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.
You are absolutely correct. All laws are based on the imminent threat of violence and death.
If I refuse to pay my property taxes, they will eventually get a lien and attempt to foreclose me which will result in an armed conflict which will most likely involve my death and hopefully the "Enforcers/Stasi/Nazis"
1. They don't try to kill you to enforce compliance.
2. What exact scenario occurs when you are killed for failing to comply with a fairly low-level crime? And I'm not talking about something like the Eric Garner case when some of us believe the police acted improperly. I'm talking about proper enforcement of the law.
My faith and right as a free human being, to refuse the orders of another man.
How far one wants to take it, depends on the confidence they have to win the battle.
Sometimes you under estimate your opponent.
My faith and right as a free human being, to refuse the orders of another man.
How far one wants to take it, depends on the confidence they have to win the battle.
Sometimes you under estimate your opponent.
It was a fairly straight-forward question, you could just answer it.
Aside from laws that aren't enforced at all, the parts of tax law where people can take tax deductions might fit, since that is enforced only by voluntary cooperation. The law giving the President the power to veto a law is might fit, as might the law giving Congress the power to introduce and vote on bills. There are a few other examples, but "enforcement" of any kind doesn't have much meaning with regards to these laws since it's difficult to imagine circumstances when they would be violated - if they were, for instance if a Congressmen were prevented from introducing a bill, then your point about threat of death would be valid if the perpetrator resisted successfully enough.
The law which delegates powers to Congress to write laws is not enforced, sadly. Because the very same law that delegates powers to these bodies and individuals also LIMITS their powers, and they violate those limits with impunity. Should we have the same powers to enforce their limits with the threat of death?
The founding of our nation was just one such example:
Quote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Of particular interest, is the following:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"
The founders were of the opinion that the people were ALWAYS superior to and the government was to be subservient to the people. Your examples of the use of force and the judgement of whether or not a law is worthy of being enforced by death, so we shouldn't pass laws that aren't, is part of this calculation.
When government gets its way, just because it has the guns and kill you, then it is time to replace that government with one that behaves as it should.
When you try to have that debate over what government should and should not do, you have these fanatics that insist that government should always prevail in what it wants and the people should either accept it or deport themselves.
Yet, if slavery were re-introduced and the SCOTUS ruled it was ok, they would suddenly abandon said position and argue for "revolution". Which demonstrates that what they actually WANT their whims enforced by threat of death, but are unwilling to cede to anyone else the same status.
1. They don't try to kill you to enforce compliance.
Really? The man with the gun is not willing to kill you? Of course he is. It's his JOB to kill you if you don't comply.
Quote:
2. What exact scenario occurs when you are killed for failing to comply with a fairly low-level crime? And I'm not talking about something like the Eric Garner case when some of us believe the police acted improperly. I'm talking about proper enforcement of the law.
EVERY law which limits or controls you is enforced by threat of death.
EVERY.
There are no exceptions. So why are you asking? You could prove me wrong by providing ANY example of a law that applies to me that is not enforced by threat of death. The problem is, you can't. There are none - the act of RESISTING enforcement has been defined as a crime enforceable by death. Come on, you're not stupid. Start arguing honestly.
All governments have a monopoly on the use of force except in very limited circumstances. At least we have a say in how the government uses that force. While it can be annoying and may interfere in some folks inability to accept being restricted by the law or told what to do, government is a lot better than anarchy. Under the law I do not have to travel armed. Under anarchy I would. I prefer living under the law.
Under the Law the police can tell me what to do and I have to comply. I do not have to comply if YOU try to tell me what to do.
The State only obtains it's authority by having a monopoly on violence.
The state is supposed to maintain its authority by being a faithful servant. That is, the state's enforcement is respected because the law has a moral authority.
Except we have laws with no moral authority. And the state has become a corrupt and faithless entity. Thus it only obtains authority and compliance by threat of death.
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.
