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.
Meanwhile, my understanding is that Washington and Lincoln are talking about the "consent" of the people, as in the collective to be governed by the will of the people. IOWs, not to be subject to rulers, dictators, despots and such.
It is not about the collective. The USA is about individualism.
You cannot give my GOD given rights away.
It is not about the collective. The USA is about individualism.
You cannot give my GOD given rights away.
No one here can give or take anything away by making comments, except perhaps to give a thought and/or take (waste) time. No need to reach for that weapon...
As for the thought and/or waste of time; individualism is a matter of whatever you or I may think, of course. Also of course we are likely to disagree about a good many things.
However, I was addressing what Washington and Lincoln and our founding fathers were referring to with regard to this question of "consent," and with all due respect..., their thinking set the stage for what you and I are still "consenting" to as American citizens today.
You don't like any of that? Don't blame me. Blame them...
No one here can give or take anything away by making comments, except perhaps to give a thought and/or take (waste) time. No need to reach for that weapon...
As for the thought and/or waste of time; individualism is a matter of whatever you or I may think, of course. Also of course we are likely to disagree about a good many things.
However, I was addressing what Washington and Lincoln and our founding fathers were referring to with regard to this question of "consent," and with all due respect..., their thinking set the stage for what you and I are still "consenting" to as American citizens today.
You don't like any of that? Don't blame me. Blame them...
Everyone is different.
True
or
False
We do not know what Lincoln or Washington were thinking. We now, have no idea of intent. We only know what was written, or referred to as the text.
What does the text actually say, to see what they said?
Meaning is in the text. Not what you want it to say.
The only thing needed, is a dictionary from the age the text was composed.
Feeling a little more energized, so here are some quick answers to add to what I said earller...
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
So how exactly would the court decisions be enforced and who would enforce them?
Depends...what kind of system have the people involved voluntarily chosen? If it's the police example, same as now. If it's the DRO, then maybe it's ostracism, which I'll expand upon below...
Quote:
You mean organizations like..... the Department of Health????? And who would operate these organizations? How would the people who work for these organizations get paid? You couldn't force the restaurant or factory owner to pay them and I doubt they'd work for free. There's no longer tax revenue to pay them either, so how does it work? And if there were more than one, how could I be certain that an "A" grade from one, means the same as an "A" grade from the next one? There would be no uniform criteria because there is no longer a government, and I assume they would be privately owned, so how can I be certain they'd be looking out for the publics best interest and not their own business interest in ensuring standards and practices are up to par?
It wouldn't be like a state department. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Better Business Bureau, or some other organization that provides people with reviews and feedback...maybe it gets published in some kind of magazine or online newsletter that people subscribe to. Why would there need to be uniform criteria? You just find out what their ratings mean and make your judgment based off of it.
You also hit on a big topic with your last sentence. You assume the government is looking out for the public's best interest?? They're looking out for themselves as much as anyone else is. At least with a private organization they're dependent on their reputation. The government can be as corrupt as it wants and at best you can try to vote for someone a couple years later who probably won't be any different.
Quote:
You mean kind of like a.... tax? And what happens if I don't want to pay in to one of these organizations, or maybe I can't afford it. Does that mean my belongings are ripe for the picking? Aren't I entitled to my rights, and justice when those rights are violated, the same as a rich person who can afford to belong to one of these organizations?
No, like a fee you pay voluntarily. A tax is taken from you by force whether you agree or not. It's not like the DRO will be the only option. If there are a lot of them, prices will go way down and maybe that will be the best system...but maybe people focus more on preventing crime by spending the money on home defense, etc. Maybe there are security services, maybe something like that Threat Management group that I mentioned in Detroit. They're funded by local businesses and rich people in the area who want a safer neighborhood, and the poor don't have to pay a thing.
Quote:
So really, it's more like an insurance company rather than a court. And obviously, there's no government, so these DRO's would be privately owned, which leaves a lot of room for corruption and conflicts of interest. What authority would exist to make sure these DRO's decided cases fairly?
Competition and reputation would be really important. Also, what authority exists to make sure the U.S. government courts make the correct ruling? The government basically watches itself, and you can't claim that there isn't a ton of corruption there...
Quote:
Self-interested private companies with the ability to determine someone's guilt or innocence which then has the potential to cut them off from vital services? I see a slew of problems that would arise from that. And also, how would their ruling cut them off gas and food services etc? The gas and food providers would also be private, correct? So what would be their interest in disallowing someone to use their services just because some other private company said they were guilty of something?
They rule whether the person is guilty or not, but they aren't the ones cutting anyone off. That was my list idea, where people can look at the database or the list of people who that DRO found guilty, or who refused to clear their name, and the businesses would refuse to serve them. The reason they do that is because crime hurt their business, hurts their community, and affects their lives. By serving criminals, you're enabling them to stay, and to continue doing bad things in your community. Just cut them off until they make things right again.
Also, almost all criminals come from abusive or neglectful homes, and I've heard someone mention ways of incentivizing good parenting to prevent crime in the first place.
Quote:
What you are describing is essentially a government. Perhaps a decentralized one, but a government nonetheless. And what's to stop someone from one of these communities, going in to another community with different rules, and violating a rule there? The community that I committed the violation in can't imprison or punish me, because they have no jurisdiction over me, I didn't agree to their rules. The community I do belong to can't punish me because they have no jurisdiction over me because I didn't violate the rules in that community. What if I don't belong to a community at all and thus am not bound by the rules of any community? How would each community keep people like that out? Big walls? Large military and or enforcement officers to keep the intruders out?
As I said earlier, I'm not against "government", I'm against the initiation of force. I'm against forcing people into something they don't consent to.
If you go onto someone else's property and try to break their rules, or attack them or steal from them, they have every right to use force to stop you.
Quote:
Laws are rules, that's a distinction without much of a difference. Even so, how do you enforce these "rules" without "ruleRs"? Without rulers, or more appropriately, government officials, the laws or rules are just suggestions with no teeth. The "ruleRs" in this country are merely just enforcing societal rules that We The People have agreed to. It's not as if some elite class just took power and imposed their will upon us. We elected them, and we approve or disapprove of the rules / laws they pass when we vote.
The rules are "natural law" I suppose. The main rules that matter would be the non-aggression principle and respect for property rights. Don't aggress against others, don't steal, don't commit fraud...anything with a victim basically. Those rules can exist in society without a King or a Congress or any ruling body. People just enforce it without giving anyone special rights, if that makes sense.
The problem is that "We The People" haven't agreed. Did you see my TV example earlier? Long story short, my roommates in college bought a TV randomly and tried to tell me I owed $100. I didn't have the money and didn't pay, and they tried to say "we all agreed to it"...clearly not, because I didn't agree. You agreed to force me to pay for your TV.
Quote:
We already tried that once, and decided it wasn't the best way to go about national defense. That's why we adopted a standing army and scrapped the whole idea of citizen militias that would be disbanded after conflict.
There are differing opinions on that. Also, look at the many examples throughout history where smaller, less organized forces beat large ones. Defense is way cheaper than offense, and a good strategy is draining their resources over time. This is all assuming an invasion at all.
Quote:
No one is arguing that government in it's existing form is perfect, but I think it's the best option we have. It's what separates us from all other animals on earth, and even other animals, right down to insects, have hierarchy's and pecking orders. I fear that the kind of society you desire, in the interest of evading your perception of tyranny, would end up all the more tyrannical and militarized by it's very nature.
This is all just to give an idea that there are answers out there. I'm not even trying to be that thorough about it because it doesn't matter what I think. Millions of heads solving problems are better than one, or even a couple thousand. That's how the free market works. Trial and error, adopting successful models, innovation, refinement, competition...
Try arguing with someone a couple hundred years ago about how wrong slavery is, but they demand that you personally lay out exactly how everything will function without slaves. If they aren't satisfied with your ideas, they just go back to supporting slavery.
Curious this question and/or analogy, because it was the government that finally rid us of Al Capone and the mafia that rose to infamy breaking the then legitimate laws during the Prohibition era that were later repealed...
"I object, your honor! This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham."
In my opinion, all we need do to get a handle on how things go without a general governing body and/or rule of law is to simply look at the many examples over the course of human history when that's how we lived. There are lots of people who seem to yearn for the good old days of the wild west, for example.
Different strokes for different folks of course, but I am not aware of any approach we humans have come up with so far that beats democracy. Or as Churchill once explained..., "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
Government created the mafia actually...black markets only exist because of the state. Breaking Bad would have been a really boring show if drugs were legalized.
I don't think there are enough examples consistent with what I'm talking about. There actually is a small movement where people are trying these things out in their daily lives as much as possible, so hopefully there will be some success stories in the future. The problem is that the full potential of it is stifled so much due to the existence of the state. Most people aren't even thinking about alternatives, and those that are have to deal with a ton of harassment and hoops to jump through.
These groups greatly expanded from 42 in 2008 to almost 300 today, black president, fear of losing guns, Tea Party and we have the perfect breeding ground.
"The armed takeover of a federal government building in Oregon comes amid a renewed expansion of the far-right, antigovernment militia movement in the wake of the 2014 standoff between federal agents and heavily armed antigovernment activists in the Nevada desert.
In its annual count of militias, released today, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) identified 276 militia groups – up from 202 in 2014, a 37 percent increase."
We do not know what Lincoln or Washington were thinking. We now, have no idea of intent. We only know what was written, or referred to as the text.
What does the text actually say, to see what they said?
Meaning is in the text. Not what you want it to say.
The only thing needed, is a dictionary from the age the text was composed.
Text is not absolute, nor flawless, nor necessarily clear as to meaning or intent, no more than your comments or mine.
"All men are created equal," means???
The dictionary back then no doubt defined men as we understand that word to mean today. However we KNOW that back then black men were not considered equal and what of the women?
"For every problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken
Hard as it is for us to accept sometimes, we have to think...
Text is not absolute, nor flawless, nor necessarily clear as to meaning or intent, no more than your comments or mine.
"All men are created equal," means???
The dictionary back then no doubt defined men as we understand that word to mean today. However we KNOW that back then black men were not considered equal and what of the women?
"For every problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken
Hard as it is for us to accept sometimes, we have to think...
You are born without sin.
The only time you are equal.
You are born without sin.
The only time you are equal.
Q.E.D.
Nah, just kidding. What are you going on about now? G'morning Drama!
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.
Who are you talking about???
