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.
Which leads us to the sad reality that in order for one of us to be free we all must be free.
The shackles have become very comfortable for most. It will take generations...in all likelyhood.
It really isn't impossible. We as a "society" really have to have a discussion about morality rather than "politics". Do we as a people actually support using only aggression to order society? Or should we order society like those of us who are sane, rational, moral beings do in our everyday life with our friends and neighbors. Peacefully, voluntarily, and cooperatively. Very few people probably go around imposing their will upon others in real life. They wouldn't survive long, and certainly no one would associate with them if they did not absolutely have to.
In other words, people really just have to learn that "government" is not some magic, not a religion, not a God. It should never be able to do anything to any person that is not right for any person to do to another. Rational, moral people already live by the non-aggression principle in their daily lives. (And I still believe this is the majority of people despite the disgusting "society".) All people have to do is realize that "government" should not have any right that people don't have. That "government" should behave just as peaceful people do.
IF the "government" were limited to being only a retaliatory force against those who initiate force, their would be no conflict in "politics". There would be no "lobbyists", no "corruption", no abuses of power. There would be nothing to lobby for, nothing to corrupt, and no power to abuse.
Really all it takes is for people to demand that government be limited as much as their neighbor or themselves acting morally towards their fellow man. The only thing that makes people support a "government" of violence and aggression towards their neighbor is the fear that if they don't, their neighbor will use it against them. But take that power or fictional "right" of government to initiate force upon the individual away, and that fear is gone.
Which leads us to the sad reality that in order for one of us to be free we all must be free.
The shackles have become very comfortable for most. It will take generations...in all likelyhood.
LOL. It's like y'all can't comprehend why people like your notion of slavery? It's like y'all can't comprehend that you've taken advantage of the system and enjoyed its benefits your entire life and now you are butt hurt. I can only assume you folks are relatively young and you can't cut it in the real world.
It really isn't impossible. We as a "society" really have to have a discussion about morality rather than "politics". Do we as a people actually support using only aggression to order society? Or should we order society like those of us who are sane, rational, moral beings do in our everyday life with our friends and neighbors. Peacefully, voluntarily, and cooperatively. Very few people probably go around imposing their will upon others in real life. They wouldn't survive long, and certainly no one would associate with them if they did not absolutely have to.
Yea.... That all sounds great on paper.... But actual human history, thousands of years of it, suggest it doesn't work in the real life.
Quote:
In other words, people really just have to learn that "government" is not some magic, not a religion, not a God. It should never be able to do anything to any person that is not right for any person to do to another. Rational, moral people already live by the non-aggression principle in their daily lives. (And I still believe this is the majority of people despite the disgusting "society".) All people have to do is realize that "government" should not have any right that people don't have. That "government" should behave just as peaceful people do.
Peaceful people are still human beings and subject to greed, envy, and anger.
Quote:
IF the "government" were limited to being only a retaliatory force against those who initiate force, their would be no conflict in "politics". There would be no "lobbyists", no "corruption", no abuses of power. There would be nothing to lobby for, nothing to corrupt, and no power to abuse.
Nope. You aren't eliminating the human condition of greed, envy, and anger by removing or greatly limiting government.
Quote:
Really all it takes is for people to demand that government be limited as much as their neighbor or themselves acting morally towards their fellow man. The only thing that makes people support a "government" of violence and aggression towards their neighbor is the fear that if they don't, their neighbor will use it against them. But take that power or fictional "right" of government to initiate force upon the individual away, and that fear is gone.
Yea.... Jesus tried to preach that.... How'd that work out?
It seems you main beef is with human beings, not statism, and you simply don't realize it.
Are you suggesting that the majority of people go around imposing their will upon others with aggression on a daily basis? Normal people go about their lives interacting with their fellow man without using initiations of force to impose their will all of the time. I was just saying that people often somehow disconnect how they live their own lives with what they condone government doing on their behalf. If people can interact peacefully without using initiations of force upon their neighbor there really is no reason that they cannot comprehend that their government should be limited to obey their own behavior. (Of course there are thugs who believe they have some right to impose their will upon others, like those zealously worship the State abusing the individual and other common punks and thugs.)
People can be as greedy, envious, and angry as they'd like. It matters not in any way if they do not initiate force upon anyone else.
There is no need to remove greed, envy, or anger, there is only a need to remove the ability of those people using government force upon their neighbor to satisfy those base human traits.
I have absolutely no "beef" with human beings. I have only a desire to see every human being have the maximum amount of human freedom as is possible, to be able to express the only thing that makes us human, our uniqueness. Without freedom, there is no reason for a human to exist.
The only way to maximize human freedom for each and every human being is for the people and the "government" to obey the non-aggression principle. I believe that each and every human being has a natural right to any human action which is not an initiation of force upon another human being.
I believe that the ONLY just form of force, and thus the ONLY just form of government, is as a retaliatory force against those who initiate force upon others.
That certainly is not hard to understand. And you can have a very ordered society with a government limited to this single just purpose.
As for all of the silly centralized planning and other tyrannical nonsense of distributing wealth, resources, fairness, etc. They are the designs of tyrants. Free people interacting freely, voluntarily, and peacefully will do those things without any "planners".
It really isn't impossible. We as a "society" really have to have a discussion about morality rather than "politics". Do we as a people actually support using only aggression to order society? Or should we order society like those of us who are sane, rational, moral beings do in our everyday life with our friends and neighbors. Peacefully, voluntarily, and cooperatively. Very few people probably go around imposing their will upon others in real life. They wouldn't survive long, and certainly no one would associate with them if they did not absolutely have to.
In other words, people really just have to learn that "government" is not some magic, not a religion, not a God. It should never be able to do anything to any person that is not right for any person to do to another. Rational, moral people already live by the non-aggression principle in their daily lives. (And I still believe this is the majority of people despite the disgusting "society".) All people have to do is realize that "government" should not have any right that people don't have. That "government" should behave just as peaceful people do.
IF the "government" were limited to being only a retaliatory force against those who initiate force, their would be no conflict in "politics". There would be no "lobbyists", no "corruption", no abuses of power. There would be nothing to lobby for, nothing to corrupt, and no power to abuse.
Really all it takes is for people to demand that government be limited as much as their neighbor or themselves acting morally towards their fellow man. The only thing that makes people support a "government" of violence and aggression towards their neighbor is the fear that if they don't, their neighbor will use it against them. But take that power or fictional "right" of government to initiate force upon the individual away, and that fear is gone.
The problem is we haven't seen this on a large scale. People can't, for whatever reason, make the connection between their personal lives (where most folks want to do the right thing) and then apply that to the structure of society.
T0103E and I have discussed this several times. I know for me it just "clicked" after a long journey of political and social trial & error.
But you're right: we have to appeal to the moral consistency of our message when trying to explain this to others.
Like you've basically said most statists probably do mean well they just don't understand the force/coercion aspect within the paradigm of the state.
They still have that magical thinking that bad actions are permissable when the government does them because that's just what government is suppose to do.
Are you suggesting that the majority of people go around imposing their will upon others with aggression on a daily basis? Normal people go about their lives interacting with their fellow man without using initiations of force to impose their will all of the time. I was just saying that people often somehow disconnect how they live their own lives with what they condone government doing on their behalf. If people can interact peacefully without using initiations of force upon their neighbor there really is no reason that they cannot comprehend that their government should be limited to obey their own behavior. (Of course there are thugs who believe they have some right to impose their will upon others, like those zealously worship the State abusing the individual and other common punks and thugs.)
People can be as greedy, envious, and angry as they'd like. It matters not in any way if they do not initiate force upon anyone else.
There is no need to remove greed, envy, or anger, there is only a need to remove the ability of those people using government force upon their neighbor to satisfy those base human traits.
I have absolutely no "beef" with human beings. I have only a desire to see every human being have the maximum amount of human freedom as is possible, to be able to express the only thing that makes us human, our uniqueness. Without freedom, there is no reason for a human to exist.
The only way to maximize human freedom for each and every human being is for the people and the "government" to obey the non-aggression principle. I believe that each and every human being has a natural right to any human action which is not an initiation of force upon another human being.
I believe that the ONLY just form of force, and thus the ONLY just form of government, is as a retaliatory force against those who initiate force upon others.
That certainly is not hard to understand. And you can have a very ordered society with a government limited to this single just purpose.
As for all of the silly centralized planning and other tyrannical nonsense of distributing wealth, resources, fairness, etc. They are the designs of tyrants. Free people interacting freely, voluntarily, and peacefully will do those things without any "planners".
You do know that the "planners" are just your average run of the mill (normal) people of our communities who sought a career in government and politics, right?
When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, not only did the framers wish to split up the church, but the idea was to also split up the government.
Those who want to disregard the Constitution as law (to maintain freedom), could be they wish to unite the government as one entity of power.
As No_Recess said, you aren't free to just leave. You have to pay them off, and even then they won't leave you alone. The other more important question I'd ask is whether you think the state is the rightful owner of everything within its borders. If not, why is it my obligation to move off of my own property? Outside of government and politics, is there any scenario where you're the one who has to leave when somebody shows up and gives you a list of rules and fees they made up?
My original statement wasn't meant to be understood as exclusively being within the context of taxation. As with taxes, they are necessary to maintain a stable government. This doesn't justify just any tax, but it does justify the existence of taxes. A state is necessary to protect basic property rights and uphold the law. To keep this short and to the point, people aren't god judges in their own case. Individual greed or the desire for revenge would lead to injustices in dealing with wrong doings of others. The state exists to ensure that injustices are handled fairly and objectively. As part of this, they need funding so in exchange for the promise of fair treatment, you pay a tax. This same rationale can apply to other basic levels of taxation that even the most libertarian of people would support. Once we get into the 'socialism' parts, it gets murky, but even if a powerful argument can be made to suggest that socialism is unjust, this does not prove that taxes are equally unjust.
Quote:
The problem there is that citizens don't make the laws. They elect someone to make laws "on their behalf". To keep the slave/plantation theme going, it's like the slaves believing they're in charge because they can pick the plantation owner or his brother to run the plantation. They're still the slaves, even if they get to pick the master.
Yes, but if they are dissatisfied with the master, they can boot them out. Unlike in a slave/master relationship, that of a democratic government and it's people is a mutual one. If those elected do not meet the expectations of those whom elected him, he will lose his power. A slave master does not need his slave's approval. Disagreement of any kind is met with harsh punishment.
Quote:
I appreciate you answering the questions here, first of all... but you did avoid this one. Is there anything you personally don't want to fund? Anything at all...war? Surveillance state? Any programs you don't think should exist? What's something that you're against that you should be forced by others to fund?
And quickly, since it makes my point from question 2, why does a police officer have authority over you but I don't? I don't want to answer for you, but I assume you'll say from the government (police are part of the government), so where does the government get this authority? This is actually THE key to everything I'm talking about.
Well, I'm against a great many of things. You bring up the surveillance state. I oppose that. However, that's also unconstitutional so I feel that would be a separate discussion entirely. To deal with something I'd disagree with that is within constitutional bounds could be a war. I won't use a specific war, to avoid that becoming the discussion, but just assume it's a war I feel we shouldn't be involved in. Now, I'm not anti-war. I do feel some wars are just; I am anti-stupid war. **** it, I'll use WWI as an example since no one really holds harsh opinions on that war.
WWI was basically a war of egos for the various state's involved. As a result, quickly most of Europe was engaged is a massive war that was devastating for the continent. Now, my opinion in hindsight would be subject to change, but if I were a citizen during WWI, I would not want the US to get involved. As sympathetic as I would be to those suffering in Europe, I feel they got themselves into that mess and shouldn't expect our support in a war that likely would never have found it's way to us. However, as a citizen I have the right to voice that opinion and others the right to agree or disagree. If enough people agreed with me, the war might not have happened (for us, obviously). However, if I lose that debate, I accept that loss as the result isn't a violation of my rights.
To narrow my point down a bit, my disagreement with something getting my tax dollars is actually not terribly concerned with it getting anything from me or not but rather it's existence being just or not. So, with the surveillance state, even if I didn't think it was a bad idea, it is a violation of privacy rights. But with a war, so long as it's declared in the way that the constitution says it is to be, I would not say I've been wronged, even if I have to pay a slightly greater sum of taxes than I did the year before.
As for your question on the police, I believe that police has authority because they are government agents expected to uphold the law. From a technically standpoint, they are my equal until I break the law.
Yes, but if they are dissatisfied with the master, they can boot them out.
Not always. We are now stuck with a SCOTUS that just recently very clearly violated both the 10th and 14th Amendments, even though their sworn oaths of office require them to uphold the Constitution. How do we get rid of rogue SCOTUS Justices?
I've noticed that American Christians have a tendency to conflate American mythology with their religious mythology. Referring to the constitution as a "Miracle" is right up their alley.
Not always. We are now stuck with a SCOTUS that just recently very clearly violated both the 10th and 14th Amendments, even though their sworn oaths of office require them to uphold the Constitution. How do we get rid of rogue SCOTUS Justices?
Repeating misinformation doesn't make it true. There's a process to determine constitutionality, use it if you think you are so correct. Otherwise, you are just wasting time with your misinformation.
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.
