When An Anarchist Tells You to Question Authority...

[A Son of Liberty]

Wrong.

My grandson was born last year. There are currently no agencies except for the State with the authority to remove a child from a bad situation and give the child a chance at life. This is not about it could be this way next year or it could be that way in 150 years. It is not your life we are discussing here ... it is a child who was born last year who thankfully did not have to give explicit consent to the State to save his life. This is the reality of our day.

What makes you think that without the state private entities wouldn't step into the void, as they had in the past?

[Travlyr]

What makes you think that without the state private entities wouldn't step into the void, as they had in the past?

The State holds implied consent for authority at birth and rightfully so, imo. Competing private entities could only have explicit consent which babies cannot give.

Hypothetical Situation: A mother who is serving 20 years in prison gives birth to a baby. The baby cannot give consent, so the State has the authority to legally intervene on behalf of the child and find parents who can provide the youngster with a home.

The State has the authority to kidnap the child by law.

On what authority would competing agencies be allowed to kidnap the child even if it was in the best interests of the child?

[Theocrat]

I think instead he would just say that not all information is true, and by questioning the information you receive (e.g. from authority figures) you can more often determine what is true and what is false.



I'm not sure I understand your question correctly. Do you mean, equivalently: Are those who claim that one should question authority themselves free from questioning or criticism (in particular with regards to this very claim)?

I think the answer to this question is "no", and that anyone who truly believes authority ought to be questioned would welcome criticism.

My point is that those people, such as anarchists, who preach against having a civil government tell us what to do have no problem telling us what to do when they tell others to question authority. So, then, who are they acting like when they give such a prescription?

[Sentient Void]

Theo, you are either remarkably obtuse or remarkably dishonest.

Damned 'Dominionists'.

[A Son of Liberty]

What makes you think that without the state private entities wouldn't step into the void, as they had in the past?

The State holds implied consent for authority at birth and rightfully so, imo. Competing private entities could only have explicit consent which babies cannot give.

Hypothetical Situation: A mother who is serving 20 years in prison gives birth to a baby. The baby cannot give consent, so the State has the authority to legally intervene on behalf of the child and find parents who can provide the youngster with a home.

The State has the authority to kidnap the child by law.

On what authority would competing agencies be allowed to kidnap the child even if it was in the best interests of the child?

You didn't answer my question.

[Travlyr]

Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty
What makes you think that without the state private entities wouldn't step into the void, as they had in the past?

You didn't answer my question.

I did answer your question. Private entities cannot step into the void as they did in the past because they do not have the authority to kidnap people in distress. States do have that authority by law.

Personally, I don't want private entities to have implied powers, and I am fine with representative constitutional republics having that power. I also believe that anything the State does outside of the constitution is illegitimate. States of the future can do a better job than they have in the past by amending constitutions.

[heavenlyboy34]

I did answer your question. Private entities cannot step into the void as they did in the past because they do not have the authority to kidnap people in distress. States do have that authority by law.

Personally, I don't want private entities to have implied powers, and I am fine with representative constitutional republics having that power. I also believe that anything the State does outside of the constitution is illegitimate. States of the future can do a better job than they have in the past by amending constitutions.

I just don't know how to respond to such appalling immorality. Not even the most tyrannical characters in 18th century America would think this way. This line of thought is more in line with emperors than classical republicans. It makes me sad that people in a "liberty" movement are so strongly against liberty.

[Travlyr]

I just don't know how to respond to such appalling immorality. Not even the most tyrannical characters in 18th century America would think this way. This line of thought is more in line with emperors than classical republicans. It makes me sad that people in a "liberty" movement are so strongly against liberty.

You mean like Ron Paul?
I agree nearly 100% with Ron Paul.

[erowe1]

I did answer your question. Private entities cannot step into the void as they did in the past because they do not have the authority to kidnap people in distress. States do have that authority by law.

Private entities can just write a law that gives themselves that authority just like the state does.

[Wesker1982]

The ONLY issue that I have found myself disagreeing with Ron Paul is explicit consent to the State if, and only if, Wesker is accurate in his interpretation of Ron Paul's position. Even then, I am not sure Wesker accurately portrayed Ron Paul in Wesker's blog entry because explicit consent is dumb and Ron Paul is not stupid.

Maybe you didn't notice that the evidence I provided were Ron Paul's own words, right?

That authority (of government), gained by explicit consent of the people, should be strictly limited. - Ron Paul, Liberty Defined

In case you need to go over it again (because your memory seems foggy, or something?...) http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.p...Private-Courts

[erowe1]

The State holds implied consent for authority at birth and rightfully so, imo.

Who specifically gives implicit consent to the state to rule them when they're born?

Everybody in the world?

And how do you decide which state they imply their consent to?

[Wesker1982]

Point of clarification for those who may be lurking:

Tom Woods is a very intelligent, funny and good man who works almost exclusively on behalf of the betterment of humanity:



He also happens to be an anarchist (please see ~ 5:00 mark. My evolution is similar to his):



According to some, then, this makes him a selfish person.

Good luck to those of you try to make that "logic" work in your head.

Parenthetically, Doug Casey is great voice against the state.

Don't forget:

[erowe1]

Another thing not to forget is exactly what institution we're talking about when we say "the state."

What we're talking about is the one that derives its authority from the rule of law, specifically, the constitution that I am copying and pasting below in its entirety.

The New Constitution of the Republic of Planet Earth

Preamble.

We the People of the Planet Earth, acting of our own volition through the means of a free republic based on the sovereignty of each individual do ordain and establish the following Constitution.

Article I. Ratification

This constitution shall be ratified when the legitimate representatives of each individual on planet earth unanimously vote for it to be ratified.

The legitimate representative of every individual on planet earth is hereby delcared to be the ronpaulforums member of the handle, erowe1.

Article II. Sovereignty

Upon its ratification, this constitution shall be the supreme law of the land and subject to no other laws higher than itself forever.

This Constitution delegates the responsibility of being supreme leader of planet earth to the ronpaulforums member of the handle, erowe1.

Upon ratification of this constitution, all individuals on planet earth will have relinquished their sovereignty and the sovereignty of their posterity to the supreme leader of planet earth.


Article III. Land Ownership

All deeds in existence prior to the ratification of this Constitution are declared null and void upon its ratification. All real estate on planet earth, both on its land and in its waters, is henceforth to be owned by the supreme leader of the planet.

The supreme leader is authorized to enforce the provisions of this Constitution using any force or violence that might be required.

Edit: Just so you know, your legitimate representatives did unanimously ratify that constitution some time ago.

[CCTelander]

snip

According to some, then, this makes him a selfish person.

Good luck to those of you try to make that "logic" work in your head.

snip

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad and disgusting.

These are the same people who want to shove guns in our faces, steal our justly earned resources for their own benefit (so they can enjoy the warm, fuzzy ILLUSION of safety and security), and force us to abide by other silly rules that we may not agree with.

And they have the unmitigated gall to call us "selfish."

That kind of hypocrisy deserves to be pointed out and condemned with as much vigor as one can muster.

[mczerone]

The State holds implied consent for authority at birth and rightfully so, imo. Competing private entities could only have explicit consent which babies cannot give.

Hypothetical Situation: A mother who is serving 20 years in prison gives birth to a baby. The baby cannot give consent, so the State has the authority to legally intervene on behalf of the child and find parents who can provide the youngster with a home.

The State has the authority to kidnap the child by law.

On what authority would competing agencies be allowed to kidnap the child even if it was in the best interests of the child?

On what authority would agents for a bunch of suits in a grand meeting hall be allowed to kidnap the child, even if it was in the best interests of the child?

The State made the "law", therefore it cannot create authority that the State didn't already have.

[CCTelander]

Theo, you are either remarkably obtuse or remarkably dishonest.

Damned 'Dominionists'.

My guess would be the latter.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sentient Void again."

[CCTelander]

I just don't know how to respond to such appalling immorality. Not even the most tyrannical characters in 18th century America would think this way. This line of thought is more in line with emperors than classical republicans. It makes me sad that people in a "liberty" movement are so strongly against liberty.

You might be surprised to find out how many of these there actually are.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to heavenlyboy34 again."

[CCTelander]

My point is that those people, such as anarchists, who preach against having a civil government tell us what to do have no problem telling us what to do when they tell others to question authority. So, then, who are they acting like when they give such a prescription?

Well, let me see now.

On the one hand we have "civil government" in possession of armies with guns, tanks, warplanes, warships, and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and the ruthless willingness to use them against anyone to get their way.

On the other hand we have an individual anarchist, lacking ANY of the above, basically making a suggestion.

Yep, those two are EXACTLY similar. Not.

Give me a $#@!ing break, will you?

[Vessol]

I did answer your question. Private entities cannot step into the void as they did in the past because they do not have the authority to kidnap people in distress. States do have that authority by law.

Personally, I don't want private entities to have implied powers, and I am fine with representative constitutional republics having that power. I also believe that anything the State does outside of the constitution is illegitimate. States of the future can do a better job than they have in the past by amending constitutions.

I'm not really sure how to respond to this myself either. Just because you have a complex social problem such a child abuse does not mean that it justify's the existence of a violent group who goes around collecting plunder to help others.

Where does this "implicit contract" to the State come from? Don't tell me that you fall under the belief that there is some 'social contract'?

[heavenlyboy34]

You might be surprised to find out how many of these there actually are.
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to heavenlyboy34 again."

Disappointing. BTW, I accept PMs in lieu of +rep.

[Philip Dru: Agorist]

Has the question I asked earlier ever been answered here on this forum by state advocates?

Again:

If anarchy is not viable because people are incapable of ruling even themselves, how does the state become viable with those same people incapable of ruling themselves now in charge of ruling others? How, when, and where does this magical transformation occur?

[erowe1]

..

[Travlyr]

Private entities can just write a law that gives themselves that authority just like the state does.

Which when ratified/agreed by the entities would equal a state ... you might call it something else but it is the same thing as a state nonetheless.

[erowe1]

Which when ratified/agreed by the entities would equal a state ... you might call it something else but it is the same thing as a state nonetheless.

Correct.

I now direct your attention to post #163.

[FreeTraveler]

I'm so glad to see this place has grown beyond petty bickering about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin since I've been gone. It's nice to finally see everyone pulling together in a common cause.

[Travlyr]

On what authority would agents for a bunch of suits in a grand meeting hall be allowed to kidnap the child, even if it was in the best interests of the child?

Kidnapping a child who is living in feces, starving, and thirsty is compassionate and moral if the kidnappers (under the authority of the rule of law) have the best interests of the child in mind. The child cannot give explicit consent, so the authority of the law must intervene to give the child the gift of life.

The State made the "law", therefore it cannot create authority that the State didn't already have.

Currently everyone who lives within the boundaries of the State gives consent to the State by living within the boundaries of the State. An opt-out feature could be included in an amendment if so desired. The State constitutions could be amended to not imprison people who do not pay taxes. The State is real today and amendments are allowed.

[Travlyr]

Correct.

I now direct your attention to post #163.

I saw that post. Enforce it.

[Travlyr]

Mr. Woods,

I did not intend to downplay your excellent work in your debates, videos, or books. I have personally attended more than one of your speeches and read your writings ... you are right-on for liberty. Please accept my apology if I in any way came across as negative in your behalf. Keep up your most excellent work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcgbNVenUTA

Nice work Dr. Woods. You were excellent in this debate. I just wish the NPR people would have been as honest as you.

[Deborah K]

Has the question I asked earlier ever been answered here on this forum by state advocates?

Again:

If anarchy is not viable because people are incapable of ruling even themselves, how does the state become viable with those same people incapable of ruling themselves now in charge of ruling others? How, when, and where does this magical transformation occur?

If self government is not viable because people are incapable of self governing, how does anarchy become viable with those same people incapable of ruling others, now in charge of ruling themselves?

[A Son of Liberty]

If self government is not viable because people are incapable of self governing, how does anarchy become viable with those same people incapable of ruling others, now in charge of ruling themselves?

Taking a purely utilitarian tack here, wouldn't it be that the net effect of those incapable of governing themselves is isolated to those very people, rather than magnifying their influence over the whole of society? Statelessness doesn't imply lawlessness. Those incapable of governing themselves do not get free reign in a stateless society - indeed, in a free society, individuals are better enabled to protect themselves from the incapable.