Organized violence - video

[susano]

YouTube - The Sunset of the State (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLCEXtpTNYU&feature=player_embedded)

Freedom Domain Radio

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Videos/PlayFreedomainRadioVideos/tabid/156/Default.aspx?VideoId=http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/videos/sLCEXtpTNYU

[NiceGoing]

YouTube - The Sunset of the State (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLCEXtpTNYU&feature=player_embedded)

Freedom Domain Radio

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Videos/PlayFreedomainRadioVideos/tabid/156/Default.aspx?VideoId=http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/videos/sLCEXtpTNYU

Yes, the non aggression principle is good, and moral...

But even more comprehensive, and therefore better, is:

EVERY MAN has the right to life, liberty and property.

IOW, Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration had it exactly right.

[susano]

Jefferson had it right in the context of the least intrusive form of gov't he could imagine. That said, we don't need ANY government.

[NiceGoing]

Jefferson had it right in the context of the least intrusive form of gov't he could imagine. That said, we don't need ANY government.

Perhaps, but we will always have to contend with lawbreakers, (therefore need Laws)

[susano]

Gov't is nothing but a political class providing services. Everything from war to welfare is a service provided to those who want it. Imagine if we confered power and authority over our lives to other people from whom we hire services (plumbers, auto mechanics, doctors, landscapers, whatever). What an insane thing that would be. So, why the hell do we have gov't, which is nothing but power over others? Surely we can hire what we want done, individually or as groups, without giving said contactors any authority to do anything other than their jobs.

[susano]

Perhaps, but we will always have to contend with lawbreakers, (therefore need Laws)

No. That follows the reasoning that we need a political and law enforcement class to have power over us to "keep us safe". I'm sure the native American tribal people dealt with offenders of the rights of others with nothing more than the concensus of the tribe. There were no laws other than the Creator's & Nature's laws. There were no statutes, police, administrators, or any of the oppressive and freedom killing institutions we have now.

[NiceGoing]

No. That follows the reasoning that we need a political and law enforcement class to have power over us to "keep us safe". I'm sure the native American tribal people dealt with offenders of the rights of others with nothing more than the concensus of the tribe. There were no laws other than the Creator's & Nature's laws. There were no statutes, police, administrators, or any of the oppressive and freedom killing institutions we have now.

No, don't jump to conclusions.
If we did have a consensus of 'tribal elders' to judge justice, then they would be acting as government. Therefore, we would need to be able to completely trust the integrity - and that is the big point under discussion , and also why & where governments become threats to our freedom.

[susano]

No, don't jump to conclusions.
If we did have a consensus of 'tribal elders' to judge justice, then they would be acting as government. Therefore, we would need to be able to completely trust the integrity - and that is the big point under discussion , and also why & where governments become threats to our freedom.

There's no other conclusion to arrive at when you mention needing gov't to deal with law breakers.

My family is probably similar to a tribe. When a decision needs to made we causcus and then take action. After that, there is no "gov't". Any local group of people can fucntion the same way - no standing gov't.

[Danke]

Who is gonna protect us from the Canadian hordes?

[susano]

Who is gonna protect us from the Canadian hordes?

good point!

[NiceGoing]

Lol.

Well I agree with you in principle, definitely. Are we discussing here: anarchy? If so I'll need to do some reading up.. :)

[susano]

Lol.

Well I agree with you in principle, definitely. Are we discussing here: anarchy? If so I'll need to do some reading up.. :)

The definition of anarchy usually includes disorder. Fro that reason I would never claim to be an anarchist. If one restricts the definition to no ruling class and govt, I'm on board. :)

[libertybrewcity]

I think that standing local governments can function adequately. If you look at where local corruption stems from, it is usually federal funding, or state funding that comes from federal funding. Who do you think gives funds to the small community in Wisconsin for a tank-like vehicle? The federal government. Who infects local police stations and gives them military training? Federal government.

I think this video is really a case for localism. Many communities can function without a local government, but many may not be able to, or they may want to form a government. For example, a city of 10 million people. Government should be acceptable in a completely free society as long as everyone agrees to it.

[susano]

I think that standing local governments can function adequately. If you look at where local corruption stems from, it is usually federal funding, or state funding that comes from federal funding. Who do you think gives funds to the small community in Wisconsin for a tank-like vehicle? The federal government. Who infects local police stations and gives them military training? Federal government.

I think this video is really a case for localism. Many communities can function without a local government, but many may not be able to, or they may want to form a government. For example, a city of 10 million people. Government should be acceptable in a completely free society as long as everyone agrees to it.

I'm trying to think of a system of getting things done that everyone agrees to and I can't think of one.

Let's say there is no gov't. Some people want a road built. Then those people have to get together and plan it through their own property (no gov't, no state property). When they encounter someone along the projected path that doesn't want the road, without gov't force they either have to go around or give it up.

If everything ran that way we would have a much simpler, less complex way of life. We wouldn't have the massive infrastructures that we do know, but so what?