Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 02-16-2016, 11:17 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,161,162 times
Reputation: 5239

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E View Post
Alright, sure.

So the main point you've been talking about is that we must obey the law because it's the law, is that correct? That people should NOT do what they think is right in their own eyes, but rather follow what the law says?

You have 2 choices.

A) You DO have an obligation to obey the law, even if you disagree with it.

B) You DON'T have an obligation to obey the law, because your own judgment outranks the law.

Just want to make sure I have your position on this correct.
]


what the law is and whether or not the law is actually lawful is 2 different things completely.

some laws currently on the books are completely unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-16-2016, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
37,761 posts, read 40,870,361 times
Reputation: 62051
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
Who decides, and what is an anti-government militia group?

I don't think the groups are anti-government, they oppose violations of the constitution. Doesn't every American oppose the government violating the constitution?


BTW, If the source is the Southern Poverty Law Center, they are not exactly unbiased, they take a pretty strong anti-gun stance.
They also have ZERO left wing groups on their list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2016, 02:11 PM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,889,418 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
The point was in which manner are they well regulated or can anyone join, we have seen the Bundy Militia and others in in Oregon, how do they fit the phrase.
I don't know how 'well regulated' the Bundyites were or are. It seems as if they weren't particularly picky about joining. I think they were clearly anti-government, especially Federal, to a lesser degree State & Local. Maybe anti-American as well, depending on ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2016, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,298 posts, read 2,339,735 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
With all due respect, I am not sure that we are in disagreement here or that any reasonable person would disagree. We all obey the law, speed limits, stop signs, pay taxes, etc., while of course we may not abide by a law that we feel is not worthy or just. I would add, however, that we all can and should expect to suffer the consequences when we choose to break the law. Whether we like that or not. Not to repeat myself in this regard, but I find most if not all this "philosophy" rather basic and obvious.
I think the reason we got on that topic was that you believed government had legitimate authority over people, so if you don't have an obligation to obey, that means they aren't legitimate authority. There are other disproofs for that as well, but I don't think I have to get into that.

So yes, I agree that we suffer consequences for breaking the law. My issue is with the initiation of force. Maybe that's what I should have focused on from the beginning, because that's all it comes down to. Whoever is bringing violence into a non-violent scenario is the one who is wrong. But...that rules out having a state at all. You can't tax without initiating force, and most law enforcement is threatening people with force when they're completely peaceful. Enforcing the law is almost never self-defense.

Does that clarify everything? Tried to keep it short..

Quote:
To offer an example that might help exemplify how we agree about this, I abide by the laws as I think we should in general, but I might break a law or protest a law that I think is wrong -- sure! Again, we've both agreed there have been many cases of people doing just this, and also of course, they suffered the consequences as no doubt they expected.

What practical alternative is there to these basic truths or realizations?
The alternative is to leave people alone, get rid of taxation, get rid of any centralized power that rules over people from above, and enforce societal rules horizontally as equals, if that makes sense. For that to happen, you just need people to apply the non-aggression principle universally instead of making an exception for the state, as I do, as No_Recess does, etc.

So no, it can't happen now. It takes time, but I just try to point out that people hold the state to different moral standards than they do in any other situation, and once in awhile I get someone willing to give up "the belief in authority". Sorry if that's too philosophical, but that's what it's all about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2016, 05:42 PM
 
29,390 posts, read 9,574,081 times
Reputation: 3440
Default Got it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E View Post
The alternative is to leave people alone, get rid of taxation, get rid of any centralized power that rules over people from above, and enforce societal rules horizontally as equals, if that makes sense.
Oh! Okay, finally, there it is..., I think I finally understand your bottom line here!

Good luck with that.

I sense world peace just around the corner...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2016, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,298 posts, read 2,339,735 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
]

what the law is and whether or not the law is actually lawful is 2 different things completely.

some laws currently on the books are completely unconstitutional.
The law is always lawful because its the law...

I know what you mean though. I'm saying that even constitutional laws are illegitimate. The constitution says it's okay to tax, but my point earlier in the thread was this...You can't delegate a right you don't have yourself. If I don't have the right to take your money by force, I can't give that right to my friend Bob, or George Washington, or Michael Jordan, or anyone, even if we all agree it's okay to take your money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2016, 05:51 PM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,298 posts, read 2,339,735 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Oh! Okay, finally, there it is..., I think I finally understand your bottom line here!

Good luck with that.

I sense world peace just around the corner...
I think I mentioned it, but you must have glossed over that part. Thanks for the well-wishes as well as the sarcasm. If I knew you would be so quick to ignore the inconsistencies in your beliefs I would have tried to point them out earlier and move on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2016, 06:25 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,986 posts, read 25,952,358 times
Reputation: 15492
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
They also have ZERO left wing groups on their list.
...and what might be the reason for that, did they completely ignore the left wing group "gays against bakers"


There is a link to the FBI in the post, go read it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2016, 12:50 AM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,859,623 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E View Post
I think the reason we got on that topic was that you believed government had legitimate authority over people, so if you don't have an obligation to obey, that means they aren't legitimate authority. There are other disproofs for that as well, but I don't think I have to get into that.

So yes, I agree that we suffer consequences for breaking the law. My issue is with the initiation of force. Maybe that's what I should have focused on from the beginning, because that's all it comes down to. Whoever is bringing violence into a non-violent scenario is the one who is wrong. But...that rules out having a state at all. You can't tax without initiating force, and most law enforcement is threatening people with force when they're completely peaceful. Enforcing the law is almost never self-defense.

Does that clarify everything? Tried to keep it short..

The alternative is to leave people alone, get rid of taxation, get rid of any centralized power that rules over people from above, and enforce societal rules horizontally as equals, if that makes sense. For that to happen, you just need people to apply the non-aggression principle universally instead of making an exception for the state, as I do, as No_Recess does, etc.

So no, it can't happen now. It takes time, but I just try to point out that people hold the state to different moral standards than they do in any other situation, and once in awhile I get someone willing to give up "the belief in authority". Sorry if that's too philosophical, but that's what it's all about.
Utopian pie-in-the-sky.......


A skeptical eye should be ever present on government and everything it does, but there's a reason humankind decided at the outset that society is better suited under some form of governance. I believe that government, with all it's flaws, is still better than the alternative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2016, 06:08 AM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,298 posts, read 2,339,735 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Utopian pie-in-the-sky.......


A skeptical eye should be ever present on government and everything it does, but there's a reason humankind decided at the outset that society is better suited under some form of governance. I believe that government, with all it's flaws, is still better than the alternative.
It's definitely not utopian...the opposite actually. I'd argue that it's utopian to give a small minority of people power over everyone else and expect them not to abuse it, and increasingly over time. I also think it's utopian to believe that politics, which is inherently divisive, can ever lead to a civilized society. It's just people fighting over who gets to enforce their one-size-fits-all plan on the rest.

I like the Lord of the Rings example. Nobody can be trusted with the ring, so you have to destroy it. People think they can use it for good, and it's tempting, but that's never happened in the thousands of years it's existed, and there's no reason to assume it will ever.

I don't claim any sort of utopia without a state. I'm against it because nobody has the right to rule over another person - we're all human and none of us have special rights, and it's literally irrational to believe in legitimate authority. It's impossible to argue that government is ever legitimate without contradicting yourself.

You say that government is better than the alternative, but I'm not sure what you imagine the alternative being...

I do understand the skepticism though, and I have no problem with it if the person isn't familiar with voluntaryism. The only time I'm ever annoyed is when I point out two contradicting ideas in someone's head and they refuse to admit it, which you haven't done yet.

Last edited by T0103E; 02-19-2016 at 06:28 AM..
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top