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.
I am surely missing something here as well, because this argument simply defies any mature reason or logic...
No one can be born onto this planet and not be subject to the laws of the land where born, even if born in the middle of the jungle, you are subject to the law of the jungle. This is just a reality of our human existence much like we need a heart beat to live, air to breath, we're just born this way. Hello?
Right, no contracts, no consent, just the reality of our circumstances and conditions. As we mature and come to realize our circumstances and conditions, we begin to deal with them like adults. Well most of us do anyway.
You want to take issue with your particular circumstances and conditions, what laws exist where you were born or where you decide to live? Get in line!
Sure, join with the many others who lobby to change this condition or that, this law or that, but if most others are not so inclined, then those circumstances stand no matter how much you whine or cry or attempt to argue the ridiculous about what doesn't apply to you if you don't consent.
What's next, you shouldn't be required to feed yourself, because you never consented to the need for food in order to live?
Your problem(s) need to be taken up with your God, not government, not people.
Hi there LearnMe, you're probably thinking about more practical or pragmatic concerns. I get you. If 2 or more human beings want to get together to do something, anything, even something as simple as meeting for lunch - we'd have to get on the same page about certain things first, right? Time & place to begin with. I dunno where you are - should we meet somewhere convenient to both of us? Are there other concerns about the place? Do circumstances prevent one or another from meeting in the middle? What about time? What if we live in different time zones? Whose is the 'correct' one? & so on.
& that's to do something simple. Although I tend to believe many things are more 'doable' than they seem from first glance. As No_Recess noted, I tend to re-think or think (more than) twice if the 'thing' seems reasonable & worth doing.
Some originating beliefs or thoughtviews seem to close down any further conversation period. I'm pretty flexible, I'm more used to the 'brainstorming' process when attempting to accomplish something - things as simple as 'let's do lunch' to more complicated projects - I grew up in a family that supported & encouraged such & I tend to approach 'projects' that way.
I seem to be rambling but just wanted to let you know there are others who tend to approach life this way.
It's clear liberal's and conservative's have completely different visions for America. So it's no surprise one side is unhappy when the other side gains ground for their agenda.
In one word or phrase, and without judging the other side, how would you describe two groups with opposite political agendas each trying to impose their political, social and economic visions on one country?
To further clarify the subject, both conservatives & liberals are 'contracted to the state' unless they do not believe in the social contract?
Everyone is contracted to the state because the state is allowed by the people.
As I've stated before you have two groups: statists and non-statists
Statists: At birth a human enters into the social contract with the state. Rights/privileges of the individual are automatically ceded to the state. During the course of a person's lifetime they can "earn" certain rights/privileges from the state. Some are based purely on age (buying cigs/alcohol, driving). Others are based on your ability to pay (food, water, shelter).
All statists are collectivists. If you believe the state should tax everyone at 80% of your income for social programs I suppose you can call yourself a liberal but to me you're only a statist. Same goes for "small government" cons. Taxing at 1% and only doing things in The Constitution is still statism.
Then you have the non-statists...
Non-statists: At birth each individual has all the rights and privileges that life offers provided they do not use force/violence on others. There is no social contract. The only way to alter/limit/eliminate any of your rights/privileges is to agree to do so by tenets within a voluntary contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Can one believe in self-ownership & also voluntarily consent to belonging to a group?
Of course! Pockets of an-caps are currently living in communities where they build and maintain their own roads. It's done by voluntary cooperation.
Self-ownership means you decide what contracts/conditions you want to enter into and which ones aren't for you.
Everyone is contracted to the state because the state is allowed by the people.
As I've stated before you have two groups: statists and non-statists
Statists: At birth a human enters into the social contract with the state. Rights/privileges of the individual are automatically ceded to the state. During the course of a person's lifetime they can "earn" certain rights/privileges from the state. Some are based purely on age (buying cigs/alcohol, driving). Others are based on your ability to pay (food, water, shelter).
All statists are collectivists. If you believe the state should tax everyone at 80% of your income for social programs I suppose you can call yourself a liberal but to me you're only a statist. Same goes for "small government" cons. Taxing at 1% and only doing things in The Constitution is still statism.
Then you have the non-statists...
Non-statists: At birth each individual has all the rights and privileges that life offers provided they do not use force/violence on others. There is no social contract. The only way to alter/limit/eliminate any of your rights/privileges is to agree to do so by tenets within a voluntary contract.
Of course! Pockets of an-caps are currently living in communities where they build and maintain their own roads. It's done by voluntary cooperation.
Self-ownership means you decide what contracts/conditions you want to enter into and which ones aren't for you.
Alright then No_Recess, I'm already feeling more 'friendly' towards you (more like how I feel towards T0103E) because you have, respectfully & friendlily, answered my questions. Personally, I like that, both IRL & online, in forums & such.
In that vein, please allow me to recap, so to speak? So I can further understand where you're coming from.
From your particular perspective, folks are divided in 2 ways, statists v non-statists & individualists v collectivists? Is that about right?
(I'm having some connection problems but will continue later when possible)
I'd like to further clarify more specifics re: social contract as it more commonly applies to honoring contracts & in general benefitting all (that last may be too 'collectivist' however I think you may have to rationally persuade).
From your particular perspective, folks are divided in 2 ways, statists v non-statists & individualists v collectivists? Is that about right?
There are statists and non-statists.
All statists are collectivists. Non-statists may be either.
Within the statist paradigm you have people who lean more toward an "individualist" outlook. These are your garden variety conservatives. They are Libertarians (capital L Ron Paul followers). They argue for "small government" (which I refer to as pleasant rape), anti-fed gov, anti-social programs/safety nets. But there is a role for involuntary government in their world which means they are still collectivists.
Also within the statist paradigm you have people who lean more toward a "collectivist" outlook. These are your garden variety liberals. They want regulation, bigger social programs, and generally think the government can have a positive impact on society. Obviously they are collectivists.
Within the non-statist (an-cap) world you simply have each individual being their own government. With adherence to the non-aggression principle you are free to be a collectivist if you'd like but you would be a voluntary collectivist. Some folks may choose many associations to voluntarly join if they like. Some folks may choose to never join an association but at no time would their life be threatened by an involuntary state for not doing something. As long as they don't commit an act of aggression on others they can live a life of solitude.
This last part is key and something I wish I could communicate better to statists. Let me explain...
T0103E and I are both an-caps but other than that I know nothing about him and he knows nothing about me. If we were neighbors in an an-cap world (even the statist paradigm we currently live in for that matter) we would both recognize the non-aggression principle but other than that we may or may not see eye to eye on issues. But that's fine because neither one will use force or call henchmen (the state) to use force on our behalf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
I'd like to further clarify more specifics re: social contract as it more commonly applies to honoring contracts & in general benefitting all (that last may be too 'collectivist' however I think you may have to rationally persuade).
Well, let's be clear: a contract is an agreed upon pact between two or more parties with the cognitive ability to do so as well as being free from threat of violence or actual violence. We all understand this and recognize it in our personal lives yet for some bizarre reason people believe that when it comes to the state a social contract is permissible.
I often equate this to the "Immaculate Conception" in Christianity. Thus far in the history of the world every human was conceived by a sperm fertilizing an egg...except one...that resulted in Jesus being born. Although I suppose "God" could have placed an Immaculate Sperm inside Mary to fertilize her egg but that's not the point.
The social contract, in this sense, is the "Immaculate Contract". It's the only agreement on earth where one enters into it automatically at birth, requires little to no cognitive ability (newborns and severely mentally challenged adults are entered and must comply until death), and one side is permitted to use whatever means necessary to enforce the tenets (that it can also unilaterally alter as it sees fit along the way).
This is where we get into the ends justifying the means argument. Non-statists (speaking as an an-cap) are "means" people. It's paramount and absolutely necessary that force or the threat of force never be used to attain something even if you truly believe it would benefit most people.
Statists are "ends" people. This is why many if not all are hellbent on "majority rules" in determining how something should be done. It's the collectivist mindset again.
I have no doubt my taxes have paid for things that not only have benefitted me but also at least 51% of the population. However, that doesn't change the fact (and it is a fact) that taxation is theft.
I'm morally opposed to theft. Let me assume you are for the sake of argument. In fact, I'd venture to say that well above 50% of the population is opposed to theft (minus sociopaths/bad dudes in general).
So why is it ok to commit an immoral act under the guise of the "common good" but if you or I tried to tax an individual for our own good it would be met with great fury?
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.
