U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-04-2016, 11:06 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,766,479 times
Reputation: 2033

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E View Post
People agreeing on what your rights are doesn't have any effect on it. That's why they're inalienable...even if everyone but you decides you don't have the right to do something peaceful, you still have the right to do it. They can (wrongfully) punish you for it, which is tyranny, but that's just a violation of your right to do it.
You have it backwards.

Quote:
If you use the argument that people need to agree on your rights for them to be rights, that justifies anything the majority wants to do to you. They decide you don't have rights because you're black, that means you truly don't have any rights. If they decide that all non-Christians are savage devil worshippers who have no rights, then it's okay to kill them or whatever they decide they want to do.
There has to be arbitration. That's why your beliefs never moved past small isolated communities.


Quote:
I said they can't decide what your rights are. Rights are not something people just make up. They discover/learn/understand them using logic, reason, philosophy...which I can't explain in a concise post right now, but I've taken the time to learn it over the past couple years out of curiosity.
Well of course... humans are curious creatures. Nothing you said has been mind blowing.

Quote:
I think the last time I asked you to clarify what you think the social contract is, or to tell me where I'm wrong...the version I get from people all the time is that I somehow consent to the rules of society by not moving. One of a few problems with that is that you can justify any action of a government against its own citizens. They didn't move, so that means they consented to it.
So you can't google the Social Contract and read what the philosophers at the time had to say about what brought forth the type of civilization in which you voluntarily continue to participate in?

Quote:
And no, it isn't my program. I have no program for anyone to follow. I want everyone to follow their own programs as long as they aren't initiating force or stealing.
So all taxes are voluntary.... Fire fighters will barter and trade to put out fires or what? Or just be able to chill and hang out? How will an economy that relies on a relatively consistent monetary system when people can just follow their own programs?

Where does economics play a role? Or we going back trading and bartering for everything?

Quote:
I don't care what anyone does outside of that. You can even form your own government...just don't force others into it. No need for civilization to start over.
You really haven't thought the bolded through. Like you can really just up and tell folks:

Quote:
Hey yea..sure.. I want everyone to follow their own programs as long as they aren't initiating force or stealing... I don't care what anyone does outside of that. You can even form your own government...just don't force others into it.
I see civilization falling apart rapidly.

But I get it... it sucks everyone can't just hang and do their thing...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-05-2016, 02:15 AM
 
Location: Itinerant
6,110 posts, read 4,120,950 times
Reputation: 4697
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Governments aren't inherently bad and are only as good as the people in charge.
Problem is that the people in charge can only be selected from a group who wish to pursue being in charge.

This instantly makes them as a group suspect for being in charge (people who wish to be in charge when made in charge are reluctant to step down). So they're only as good as the least bad of that group. This is why government is inherently untrustworthy, because even the least bad still have a desire to be "in charge", and while common interests may clash with a larger body of people than one, they general common interest is to remain "in charge", and that self interest is common.

Further that's only if the selection of who is in charge is made by the people, we've seen time and again that often people who have the ability to wrest power will do so sooner or later, then the people have no say in who governs, but are required to abide by the dictates of that government or governor.

Seriously the cycle repeats time and again and again with all governments either falling to groups that have the ability to wrest power, or failing to relinquish control as dictated by law (either by straight refusal, or by subversion of the law that requires them to do so).
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules • Infractions & Deletions • Who's the moderator? • FAQ • What is a "Personal Attack" • What is "Trolling" • Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2016, 03:08 AM
 
Location: Asia
2,761 posts, read 1,091,134 times
Reputation: 2989
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Some people tend to view any form of authority as their enemy.
Maybe.

But, the OP stated exactly what our founding fathers believed and feared.

If you do not understand the origins of the Constitution, or, that the previous Articles of Confederation were drawn up to preserve the freedom and sovereignty of the original 13 states, then you have no hope of understanding why so-called originalists loathe and fear what the US has become.

The federal government was never meant to be as powerful and omni-present as it is today.

Our founding fathers despised and feared the tyranny of government. The anti-federalists were correct to fear a more powerful federal government. Their fears were long ago proven to have been rational.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2016, 04:24 AM
 
2,464 posts, read 971,354 times
Reputation: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
Maybe.

But, the OP stated exactly what our founding fathers believed and feared.

If you do not understand the origins of the Constitution, or, that the previous Articles of Confederation were drawn up to preserve the freedom and sovereignty of the original 13 states, then you have no hope of understanding why so-called originalists loathe and fear what the US has become.

The federal government was never meant to be as powerful and omni-present as it is today.

Our founding fathers despised and feared the tyranny of government. The anti-federalists were correct to fear a more powerful federal government. Their fears were long ago proven to have been rational.
Then what was the point of them creating a federal government? Why not just make each state an independent country therefore eliminating a need for a federal one. Maybe it is time to go to being 50 countries, it would be good to cut loose some of the dead weight we have in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2016, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Madison, WI
4,766 posts, read 1,608,837 times
Reputation: 1051
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
You have it backwards.
Inalienable: not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated. That means that they can't be changed.

Quote:
There has to be arbitration. That's why your beliefs never moved past small isolated communities.
My "beliefs" have never been put into practice outside of some micro-level things within the state, so I'm not sure how you can say that. A society that doesn't give anyone an exemption from morality is a very new idea.

I'm not against arbitration either.


Quote:
Well of course... humans are curious creatures. Nothing you said has been mind blowing.
Wasn't meant to be mind-blowing.

Quote:
So you can't google the Social Contract and read what the philosophers at the time had to say about what brought forth the type of civilization in which you voluntarily continue to participate in?
I actually have several times, and even watched videos where the social contract is explained. It's all complete BS. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau...they all got it wrong. I'd ask the same about why you haven't taken the time to read anything by Murray Rothbard, Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner, The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose, etc. but I know you don't see it as worth your time.

Quote:
So all taxes are voluntary.... Fire fighters will barter and trade to put out fires or what? Or just be able to chill and hang out? How will an economy that relies on a relatively consistent monetary system when people can just follow their own programs?

Where does economics play a role? Or we going back trading and bartering for everything?
Are you suggesting that people can't have currency without the state? You can see Bitcoin being used to purposefully avoid fiat currency right now. Even in jail where people aren't allowed to trade and make deals, they've used things like cigarettes as a form of currency...not ideal, but they make it work, even when people are actively trying to prevent it.

Quote:
You really haven't thought the bolded through. Like you can really just up and tell folks:



I see civilization falling apart rapidly.

But I get it... it sucks everyone can't just hang and do their thing...
I'm trying to avoid being condescending back to you...

You've been conditioned to think that. People need a master or civilization will fall apart...except the master is also "people", so how does that work? Maybe if they were somehow exceptional - wiser and more virtuous than the others - but would you describe politicians that way?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2016, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Madison, WI
4,766 posts, read 1,608,837 times
Reputation: 1051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliftonpdx View Post
Then what was the point of them creating a federal government? Why not just make each state an independent country therefore eliminating a need for a federal one. Maybe it is time to go to being 50 countries, it would be good to cut loose some of the dead weight we have in this country.
I actually wonder the same thing. I'd be in favor of that. I do know that a lot of it was influenced by the pro-centralized power people, and guys like Jefferson and Paine saw the problems a mile away. They were not happy with the final product.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2016, 11:46 AM
 
Location: SGV
24,583 posts, read 9,522,245 times
Reputation: 9678
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E View Post
Inalienable: not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated. That means that they can't be changed.



My "beliefs" have never been put into practice outside of some micro-level things within the state, so I'm not sure how you can say that. A society that doesn't give anyone an exemption from morality is a very new idea.

I'm not against arbitration either.


Wasn't meant to be mind-blowing.

I actually have several times, and even watched videos where the social contract is explained. It's all complete BS. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau...they all got it wrong. I'd ask the same about why you haven't taken the time to read anything by Murray Rothbard, Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner, The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose, etc. but I know you don't see it as worth your time.

Are you suggesting that people can't have currency without the state? You can see Bitcoin being used to purposefully avoid fiat currency right now. Even in jail where people aren't allowed to trade and make deals, they've used things like cigarettes as a form of currency...not ideal, but they make it work, even when people are actively trying to prevent it.

I'm trying to avoid being condescending back to you...

You've been conditioned to think that. People need a master or civilization will fall apart...except the master is also "people", so how does that work? Maybe if they were somehow exceptional - wiser and more virtuous than the others - but would you describe politicians that way?
The poster you are corresponding with has already said


Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
When resources truly become scare, the strong rise above the weak. You'd be surprised how many fat, white middle class bros there are, perfect weaklings for a guy like me to take from.
So while I don't like feeding the statist notion that 99% of the population are sociopaths/psychopaths he indeed may be one.

As we know, the state protects these types of folks so I can see why he is very pro-state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2016, 12:15 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,766,479 times
Reputation: 2033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
Problem is that the people in charge can only be selected from a group who wish to pursue being in charge.

This instantly makes them as a group suspect for being in charge (people who wish to be in charge when made in charge are reluctant to step down). So they're only as good as the least bad of that group. This is why government is inherently untrustworthy, because even the least bad still have a desire to be "in charge", and while common interests may clash with a larger body of people than one, they general common interest is to remain "in charge", and that self interest is common.

Further that's only if the selection of who is in charge is made by the people, we've seen time and again that often people who have the ability to wrest power will do so sooner or later, then the people have no say in who governs, but are required to abide by the dictates of that government or governor.

Seriously the cycle repeats time and again and again with all governments either falling to groups that have the ability to wrest power, or failing to relinquish control as dictated by law (either by straight refusal, or by subversion of the law that requires them to do so).
Again. The issue is people, government is just a human construct to provide arbitration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2016, 12:27 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,766,479 times
Reputation: 2033
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
The poster you are corresponding with has already said




So while I don't like feeding the statist notion that 99% of the population are sociopaths/psychopaths he indeed may be one.

As we know, the state protects these types of folks so I can see why he is very pro-state.
That's funny because I grew up in an area without a very strong "state" presence, where those who wanted something would go to those who had it and hit the right between the eyes.

My background may different growing up on the wrong side of the trscks as I have experienced first hand what a lack of resources and lack of strong government support can produce. I get you, you and your buddy there just want to chill out and be able to do your thing.

Last edited by dv1033; 06-05-2016 at 12:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2016, 01:00 PM
Status: "Not quite my tempo" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Bran's tree
10,922 posts, read 4,793,982 times
Reputation: 12311
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
That is a very good question.

If anyone uses violence to get me to consent to their demands and I have not harmed or stole from anyone, then I am in effect their slave.
What do you consider 'harm' though?

Physical harm only?
Human trafficking?
Con-man scams?
Producing excessive airborne pollution that makes the air in neighbours' backyards unhealthy to breathe?
Drunk driving even if you don't get into an accident?
Denying essential/critical services to someone because the ER surgeon refused to operate on *insert demographic group*?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top