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.
Because I don't want to give money to that organization, and they have no legitimate right to just take it in the first place.
So sue them, already, if you think you have a case. I would advise getting a sharp attorney who knows how to search for precedents before you go too deep, though.
Somebody has to rule over others, with the people's consent. Otherwise chaos results. Under your system, everybody and their property would be an independent country. Do you really think millions of nations of this former USA would be more free and secure as the USA as it now stands (or if you prefer, the USA at its most halcyon times)? If you do so, then you have an amazing faith in the goodness of humans.
Why do some need to rule over others? What's your definition of rule? The definition I'm using is something along the lines of "the person or group with societal permission to initiate force within a given territory" or the shorthand version - the people that have the exclusive "right" to boss peaceful people around and take their stuff. A master-slave relationship.
Going by that definition, you definitely don't need a ruler or ruling class. You need people to enforce defensive rules within society (ex: if someone does commit aggression or theft, people need to defend against them), but that requires no special authority to boss a non-violent person around or take their stuff.
And you're right, basically everyone would be similar to their own country. Self-ownership...every person owns themselves, and nobody else. That doesn't prevent them from organizing for collective benefit. It just prevents the group from forcing individuals into their collective when they never agreed to be part of it.
So sue them, already, if you think you have a case. I would advise getting a sharp attorney who knows how to search for precedents before you go too deep, though.
What good would that do? As I said in an earlier post, it's naive to think they'll rule against themselves, or go along with something that goes against their own interests.
The state relies on people's belief in it's legitimacy in order to exist. Someone like me coming along and pointing out that it isn't legitimate will be met with full resistance.
Honestly, I view it as the mafia demanding money because you're in their territory, and someone says that you should ask them to stop if you have a problem with it. Wouldn't be surprised if that did more harm than good.
What good would that do? As I said in an earlier post, it's naive to think they'll rule against themselves, or go along with something that goes against their own interests.
The state relies on people's belief in it's legitimacy in order to exist. Someone like me coming along and pointing out that it isn't legitimate will be met with full resistance.
Honestly, I view it as the mafia demanding money because you're in their territory, and someone says that you should ask them to stop if you have a problem with it. Wouldn't be surprised if that did more harm than good.
And we do, and it does, and we don't want it to stop because it benefits everyone including you (See? We love you.), and it won't until we're outnumbered, which we aren't. Suck it up, buttercup.
So sue them, already, if you think you have a case. I would advise getting a sharp attorney who knows how to search for precedents before you go too deep, though.
I'm sure you're pretty much beyond hope my statist friend but if you ever want to know a bit of truth about this notion of due process and legitimate rulers look into Larken Rose's prosecution and subsequent imprisonment for so-called "tax evasion".
You can quote and follow their own law back to them until you're blue in the face. It doesn't matter. It's all window dressing to an end game of their desired results (namely you paying them tribute).
What good would that do? As I said in an earlier post, it's naive to think they'll rule against themselves, or go along with something that goes against their own interests.
The state relies on people's belief in it's legitimacy in order to exist. Someone like me coming along and pointing out that it isn't legitimate will be met with full resistance.
Honestly, I view it as the mafia demanding money because you're in their territory, and someone says that you should ask them to stop if you have a problem with it. Wouldn't be surprised if that did more harm than good.
And we do, and it does, and we don't want it to stop because it benefits everyone including you (See? We love you.), and it won't until we're outnumbered, which we aren't. Suck it up, buttercup.
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,595,865 times
Reputation: 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
Somebody has to rule over others, with the people's consent. Otherwise chaos results. Under your system, everybody and their property would be an independent country. Do you really think millions of nations of this former USA would be more free and secure as the USA as it now stands (or if you prefer, the USA at its most halcyon times)? If you do so, then you have an amazing faith in the goodness of humans.
Why do some need to rule over others? What's your definition of rule? The definition I'm using is something along the lines of "the person or group with societal permission to initiate force within a given territory" or the shorthand version - the people that have the exclusive "right" to boss peaceful people around and take their stuff. A master-slave relationship.
Going by that definition, you definitely don't need a ruler or ruling class. You need people to enforce defensive rules within society (ex: if someone does commit aggression or theft, people need to defend against them), but that requires no special authority to boss a non-violent person around or take their stuff.
And you're right, basically everyone would be similar to their own country. Self-ownership...every person owns themselves, and nobody else. That doesn't prevent them from organizing for collective benefit. It just prevents the group from forcing individuals into their collective when they never agreed to be part of it.
Why do some need to rule over others?
First, in the section of the post of mine you quoted, chaos results.
Second, because when two parties are in a dispute, there's a higher authority to appeal to. And no, a collection of non-state individuals is not a higher authority because they will join a group only when it is to their advantage to do so, i.e. if they get something out of it or prevent a bigger bad from happening to them. Even then, definitions are going to vary far too widely among individuals to make this kind of collective security reliable. All this makes ad hoc alliances formed to deal with one specific event untrustworthy get-togethers at best. This reason does a lot of explain the first.
Third, given humanity's track record, humans simply cannot be trusted to behave peacefully and non-exploitatively toward others who are weaker in some way than they are. In this case, organized representative republics are the lesser of the evils. Any other arrangement will definitely lead to increased instability and insecurity for the individuals.
As for "rule", I simply go by the common everyday idea of what "rule" means in a societal/governmental context.
Again, "taking stuff" is slavery ONLY if society as a whole gets money in return for it. EVERYBODY has their taxes go to programs they dislike and even detest (for liberals, it's charter schools and voucher programs, plus overfunding of national defense; for conservatives its abortion or even birth control for minors). No social situation is perfect, not even an ancap one. It's that social democracy is the least bad of all governments - see Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and Germany especially for details, but practically every NW European country will do.
Oh, BTW, I listed programs taxpayers benefit from. Beyond the oft-stated national defense and police force (internal defense for individuals and society), there's also mitigating against natural disasters. I benefited several times from Mississippi River levees, which the private sector would never found profitable to build, nor even could afford to build on its own, without tax funding. Hell, I don't mind MY OWN tax dollars going to help people in California prepare for earthquake mitigation, nor do I mind my tax dollars going to work fighting western forest fires or the effects of Superstorm Sandy (have we even paid for that one yet?). In your system, only the very wealthy would find any benefit and/or relief from harm. The other 99% and certainly 50%, "Too bad, so sad, but that's life". No thanks! Give me a state responsive to the people's needs any day over the absence of any state at all!
I'm sure you're pretty much beyond hope my statist friend but if you ever want to know a bit of truth about this notion of due process and legitimate rulers look into Larken Rose's prosecution and subsequent imprisonment for so-called "tax evasion".
You can quote and follow their own law back to them until you're blue in the face. It doesn't matter. It's all window dressing to an end game of their desired results (namely you paying them tribute).
I am a strong proponent and defender of the Constitution of the United States, and I am fully supportive of it continuing to be a nation of laws. Nobody said it was perfect, but neither do we live like the savages that would result from becoming an AnCap state.
You have roads to ride on, police and fire protection, inspections to make sure you have clean water and safe food available, and an internet to complain about the government on which is responsible for it. I personally pay my fair share so that you can have all those nice things, and you didn't even say "Thank you".
I'm so hurt.
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.
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.
but if you ever want to know a bit of truth about this notion of due process and legitimate rulers look into Larken Rose's prosecution and subsequent imprisonment for so-called "tax evasion".
