Defending liberty: minarchy -- split

[erowe1]

SO, your position, is... that one was a minarchy and the other was not?
got it.

No. I have already said that I don't believe minarchy has ever existed anywhere.

But again, do you notice anything missing in all of your replies to my attempts to ask you two simple questions?

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

No. By definition no state ever has the consent of the people. The Constitution didn't have the peoples' consent either.

By definition, government with the consent of the people would be anarchy.

[HVACTech]

No. I have already said that I don't believe minarchy has ever existed anywhere.

But again, do you notice anything missing in all of your replies to my attempts to ask you two simple questions?



No. By definition no state ever has the consent of the people. The Constitution didn't have the peoples' consent either.

By definition, government with the consent of the people would be anarchy.

wow, THAT sounds SO sexy when you say it like that!

[erowe1]

wow, THAT sounds SO sexy when you say it like that!

I take it that this is your way of saying that you refuse to answer my two simple questions.

[HVACTech]

I take it that this is your way of saying that you refuse to answer my two simple questions.

have pity on me sir,
everyone knows that a mere HVACtech...
can NEVER match wits with ONE who has a "bachelors in engineering" like your own magnificent SELF. SIR.
@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?

my answer was "consent" your answer was. @erowe1 No. I have already said that I don't believe minarchy has ever existed anywhere.

will you deign that my answer was worthy? sir?

[HVACTech]

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.

kinda like playing chess with a Pigeon sir? is this the part where the Pigeon gets annoyed, scatters all the pieces, $#@!s all over the board..
and declares victory?

[Anti Federalist]

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.

Meh, tell that to the whiskey distillers in western Pennsylvania.

[erowe1]

have pity on me sir,
everyone knows that a mere HVACtech...
can NEVER match wits with ONE who has a "bachelors in engineering" like your own magnificent SELF. SIR.
@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?

my answer was "consent" your answer was. @erowe1 No. I have already said that I don't believe minarchy has ever existed anywhere.

will you deign that my answer was worthy? sir?

I don't see how your answer, "consent," is an answer to either of my questions. Do you mean that the reason you believe the Constitution was an attempt at minarchy was that you think it had the consent of the governed, and the reason you believe minarchy was not tried during the period of 1783-91 was that the states during that time did not have the consent of the governed?

Incidentally, I don't see the relevance of the HVACTech vs. engineer thing. The only reason I mentioned my engineering background was that you implied that I hadn't ever studied differential equations like you had and that somehow that meant I wasn't as qualified to discuss the matter at hand as you. It was you who pressed that issue, not I.

[HVACTech]

Meh, tell that to the whiskey distillers in western Pennsylvania.

"whiskey distillers" and "local citizens" are two very different things AF.

[HVACTech]

I don't see how your answer, "consent," is an answer to either of my questions. Do you mean that the reason you believe the Constitution was an attempt at minarchy was that you think it had the consent of the governed, and the reason you believe minarchy was not tried during the period of 1783-91 was that the states during that time did not have the consent of the governed?

Incidentally, I don't see the relevance of the HVACTech vs. engineer thing. The only reason I mentioned my engineering background was that you implied that I hadn't ever studied differential equations like you had and that somehow that meant I wasn't as qualified to discuss the matter at hand as you. It was you who pressed that issue, not I.

@erowe1 I don't see how your answer, "consent," is an answer to either of my questions. Do you mean that the reason you believe the Constitution was an attempt at minarchy was that you think it had the consent of the governed, and the reason you believe minarchy was not tried during the period of 1783-91 was that the states during that time did not have the consent of the governed?
that would be correct SIR!


@erowe1. Incidentally, I don't see the relevance of the HVACTech vs. engineer thing. The only reason I mentioned my engineering background was that you implied that I hadn't ever studied differential equations like you had and that somehow that meant I wasn't as qualified to discuss the matter at hand as you. It was you who pressed that issue, not I.

subjectively, you indicated that there was a differential in the EXACT level of MinArchy, between our two CONstitutions.
I simply compared this to a partial differential equation sir.

do you have ANYTHING to do with engineering today sir?

[erowe1]

that would be correct SIR!

This whole discussion would have been much easier for both of us if you had just said that the first time I asked my questions.

But your position is utterly untenable. You are correct in saying that the states during the period of 1783-91 did not have the consent of the governed. But given that they didn't, it would be impossible for those states' legislatures to act on behalf of their subjects to express consent to the Constitution by ratifying it. Therefore, since there was no consent before 1791 (or 89, whichever you mean), there couldn't have been consent then either.

subjectively, you indicated that there was a differential in the EXACT level of MinArchy, between our two CONstitutions.

You need yo brush up on your reading skills. I never indicated anything like that at all. It was you who indicated that. I merely asked you why you thought so.

And even if there were a difference, it would not be comparable to anything related to partial differential equations.

[HVACTech]

This whole discussion would have been much easier for both of us if you had just said that the first time I asked my questions.

But your position is utterly untenable. You are correct in saying that the states during the period of 1783-91 did not have the consent of the governed. But given that they didn't, it would be impossible for those states' legislatures to act on behalf of their subjects to express consent to the Constitution by ratifying it. Therefore, since there was no consent before 1791 (or 89, whichever you mean), there couldn't have been consent then either.



You need yo brush up on your reading skills. I never indicated anything like that at all. It was you who indicated that. I merely asked you why you thought so.

And even if there were a difference, it would not be comparable to anything related to partial differential equations.

@erowe1. But your position is utterly untenable. You are correct in saying that the states during the period of 1783-91 did not have the consent of the governed. But given that they didn't, it would be impossible for those states' legislatures to act on behalf of their subjects to express consent to the Constitution by ratifying it. Therefore, since there was no consent before 1791 (or 89, whichever you mean), there couldn't have been consent then either.
does this mean that you are a Democrat?

@erowe1. You need yo brush up on your reading skills. I never indicated anything like that at all. It was you who indicated that. I merely asked you why you thought so.

And even if there were a difference, it would not be comparable to anything related to partial differential equations.
got it!

therefore, the EXACT level of MinArchy was indistinguishable between our two CONstitutions! yay!

[erowe1]

does this mean that you are a Democrat?

No.

therefore, the EXACT level of MinArchy was indistinguishable between our two CONstitutions! yay!

So, you no longer think that the Constitution of 1791 was the only time in history that minarchy was tried?

And what do you mean by levels of minarchy? Isn't minarchy, by definition, the very minimum a state can be, and, as such, can't come in any level other than that? Once you allow for levels of minarchy, all states would be minarchies.

[Ronin Truth]

Perhaps they both should just 'IGNORE' each other. Simplify! Whee!

[HVACTech]

No.



So, you no longer think that the Constitution of 1791 was the only time in history that minarchy was tried?

And what do you mean by levels of minarchy? Isn't minarchy, by definition, the very minimum a state can be, and, as such, can't come in any level other than that? Once you allow for levels of minarchy, all states would be minarchies.

@erowe1. No.
interesting,
abstract anarchists depend on "voluntarism" right? is Democracy voluntary erowe1? is "forced Democracy" therefore an oxymoron?

@erowe1. And what do you mean by levels of minarchy? Isn't minarchy, by definition, the very minimum a state can be, and, as such, can't come in any level other than that? Once you allow for levels of minarchy, all states would be minarchies.

when it comes to terminology, as, "levels" of "statism".. (or Government if you prefer)
MinArchy was introduced by our founders.

are you trying to obscure or deny this fact?

[HVACTech]

You need yo brush up on your reading skills. I never indicated anything like that at all. It was you who indicated that. I merely asked you why you thought so.

And even if there were a difference, it would not be comparable to anything related to partial differential equations.

LOL! I almost missed that gem!.

what we are discussing here pal. are APPLIED partial differential equations SIR!
in your "studies" for your degree, did you miss the meaning of the word "partial"?

"cut in, is cut out. less the differential" (that one has to do with PSIG)
would you like to discuss inductive reactance next?
(or do you not understand electricity either?)
assuming that is a given..

what about control logistics? know ANYTHING about those?

[erowe1]

is Democracy voluntary erowe1? is "forced Democracy" therefore an oxymoron?

Generally democracy is not voluntary, in fact it's the antithesis of voluntary. So no, "forced democracy" is not an oxymoron, it's redundant.

MinArchy was introduced by our founders.

are you trying to obscure or deny this fact?

I would like some evidence for it before accepting it as a fact. Why do you believe it?

Earlier you indicated that it had something to do with consent. But you never explained how that worked, since, clearly, the US Constitution was ratified without the consent of the governed.

[erowe1]

LOL! I almost missed that gem!.

what we are discussing here pal. are APPLIED partial differential equations SIR!

But that's not at all what we're discussing here. We're not discussing anything remotely related to that. I'm not sure why you thought differential equations had any relevance to the subject of whether or not the Constitution was minarchy, and whether or not the AOC was minarchy.

[HVACTech]

But that's not at all what we're discussing here. We're not discussing anything remotely related to that. I'm not sure why you thought differential equations had any relevance to the subject of whether or not the Constitution was minarchy, and whether or not the AOC was minarchy.

LOL! does the neg rep indicate that I hit a nerve sir?

@erowe1. whether or not the Constitution was minarchy, and whether or not the AOC was minarchy.

Hmmm, let me think about that for a minute... did you indicate a "range of scale" sir?
forgive me your HIGHness, but what is the range? did you even use a scale?
can my answer be proportional? or am I confined to "two-position" (digital) answers?
have you ever wondered... why. nobody ever puts yourself in charge of control work?

why did you not accept that "consent", is the differential in this equation?
how can we do a comparative analysis.. without a range of scale your magnificence?

why are we NOT on the same team erowe1?
I DO NOT HATE anarchists erowe1. I did not jump in and jack with you.

[ArrestPoliticians]

LOL! does the neg rep indicate that I hit a nerve sir?

Yes they use those so liberally

[HVACTech]

Yes they use those so liberally

yeah, I do not get these guys man. and they are VERY disruptive.
i agree with them on pretty much ALL of their viewpoints and perspectives. (they are pretty much irrefutable)

we butt heads on one thing and one thing only.. WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.

Anarchism is NOT a new idea. and the results are well known, (fiefdoms, feudalism etc)

MinArchism, on the other hand IS a relatively new idea and has only been tried once. this makes identifying the derivatives and parameters virtually impossible.
methinks that the other fellow knows this. and that is why I am not playing nice with him.

[erowe1]

Hmmm, let me think about that for a minute... did you indicate a "range of scale" sir?

No.

forgive me your HIGHness, but what is the range? did you even use a scale?
can my answer be proportional? or am I confined to "two-position" (digital) answers?
have you ever wondered... why. nobody ever puts yourself in charge of control work?

why did you not accept that "consent", is the differential in this equation?
how can we do a comparative analysis.. without a range of scale your magnificence?

See above.

why are we NOT on the same team erowe1?

If you're not on my team, then only you can say why.

[erowe1]

MinArchism, on the other hand IS a relatively new idea and has only been tried once.

Could you explain why you believe this?

[HVACTech]

Minarchy



1) A band of thugs is going around robbing people, how do you defend your home from invasion?

Self defense, Sheriff's office, community protection groups

2) One of your loved ones is murdered, how do you seek justice? How do you know you have the right person?
Court system

3) Someone falsely accuses you of a crime, how do you defend yourself? Who decides your fate?

Court system with guaranteed access to both court and attorney.

4) A neighbor moves the fence marking the property line between you two, in his favor of course, how do you prove what land was yours?

Land Records at Court

5) Your private security firm turns corrupt and robs you, how do you deal with the situation?

Call the sheriff

6) Your access path to your water supply is now fenced off as private property as someone moved into the area and needed farm land. How do you deal with the situation?

Lawsuit

7) You are concerned of an invading army from a far-away land, how do you prepare?

standing army

that would seem a pretty apt description for a standalone MinArchy.. given the parameters set by the OP.

I seems to me, that our founders created a "Federation of MinArchies". this becomes more apparent when it is realized that the BOR was tacked on years later, almost as an afterthought.

prior to the addition of the BOR, the federation was pretty much an administrative body. it could be seen as an arbitrator and facilitator for trade relations between the states, in fact, was this not the idea? other than for mutual defense. of course.
without the BOR, what would the supreme court do?

I submit sir, that IF the 1791 Constitution, is within the parameters of MinArchy. (Limited Government) then our founders were MinArchists. further, IF the "Constitution" that Ron Paul wants to "restore" is the 1791 version, then Ron Paul is also a MinArchist.

should these observations prove correct, then the R3volution was a celebration of, and an attempt to restore MinArchy.

where is the flaw in this reasoning? is it contained in the EXACT definition of MinArchy? as has been suggested?

this is what google pulls up...
MinArchy,
"(also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy and a form of libertarianism. Advocacy of a night-watchman state is known as minarchism. Government with the least necessary power over its citizens."

do these sound like the words of a "statist"?
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
George Washington
First president of US (1732 - 1799)

[heavenlyboy34]

that would seem a pretty apt description for a standalone MinArchy.. given the parameters set by the OP.

I seems to me, that our founders created a "Federation of MinArchies". this becomes more apparent when it is realized that the BOR was tacked on years later, almost as an afterthought.

prior to the addition of the BOR, the federation was pretty much an administrative body. it could be seen as an arbitrator and facilitator for trade relations between the states, in fact, was this not the idea? other than for mutual defense. of course.
without the BOR, what would the supreme court do?

I submit sir, that IF the 1791 Constitution, is within the parameters of MinArchy. (Limited Government) then our founders were MinArchists. further, IF the "Constitution" that Ron Paul wants to "restore" is the 1791 version, then Ron Paul is also a MinArchist.

should these observations prove correct, then the R3volution was a celebration of, and an attempt to restore MinArchy.

where is the flaw in this reasoning? is it contained in the EXACT definition of MinArchy? as has been suggested?

this is what google pulls up...
MinArchy,
"(also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy and a form of libertarianism. Advocacy of a night-watchman state is known as minarchism. Government with the least necessary power over its citizens."

do these sound like the words of a "statist"?
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
George Washington
First president of US (1732 - 1799)

On the subject of Washington...

[HVACTech]

On the subject of Washington...

it was a simple quote HB34... why does it take nearly 3 hours to explain it?