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.
Groups like the Oath Keepers and the Threepers are not... I repeat, NOT... militias. They are private assemblies of individuals.
The fact is that we no longer have militias, ( save for the National Guard which is the well-regulated militia of today ) called up from the populace, as in the days of the founders, and even then, the citizen militia was not independent of the governing authority, nor did the founders envision it to be, despite what Bentbow or any other poster might like to think.
Now, I can foresee what your next post might be, and I'll save some time and address that as well. The fact that we no longer employ citizen militias as in the days of old have no bearing on Second Amendment issues, because as rightly concluded in the Heller decision, the prefatory clause of the amendment does not limit nor expand the right of the people to keep and bear arms enshrined in the operative clause.
Agree pretty much with everything you said but some people have a completely definition of a militia, it appears that any group can be a militia with their broad definition of the 2nd amendment. Many feel that the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was for individual citizens to confront government.
The more I read of these comments, the more I feel I must be missing something.
Of course people can't just steal things from others. There are laws against those sorts of actions.
Also of course, a car CAN be taken from someone if the law so dictates, legitimately!
Is it morally legitimate for me to personally steal your car? If not, why is it wrong? Because it's your property and you haven't given me your consent to take it. It's no different if I get a bunch of people together and we write on a fancy document that says we're allowed to take your car. If an act is wrong, making it legal doesn't make that same action suddenly acceptable.
Quote:
The issue is not whether any one person necessarily agrees with a law or whether the law is moral.
As was made clear when Kim Davis refused to issue legal marriage licenses.
One's view of what is moral does not supersede the law.
So you're obligated to do what you think is wrong? If the law says that you need to kill one toddler a month, you have to do it because it's the law? I would disobey that law because I think it's immoral, even if the society I live in thinks it's fine. Should I go against my conscience and do it, or should I conform to the law because those are the rules?
Quote:
We agree to abide by the laws our elected representatives are called upon to write.
"We" as in who? I'm one of many who never agreed to that deal. Also, they aren't my representative if their job is to make rules that I must follow and take my money to fund what they want to do. It's basically calling my boss my servant, and being able to choose my boss doesn't make them my servant either.
Quote:
Also of course, we are called upon to protest or defy laws that are deemed wrong or unjust.
Those conflicts with those who oppose the law should (ideally) be resolved in a lawful manner.
Again, there is not much "logic" needed to understand these fundamental truths.
So again, I must be missing something...
It seems that you contradicted yourself here, but you can clarify if you want. You say we're called upon to defy laws we deem as unjust, but we should do so in a lawful manner? If you do everything in a lawful manner, you aren't defying the law. Maybe it was just worded incorrectly.
If you're in charge, you won't be very threatened if you know everyone will play by your rules. They won't really fight back, they're essentially just asking you for permission, or asking nicely for you to change your mind. Then you can act like you care, but you probably have no intention of doing anything. Maybe just enough to shut people up.
The clearest & simplest explanations does not make up for the inadequacy of the ideology itself.
To demonstrate, consider the current anti-American militia group's recent occupation of a bird sanctuary in Oregon. Using your definition of government (above) as "the person or group that has societal permission to initiate force within specific a geographic area."
Who or which group initiated force?
Who or which group is applying the NAP consistently in this present day, real world example?
If you think this is worthwhile avenue to explore, I have more questions.
They did. They didn't own that bird sanctuary, so they were trespassing. I don't defend that specific action, just to be clear. I think the whole idea of "public property" confuses things a bit as well, because the government acts as the owner, but claims that it's the property of everyone...it's just cloudy logic, and there's no clear owner you can point to.
jetgraphics: It seems like you want to answer the HOW & WHEN yourself? Please feel free to do so. Personally, it would be especially useful or helpful if it's in the context of the OP.
Growth of Anti-Government Militias
Maybe you could provide the connection? I'm curious but gotta admit I'm not sure where you're going with this? Thanks & respect.
Abe Lincoln might have a few words to share - - -
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
So the ANTI-GOVERNMENT MILITIA who are unhappy with their situation in the socialist democratic system, should better use their time investigating how and when they gave consent. For when they withdraw consent, all that government is authorized to do is SECURE RIGHTS. And that's nothing to get upset about.
They did. They didn't own that bird sanctuary, so they were trespassing. I don't defend that specific action, just to be clear. I think the whole idea of "public property" confuses things a bit as well, because the government acts as the owner, but claims that it's the property of everyone...it's just cloudy logic, and there's no clear owner you can point to.
It should be pointed out that there is no clear owner because us anarcho-capitalists believe in private property rights via the homestead principle. You must actively work the land for your personal benefit to some degree to own the land or at the very least make a legit claim to it in a resolution dispute.
That is why we had no clear owner in the Bundy case. Neither side had a right to the land in this sense. Both sides using force was absurd...as is the case with all acts of aggression not in self-defense.
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
So the ANTI-GOVERNMENT MILITIA who are unhappy with their situation in the socialist democratic system, should better use their time investigating how and when they gave consent. For when they withdraw consent, all that government is authorized to do is SECURE RIGHTS. And that's nothing to get upset about.
In your opinion, did the Anti-Government Militia who recently occupied a bird sanctuary in Oregon give consent?
Even without consent, you said above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
& I thought you were going to answer the HOW & WHEN yourself?
They did. They didn't own that bird sanctuary, so they were trespassing. I don't defend that specific action, just to be clear. I think the whole idea of "public property" confuses things a bit as well, because the government acts as the owner, but claims that it's the property of everyone...it's just cloudy logic, and there's no clear owner you can point to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
It should be pointed out that there is no clear owner because us anarcho-capitalists believe in private property rights via the homestead principle. You must actively work the land for your personal benefit to some degree to own the land or at the very least make a legit claim to it in a resolution dispute.
That is why we had no clear owner in the Bundy case. Neither side had a right to the land in this sense. Both sides using force was absurd...as is the case with all acts of aggression not in self-defense.
If there is no clear owner, wouldn't each party claim the other was trespassing?
Who would adjudicate disputes like this one?
& just to clarify, you would say the act of trespassing is use of force?
Is it morally legitimate for me to personally steal your car? If not, why is it wrong? Because it's your property and you haven't given me your consent to take it. It's no different if I get a bunch of people together and we write on a fancy document that says we're allowed to take your car. If an act is wrong, making it legal doesn't make that same action suddenly acceptable.
If there is no clear owner, wouldn't each party claim the other was trespassing?
No, the government basically owns it and tells everyone that it's owned by everyone..their money pays for it, but the state controls it, so really they're just using our money to pay for property that they have full say over. Anyway, you have to establish a rightful owner before the dispute can be resolved. It's hard to accuse anyone of trespassing if nobody owns the property. You have to have a rightful owner in order for it to be trespassing in the first place.
Quote:
Who would adjudicate disputes like this one?
Without a state you mean? Again, that's missing the point. I can't tell you who, because I'm not going to be deciding who. People always want a master plan, but that's the problem...you either force a plan on everyone, or you let them decide themselves. Most likely they'd have a third party do it. Maybe a private court system, but maybe they don't like that idea and come up with something else. No_Recess mentioned David Friedman who has a book called the Machinery of Freedom and I think there's a chapter in there dedicated to dispute resolution. It's free online somewhere. Either way, it would be pretty easy to solve because somebody would definitively own the land, or neither would own it. No mushy-thinking statist "everyone owns it but the government can decide whether you're allowed in or not" type of "property". That doesn't even make sense.
Quote:
& just to clarify, you would say the act of trespassing is use of force?
It's a violation of property rights, which is connected to aggression. Really everything comes down to property rights, including the NAP. Any initiation of force against you is a violation of your property rights because your body is your property. It's all about resolving conflicts over scarce resources. The philosophy behind it can be complicated, but that's why we just say "don't hit and don't steal".
If you trespass on private property and refuse to leave, force is justified to remove you...that's why a private bar can have the bouncer kick you out.
... Without a state you mean? Again, that's missing the point. I can't tell you who, because I'm not going to be deciding who. People always want a master plan, but that's the problem...you either force a plan on everyone, or you let them decide themselves. ...
Why is it that I very often feel like you're saying, "You can't get there from here?"
I'm not asking for a master plan.
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.
