Defending liberty: minarchy -- split

[erowe1]

One that gives you court appointed counsel and a jury of your peers, among other things.

The question isn't just whether or not it's good for those with the means to pay for legal counsel for the indigent to do so, and for people to serve as jurors. The question is whether we should employ violence to force others to aid in these things without their consent.

Naturally, if you want to pay for someone else's lawyer or be on a jury, you don't need a state to force you to do those things. And in fact, until fairly recently in this nation's history, even under our constitution, no coercion by the state was employed in those. The original constitutional approach to them was indistinguishable from a stateless approach to them.

[phill4paul]

One that gives you court appointed counsel and a jury of your peers, among other things.

Court appointed counsel? Damn the lawyers, I say. I'm with the justice system prevalent to mining camps of the 1800's. Particularly the Union Mining District.

Resolved, that no lawyer be permitted to practice law in this district, under penalty of not more than fifty nor less than twenty lashes, and be forever banished from this district.42

Here's what liaryers have done for "Justice" system.

Trial by jury has become so rare in modern American criminal jurisprudence that the chance of being convicted at trial is little more than one in one hundred.

That doesn’t mean that people are not getting convicted. They are—in record number. America’s prisons are literally filled to capacity.

In today’s criminal justice system, convictions come by agreement. The tradition of being tried by one’s peers, established centuries ago and affirmed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has all but disappeared.

The plea bargain has made jury trials obsolete.

Ninety-seven percent of federal criminal prosecutions are resolved by plea bargain. In state courts the numbers are comparable. The plea bargain may be the grease that keeps the criminal justice system churning, but it may also be a sign of a system in need of repair.

You'll want to read the whole article: http://www.thecrimereport.org/viewpo...rials-obsolete

There has never been anything as detrimental to "Justice" as liaryers and Theire "Just-Us" system.

As far as a jury of peers you must not have sat on a jury lately. I was called for one. It was a D.U.I. case. All those that had experienced the hardship of a D.U.I. were excused on the first round of selection. Hardly a jury of peers for the defendant.

[Ronin Truth]

98% of lawyers give all of the rest of them a bad name.

Recently I was called up for jury duty. During the course of the jury selection questioning I just happened to offhand BTW mention jury nullification and something about involuntary servitude.

And son of a gun, what do you know, I was thanked, excused and dismissed from further consideration.

[HVACTech]

Hey, I have a question. If I'm living in a Minarchy, can I opt out of the Minarchy? Thanks.

that I know of, the 1791 U.S. Constitution was the ONLY time in human history.. that MinArchy has been tried. am I missing something here?
just curious if anyone was aware of another.

in the Founders version, there was not anything to "opt in " to. it did not require anything from the local citizens. nor did it tax their labor.
your neighbors could place certain "burdens" on you I suppose.. this was allowed, but not required.. by the founders.

they included provisions for you to fight back. (the states were required to not violate the BOR)

I submit that what needs to be on trial here, are ALL the "amendments" that came after the tenth.

[heavenlyboy34]

Constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts--1780

Of course, Massachusetts was the first founded Republic in history. As well, it created the first genuine Constitution, adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for consideration by Constitutional Convention.

Previously, a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected in 1778 since it had been framed and proposed by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war and not by a specially chosen convention.

Aside from that note, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for consideration and ratified through a Ratifying Convention.

I'm just thinking out loud here given HVACTech and AF's thoughts. Don't mind me.

Must be a gag. The Republican style has been around since European antiquity. Please catch up. Start with Plato's "Republic"- http://www.iep.utm.edu/republic/

[erowe1]

that I know of, the 1791 U.S. Constitution was the ONLY time in human history.. that MinArchy has been tried. am I missing something here?

Yes. Why would you call that government minarchy? And if you consider that minarchy, why don't you also consider what existed in the USA from 1783 until then minarchy?

[HVACTech]

Yes. Why would you call that government minarchy? And if you consider that minarchy, why don't you also consider what existed in the USA from 1783 until then minarchy?

I DID NOT call it a Government. erowe1. what was created by the 1791 U.S. Constitution.. was a federation...
WHY would you think different?

source?

"can you roll me another Bull Durham please"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqwpLVrmokY

[erowe1]

I DID NOT call it a Government. erowe1. what was created by the 1791 U.S. Constitution.. was a federation...
WHY would you think different?

source?

Well, whatever you call it, you did call whatever it was minarchy. Why did you call it that? And why do you think that, if it was minarchy, what existed immediately before it did wasn't minarchy? How could a minarchy include a public post office, for example, as the Constitution does in Article I Section 8?

I think different because "minarchy" means that it was a minimal state (or whatever word you want to use). And the government authorized by the US Constitution definitely wasn't minimal. And it was pretty clearly an expansion and further centralization of power beyond what existed before.

[Natural Citizen]

Must be a gag. The Republican style has been around since European antiquity. Please catch up. Start with Plato's "Republic"- http://www.iep.utm.edu/republic/

I don't need to catch up.

The "Republic" label has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused/misapplied in other countries and to other forms of government throughout history. I've read Plato's works. Particularly "The Republic." When he wrote "The Republic", he didn't discuss anything governmental or even remotely resembling or having the essential characteristics of a genuine Republic. The U.S. is the only genuine Republic. Or true Republic. One with a written Constitution. The Majority is limited in a true Republic under a written Constitution. The definition of a Republic is a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution, adopted by the people and changeable by them only by its amendment with its powers divided between three separate Branches. Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

Now. Heh. There certainly were references to the ancient republics during the period of the framing of the Constitution. But, again, any reference to the label "Republic" was misapplied. These references were in contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy and only in the sense of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government.

That said, and in return, I'd invite you to read Madison's thought on it in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't need to catch up.

The "Republic" label has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused/misapplied in other countries and to other forms of government throughout history. I've read Plato's works. Particyularly The Republic. When he wrote The Republic he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling or having the essential characteristics of a genuine Republic.

Now. Heh. There certainly were references to the ancient republics during the period of the framing of the Constitution. But, again, any reference to the labvel "Republic" was misapplied. These references were in contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy and only in the sense of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government.

That said, and in return, I'd invite you to read Madison's thought on it in The Federalsist numbers 10 and 39.

I've not been impressed by Madison since I was a college student who didn't know better. (pretty good sophist he was, though)

[Natural Citizen]

I've not been impressed by Madison since I was a college student who didn't know better.

And Plato? You inserted his works as a reference to understanding the workings of a Republic with the insinuation that I needed to catch up by way of his model. Of course, in return, I made the claim that when he wrote "The Republic", he didn't discuss anything governmental or even remotely resembling or having the essential characteristics of a genuine Republic.

Are you going to refute my claim?

[HVACTech]

I've not been impressed by Madison since I was a college student who didn't know better. (pretty good sophist he was, though)

OH! my goodness! PLEASE stop teasing us HB34!

lay it on us HB34, we can take it. what definition, of what "Republic" is...

do YOU have that is better than Madison's?

[HVACTech]

Well, whatever you call it, you did call whatever it was minarchy. Why did you call it that? And why do you think that, if it was minarchy, what existed immediately before it did wasn't minarchy. How could a minarchy include a public post office, for example, as the Constitution does in Article I Section 8?

I think different because "minarchy" means that it was a minimal state (or whatever word you want to use). And the government authorized by the US Constitution definitely wasn't minimal. And it was pretty clearly an expansion and further centralization of power beyond what existed before.

@erowe1 if it was minarchy,what existed immediately before it did wasn't minarchy.

that's profound erowe1. enlighten me, what was it?

source?

[heavenlyboy34]

And Plato? You inserted his works as a reference to understanding the workings of a Republic with the insinuation that I needed to catch up by way of his model.

I didn't mean to insinuate this.

Of course, in return, I made the claim that when he wrote "The Republic", he didn't discuss anything governmental or even remotely resembling or having the essential characteristics of a genuine Republic.

Are you going to refute my claim?

Who gets to determine what a "genuine" republic is? You? 18th century philosophers? Why do you think your made-up semantic is correct and Plato is "wrong"? Who gave you the authority to define the word "republic"?

[HVACTech]

One that gives you court appointed counsel and a jury of your peers, among other things.

this thread has been split man. this is a place for them to explain how "liberty and property are protected in a stateless social contract"

I am rooting for phill4paul, do you think he can do it? or will he not even try? like the others?

has kahless taken his shot yet? or did he puss out?

[Danke]

98% of lawyers give all of the rest of them a bad name.

Recently I was called up for jury duty. During the course of the jury selection questioning I just happened to offhand BTW mention jury nullification and something about involuntary servitude.

And son of a gun, what do you know, I was thanked, excused and dismissed from further consideration.

So you are a registered voter.../s

[Natural Citizen]

Who gets to determine what a "genuine" republic is? You?

In the United States of America, The People form their governments and grant to them "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. This is the mechanism that puts into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence.

As it was, The People adopted the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention. Again, the definition of a Republican form of government is a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution, adopted by the people and changeable by them only by its amendment with its powers divided between three separate Branches. Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "The People" means, of course, the electorate. A Constitutional Convention for either framing or ratification is one of America's greatest contributions, if not it's greatest contribution to the mechanics of government and of self-government through constitutionally limited government.

Your model, Plato's model, is one of a Direct Democracy/Monarchy. Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy or a Representative Democracy.

Plato served Tyrants. And he was content to live in a slave society. Aristotle, too. They were proponents of elitism, secrecy, and slavery.

Aside from that, and approaching our framing from the perspective of the time, the Articles failed to the point that amending it wouldn't and couldn't resolve its own shortcomings.

Why do you think your made-up semantic is correct and Plato is "wrong"?

It isn't semantic. Refer to the above. Again, Plato's position was one that was absent anything governmental or even remotely resembling or having the essential characteristics of a genuine Republican form of government.

Have you actually read Plato's "The Republic?" You linked to it. But have you read it? Do you understand that what he is calling a Republic is the polar opposite of any form of government that protects Individual liberty?

Who gave you the authority to define the word "republic"?

The difference between your interpretation of a Republic and mine is that mine is a product of the principles of liberty. And, of course, man organizes governments to be his tools.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." - The Declaration of Independence

[heavenlyboy34]

The people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. This is the mechanism that puts into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence.

As it was, The People adopted the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention. Again, the definition of a Republic is a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution, adopted by the people and changeable by them only by its amendment with its powers divided between three separate Branches. Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "The People" means, of course, the electorate. A Constitutional Convention for either framing or ratification is one of America's greatest contributions, if not it's greatest contribution to the mechanics of government and of of self-government through constitutionally limited government.

Your model, Plato's model, is one of a Direct Democracy/Monarchy. Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy or a Representative Democracy.

Aside from that, and approaching our framing from the perspective of the time, the Articles failed to the point that amending it wouldn't and couldn't resolve its own shortcomings.




It isn't semantic. Refer to the above. Again, Plato's position was one that was absent anything governmental or even remotely resembling or having the essential characteristics of a genuine Republic.





The difference between your interpretation of a Republic and mine is that mine is a product of the principles of liberty. And, of course, man organizes governments to be his tools.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." - The Declaration of Independence

IOW, you're making $#@! up as you go along to justify your humble opinion. Thanks, that's just as I thought. We have nothing to discuss because I do not accept the terms you've set for the discussion. Far too subjective to be worth my while. ttyl. You and your fellow neo-Federalists enjoy your circle jerk, now.

[Natural Citizen]

IOW, you're making $#@! up as you go along to justify your humble opinion. Thanks, that's just as I thought. We have nothing to discuss because I do not accept the terms you've set for the discussion. Far too subjective to be worth my while. ttyl. You and your fellow neo-Federalists enjoy your circle jerk, now.

Ah well. Heh. There's always the other thread from the split if unicorns and pixie dust are what you're looking for. I'm just telling you how it really is here in this half of the split. I understand, though. The truth do sting a bit. Have a good night. I'm going to hit the sheets myself.

[erowe1]

@erowe1 if it was minarchy,what existed immediately before it did wasn't minarchy.

that's profound erowe1. enlighten me, what was it?

source?

That was a question that began with the words, "why do you think that...." You said that the Constitution was the first minarchy. Therefore, according to you, what existed before it wasn't minarchy. So shouldn't it be you telling us what it was, and why?

And what's this "source" business? Did I say something requiring a source?

Also, unless I missed it, you also ignored my other question of why you consider the Constitution a minarchy.

[Ronin Truth]

So you are a registered voter.../s

Nah, I think Oklahoma now just drafts it's jury slaves from the driver's license and/or property owners rolls, IIRC.

Pre-'red pill' epiphany, long ago, I was a registered voter.

Then I moved to another state for awhile, and just never even thought of re-enlisting with the flock. YAY! And the rest, they say, is also history.

[HVACTech]

That was a question that began with the words, "why do you think that...." You said that the Constitution was the first minarchy. Therefore, according to you, what existed before it wasn't minarchy. So shouldn't it be you telling us what it was, and why?

And what's this "source" business? Did I say something requiring a source?

Also, unless I missed it, you also ignored my other question of why you consider the Constitution a minarchy.

no, that is NOT what I said erowe1. I said "the 1791 U.S. Constitution was the ONLY time in human history.. that MinArchy has been tried."

your response.
@erowe1 "why do you think that? if it was minarchy,what existed immediately before it did wasn't minarchy.
@erowe1 I think different because "minarchy" means that it was a minimal state (or whatever word you want to use). And the government authorized by the US Constitution definitely wasn't minimal. And it was pretty clearly an expansion and further centralization of power beyond what existed before.
@erowe1 "A true minarchy would be a tax collection agency and nothing else."

by your own definition erowe1 neither one of them pass muster.!


what were you talking about again? or were you just pestering me for no obvious reason?

I was having a conversation with J.Michael erowe1. why did you butt in? what point did you have to make?

were either one, of the American Constitutions, the first time in human history that MinArchy has been tried or not. erowe1?
and were the local citizens required to "opt in"? did either one of them apply to the local citizens erowe1?

[erowe1]

no, that is NOT what I said erowe1. I said "the 1791 U.S. Constitution was the ONLY time in human history.. that MinArchy has been tried."

That's exactly what I was talking about. I didn't misunderstand you. But I don't see why you are having so much trouble with my questions based on that claim.

If that was the only time it had been tried, then it follows that what existed before hand was not minarchy.

You are still left with my two questions:
1) Why do you consider what the US Constitution tried to create minarchy?
2) Why do you consider what existed in the USA from 1783-91 not minarchy?

by your own definition erowe1 neither one of them pass muster.!

That's correct. That's why I asked you why you think the Constitution of 1791 did pass muster. And if that one did, how could what existed before it not.

[HVACTech]

That's exactly what I was talking about. I didn't misunderstand you. But I don't see why you are having so much trouble with my questions based on that claim.

If that was the only time it had been tried, then it follows that what existed before hand was not minarchy.

You are still left with my two questions:
1) Why do you consider what the US Constitution tried to create minarchy?
2) Why do you consider what existed in the USA from 1783-91 not minarchy?



That's correct. That's why I asked you why you think the Constitution of 1791 did pass muster. And if that one did, how could what existed before it not.

so, @erowe1. You are still left with my two questions:
1) Why do you consider what the US Constitution tried to create minarchy?
2) Why do you consider what existed in the USA from 1783-91 not minarchy?


@Bryan Another pattern is to drive wedges between things to make small differences big, as part of a divide and conquer. I can go on and on... so how do we deal with this? We recognize the patterns that lead to problems and we prohibit them. With that, any paid counterinsurgency is going to have to spend more time here providing value for us to try and fit in than causing problems.


@erowe1. You are still left with my two questions:
1) Why do you consider what the US Constitution tried to create minarchy?
2) Why do you consider what existed in the USA from 1783-91 not minarchy?

clearly erowe1. you and yourself are going to HAVE to enlighten me sir. EXACTLY what are the EXACT differences between the 2 stages of MinArchy in America?

I already acknowledged that we have had TWO CONstitutions erowe1.

@erowe1 Why do you consider what existed in the USA from 1783-91 not minarchy?

are you forgetting what happened in 1789?
WHAT HAPPENED IN 1789 EROWE1?

@Bryan. Good points - and to be clear, this site certainly does support returning to a Constitution government whose purpose is to defend liberty, and otherwise get out of peoples way. This does not mean that all members have to agree with this, but as has been shown, that can present some issues on the site.

time will tell erowe1.

[erowe1]

so, @erowe1. You are still left with my two questions:
1) Why do you consider what the US Constitution tried to create minarchy?
2) Why do you consider what existed in the USA from 1783-91 not minarchy?


@Bryan Another pattern is to drive wedges between things to make small differences big, as part of a divide and conquer. I can go on and on... so how do we deal with this? We recognize the patterns that lead to problems and we prohibit them. With that, any paid counterinsurgency is going to have to spend more time here providing value for us to try and fit in than causing problems.


@erowe1. You are still left with my two questions:
1) Why do you consider what the US Constitution tried to create minarchy?
2) Why do you consider what existed in the USA from 1783-91 not minarchy?

clearly erowe1. you and yourself are going to HAVE to enlighten me sir. EXACTLY what are the EXACT differences between the 2 stages of MinArchy in America?

I already acknowledged that we have had TWO CONstitutions erowe1.

@erowe1 Why do you consider what existed in the USA from 1783-91 not minarchy?

are you forgetting what happened in 1789?
WHAT HAPPENED IN 1789 EROWE1?

@Bryan. Good points - and to be clear, this site certainly does support returning to a Constitution government whose purpose is to defend liberty, and otherwise get out of peoples way. This does not mean that all members have to agree with this, but as has been shown, that can present some issues on the site.

time will tell erowe1.

Despite your earlier attempts to confuse the issue, it looks like you do understand my two simple questions. So why do you so stubbornly refuse to answer them?

The reason I used the date 1791 earlier was because that was the date you referred to. If you prefer instead to use 1789, that's fine. The same two questions remain, just replacing 1791 with 1789, whichever one you actually meant in the first place.

I don't know how I can enlighten you about any two stages of minarchy, since I don't believe minarchy has ever existed here or anywhere else. But you do believe that it was at least tried, or you claimed it had been tried anyway. And I certainly can't enlighten you about what your own position is. But you can enlighten us, just by stating it clearly. It shouldn't be hard to do that by answering the two very simple questions I asked.

So, once again:
1) Why do you consider what the US Constitution tried to create minarchy?
2) Why do you consider what existed in the USA from 1783-91 (or 1789, I don't care which you choose) not minarchy?

[HVACTech]

Despite your earlier attempts to confuse the issue, it looks like you do understand my two simple questions. So why do you so stubbornly refuse to answer them?

The reason I used the date 1791 earlier was because that was the date you referred to. If you prefer instead to use 1789, that's fine. The same two questions remain, just replacing 1791 with 1789, whichever one you actually meant in the first place.

I don't know how I can enlighten you about any two stages of minarchy, since I don't believe minarchy has ever existed here or anywhere else. But you do believe that it was at least tried, or you claimed it had been tried anyway. And I certainly can't enlighten you about what your own position is. But you can enlighten us, just by stating it clearly. It shouldn't be hard to do that by answering the two very simple questions I asked.

So, once again:
1) Why do you consider what the US Constitution tried to create minarchy?
2) Why do you consider what existed in the USA from 1783-91 (or 1789, I don't care which you choose) not minarchy?

I never made a distinction between the two erowe1. sir. nor did I pontificate one sir..
YOU did that. sir.

what I did pontificate sir, was if it had ever been tried before. sir.

methinks I shall decide forever, to cease and desist of such specious efforts. sir.

I bow before your magnificence and omnipotent logic and meaning .

therefore, I shall cease and decease from posting on RPF"s sir. in homage to your own magnificence.

[erowe1]

I never made a distinction between the two erowe1. sir.

Yes you did. You said that 1791 was the only time minarchy was tried in history. Obviously, if you believe this, then you can't also believe that it had already been tried in the years 1783-1790.

But you have still not explained why you believe that the Constitution of 1791 was an attempt at minarchy. Nor have you explained what makes it the only time it was tried in history (meaning that it had not been tried in the years 1783-90).

Will you ever answer those two very simple questions?

[HVACTech]

Yes you did. You said that 1791 was the only time minarchy was tried in history. Obviously, if you believe this, then you can't also believe that it had already been tried in the years 1783-1790.

But you have still not explained why you believe that the Constitution of 1791 was an attempt at minarchy. Nor have you explained what makes it the only time it was tried in history (meaning that it had not been tried in the years 1783-90).

Will you ever answer those two very simple questions?

OK. I will..

"cut out, is cut in. less the differential"

is this your first Course in Partial Differential Equations? sir?

[erowe1]

OK. I will..

"cut out, is cut in. less the differential"

is this your first Course in Partial Differential Equations? sir?

No, I had to take that in college for my bachelors in engineering. That's irrelevant though.

Conspicuously, you seem very averse to answering my two simple questions even though your entire position hinges on your answers.

[HVACTech]

No, I had to take that in college for my bachelors in engineering. That's irrelevant though.

Conspicuously, you seem very averse to answering my two simple questions even though your entire position hinges on your answers.

yes, very irrelevant sir.

SO, your position, is... that one was a minarchy and the other was not?
got it.
and what you want to know... is.. EXACTLY why.. "I" think one was a MinArchy and the other was not... right?
got it.

"consent" the AOC was NOT voted on by the "people".
"consent" requires participation... right?

did the "people" "consent" to the AOC erowe1?