Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Secede! The right of self-determination applies to any size unit, the village, the family, eve

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    Being that none are forced to pay taxes it is safe to say, without your input, permission, or approval... unless you play a role in the organization whom they operate for, of course... or the organization seeks your input, permission, or approval. And by 'you and your' I mean any given individual, not you specifically.
    How do persons obtain the right and authority to rule other persons?

    You may not delegate powers and authorities to others, that you yourself do not posess.

    There are NO collective (group) authorities nor rights.
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 07-24-2016 at 08:00 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    How do persons obtain the right and authority to rule other persons?

    You may not delegate powers and authorities to others, that you yourself do not posess.

    There are NO collective (group) authorities nor rights.
    You'll have to bear with me Ronin, I'm not sure this is a sensible answer. An individual gains the right and authority to rule another person when the 'another person' violates another individual’s rights.

    If I may ask a question to better clarify it for myself, how does an individual obtain the right and authority to defend another individual who is being attacked? To keep it relevant, for this hypothetical question the victim has been knocked unconscious and has no way of bestowing his right to self defense upon you.

    http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_...seofOthers.asp Interesting and relevantish... although it deals with laws and not the reasons why or why not it may be just.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    You'll have to bear with me Ronin, I'm not sure this is a sensible answer. An individual gains the right and authority to rule another person when the 'another person' violates another individual’s rights.

    If I may ask a question to better clarify it for myself, how does an individual obtain the right and authority to defend another individual who is being attacked? To keep it relevant, for this hypothetical question the victim has been knocked unconscious and has no way of bestowing his right to self defense upon you.

    http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_...seofOthers.asp Interesting and relevantish... although it deals with laws and not the reasons why or why not it may be just.
    No prob, these challenges can get kinda tough and tricky. I'm appreciating your answering the questions, most folks here don't even bother.

    Gotta disagree there, a significant tenant of libertarian philosophy is MYOB (Mind Your Own Business). For me the NAP applies here also. I not being aggress ed against, but am NOW becoming an aggressor myself, against another. Now if I had been hired as a body guard of the unconscious victim, the situation changes yet again, or does it?

    Now reconcile all of that with the 'Golden Rule'. The wicket just gets stickier.

    BTW, hypotheticals very often just plain suck, in my opinion.

    Thanks!
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 07-25-2016 at 06:09 AM.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    ex: the force required to prevent (apprehend) an individual from (for) killing their wife and children.

    ex: the force required to prevent, stop, or apprehend the individual responsible for raping another.

    In principle, just force is the defense of property rights, which includes the person and their possessions, and prosecution for individuals who do violate another's property rights.

    And to clarify, my position does not mean that someone is forced to recognize or pay taxes(let God judge your non-violent actions) to this hypothetical just government.... but when they kick in the hypothetical victimizer's door, the fact that the victimizer says 'I seceded' will not make the 'bringers of justice' wrong for bringing the victimizer to justice.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    How are 'bringers of justice'(so-called) chosen, appointed and authorized?
    Also who pays for them, and why would they pay for these bringers of justice to bring justice to everyone, and not just those who've paid for them?

    Also what's to keep them from becoming an oppressive force that just goes around bullying everyone else into paying them for their 'services' (I think we just answered the "why would anyone pay for them" question, )?

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Also who pays for them, and why would they pay for these bringers of justice to bring justice to everyone, and not just those who've paid for them?
    I think there are several factors in play, probably some I don't think of myself. First, I'll ask rhetorically, why does the church preach the word of God to everyone, and not just those who've paid? Because they think preaching the word of God to everyone is important, is my take. Second, justice is probably more selfish than altruistic, the reason why you want the child rapist down the street locked away isn't because they raped a child that paid into the same justice system as you, its because you don't want them raping your family or friends... you don't feel they have the civility to live in public amongst individuals you care about. And lastly, it is not to say that everyone will get the same level of justice. With limited resources comes a limited ability to respond, so if the organization only has the resources to respond the thefts against individuals who have donated, the free-loaders (individuals who'd like to receive the service but not pay for it) would not receive the service.

    I think we gotta remember where we started though, not in me drawing out completely how this organization would operate, but:


    What's the objection to individual secession? For those who do object, please describe the logical basis for the authority you claim to impose the force necessary to prevent people from refusing to acknowledge your boundaries.

    Answer this question in a logically consistent manner - which basically means you must disprove the existence of the individual as distinct and unique unto himself - and I will abandon my advocacy of statelessness.
    and I think I've done a decent job answering the question; justice has no boundaries, morality is not relative to a geographical location nor time-period. Let me try this though: you're child (niece, nephew, sister, brother, etc) is lured onto an individual's property by the prospects of free candy, and once on the property the property owner rapes the child, would you not seek out justice in this case? And if you say yes, that would be a recognition that you would refuse to acknowledge the property owner's boundaries.

    Honestly we are probably saying no different from one another. The world is inherently anarchistic. There will be aggression against property rights, and there will be defense of property rights. Advocation of the state is just recognizing that fact, and seeking to come together with other people who would like to oppose aggression against property rights to make sure the defenders of property rights have the upper hand.

    Also what's to keep them from becoming an oppressive force that just goes around bullying everyone else into paying them for their 'services' (I think we just answered the "why would anyone pay for them" question, )?
    Why don't Christian/Catholic churches preach from the Quaran? Why doesn't the vegetarian eat turkey on thanksgiving? Because it is against the principles for which they operate.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    No prob, these challenges can get kinda tough and tricky. I'm appreciating your answering the questions, most folks here don't even bother.

    Gotta disagree there, a significant tenant of libertarian philosophy is MYOB (Mind Your Own Business). For me the NAP applies here also. I not being aggress ed against, but am NOW becoming an aggressor myself, against another. Now if I had been hired as a body guard of the unconscious victim, the situation changes yet again, or does it?

    Now reconcile all of that with the 'Golden Rule'. The wicket just gets stickier.

    BTW, hypotheticals very often just plain suck, in my opinion.

    Thanks!
    Thank you Ronin. It is honestly not something I have ever considered; whether it is right or not of me to come to the defense of another person. Now that you've brought it up I'll pay attention during my readings to see other people's thoughts on the matter, because I do find it peculiar. In the mean time I'll keep being a SJW though.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •