn the other cheek". Similarly, we have reached the point of realization that slavery is wrong. I believe we will reach the point of realization that the extortion of money from peaceful people by threat of violence is also immoral.

[Theocrat]

Is there any particular reason why are you avoiding the implications of what I wrote? Have you recognised yourself in there?

If you had read the title of that post, you would see that I addressed the implications of what you wrote, my friend. If a person is wrong for judging another, then that judgment itself is wrong because it is judging another for judging.

[heavenlyboy34]

How many threads do I have to start on this forum to prove the Christian foundations and heritage of our republic, HB34? Do I have to quote Congressman Paul, too? It is you who shows your ignorance about that subject, my friend.

Admittedly, I have not read everything you've given me about Rothbard's anarchy (or "voluntaryism" to tremendoustie), but those subjects which have the most interest to me, like the notion of private courts, I have delved into. I simply do not have the time to read every single article you post.

Quite frankly, HB34, I find it a tad lazy on your part that you simply post a link to an article rather than being able to explain what it is about in a summarized format. It reminds me of how Truth Warrior used to "argue". Undoubtedly, if I told you to read the entire Bible to understand my worldview, you would be hard-pressed to do that in understanding every nuance and precept of my beliefs. Yet, somehow I feel that is all you expect of me when you recommend book after book or article after article as proof that your anarchy beliefs are true. Am I to assume that you have no opinions on the subject separate from those of the authors you post? Otherwise, I would expect you to explain your position in piece-by-piece way that is not simply a "Read these articles and you'll see" attitude.

Again, you digress from the issue to forward your logical fallacies. I see that you have no argument, and are attempting to tire me into agreeing with you. Won't happen. Your lack of integrity in this debate is plain to me-and quite pathetic.

The reason I don't summarize articles for you is that I don't have the time. (Besides, summaries wouldn't do them justice.) It's like trying to summarize Christian theology for an atheist to understand-it just doesn't work without all the detail and context. I only pass through here briefly from time to time-I have a busy life. I had hoped to appeal to your sense of logic, but it is more difficult than I thought it would be. :(

Care to explain why you claim you understand what you're talking about when you haven't read any significant amount of material on the subject of political anarchism and demonstrate no understanding of it? :confused:

[sailor]

If you had read the title of that post, you would see that I addressed the implications of what you wrote, my friend. If a person is wrong for judging another, then that judgment itself is wrong because it is judging another for judging.

Nope. That`s not true at all. Judgements are fine. You don`t want to hear my opinions on ravers, men with earrings, classical musicians, snobs, happy people... I`m talking about meeting out punishment.

[tremendoustie]

No, because involuntary slavery is wrong if there is no crime to warrant such a status. However, I would need to understand what you mean by "slavery" in order to give an answer which would satisfy you because you and I have different presuppositions on the nature and necessity of government.

I do not believe that civil government defines what is right and wrong. However, I believe that there needs to be (and is) a moral, eternal standard which defines civil government as right or wrong outside of mere human opinion and feelings. Civil governments are only supposed to enforce what is right and wrong based on the absolute standards of God's law. That is the basis for any just law, even if finite human opinions do not agree with it.

Referees are not gods, yes, but they do have a legitimate authority to see that the rules (which they themselves did not make) are followed in the ways they were intended.

So, what if government, as it always does, strays from God's moral law? Do you believe its edicts are still legitimate?

If the Referees stop enforcing rules against murder, and start extorting money from you in order to fund foreign occupations, threatening violence against those who eat carrot sticks, and enslaving africans, should they still be obeyed?

Or, do you agree that one's behavior should be dictated by morality, not by laws? Perhaps, I should become a tax protester in this situation, and start helping the africans and carrot stick eaters to escape?

Back to me and my two neighbors. I was talking about chattel slavery, which it sounds like you would consider immoral. Suppose it were only partial slavery, however. Suppose we will demand only 50% of our neighbor's production. Would it be ok then?

Remember, my neighbor hasn't agreed to anything, we only happen to live near each other. He hasn't harmed us in any way. He just wants to work, and trade peacefully. We just want his stuff, and luckily, we've got two guns to his one, so we're pretty sure we can overpower him. I assume if we just headed over there to take his stuff, you would consider that immoral theft, and something he would have a right to defend himself against, right? Perhaps you think that if we scribble down a "constitution" and "pass" it, before we head over there with our rifles, the morality of the situation changes?

[Theocrat]

Would you support sending men with guns to take a person's house if they don't pay, or throwing them in a prison cell?

If they don't pay what? Taxes? If that is the case, I would say no, the person's house should not be taken, for it is his shelter.


The Bible also doesn't say slavery is immoral, yet, I am quite certain that it is not moral, based on my knowledge of the whole of scripture, and the moral code that God has put on my heart.

Our understanding of morality evolves, and improves. God instituted the law of "an eye for an eye" in the OT, and then, when we were ready for it, Jesus said, "turn the other cheek". Similarly, we have reached the point of realization that slavery is wrong. I believe we will reach the point of realization that the extortion of money from peaceful people by threat of violence is also immoral.

As a matter of fact, the New Testament allows slavery, as well. It's not the kind of slavery which we think of in 21st century culture, but it is more in lines with servanthood. In Ephesians 6:5-8, it states,

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men. Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
Also, you need to understand that Jesus did not abrogate the "eye for an eye" law of the OT. That law was civil, but Jesus was referring to using "eye for an eye" in administering the Gospel. If a person attacked a Gospel giver, that was not a reason to strike back at them.

Society does not "evolve" morality anymore than an ape evolves into a human. The same behaviors which were objectively evil thousands of years ago are still objectively evil today. The problem is societies either began lining themselves up with that morality or they rediscover it because it has been lost. The Church's study of Scripture also helps us to mature in a richer understanding of what moral and civil laws are just in society, too.

[Theocrat]

So, what if government, as it always does, strays from God's moral law? Do you believe its edicts are still legitimate?

No. If the edicts defy God's laws, like ordering us to worship an idol, then we have every right to disobey. However, if the government says we have to get a driver's license, then wisdom would have to dictate whether or not we choose to do so, because either way, I don't think it's sinful.


If the Referees stop enforcing rules against murder, and start extorting money from you in order to fund foreign occupations, threatening violence against those who eat carrot sticks, and enslaving africans, should they still be obeyed?

Yes, because we honor the institution itself, not the people who are in charge of it. In the military, I had an obligation to salute every officer I saw in public (while in uniform), but I was honoring their rank, not their person. I think the same thing applies to government. That does not imply that we must agree with all of its decisions nor does it imply that we must follow every single thing it does. Do I start killing "atheists" just because I don't like their views? Of course not. They are still created by God, and therefore, I honor their personhood.


Or, do you agree that one's behavior should be dictated by morality, not by laws? Perhaps, I should become a tax protester in this situation, and start helping the africans and carrot stick eaters to escape?

That's a false question. Not all laws are moral, but some laws are, and those are the ones I would say should be followed. Yes, one's behavior should be dictated by morality, but that morality has to be based on God's law, not man's will.


Back to me and my two neighbors. I was talking about chattel slavery, which it sounds like you would consider immoral. Suppose it were only partial slavery, however. Suppose we will demand only 50% of our neighbor's production. Would it be ok then?

Remember, my neighbor hasn't agreed to anything, we only happen to live near each other. He hasn't harmed us in any way. He just wants to work, and trade peacefully. We just want his stuff, and luckily, we've got two guns to his one, so we're pretty sure we can overpower him. I assume if we just headed over there to take his stuff, you would consider that immoral theft, and something he would have a right to defend himself against, right? Perhaps you think that if we scribble down a "constitution" and "pass" it, before we head over there with our rifles, the morality of the situation changes?

No. If your neighbor has stuff you want, then you two would be guilty of coveting, which is violation of the Tenth Commandment. You and the other cohort should have lots of kids, and then form your own collective government based on the terms which seem right to you in accordance with God's word. That is how you handle the situation.

[Theocrat]

Nope. That`s not true at all. Judgements are fine. You don`t want to hear my opinions on ravers, men with earrings, classical musicians, snobs, happy people... I`m talking about meeting out punishment.

We are called to mete out punishment only where God expressly gives us warrant to do so, either by explicit commandment or implicit precept. If God says murder shall be punished by death, then that means we should punish murder by death.

[tremendoustie]

If they don't pay what? Taxes? If that is the case, I would say no, the person's house should not be taken, for it is his shelter.


What then, would you do to a peaceful person, who has not harmed anyone else, to force them to pay up? You dodged the quesiton on jail -- perhaps that's your preferred method of, err, encouraging payment?



As a matter of fact, the New Testament allows slavery, as well. It's not the kind of slavery which we think of in 21st century culture, but it is more in lines with servanthood. In Ephesians 6:5-8, it states,

Also, you need to understand that Jesus did not abrogate the "eye for an eye" law of the OT. That law was civil, but Jesus was referring to using "eye for an eye" in administering the Gospel. If a person attacked a Gospel giver, that was not a reason to strike back at them.

Society does not "evolve" morality anymore than an ape evolves into a human. The same behaviors which were objectively evil thousands of years ago are still objectively evil today. The problem is societies either began lining themselves up with that morality or they rediscover it because it has been lost. The Church's study of Scripture also helps us to mature in a richer understanding of what moral and civil laws are just in society, too.

Theo, I don't want to get into a Biblical discussion with you here on this topic, not because I'm not interested, but because I don't think it's the basis of many people's opinion on the issue at hand -- especially your particular take on the Bible regarding civil government, which I know is unusual. I'll address some of the issues here, just so you know where I'm coming from, and then I hope we can let the issue stand.

I agree that morality does not evolve. However, I do think that society evolves to better (or worse) match objective morality. I also believe that God's revelation of objective morality was not all at one time, but gradually. We needed to get the 101 of the law in order to get 201 of Christ. We are still understanding the moral code better in some ways -- again, it took us until the 1800s to eliminate chattel slavery.

Frankly, if you were to look at only the Biblical record on slavery, you would not conclude that it is immoral. There are a host of passages on in it in the OT which do not prohibit it. Paul speaks to how slaves should treat masters, and masters slaves, just as Jesus speaks of how we should pay to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God, what is God's.

What do we conclude from this? Chattel slavery is ok? No, Paul was speaking in the context of a society which allowed slavery, and addressing how Christians should act in those situations.

Similarly, the Roman empire existed, and Christ's purpose was not to bring down the Roman empire, but answer the question for His followers at that time.

I think to say that theft is immoral, and then say that if a particular group of bandits calls themselves "government" it becomes moral, is absurd. Again, suppose I started a "government" on my block with a couple of friends, and started extorting money from people. Would this be ok, because I use the word, "government"?

I think, as we have recognized that slavery is immoral, we can recognize that the initiation of violence against a peaceful person is immoral.

[Brassmouth]

You are beating a dead horse. If anyone knows enough to think of themselves as a Minarchist (vs. Anarcho-Capitalist), they are also familiar with Rothbardian arguments. You aren't going to change anyone's mind.

That is totally and abhorrently incorrect. Anyone who reads even half of what Rothbard wrote, and isn't convinced or at the very least, sympathetic, isn't at all interested in truth and reason.


I would also like to point out that I have an immense amount of doubt that any of the minarchists in this thread or on these forums have taken the time to read the brilliant writings on the OP's list.

[Theocrat]

What then, would you do to a peaceful person, who has not harmed anyone else, to force them to pay up? You dodged the quesiton on jail -- perhaps that's your preferred method of, err, encouraging payment?

Nothing. I don't think property should be taxed to fund such things as public education, so I wouldn't force them to pay up anything nor would I send them to jail. Education is to be funded by individuals, private organizations, families, churches, and that's it.


Theo, I don't want to get into a Biblical discussion with you here on this topic, not because I'm not interested, but because I don't think it's the basis of many people's opinion on the issue at hand. I'll address some of the issues here, just so you know where I'm coming from, and then I hope we can let the issue stand.

I agree that morality does not evolve. However, I do think that society evolves to better (or worse) match objective morality. I also believe that God's revelation of objective morality was not all at one time, but gradually. We needed to get the 101 of the law in order to get 201 of Christ. We are still understanding the moral code better in some ways -- again, it took us until the 1800s to eliminate chattel slavery.

Frankly, if you were to look at only the Biblical record on slavery, you would not conclude that it is immoral. There are a host of passages on in it in the OT which do not prohibit it. Paul speaks to how slaves should treat masters, and masters slaves, just as Jesus speaks of how we should pay to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God, what is God's.

What do we conclude from this? Chattel slavery is ok? No, Paul was speaking in the context of a society which allowed slavery, and addressing how Christians should act in those situations.

Similarly, the Roman empire existed, and Christ's purpose was not to bring down the Roman empire, but answer the question for His followers at that time.

I think to say that theft is immoral, and then say that if a particular group of bandits calls themselves "government" it becomes moral, is absurd. Again, suppose I started a "government" on my block with a couple of friends, and started extorting money from people. Would this be ok, because I use the word, "government"?

I think, as we have recognized that slavery is immoral, we can recognize that the initiation of violence against a peaceful person is immoral.

You have to show me in Scripture, building a case from both the Old and New Testaments, where one would come to the conclusion that civil government is immoral. I just don't see it, and I've studied the Scriptures for a very long time.

[Brassmouth]

We are called to mete out punishment only where God expressly gives us warrant to do so, either by explicit commandment or implicit precept. If God says murder shall be punished by death, then that means we should punish murder by death.

Kids, this is an example of someone who:


isn't at all interested in truth and reason.

and prefers fairy tales.

Beware!

[Theocrat]

That is totally and abhorrently incorrect. Anyone who reads even half of what Rothbard wrote, and isn't convinced or at the very least, sympathetic, isn't at all interested in truth and reason.


I would also like to point out that I have an immense amount of doubt that any of the minarchists in this thread or on these forums have taken the time to read the brilliant writings on the OP's list.

I don't believe what you just wrote. Can you see it? You sound just like a fundamentalist. Replace "Rothbard" with "Jesus", and you're no different than me in my religious zeal for following Christ. Can you say "WWRD?" ;)

[Number19]

Grand Master sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein had a story, it may have been one of his COVENTRY stories, set in a future United States, when civilized society was governed by strict law. The primary character considered himself to be an individualist and refused to conform to the dictates of society. The punishment was exile - part of the country was sealed off from civilized society, and this area had no government or laws - an anarchic society.

It's been more than 20 years since I've read this novel. I live on the Texas Gulf Coast and my library is still boxed up and stored from IKE, so I can't look it up. But as I recall, was an interesting read, although one of his minor works, and pertinent to this thread.

[sailor]

We are called to mete out punishment only where God expressly gives us warrant to do so, either by explicit commandment or implicit precept. If God says murder shall be punished by death, then that means we should punish murder by death.

Murder is a crime against man, there is no gray area there. You don`t need God`s word to know what to do with a murderer. Pagans dealt with murderers just fine.

I`m more interested in wether you are of a mind to dish out some pain for stuff that is sin, but is not a crime against fellow man. Because frankly I don`t see any other reason why you would insist on having a state other than to enable you this.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't believe what you just wrote. Can you see it? You sound just like a fundamentalist. Replace "Rothbard" with "Jesus", and you're no different than me in my religious zeal for following Christ. Can you say "WWRD?" ;)

A stretch there, Theo. Nobody here has deified Murray. We just see that his expertise in this area is objectively correct. I would say the Constitution worshipers here are more like religious zealots than students/fans of Rothbard. ;)

[Theocrat]

Murder is a crime against man, there is no gray area there. You don`t need God`s word to know what to do with a murderer. Pagans dealt with murderers just fine.

I`m more interested in wether you are of a mind to dish out some pain for stuff that is sin, but is not a crime against fellow man. Because frankly I don`t see any other reason why you would insist on having a state other than to enable you this.

Yes, I do believe the civil government exists for the primary purpose of administering justice against evildoers (as defined civilly in God's word). Because God has given the "office of the sword" (as it's sometimes called in Christian theology) to the civil magistrates, individuals are not allowed to administer vigilante justice upon other private citizens. That is the role of the State, alone. Because of that, the civil government should not be involved in things like the economy or church worship or how many children a family can have.

[Theocrat]

A stretch there, Theo. Nobody here has deified Murray. We just see that his expertise in this area is objectively correct. I would say the Constitution worshipers here are more like religious zealots than students/fans of Rothbard. ;)

No, that is exactly what's going on. You guys follow Rothbard's works in the same religious fervor that I follow Jesus's teachings. The difference is Jesus is Truth Itself (John 14:6), while Rothbard claims to write about truthful things. The objectivity of each one's teachings resides not in the propositions of what they say, but rather in the nature of who makes such propositions true in the first place.

[sailor]

Yes, I do believe the civil government exists for the primary purpose of administering justice against evildoers (as defined civilly in God's word). Because God has given the "office of the sword" (as it's sometimes called in Christian theology) to the civil magistrates, individuals are not allowed to administer vigilante justice upon other private citizens. That is the role of the State, alone. Because of that, the civil government should not be involved in things like the economy or church worship or how many children a family can have.

So to cut to the chase, would whoring be legal?

[Theocrat]

So to cut to the chase, would whoring be legal?

No.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, that is exactly what's going on. You guys follow Rothbard's works in the same religious fervor that I follow Jesus's teachings. The difference is Jesus is Truth Itself (John 14:6), while Rothbard claims to write about truthful things. The objectivity of each one's teachings resides not in the propositions of what they say, but rather in the nature of who makes such propositions true in the first place.

I'm sure some do, but not I. :cool: I have numerous resources for understanding anarchism (including my own observations), so no need for me to worship any one in particular.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, I do believe the civil government exists for the primary purpose of administering justice against evildoers (as defined civilly in God's word). Because God has given the "office of the sword" (as it's sometimes called in Christian theology) to the civil magistrates, individuals are not allowed to administer vigilante justice upon other private citizens. That is the role of the State, alone. Because of that, the civil government should not be involved in things like the economy or church worship or how many children a family can have.

Ah, but the State, by its nature, does this! You've defeated yourself without any help from me-congrats! :D

[Theocrat]

Ah, but the State, by its nature, does this! You've defeated yourself without any help from me-congrats! :D

What part of "should not" did you fail to comprehend? Once again, it's the people in government that are the issue, not the institution itself.

[Minarchy4Sale]

This whole debate is a dead end. Anarchism as portrayed by ancaps will never exist. The moment it does, a strong man will emerge and take over, as has always happened. At best, ancaps can hope for tribalism, but not with current world populations.

[sailor]

No.

Well there you go. You need the state because you need to legislate morality. That is why you were so mild on the taxation issue. You don`t mind not collecting taxes, but you can`t give up on legislating morality.

Well I disagree with that. Hate the sin not the sinner, may he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that. We take care of crimes against men. And on judgement day God takes care of sin (crime against God). It`s division of labour, like Starsky and Hutch.

I think it is necessary to condemn sin, but it is also presumptious to meet out punishment for it. That is God`s job. And I don`t really give a rats arse what the Old Testament or the Apostolic Letters say about it. Jesus or didn`t happen.

[Theocrat]

Well there you go. You need the state because you need to legislate morality. That is why you were so mild on the taxation issue. You don`t mind not collecting taxes, but you can`t give up on legislating morality.

Well I disagree with that. Hate the sin not the sinner, may he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that. We take care of crimes against men. And on judgement day God takes care of sin (crime against God). It`s division of labour, like Starsky and Hutch.

I think it is necessary to condemn sin, but it is also presumptious to meet out punishment for it. That is God`s job. And I don`t really give a rats arse what the Old Testament or the Apostolic Letters say about it. Jesus or didn`t happen.

All legislation is based on some standard of morality. That is what you fail to understand, my friend. I'm not trying to legislate morality because law is inherently legislated morality. Do I think the federal government should outlaw prostitution? No, because that is not within its jurisdictional boundaries in accordance with the Constitution. It should be a State matter, but even there, I would be against legalizing prostitution.

[sailor]

This whole debate is a dead end. Anarchism as portrayed by ancaps will never exist. The moment it does, a strong man will emerge and take over, as has always happened.

He`ll have to be a really strong man. A regular Hamid Karzai.


At best, ancaps can hope for tribalism, but not with current world populations.

Tribalism is anarchy. Tribalism is anarchy of a primitive society where there has jet not been capital accumulation and therefore division of labour has not jet developed. Hence security is provided by joining (or these being traditional societies - being born into) a mutual defense association - the clan, rather than by hiring a private defense agency.

More likely than not the poorer (or mannlier) members of society will continue to provision for their defense with mutual defense associations rather than through hiring even should we have anarchy in the developed world, where we otherwise have plenty of capital and highly advanced division of labour.

[RevolutionSD]

The Bible says that "Thou shalt not bear false witness," or lie, to put it simply. I know you've told lies, so that is breaking one of God's commandments. By God's definition, that makes you a sinner. I could take you through the other commandments, but that one is sufficient to prove my point.

To answer your question simply, no, I would not shoot you for not paying taxes. I don't see any Biblical warrant for that. I would pray that you would be obedient to the ministry of government that protects your rights by punishing evil, which is a necessary reason to pay taxes to them by God's standards, Who is the Giver of our rights.



Yes, theft is immoral in the Bible, but the Bible does not classify taxes as theft. It is you who is making that claim, and that arbitrarily.

You're really in crazytown now Theo.

For the last time, I do not believe in your god or any god. So your bible quotes do not apply to me.

I guess you're just not going to answer my question in a straightforward manner because you are clouded by your belief in a fictional being.

Taxes are by any definition, theft. The bible has nothing to do with the definition of taxes. If I take something of yours by force, it's theft. If someone with a fancy hat, calling themselves the government steals something of yours it is also theft.

If government taking money from you is NOT theft, then me taking money from you is also not theft. We have to be consistent here, government is not some magical entity exempt from standard definitions.

[Number19]

This whole debate is a dead end. Anarchism as portrayed by ancaps will never exist. The moment it does, a strong man will emerge and take over, as has always happened. At best, ancaps can hope for tribalism, but not with current world populations.If I remember correctly, this is what occurs in Heinlein's tale.

[RevolutionSD]

No, that is exactly what's going on. You guys follow Rothbard's works in the same religious fervor that I follow Jesus's teachings. The difference is Jesus is Truth Itself (John 14:6), while Rothbard claims to write about truthful things. The objectivity of each one's teachings resides not in the propositions of what they say, but rather in the nature of who makes such propositions true in the first place.

The difference is, one guy existed, the other is a character written about in a book, and may or may not have existed in real life.

I believe in Rothbard, I do not believe in Jesus. In your society, I would be shot if I acted on my beliefs.

Does ANYONE besides Theo want to live in a theocracy like this? Theo, I truly think you need to find a new board- no right thinking libertarian would want anything to do with the kind of theocratic society you are describing.

[sailor]

Does ANYONE besides Theo want to live in a theocracy like this? Theo, I truly think you need to find a new board- no right thinking libertarian would want anything to do with the kind of theocratic society you are describing.

It would be better than what we have today. A smaller government in every or nearly every respect.

[Theocrat]

You're really in crazytown now Theo.

For the last time, I do not believe in your god or any god. So your bible quotes do not apply to me.

I guess you're just not going to answer my question in a straightforward manner because you are clouded by your belief in a fictional being.

Taxes are by any definition, theft. The bible has nothing to do with the definition of taxes. If I take something of yours by force, it's theft. If someone with a fancy hat, calling themselves the government steals something of yours it is also theft.

If government taking money from you is NOT theft, then me taking money from you is also not theft. We have to be consistent here, government is not some magical entity exempt from standard definitions.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it has no application to you. If you choose to stop believing in the sun, that doesn't mean the sun stops shining on you. Yet, God is more powerful and personal than the sun.

You say that taxes by definition are theft, but my question to you is by whose definition? Yours? George Washington's? Noah Webster's? Jesus's? You see you define your term at the outset, and therefore, you deem it's true because it's true by your own definition. How arbitrary can you get?

Not all taxes are theft, but I would agree with you that some are. There are just taxes, which fund such things as courts and halls of legislation, which we have a right to use and utilize for our own good. There are unjust taxes, like property and inheritance taxes, because they punish people for owning something or giving something away which God already has given permission to have and give. Yet, you fail to realize there is a distinction involved.

There are some things which governments can do which private citizens are forbidden from doing. This is the case because God has made a distinction of powers between the various governments He's ordained. Private citizens are not allowed to kill others for breaking the law. That is reserved for the civil government. So, for you to say that because the government "steals" (taxes) therefore, it is okay for you to steal is quite foolish and immature, anyway. Taxes are not theft! They are necessary means for funding adminstrations of government (like courts and military) which work for our benefit (or are supposed to). If they are not being used in that way, then we, the people, have a responsibility to call our government back into its jurisdictional code of operations. To just give up and cry about how taxes are theft is a weak gesture not fit for any patriot.

[Number19]

It would be better than what we have today. A smaller government in every or nearly every respect.But your life would be controlled by moral police - still a form of statist slavery.

[Theocrat]

But your life would be controlled by moral police - still a form of statist slavery.

Where did I ever say there should be a "moral police"? The only "police" would be those households with their own firearms (unless local communities wanted more security around their property) and a national military.

[Number19]

Where did I ever say there should be a "moral police"? The only "police" would be those households with their own firearms (unless local communities wanted more security around their property) and a national military.If you have laws dictating moral conduct, there will be police to enforce those laws.

In your society, will a 16 year old "child" be allowed to have a sexual relationship with a 30 year old "adult"?

If this constitutes illegal conduct, there will be police to enforce your ideas of what constitutes moral sexual conduct.

Will the use of drugs be allowed?

Will stores be allowed to be open on Sundays (ie: the old "blue laws" down here in Texas)?

etc

[Minarchy4Sale]

He`ll have to be a really strong man. A regular Hamid Karzai.

Organized crime fields someone of that caliber every single day. So long as there is profit in rape, robbery, murder, looting and pillaging, there will be those willing to do it.




Tribalism is anarchy. Tribalism is anarchy of a primitive society where there has jet not been capital accumulation and therefore division of labour has not jet developed. Hence security is provided by joining (or these being traditional societies - being born into) a mutual defense association - the clan, rather than by hiring a private defense agency.

More likely than not the poorer (or mannlier) members of society will continue to provision for their defense with mutual defense associations rather than through hiring even should we have anarchy in the developed world, where we otherwise have plenty of capital and highly advanced division of labour.

Tribalism only really works when there is a low population relative to natural resources. Even those devolved into government as one tribe grew stronger than the other tribes, and then eventually began dominating the others through force.

At best, tribes of relatively equal strength maintain a constant state of warfare with neither winning or losing. I wouldnt call that an improvement over minarchical nationalism.

[Theocrat]

If you have laws dictating moral conduct, there will be police to enforce those laws.

In your society, will a 16 year old "child" be allowed to have a sexual relationship with a 30 year old "adult"?

If this constitutes illegal conduct, there will be police to enforce your ideas of what constitutes moral sexual conduct.

Will the use of drugs be allowed?

Will stores be allowed to be open on Sundays (ie: the old "blue laws" down here in Texas)?

etc

All laws dictate moral conduct. What do you think laws forbidding an individual or individuals from killing another or other individuals dictate? They dictate that murder is wrong. So, I think your first premise misses the point.

As far as all those other things are concerned, I would say they should be settled on a local level by families and communities.

[tremendoustie]

This whole debate is a dead end. Anarchism as portrayed by ancaps will never exist. The moment it does, a strong man will emerge and take over, as has always happened. At best, ancaps can hope for tribalism, but not with current world populations.

If coercive government, the largest mob in history, is ended because a large enough majority of the populace is unwilling to consent to it, and instead stands against aggressive force, you can bet that that majority will be able to stand up to some wannabe strong man.

It's about changing perception. Once the general population views the initiation of violence the same way it views slavery, the "strong man" won't stand a chance.

[tremendoustie]

Organized crime fields someone of that caliber every single day. So long as there is profit in rape, robbery, murder, looting and pillaging, there will be those willing to do it.

No profit when joe sixpack is armed, and organized into protection agencies which stand against any sort of organized crime.






Tribalism only really works when there is a low population relative to natural resources. Even those devolved into government as one tribe grew stronger than the other tribes, and then eventually began dominating the others through force.

At best, tribes of relatively equal strength maintain a constant state of warfare with neither winning or losing. I wouldnt call that an improvement over minarchical nationalism.

How is "constant state of warfare" best case? That's absurd. Look, all I'm saying is, the current tribe is pretty much all powerful, and is taking abuse of power to ridiculous levels. It's time for an alternative tribe, as long as that tribe is defensive -- moral.

Are you saying you would support using violence against someone who only wants to stop funding the violent, abusive tribe in power, and instead subscribe to a smaller alternative, which only protects against assault and theft?

Should that person, who has not harmed anyone, have money extorted from them by violence, and should members of their protection agency, who also have not aggressive against anyone, be jailed, simply for trying to peaceably compete -- by taking only actions which any man may engage in -- self defense, defense of innocents, and voluntary exchange of property for services?

[heavenlyboy34]

This whole debate is a dead end. Anarchism as portrayed by ancaps will never exist. The moment it does, a strong man will emerge and take over, as has always happened. At best, ancaps can hope for tribalism, but not with current world populations.

As things are, you may be right. Anarchism requires an intelligent and freedom-loving population, and the immoral, ignorant Statists are the majority now. People will eventually wise up, and anarchism will become more logical than establishing institutional violence (the State). I'll do my best to educate folks, I promise! :):cool:

[RevolutionSD]

Theocrat wants a dictatorship and has no place on a libertarian forum.

[RevolutionSD]

I'm sorry to break this to you, but just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it has no application to you. If you choose to stop believing in the sun, that doesn't mean the sun stops shining on you. Yet, God is more powerful and personal than the sun.

You say that taxes by definition are theft, but my question to you is by whose definition? Yours? George Washington's? Noah Webster's? Jesus's? You see you define your term at the outset, and therefore, you deem it's true because it's true by your own definition. How arbitrary can you get?

Not all taxes are theft, but I would agree with you that some are. There are just taxes, which fund such things as courts and halls of legislation, which we have a right to use and utilize for our own good. There are unjust taxes, like property and inheritance taxes, because they punish people for owning something or giving something away which God already has given permission to have and give. Yet, you fail to realize there is a distinction involved.

There are some things which governments can do which private citizens are forbidden from doing. This is the case because God has made a distinction of powers between the various governments He's ordained. Private citizens are not allowed to kill others for breaking the law. That is reserved for the civil government. So, for you to say that because the government "steals" (taxes) therefore, it is okay for you to steal is quite foolish and immature, anyway. Taxes are not theft! They are necessary means for funding adminstrations of government (like courts and military) which work for our benefit (or are supposed to). If they are not being used in that way, then we, the people, have a responsibility to call our government back into its jurisdictional code of operations. To just give up and cry about how taxes are theft is a weak gesture not fit for any patriot.

You can see the sun. I can scientifically prove the sun to you. Can you prove to me god?

When something is taken from you by force, it is theft. You are far more statist than most Republicans and Democrats I come across, not only that but you want to legislate morality! The exact opposite of what libertarianism and even Ron Paul are about.

[sailor]

Organized crime fields someone of that caliber every single day. So long as there is profit in rape, robbery, murder, looting and pillaging, there will be those willing to do it.

And how successful have they been at it? In the grand scheme organised crime is a minor nuissiance. Until you make it legal. Then it goes around calling itself "a state" and is a mayor nuissiance.


Tribalism only really works when there is a low population relative to natural resources. Even those devolved into government as one tribe grew stronger than the other tribes, and then eventually began dominating the others through force.

At best, tribes of relatively equal strength maintain a constant state of warfare with neither winning or losing. I wouldnt call that an improvement over minarchical nationalism.

Thats not how tribalism works at all. There is absolutely no danger of one tribe ruling over another. Hatfields were never going to rule it over McCoys. The danger is for the tribal elders to turn into coercive rulers over their tribal constituents.

[LibertyEagle]

Theocrat wants a dictatorship and has no place on a libertarian forum.

NEWSFLASH!

This is NOT a libertarian forum and never has been. :)

[Minarchy4Sale]

And how successful have they been at it? In the grand scheme organised crime is a minor nuissiance. Until you make it legal. Then it goes around calling itself "a state" and is a mayor nuissiance.

in the absence of government, the organized crime BECOMES the government. Thats not to say that government cant be corrupted by criminals, which we know happens, but when you rid yourself of government, you GUARANTEE rule by criminals.


Thats not how tribalism works at all. There is absolutely no danger of one tribe ruling over another. Hatfields were never going to rule it over McCoys. The danger is for the tribal elders to turn into coercive rulers over their tribal constituents.

Please wiki 'aztecs', or 'saxons', or 'angles', or 'franks', or 'vikings'. Im sure you get the idea.

[Minarchy4Sale]

NEWSFLASH!

This is NOT a libertarian forum and never has been. :)

Thank you.

[LibertyEagle]

I should have added the word, "just". Not "just" a libertarian forum. Libertarians are here, constitutionalists are here, traditional conservatives, we used to have a few greens, some liberals and as RP has said, even a few anarchists. I'm sure I've left out some designations too.

Freedom brings us together.

[Minarchy4Sale]

I should have added the word, "just". Not "just" a libertarian forum. Libertarians are here, constitutionalists are here, traditional conservatives, we used to have a few greens, some liberals and as RP has said, even a few anarchists. I'm sure I've left out some designations too.

Freedom brings us together.

IMO, anarchists are vastly overrepresented here, relative to their numbers as a percentage of Paul supporters.

[sailor]

in the absence of government, the organized crime BECOMES the government. Thats not to say that government cant be corrupted by criminals, which we know happens, but when you rid yourself of government, you GUARANTEE rule by criminals.

Nonsense. Coercive government is another name for ogranised crime. It is when you have a coercive government that you guarantee to be ruled by organised crime. When you have anarchy at least you have a shot of being free of it.


Please wiki 'aztecs', or 'saxons', or 'angles', or 'franks', or 'vikings'. Im sure you get the idea.

Nonsense. The Franks did not rule over other tribes collectively. Instead a part of the Franks in the Frankish coercive government managed to expand itself to rule over members of other tribes after they had established a coercive rule over their own tribe members.

[sailor]

IMO, anarchists are vastly overrepresented here, relative to their numbers as a percentage of Paul supporters.

That is because we are among the most motivated and idealistic of his supporters.

[LibertyEagle]

That is because we are among the most motivated and idealistic of his supporters.

Motivated? Motivated to post on a message board, or motivated to go outside, get involved in the political process, take back our government, like Dr. Paul has asked that we do?

Ron Paul doesn't preach anarchy. He preaches about reinstating our Constitution.

[sailor]

Motivated? Motivated to post on a message board, or motivated to go outside, get involved in the political process, take back our government, like Dr. Paul has asked that we do?

Ron Paul doesn't preach anarchy. He preaches about reinstating our Constitution.

Motivated to fight to get as much of our freedoms back as possible. We may not paralel your own tactics, but that does not mean we carry less about the goal.

Paul preaches life, liberty and property.

[Minarchy4Sale]

Nonsense. Coercive government is another name for ogranised crime. It is when you have a coercive government that you guarantee to be ruled by organised crime. When you have anarchy at least you have a shot of being free of it.

Anarchy as you describe it does not exist, and never has. It is merely a phase between rule of governments. No loosely organized purely voluntary system can resist the force of groups that are more tightly organized. The form of government you live under determines how free you get to be.

Name one period in history where there has been large scale society without a coercive government and or constant warfare between groups struggling for power.



Nonsense. The Franks did not rule over other tribes collectively. Instead a part of the Franks in the Frankish coercive government managed to expand itself to rule over members of other tribes after they had established a coercive rule over their own tribe members.

Pshaw. The Frankish rulers got cooperation from their fighters with promise of spoils, as it is generally done, and has been done from Ghengis Khan to William the Conqueror.

[sailor]

Anarchy as you describe it does not exist, and never has. It is merely a phase between rule of governments. No loosely organized purely voluntary system can resist the force of groups that are more tightly organized. The form of government you live under determines how free you get to be.

Name one period in history where there has been large scale society without a coercive government and or constant warfare between groups struggling for power.

Minarchy as you describe it does not exist, and never has. It is merely a phase before the state grows further. No limited minarchy can can resist the corrupting influences of coercive power. The form of government you live under determines how free you get to be.

Name one period in history where there has been a large scale society with a minimal coercive government and where the coercive government stayed minimal.



Pshaw. The Frankish rulers got cooperation from their fighters with promise of spoils, as it is generally done, and has been done from Ghengis Khan to William the Conqueror.

Yeah. Frankish rulers. Rulers. You said it yourself.

By the time they were rulers, not tribal elders. When their expansion began they were a state, a kingdom, not a tribe.

[Minarchy4Sale]

Name one period in history where there has been a large scale society with a minimal coercive government and where the coercive government stayed minimal.

1780s through 1860s.


Yeah. Frankish rulers. Rulers. You said it yourself.

By the time they were rulers, not tribal elders. When their expansion began they were a state, a kingdom, not a tribe.

Chiefs - rulers, tomAto, tomAHto.

[acptulsa]

Name one period in history where there has been a large scale society with a minimal coercive government and where the coercive government stayed minimal.

North America prior to The Invasion.

[sailor]

1780s through 1860s.

The years of slavery? Slavery is compatible with a minimal state? Yea, I guess any state can be a minarchy if you lower the bar to that point. :D



Chiefs - rulers, tomAto, tomAHto.

A tribal chief is not a ruler. He governs by consent not by coercion. When an indian tribe migrates before the winter, nobody is forced to come along. There is an opt-out.

[NYgs23]

This is why I'm a panarchist. Allow minarchists to live under the minimal government, but allow anarcho-capitalists the right to opt out and fend for themselves. It's merely taking the right of secession to its logical conclusion: the level of the individual.

[Kraig]

All you have to do is look out your window or read the news to see the direct result of the "limited" constitutional government yet so many of you guys pretend like it will work. There are absolutely no economic incentives for government to remain one size let alone not grow endlessly.

[Pericles]

Because a state has the capability of imposing tyranny, people should not have a state.

Because guns have the capability of murder, people should not have guns.

OK, I've got the logic behind the argument.

[Kraig]

Because a state has the capability of imposing tyranny, people should not have a state.

Because guns have the capability of murder, people should not have guns.

OK, I've got the logic behind the argument.

It doesn't only have the capability, it is tyranny. The state cannot exist without holding a monopoly on force in a region, while using force and theft to maintain it. Show me a state where all taxes are voluntary, where the use of the state's police force is voluntary, where the use of the state's courts and justice system are voluntary. No you don't get the logic behind the argument at all.

[sailor]

Because a state has the capability of imposing tyranny, people should not have a state.

Because guns have the capability of murder, people should not have guns.

OK, I've got the logic behind the argument.

:rolleyes:

Regular people can wield a gun, as well as be in the crosshairs.

Regular people can not wield the state, they can only be in its crosshairs.

[Pericles]

It doesn't only have the capability, it is tyranny. The state cannot exist without holding a monopoly on force in a region, while using force and theft to maintain it. Show me a state where all taxes are voluntary, where the use of the state's police force is voluntary, where the use of the state's courts and justice system are voluntary. No you don't get the logic behind the argument at all.

Would you agree that mankind started off in a state of anarchy? Why couldn't it maintain itself? Might be because it doesn't work.

[sailor]

Would you agree that mankind started off in a state of anarchy? Why couldn't it maintain itself? Might be because it doesn't work.

Would you agree that USA started off as a constitutional republic? Why couldn't it maintain itself? Might be because it doesn't work.

So lets have Stalinism!

[acptulsa]

:rolleyes:

Regular people can wield a gun, as well as be in its crosshairs.

Regular people can not wield the state, they can only be in its crosshairs.

Ah, there's the other half of the logic. Bureaucrats are subhuman. Don't tell LadyJade.


So lets have Stalinism! [/B]

Sure, as long as nothing works very long we might as well go for the one that is the quickest to fall. And the most unpleasant in the meantime.

[sailor]

Ah, there's the other half of the logic. Bureaucrats are subhuman. Don't tell LadyJade.

No buerocrats are great, lets have more of them



Sure, as long as nothing works very long we might as well go for the one that is the quickest to fall. And the most unpleasant in the meantime.

Ah, but that argument somehow doesn`t work for anarchy which lasted by far the longest - some 195,000 years. :rolleyes:

[Pericles]

Would you agree that USA started off as a constitutional republic? Why couldn't it maintain itself? Might be because it doesn't work.

So lets have Stalinism!

Might be because the citizens failed to do their duty. When you hire crooks to work for you, complaining about the resulting theft is an exercise in folly.

[acptulsa]

No buerocrats are great, lets have more of them

Collectivist.


Ah, but that argument somehow doesn`t work for anarchy which lasted by far the longest - some 195,000 years. :rolleyes:

YouTube or it didn't happen. Sorry, but if we can't get people to go back one hundred years for liberty and prosperity, we're sure not going to convince them to turn the clock back eight thousand years. Good luck trying, though.

[sailor]

Collectivist.

Stop amusing me funny man.

I bet you`d write the same for the mafiosi.


YouTube or it didn't happen. Sorry, but if we can't get people to go back one hundred years for liberty and prosperity, we're sure not going to convince them to turn the clock back eight thousand years. Good luck trying, though.

I`m not trying to convinve anybody. Everybody else can live in a Stalinist dictatorship for all I care. But I want to be left alone.

I`m not trying to save the world. Just to get the thieves off my back.

[sailor]

Might be because the citizens failed to do their duty. When you hire crooks to work for you, complaining about the resulting theft is an exercise in folly.

I did not fail in any duty! And I resent the insinuations to the contrary.

Why should I pay for your failures?

[acptulsa]

I bet you`d write the same for the mafiosi.

Well of course I would. I'd say the same for anyone with such an 'us vs. them' mentality they can't see that no two trees in the forest are exactly the same. And if you just wanted to be left the hell alone, the first thing you'd do is cancel your internet connection along with the rest of your utilities, then you'd sack up some seeds and ammo and go where there are no roads. Yet you're here. Society has its costs and its benefits--and one of those costs is thieves.

I want them off my back, too. The thing is, if people are too lazy to learn about them and vote them out, they're also too lazy to join your posse and help you hunt them down. Aren't they?

You know, if we could get there I'd be happy about it. If a sustainable anarchy could be devised and maintained, I'd be there with bells on. But the long and the short of it is, not only is that a tall order but doing it in a sudden manner is a recipe for certain disaster. The only way to get there without falling into that disaster is to do it in an incremental, evolutionary manner. And that puts us on the same side. All this divisiveness is extradordinarily premature.


I did not fail in any duty! And I resent the insinuations to the contrary.

Why should I pay for your failures?

Most anarchists fail in their duty as citizens. And then get sanctimonious about it. It does little to reassure others that their claims that citizens can cooperate without rules of the game are true when they can't even be bothered to vote, much less to get their asses down to the political convention and try to get some sane candidates in a race or two...

[Pericles]

I did not fail in any duty! And I resent the insinuations to the contrary.

Why should I pay for your failures?

It is like being on the board of directors for a company. You are responsible for what happens, even when you vote against it.

You should not pay for my failure anymore than I should pay for yours.

That gives two options, quit or work the rest of the board to achieve something useful.

You have the option of moving somewhere in the world that practices anarchy (because there would be no government that would restrict your immigration), or work with what you have. I would suggest the 2nd Amendment as the ultimate failsafe for providing the means of the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. ..... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

[RevolutionSD]

NEWSFLASH!

This is NOT a libertarian forum and never has been. :)

It's called "Liberty Forest". Can you explain where a theocracy fits in with a discussion about liberty?

[RevolutionSD]

I should have added the word, "just". Not "just" a libertarian forum. Libertarians are here, constitutionalists are here, traditional conservatives, we used to have a few greens, some liberals and as RP has said, even a few anarchists. I'm sure I've left out some designations too.

Freedom brings us together.

And forcing religion on people fits in to which of these categories?

There are far more anarchists on this board than the most of the other groups you mentioned. Anarcho-capitalism is libertarianism carried out to its fullest extent.

[RevolutionSD]

IMO, anarchists are vastly overrepresented here, relative to their numbers as a percentage of Paul supporters.

I know lots of people who were RP supporters during his campaign and either were anarchists at the time and thought that his run was good to get the word out, or they thought about the issue and realized fighting for small gov't was fighting the wrong battle. It's ideas that matter, not votes, parties, or even guns.

[sailor]

Well of course I would. I'd say the same for anyone with such an 'us vs. them' mentality they can't see that no two trees in the forest are exactly the same.

So you do not desire a world where nobody is a mafiosi?

You want always there to be some mafia left.

Because you do not have a `us vs. them` mentality. :rolleyes:


And if you just wanted to be left the hell alone, the first thing you'd do is cancel your internet connection along with the rest of your utilities, then you'd sack up some seeds and ammo and go where there are no roads. Yet you're here. Society has its costs and its benefits--and one of those costs is thieves.

Nonsense. The state does not provide me with the internet. I pay for it from my own pocket. The state is not society, the state is not the people, and the state is not the market.


Most anarchists fail in their duty as citizens. And then get sanctimonious about it.

Citizens? What citizens? I am not a citizen of anything. A paper with a stamp of the local thieves guild is nothing to me. I am proud of my nation/ethnicity but that has nothing to do with a piece of paper.

[Kraig]

Would you agree that mankind started off in a state of anarchy? Why couldn't it maintain itself? Might be because it doesn't work.

Using that argument it was under anarchy that mankind became the dominant species on this planet. Anarchy does not even "work" or "not work, cooperative human beings are what works, they do not need the "help" of the state looting off them for their own good. They do not need the state taking their resources and redistributing it for their own good and protection. Anarchy is the natural order of peaceful human interaction which the state tries to go against, the same way it tries to go against natural order with other forms of planned society. Most people here are against government run buisness, health care, currency, schools, postal service, pretty much everything. Yet when you apply the exact same logic to security and courts they say "hell no" and are willing to put their complete trust in the state's power and ability. When you call them out on this they say "well no we don't put our trust in the state, we put our trust in this very specific, limited form of the state", the exact same way all socialists say their ideals would work if only they could be implemented properly.

[RevolutionSD]

Anarchy as you describe it does not exist, and never has. It is merely a phase between rule of governments. No loosely organized purely voluntary system can resist the force of groups that are more tightly organized. The form of government you live under determines how free you get to be.

Name one period in history where there has been large scale society without a coercive government and or constant warfare between groups struggling for power.




Pshaw. The Frankish rulers got cooperation from their fighters with promise of spoils, as it is generally done, and has been done from Ghengis Khan to William the Conqueror.

We have anarchy in our everyday lives. Think about it.

Saying "well we've always had government!" is not argument against anarchy. Slavery existed for centuries too before people finally realized how wrong it was. Sometime in the future, people will realize that the idea of humans holding power over other humans is also completely wrong and immoral.

[Minarchy4Sale]

We have anarchy in our everyday lives. Think about it.

Saying "well we've always had government!" is not argument against anarchy. Slavery existed for centuries too before people finally realized how wrong it was. Sometime in the future, people will realize that the idea of humans holding power over other humans is also completely wrong and immoral.

Honestly, you guys remind me of communists... You just ignore a vast part of human nature.

Some will always lust for power. Some will always follow. It has always been thus, and always will be thus.

[Pericles]

Using that argument it was under anarchy that mankind became the dominant species on this planet. Anarchy does not even "work" or "not work, cooperative human beings are what works, they do not need the "help" of the state looting off them for their own good. They do not need the state taking their resources and redistributing it for their own good and protection. Anarchy is the natural order of peaceful human interaction which the state tries to go against, the same way it tries to go against natural order with other forms of planned society. Most people here are against government run buisness, health care, currency, schools, postal service, pretty much everything. Yet when you apply the exact same logic to security and courts they say "hell no" and are willing to put their complete trust in the state's power and ability. When you call them out on this they say "well no we don't put our trust in the state, we put our trust in this very specific, limited form of the state", the exact same way all socialists say their ideals would work if only they could be implemented properly.

Why was anarchy unable to defend itself against the encroachments of the state? If we agree that anarchy existed before the creation of the state, why was it unable to defend itself from being subsumed?

By the time a group of anarchists decide to hire the former Blackwater and negotiate the fee schedule and services as private protection, some group of guys wearing uniforms will have raped your cattle and driven off your women.

[acptulsa]

We have anarchy in our everyday lives. Think about it.

And the less we have, the worse off we are. Even the most totalitarian monarchy of the Dark Ages didn't have the resources or the technology to play the 'thought police' game that's going on today.


Saying "well we've always had government!" is not argument against anarchy. Slavery existed for centuries too before people finally realized how wrong it was. Sometime in the future, people will realize that the idea of humans holding power over other humans is also completely wrong and immoral.

And the largest part of the arguments that crawl all over this forum all the time, scaring away the n00bs, is the fact that some people concentrate on 'sometime in the future' and some are concerned with 'what about in the meantime?'

[Kraig]

Why was anarchy unable to defend itself against the encroachments of the state? If we agree that anarchy existed before the creation of the state, why was it unable to defend itself from being subsumed?

Because Anarchy is not an organization like the state. Anarchy is people cooperating without the threat of violence. Anarchy still dominates human interaction, all countries on earth exist together in the state of anarchy, it is the populations underneath them that are enslaved. It's like trying to argue for slavery because they slaves weren't able to defend themselves, it doesn't make it right, good, or profitable.

Someone comes along and says it's time to rebel against the master, we need no master, and your response is "if we need no master, why was the master able to enslave us? therefore the master must be good, or at least necessary". No I don't think so, not for me, I think maybe some of you have been enslaved for far to long, and are getting used to it.

[sailor]

It is like being on the board of directors for a company. You are responsible for what happens, even when you vote against it.

Yeah, it`s called collectivism.

[sailor]

Some will always lust for power. Some will always follow. It has always been thus, and always will be thus.

And because some will always lust for power you want to indulge them and give them the power on a silver platter. Yea, that makes sense.

[Kraig]

And because some will always lust for power you want to indulge them and give them the power on a silver platter. Yea, that makes sense.

lol exactly

There will always be someone who wants to steal for a living, doesn't mean I'm going to leave my front door open when I leave for the day.

[sailor]

And the largest part of the arguments that crawl all over this forum all the time, scaring away the n00bs, is the fact that some people concentrate on 'sometime in the future' and some are concerned with 'what about in the meantime?'

Anarchy isn`t about sometime in the future. We are not gradualists like you.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well of course I would. I'd say the same for anyone with such an 'us vs. them' mentality they can't see that no two trees in the forest are exactly the same. And if you just wanted to be left the hell alone, the first thing you'd do is cancel your internet connection along with the rest of your utilities, then you'd sack up some seeds and ammo and go where there are no roads. Yet you're here. Society has its costs and its benefits--and one of those costs is thieves.

I want them off my back, too. The thing is, if people are too lazy to learn about them and vote them out, they're also too lazy to join your posse and help you hunt them down. Aren't they?

You know, if we could get there I'd be happy about it. If a sustainable anarchy could be devised and maintained, I'd be there with bells on. But the long and the short of it is, not only is that a tall order but doing it in a sudden manner is a recipe for certain disaster. The only way to get there without falling into that disaster is to do it in an incremental, evolutionary manner. And that puts us on the same side. All this divisiveness is extradordinarily premature.



Most anarchists fail in their duty as citizens. And then get sanctimonious about it. It does little to reassure others that their claims that citizens can cooperate without rules of the game are true when they can't even be bothered to vote, much less to get their asses down to the political convention and try to get some sane candidates in a race or two...

This is a phony argument, FYI. My only "duty" as a citizen is to avoid harming others while building my and my family's prosperity. Your working understanding is that participation in "democracy" is a measure of political action is flawed. Your advocating the use of the State (and its inherent violence) to forward your agenda is very telling of your lack of morality.

Real change can only come about when people will use their minds to solve problems rather than force. Until that time comes, we will continue to play this barbaric game of Statism until the last human is dead. :(

[acptulsa]

Anarchy isn`t about sometime in the future. We are not gradualists like you.

Being a collectivist again, I see. RevolutionSD sounded pretty gradualist to me. So, again I ask, what do you do now? Opt out? Try to take Da State down? Or just spam up the forum bitching? Because there will be no mass democratic grassroots uprising for anarchy any time soon. You can disagree all you want--I'll believe otherwise when I see it.


Your advocating the use of the State (and its inherent violence) to forward your agenda is very telling of your lack of morality.

Your willingness to attack my morality without even asking what my agenda is says more about your narrow-minded stubbornness than my morality.

[Pericles]

Because Anarchy is not an organization like the state. Anarchy is people cooperating without the threat of violence. Anarchy still dominates human interaction, all countries on earth exist together in the state of anarchy, it is the populations underneath them that are enslaved. It's like trying to argue for slavery because they slaves weren't able to defend themselves, it doesn't make it right, good, or profitable.

Someone comes along and says it's time to rebel against the master, we need no master, and your response is "if we need no master, why was the master able to enslave us? therefore the master must be good, or at least necessary". No I don't think so, not for me, I think maybe some of you have been enslaved for far to long, and are getting used to it.

I'm not making any moral arguments, they are purely utilitarian. A proponent has to argue why it works better than the alternative. My argument is that under anarchy, your private property will not be secure. Anarchy may have worked when everyone lived in mud huts and caves because there was little of value (relative to others' possessions) worth stealing.

I would suggest to you that an ad hominem argument is not made by the side that has the better case.

[Minarchy4Sale]

And because some will always lust for power you want to indulge them and give them the power on a silver platter. Yea, that makes sense.

No. You bind them in chains, and make them fight against other lusters, so that no one of them gets too powerful.

This is why the income tax was the beginning of the end. Allowing the feds to tax the people directly meant they could bribe the legislatures... and of course they did.

When all your lusters are on the same side, you are in for trouble.

[Kraig]

I'm not making any moral arguments, they are purely utilitarian. A proponent has to argue why it works better than the alternative. My argument is that under anarchy, your private property will not be secure. Anarchy may have worked when everyone lived in mud huts and caves because there was little of value (relative to others' possessions) worth stealing.

I would suggest to you that an ad hominem argument is not made by the side that has the better case.

Then you do not believe morals work, I do, and it is not a simple belief, there are reasons for it. Private property not secure under anarchy? As I cannot own land without endless rent payments or risk losing it (property tax), as I cannot work a job without giving up a portion of my income before I even see it. You have such a weak argument.

[sailor]

No. You bind them in chains, and make them fight against other lusters, so that no one of them gets too powerful.

This is why the income tax was the beginning of the end. Allowing the feds to tax the people directly meant they could bribe the legislatures... and of course they did.

When all your lusters are on the same side, you are in for trouble.

You can not make them fight. That was the idea of seperation of powers, that was the idea of elections and political parties - it failed.

Those lusters who are in power share a common interest to expand the government and will therefore find a way to set aside their differences for tactical reasons and cooperate against us. And we being in a disadvantaged position against them will not be able to contain them.

The only way to contain the lusters is not to permitt them to get into a position where they have an advantage over us in the first place (such as that they can legitimately use force against us, while we can not against them).

[Kraig]

No. You bind them in chains, and make them fight against other lusters, so that no one of them gets too powerful.

This is why the income tax was the beginning of the end. Allowing the feds to tax the people directly meant they could bribe the legislatures... and of course they did.

When all your lusters are on the same side, you are in for trouble.

So the government is the one bound in chains now? Really?

[Minarchy4Sale]

You can not make them fight. That was the idea of seperation of powers, that was the idea of elections and political parties - it failed.

Those lusters who are in power share a common interest to expand the government and will therefore find a way to set aside their differences for tactical reasons and cooperate against us. And we being in a disadvantaged position against them will not be able to contain them.

The only way to contain the lusters is not to permitt them to get into a position where they have an advantage over us in the first place (such as that they can legitimately use force against us, while we can not against them).

It worked pretty well up until Lincoln.

[Pericles]

No. You bind them in chains, and make them fight against other lusters, so that no one of them gets too powerful.

This is why the income tax was the beginning of the end. Allowing the feds to tax the people directly meant they could bribe the legislatures... and of course they did.

When all your lusters are on the same side, you are in for trouble.

Checks and balances - the pernicious effects of the 16th and 17th Amendments are clearly visible.

Of course, it started with war in 1861 being the ultimate decider, "trial by combat". It seemed nobody was much interested in the legality of secession being tried in the courts for a start.

[tremendoustie]

Honestly, you guys remind me of communists... You just ignore a vast part of human nature.

Some will always lust for power. Some will always follow. It has always been thus, and always will be thus.

Some will resist having the initiation of violence foisted upon them or others. I tend to prefer to join this group rather than the other two. If we become numerous enough, the lusters and followers will be out of luck.

Some still lust for chattel slavery, but they're not going to get it. Would you have opposed the elimination of slavery, saying, "some men will always seek to rule over others"? Because a lot of people made just that argument at the time ...

[sailor]

Being a collectivist again, I see. RevolutionSD sounded pretty gradualist to me. So, again I ask, what do you do now? Opt out? Try to take Da State down? Or just spam up the forum bitching? Because there will be no mass democratic grassroots uprising for anarchy any time soon. You can disagree all you want--I'll believe otherwise when I see it.

I`ll sooner find a way for myself not to pay taxes than you will have a constitutional republic in the US. I assure you. :rolleyes:


I actually don`t require a mass uprising for my goal. You do.

[Minarchy4Sale]

Checks and balances - the pernicious effects of the 16th and 17th Amendments are clearly visible.

Of course, it started with war in 1861 being the ultimate decider, "trial by combat". It seemed nobody was much interested in the legality of secession being tried in the courts for a start.

yeah, I see it as a three pronged attack

Lincoln destroyed states ability to fight back.

Wilson destroyed states ability to control their own purse strings.

FDR and the progressives/socialists destroyed the common law, and created 'law as policy' doctrine.

Its a trifecta of tyrrany.

[Conza88]

For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard (pdf) (http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf) (text) (http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp) (audiobook) (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87)

Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehil (pdf) (http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf) (audiobook) (http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/)

Myth of National Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (pdf) (http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf)

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (pdf) (http://www.4shared.com/file/92922216/dd10024e/David_Friedman_-_The_Machinery_of_Freedom.html)

Read. Listen. Learn.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer

...

[sailor]

It worked pretty well up until Lincoln.

Tell that to the people that were slaughtered in the Whiskey Rebellion.

[Minarchy4Sale]

Dont bother citing rothtard.

[Minarchy4Sale]

Tell that to the people that were slaughtered in the Whiskey Rebellion.

Tree of liberty, bluid, patriots and tyrants, every 20 years.

[tremendoustie]

It is like being on the board of directors for a company. You are responsible for what happens, even when you vote against it.

You should not pay for my failure anymore than I should pay for yours.

That gives two options, quit or work the rest of the board to achieve something useful.

You have the option of moving somewhere in the world that practices anarchy (because there would be no government that would restrict your immigration), or work with what you have. I would suggest the 2nd Amendment as the ultimate failsafe for providing the means of the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. ..... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

The 2nd amendment works without government too you know.

So, given that I do not consent to have my money stolen from me at the point of a gun, and to live my life asking permission to sneeze, and certainly do not want partial moral responsibility for the atrocities of government, where do I sign to make them leave me alone?

And if you say I must leave, how is it that these people calling themselves government have the right to kick me off my own land, which they do not own, if I do not obey their arbitrary diktats? What if I form a government on my street, with one of my neighbors -- can I start making demands of my second neighbor, such as taxes and obedience to regulation, which he must obey or leave? His house looks nice, but then a regular tribute sounds good too.

[Kraig]

Tree of liberty, bluid, patriots and tyrants, every 20 years.

lol so appealing

Let me me just go fight and die for constitutional government because that is how it is supposed to work.

[Conza88]

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8184/169409.aspx#169409

[Minarchy4Sale]

lol so appealing

Let me me just go fight and die for constitutional government because that is how it is supposed to work.


Why not. In your scenario, your head would be on a pike and your wife and kids sex slaves to a rampaging horde more likely than not.

[Pericles]

Dont bother citing rothtard.

Yeah, that is what always happens with "true believers" of every ilk - libertarian, communist, capitalist, socialist, etc. Few can argue for themselves, but point back to the literature or thinker that convinced them that the ultimate truth had been found.

This was first observed by de Tocqueville "In America a minority undertakes to supply a number of ready made opinions for use by the majority, who are thus relieved of the necessity of thinking for themselves."

[Kraig]

Why not. In your scenario, your head would be on a pike and your wife and kids sex slaves to a rampaging horde more likely than not.

Why not? Because I want to live. As far as your example of my scenario, even Somalia it is not like that has they are recovering for years of government induced turmoil.

[Kraig]

Yeah, that is what always happens with "true believers" of every ilk - libertarian, communist, capitalist, socialist, etc. Few can argue for themselves, but point back to the literature or thinker that convinced them that the ultimate truth had been found.

This was first observed by de Tocqueville "In America a minority undertakes to supply a number of ready made opinions for use by the majority, who are thus relieved of the necessity of thinking for themselves."

...and that has what to do with your argument being flawed?

[acptulsa]

I`ll sooner find a way for myself not to pay taxes than you will have a constitutional republic in the US. I assure you. :rolleyes:

I actually don`t require a mass uprising for my goal. You do.

Lol. Well alrightie then. Go fail to pay taxes and stop bitching. If you need no mass uprising, and need no help at all, what do you need us for? Why are you wasting time preaching when you could be getting-r-done?

I need the masses and you don't. So, let me do the preaching and go disappear--and enjoy.

[Conza88]

Yeah, that is what always happens with "true believers" of every ilk - libertarian, communist, capitalist, socialist, etc. Few can argue for themselves, but point back to the literature or thinker that convinced them that the ultimate truth had been found.

This was first observed by de Tocqueville "In America a minority undertakes to supply a number of ready made opinions for use by the majority, who are thus relieved of the necessity of thinking for themselves."

False. I can argue for myself perfectly fine. And I'm talking solace with this for I cite Rothbard often.

Why? Because I agree with the arguments.
Why re-iterate myself? Because I'm not a fcken fool who thinks he should waste time re-writing / typing what I already agree with.

Is it an appeal to authority? No. I never go - because he said it, it is true.

I am using the arguments put forward. I debate on their merit only.

Want to know what's hilarious, and who engages in "true believer" more than anyone else? Want to see who can't argue with reason and logic and is blind to the truth? Don't cite the Constitution. Don't cite the founding fathers. etc Seriously, hypocrisy is rank.

There is a reason why these questions have been avoided like the plague. Socratic method - thank you... any minarchists want to take a stab? It all started in this thread:

GO for it. All those that tried failed.


An honest question for proponents of "limited government" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=193550)

Yes, of course I blame those in our government who are not abiding by their oaths of office. I think we have a pack of crooks there currently. They are responsible for their actions. But, the people are responsible for not holding them accountable and allowing our government to become this huge unconstitutional behemoth that it has become. I think it's also important to acknowledge our part in it, or we will repeat it.

The Judges are to blame for making unconstitutional laws, permissible?


But, the bottom line is figuring out how best to fix the problems. I want to reinstate the Constitution and thus drastically reduce the size and scope of the federal government. As I recall, you want to get rid of all government. So, I doubt we're going to agree here.

Why don't you want to reinstate the Articles of Confederation?


I'm not into the victim mentality thing.

Ah, but you are. You're blaming me for the growth of my government. What have I done? Why am I too blame? The victim - the person who has had their property robbed by a gang of thieves writ large... you are blaming him for not fighting back & dieing.


Why don't you give some pointed examples of how you believe the U.S. Constitution violates private property and then we can discuss it.

Taxation.




"But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act.

He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do.

He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."~ Lysander Spooner (1808-1887), The Constitution of No Authority (Boston: 1870)


Now discuss.

[Pericles]

...and that has what to do with your argument being flawed?

Does not address the point being argued - just as most of this has come down to opposition to property tax and income tax - thus the answer is to eliminate the state.

There are functions being performed by the state that we all agree on as not being the proper functions of a state, and instead of working together to eliminate those clearly improper functions, anarchists here are trying to make the case to the rest of us, that we are not going far enough, when we have not yet completed the first step on the journey we all agree on making.

[Number19]

All laws dictate moral conduct. What do you think laws forbidding an individual or individuals from killing another or other individuals dictate? They dictate that murder is wrong. So, I think your first premise misses the point.

As far as all those other things are concerned, I would say they should be settled on a local level by families and communities.As long as theocratic governance does not extend beyond the community, I have no problems. It's a matter of Free Choice - if you don't like the lifestyle/governance where you are at then you are free to move to another community; or at worst, you are free to purchase several thousand acres of undeveloped land and form your own community. At the level of smallest political divisions - the townships and the county - the Right of Free Association allows groups of people to govern themselves more restrictively.

To respond to the first part of your post, I earlier stated my position that restrictions on killing and theft are part of humanity's common law, having existed in all societies since recorded history. All Peoples agree on this. What constitutes "moral law", beyond these, is subjective and divisive.