The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: crimson80 on May 25, 2010, 01:26:54 AM
-
I tune into the show from time to time, and I've noticed that the hosts seem to be in the open borders camp. I'm curious what the reasoning for this is. Why shouldn't we be able to make laws, democratically, that govern who we allow to come into our country, who we don't, and who we let become citizens?
-
How does a country gain that right?
-
How does a country gain that right?
By establishing sovereignty.
-
How does a country gain that right?
By establishing sovereignty.
I'm sovereign so get the hell out of my country. and I will gladly let the Mexicans in.
-
How does a country gain that right?
By establishing sovereignty.
And how is sovereignty established?
-
I tune into the show from time to time, and I've noticed that the hosts seem to be in the open borders camp. I'm curious what the reasoning for this is. Why shouldn't we be able to make laws, democratically, that govern who we allow to come into our country, who we don't, and who we let become citizens?
Only if you own the country. I don't own the country. Do you?
All rights are property rights.
-
I tune into the show from time to time, and I've noticed that the hosts seem to be in the leave jews alone camp. I'm curious what the reasoning for this is. Why shouldn't we be able to make laws, democratically, that govern who we allow to come into our country, who we don't, and who we let become citizens?
-
How does a country gain that right?
By establishing sovereignty.
And how is sovereignty established?
1. You occupy a land mass
2. Other countries (your neighbors primarily) agree to recognize you and establish a border.
This is how it works in general, but there can be exceptions where other countries do not recognize you or agree to your borders in which case your sovereignty might require the threat of force to establish.
How about you just make your point instead of playing 20 questions? Didn't mean to sound snarky, but please get to the point if you can.
-
And how is sovereignty established?
1. You occupy a land mass
2. Other countries (your neighbors primarily) agree to recognize you and establish a border.
I had a feeling you'd say that.
The problem is that governments are not literal things, there are only people and their relationships with each other.
Whenever someone abstracts away the flesh-and-blood person to the government or country, they lose sight of the fact that the relationship of government is tantamount to slavery.
"You do as I say because 51% of the voting public put me in charge."
The only legitimate government is one with 100% public support 100% of the time. In other words, none in the history of mankind.
Private property, homesteaded by an individual, is on a much firmer philosophical and ethical basis than a government that claims it derives authority from the masses.
-
1. You occupy a land mass
2. Other countries (your neighbors primarily) agree to recognize you and establish a border.
So the fact that this gang of thugs systematically robbing people over here, agrees with that gang of thugs systematically robbing people over there, to divide the spoilles and not try to rob people in the other gang's territory.
...and that makes them "legitimate", how?
How about you just make your point instead of playing 20 questions? Didn't mean to sound snarky, but please get to the point if you can.
The point is that an imaginary line on a map that someone else says is important does not make it important to me, or important to someone else. Only the fact that there are really big guns in the hands of the violent gangs makes it at all important to anyone.
So I guess I will go back to 20 questions, and ask you why you want to pretend that something is "right" just because the people with the biggest guns says so?
When did you decide that might makes right?
-
I tune into the show from time to time, and I've noticed that the hosts seem to be in the open borders camp. I'm curious what the reasoning for this is.
Why don't you turn that around. Open borders are the natural state of man. People can travel freely and interact with who they choose and buy, sell, trade good with whom they choose until government or some other criminal entity steps in to prevent them from being free. What is the reasoning to prevent people that live south of an imaginary line from being free?
-
And how is sovereignty established?
1. You occupy a land mass
2. Other countries (your neighbors primarily) agree to recognize you and establish a border.
I had a feeling you'd say that.
The problem is that governments are not literal things, there are only people and their relationships with each other.
Whenever someone abstracts away the flesh-and-blood person to the government or country, they lose sight of the fact that the relationship of government is tantamount to slavery.
"You do as I say because 51% of the voting public put me in charge."
The only legitimate government is one with 100% public support 100% of the time. In other words, none in the history of mankind.
Private property, homesteaded by an individual, is on a much firmer philosophical and ethical basis than a government that claims it derives authority from the masses.
So your argument is basically that all government is illegitimate, therefore borders are illegitimate. I think that's a pretty weak argument. I'll have to elaborate on this at a later time though.
I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement. Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.
-
(http://www.shackpics.com/download.x?file=AnCapMinarchistBattle_qw204600v6cqxtvpk48d.jpg)
-
I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement. Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.
I used to think that too until I was lambasted by a few of them who think that me simply stating my reasons for following my own moral compass was an outrageous insult to them. Fuck those minarchist assholes. You hate brown people and you know it. What's the point in not being combative with you. You prevent human being from voluntarily interacting, you're an enemy of freedom, not MY freedom of course, brown people's, that only makes you look better to racist assholes. I don't want to infringe on ANYONE's right to life and liberty no matter where they were born. Why do you?
-
Why shouldn't we be able to make laws, democratically, that govern who we allow to come into our country, who we don't, and who we let become citizens?
In his natural state man is not a "citizen." He's just man. This "citizen" concept is what we have to overcome.
-
I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement. Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.
I used to think that too until I was lambasted by a few of them who think that me simply stating my reasons for following my own moral compass was an outrageous insult to them. Fuck those minarchist assholes. You hate brown people and you know it. What's the point in not being combative with you. You prevent human being from voluntarily interacting, you're an enemy of freedom, not MY freedom of course, brown people's, that only makes you look better to racist assholes. I don't want to infringe on ANYONE's right to life and liberty no matter where they were born. Why do you?
lol. what a douchebag.
I'm not an enemy of freedom, but I do believe in limits to freedom in cases where you are impinging on the rights of others. You don't have the freedom to trespass on my personal property. And foreigners don't have the right to trespass on our collective property as a nation.
-
I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement. Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.
I used to think that too until I was lambasted by a few of them who think that me simply stating my reasons for following my own moral compass was an outrageous insult to them. Fuck those minarchist assholes. You hate brown people and you know it. What's the point in not being combative with you. You prevent human being from voluntarily interacting, you're an enemy of freedom, not MY freedom of course, brown people's, that only makes you look better to racist assholes. I don't want to infringe on ANYONE's right to life and liberty no matter where they were born. Why do you?
lol. what a douchebag.
I'm not an enemy of freedom, but I do believe in limits to freedom in cases where you are impinging on the rights of others. You don't have the freedom to trespass on my personal property. And foreigners don't have the right to trespass on our collective property as a nation.
You see, that's your screw-up. If you don't own it, it's someone else's property, not your "collective property."
-
I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement. Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.
I used to think that too until I was lambasted by a few of them who think that me simply stating my reasons for following my own moral compass was an outrageous insult to them. Fuck those minarchist assholes. You hate brown people and you know it. What's the point in not being combative with you. You prevent human being from voluntarily interacting, you're an enemy of freedom, not MY freedom of course, brown people's, that only makes you look better to racist assholes. I don't want to infringe on ANYONE's right to life and liberty no matter where they were born. Why do you?
lol. what a douchebag.
I'm not an enemy of freedom, but I do believe in limits to freedom in cases where you are impinging on the rights of others. You don't have the freedom to trespass on my personal property. And foreigners don't have the right to trespass on our collective property as a nation.
You see, that's your screw-up. If you don't own it, it's someone else's property, not your "collective property."
that's a bad semantic argument. I don't buy that the two are exclusionary. If you believe in the idea of a country with citizens owning private property, then you have collective property as a nation. I don't use the term collective property in any type of communist, shared ownership sense. I simply mean all the land within the borders of the country that is owned by various persons.
Again it comes down to whether you believe in the basic idea of a state.
-
I simply mean all the land within the borders of the country that is owned by various persons.
That's right. You don't own my land and you have no right to tell me who I can rent my spare room to. If I am free and another individual is free and that individual wants to rent a room and I have a room then only an enemy of freedom would tell us we can't do that for any reason whatsoever, the location of either of our births being about the most ludicrous reason I can think of beyond stuff like the color of our socks.
-
(http://www.shackpics.com/download.x?file=AnCapMinarchistBattle_qw204600v6cqxtvpk48d.jpg)
That gets more epic every time you post it.
-
I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement. Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.
I used to think that too until I was lambasted by a few of them who think that me simply stating my reasons for following my own moral compass was an outrageous insult to them. Fuck those minarchist assholes. You hate brown people and you know it. What's the point in not being combative with you. You prevent human being from voluntarily interacting, you're an enemy of freedom, not MY freedom of course, brown people's, that only makes you look better to racist assholes. I don't want to infringe on ANYONE's right to life and liberty no matter where they were born. Why do you?
lol. what a douchebag.
I'm not an enemy of freedom, but I do believe in limits to freedom in cases where you are impinging on the rights of others. You don't have the freedom to trespass on my personal property. And foreigners don't have the right to trespass on our collective property as a nation.
You see, that's your screw-up. If you don't own it, it's someone else's property, not your "collective property."
that's a bad semantic argument. I don't buy that the two are exclusionary. If you believe in the idea of a country with citizens owning private property, then you have collective property as a nation. I don't use the term collective property in any type of communist, shared ownership sense. I simply mean all the land within the borders of the country that is owned by various persons.
Again it comes down to whether you believe in the basic idea of a state.
If your property is only yours, it's not also the state's. To say otherwise is to say other people have control over my property, which is clearly nonsense (though a quite common view amongst socialists.)
-
I simply mean all the land within the borders of the country that is owned by various persons.
That's right. You don't own my land and you have no right to tell me who I can rent my spare room to. If I am free and another individual is free and that individual wants to rent a room and I have a room then only an enemy of freedom would tell us we can't do that for any reason whatsoever, the location of either of our births being about the most ludicrous reason I can think of beyond stuff like the color of our socks.
So for instance if you wanted to rent a room to a serial killer, child molester, war criminal, or any other person that has broken laws, you don't think anyone has a right to object? Obviously illegal immigrants are nowhere near as heinous as the examples I listed, but we're arguing on principles here.
-
So for instance if you wanted to rent a room to a serial killer, child molester, war criminal, or any other person that has broken laws, you don't think anyone has a right to object? Obviously illegal immigrants are nowhere near as heinous as the examples I listed, but we're arguing on principles here.
And I suppose that you're okay with renting to cannabis users, speeders, tax resisters, and jaywalkers?
-
That's right. You don't own my land and you have no right to tell me who I can rent my spare room to. If I am free and another individual is free and that individual wants to rent a room and I have a room then only an enemy of freedom would tell us we can't do that for any reason whatsoever, the location of either of our births being about the most ludicrous reason I can think of beyond stuff like the color of our socks.
So for instance if you wanted to rent a room to a serial killer, child molester, war criminal, or any other person that has broken laws, you don't think anyone has a right to object? Obviously illegal immigrants are nowhere near as heinous as the examples I listed, but we're arguing on principles here.
[/quote]
Yes principles. Mine being you don't INITIATE force on a person or their property. the serial killer, child molesters and war criminals initiated force and must be prevented from doing more of the same. Renting a room is not a crime and not sufficient reason for you to defend yourself from him.
-
I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement. Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.
I used to think that too until I was lambasted by a few of them who think that me simply stating my reasons for following my own moral compass was an outrageous insult to them. Fuck those minarchist assholes. You hate brown people and you know it. What's the point in not being combative with you. You prevent human being from voluntarily interacting, you're an enemy of freedom, not MY freedom of course, brown people's, that only makes you look better to racist assholes. I don't want to infringe on ANYONE's right to life and liberty no matter where they were born. Why do you?
lol. what a douchebag.
I'm not an enemy of freedom, but I do believe in limits to freedom in cases where you are impinging on the rights of others. You don't have the freedom to trespass on my personal property. And foreigners don't have the right to trespass on our collective property as a nation.
You see, that's your screw-up. If you don't own it, it's someone else's property, not your "collective property."
that's a bad semantic argument. I don't buy that the two are exclusionary. If you believe in the idea of a country with citizens owning private property, then you have collective property as a nation. I don't use the term collective property in any type of communist, shared ownership sense. I simply mean all the land within the borders of the country that is owned by various persons.
Again it comes down to whether you believe in the basic idea of a state.
If your property is only yours, it's not also the state's. To say otherwise is to say other people have control over my property, which is clearly nonsense (though a quite common view amongst socialists.)
You're treating the issue as 100% black and white. I think there is a little gray because IMO it is necessary for the state to have limited powers over land issues.
-
So your argument is basically that all government is illegitimate, therefore borders are illegitimate. I think that's a pretty weak argument. I'll have to elaborate on this at a later time though.
Weak argument? Show me a government that governs purely with the consent of the governed, then.
-
That's right. You don't own my land and you have no right to tell me who I can rent my spare room to. If I am free and another individual is free and that individual wants to rent a room and I have a room then only an enemy of freedom would tell us we can't do that for any reason whatsoever, the location of either of our births being about the most ludicrous reason I can think of beyond stuff like the color of our socks.
So for instance if you wanted to rent a room to a serial killer, child molester, war criminal, or any other person that has broken laws, you don't think anyone has a right to object? Obviously illegal immigrants are nowhere near as heinous as the examples I listed, but we're arguing on principles here.
Yes principles. Mine being you don't INITIATE force on a person or their property. the serial killer, child molesters and war criminals initiated force and must be prevented from doing more of the same. Renting a room is not a crime and not sufficient reason for you to defend yourself from him.
[/quote]
So you've changed your position. First it was you can't do that because it's MY property. Now it's you can't do that unless blah blah blah. Private property is not a blanket shield from laws.
-
So your argument is basically that all government is illegitimate, therefore borders are illegitimate. I think that's a pretty weak argument. I'll have to elaborate on this at a later time though.
Weak argument? Show me a government that governs purely with the consent of the governed, then.
The Vatican.
-
So you've changed your position. First it was you can't do that because it's MY property. Now it's you can't do that unless blah blah blah. Private property is not a blanket shield from laws.
That's not a change. You don't mess with a person or their property, it is criminal. When you encounter a criminal (or he encounters you since he's the aggressor) it's ok to use force to defend your equal right to be secure in your person or property but only if HE initiates it.
Your examples, murderers etc all initiated force on a person or their property. The illegal alien didn't do anything but be born in the wrong place. The location of his birth is not going to harm you, it's not a danger you have no right to use force on his person or his property.
-
I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement. Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.
I used to think that too until I was lambasted by a few of them who think that me simply stating my reasons for following my own moral compass was an outrageous insult to them. Fuck those minarchist assholes. You hate brown people and you know it. What's the point in not being combative with you. You prevent human being from voluntarily interacting, you're an enemy of freedom, not MY freedom of course, brown people's, that only makes you look better to racist assholes. I don't want to infringe on ANYONE's right to life and liberty no matter where they were born. Why do you?
lol. what a douchebag.
I'm not an enemy of freedom, but I do believe in limits to freedom in cases where you are impinging on the rights of others. You don't have the freedom to trespass on my personal property. And foreigners don't have the right to trespass on our collective property as a nation.
You see, that's your screw-up. If you don't own it, it's someone else's property, not your "collective property."
that's a bad semantic argument. I don't buy that the two are exclusionary. If you believe in the idea of a country with citizens owning private property, then you have collective property as a nation. I don't use the term collective property in any type of communist, shared ownership sense. I simply mean all the land within the borders of the country that is owned by various persons.
Again it comes down to whether you believe in the basic idea of a state.
If your property is only yours, it's not also the state's. To say otherwise is to say other people have control over my property, which is clearly nonsense (though a quite common view amongst socialists.)
You're treating the issue as 100% black and white. I think there is a little gray because IMO it is necessary for the state to have limited powers over land issues.
If there must be a state, it would only have power to settle land contract disputes.
-
So your argument is basically that all government is illegitimate, therefore borders are illegitimate. I think that's a pretty weak argument. I'll have to elaborate on this at a later time though.
Weak argument? Show me a government that governs purely with the consent of the governed, then.
The Vatican.
Technically it's all "private" property, though.
-
OMG Vatican City is a functioning anarchy!
-
Or, OMG Vatican City is a government with 100% consent of the governed!
-
Or, OMG Vatican City is a government with 100% consent of the governed!
So, could it be the only true free place on earth?
-
My understanding is citizenship of Vatican City ends when you quit working in it.
Where else is like that?
-
My living room.
-
My understanding is citizenship of Vatican City ends when you quit working in it.
Where else is like that?
Every corporate entity.
-
So is that really governing?
-
So your argument is basically that all government is illegitimate, therefore borders are illegitimate. I think that's a pretty weak argument. I'll have to elaborate on this at a later time though.
Weak argument? Show me a government that governs purely with the consent of the governed, then.
Thanks for bringing that up. I meant to get back to it.
I had a feeling you'd say that.
The problem is that governments are not literal things, there are only people and their relationships with each other.
Whenever someone abstracts away the flesh-and-blood person to the government or country, they lose sight of the fact that the relationship of government is tantamount to slavery.
"You do as I say because 51% of the voting public put me in charge."
The only legitimate government is one with 100% public support 100% of the time. In other words, none in the history of mankind.
Private property, homesteaded by an individual, is on a much firmer philosophical and ethical basis than a government that claims it derives authority from the masses.
Literal is not a good word to use here. Governments are not tangible or physical objects, sure. But they do exist; they are real. They are a blend of people, ideas, and property. The relationship between citizens and government is not necessarily slavery. Slaves have no rights according to their masters. Citizens usually do, but it is possible to have totalitarian dictatorships where this is not true. Anyway, if you want to define legitimacy as requiring 100% support, then no government will have legitimacy for you. Legitimacy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Is Israel a legitimate country? Some would say yes, others no. What ultimately matters is not legitimacy, but enforceability. What does it matter if someone denies their legitimacy if they have no power to do anything about it?
Personally I think that legitimacy of governments must be viewed with their necessity in mind. Anarchy might bring excellent personal freedoms, but I think that anarchy on a large scale is an invitation for aggressive organized groups to come in and take over, thereby destroying the freedom you had in the first place. So I would say that a government may be legitimate IMO if the protections offered outweigh the cost in freedom (in addition to some other requirements). I do not agree that 100% support from the governed is required because that is unrealistic.
-
Literal is not a good word to use here. Governments are not tangible or physical objects, sure. But they do exist; they are real.
Governments are real in the sense that the relationships and ideas people have in regards to government are real.
They are a blend of people, ideas, and property.
But fundamentally they are only ideas in people's heads. Government can't exist without people believing in it.
The relationship between citizens and government is not necessarily slavery.
Not necessarily, but every government that has a monopoly on violence is using force aggressively to stop competing agencies, and thus is enslaving the people from experiencing liberty.
Slaves have no rights according to their masters.
If the master claims the right to take a percentage of your wealth, then it is slavery, not chattel slavery, but an insidious slavery.
Anyway, if you want to define legitimacy as requiring 100% support, then no government will have legitimacy for you.
That's true, depending on how you define government. How about the term moral legitimacy? A government that steals is not moral.
Legitimacy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Only colloquially. Morally and philosophically it's not merely in the eye of the beholder.
What ultimately matters is not legitimacy, but enforceability. What does it matter if someone denies their legitimacy if they have no power to do anything about it?
So was owning black people alright because it was enforceable?
Personally I think that legitimacy of governments must be viewed with their necessity in mind.
I think it's a mistake to believe that it is OK to justify an evil institution because you personally think it is necessary.
Anarchy might bring excellent personal freedoms, but I think that anarchy on a large scale is an invitation for aggressive organized groups to come in and take over, thereby destroying the freedom you had in the first place.
I don't want to get into the details of why anarchy is more difficult to take over.
I'd rather ask you: do you believe that the monopoly known as government can be more effective than private enterprise at protecting people?
-
but I think that anarchy on a large scale is an invitation for aggressive organized groups to come in and take over, thereby destroying the freedom you had in the first place.
It's true, they will demand money from everyone for the priviledge of existing, then they will use that money to force people to live how the gang thinks they should and much much more. See, man's natural state is anarchy and those aggressive organized groups that take over are called governments. I'm opposed to them.
Slaves have no rights according to their masters. Citizens usually do,
I have no inherent rights under the US government. There is not a single one of my god-given inalienable rights that is protected by 51% of people or a document. The only reason I have "rights" according to them is they haven't chosen to take them from me. The constitution and bill of rights are dead long ago.
This IS like a slave and master. A slave can be allowed to by and sell goods and own private property and marry etc. but he can only exercise his "rights" if the master chooses not to take them away. Neither the state nor the slave master truly respect rights, neither do either of them take ALL rights away. Pretty similar to me.
-
Far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't care if it turned into a free-for-all tomorrow. But I'd never want to hear the word "rights" again. That shit gets left at the door, and only comes out where structure has been established to support whatever philosophy is deemed appropriate by the superior force in whatever territory it manages to sustain. If cannibalism prevails in Utah Minor, so be it. If the king of South Tampa wants a 100% tax, good for him, if he can hold the power.
I really don't think most people have the stomach to deal with the truest form of humanity unchecked, as great as all the what-iffers think it would be, with happy little enclaves of bartering pipe-smoking debutantes, unwittingly soon to be rolled over by an iron ball of furious greed, and as unable to stop it as an umbrella would stop a five-mile wide meteor.
To avoid that shit, you gotta be so far out in no-mans land they use airplanes with skids for wheels to land in fields. Certainly not ninety minutes from Boston. Completely ignored because the paltry pile of personal junk is not worth the effort of a days travel with ten guys in two Bradley's to smoke you out because a couple solar panels and a lifetime supply of .30-.30 doesn't fuckin' matter.
Carlin said it best, in one of his last HBO things. You know what separates us from the animals? Electricity. Take it away, it all just breaks right down. Within one day, seventy-two hours at most, there'd be 30,000 mental patients on your front porch. No cops, no law, nothin' like that. They'd be protectin' their own ass. It'd be just you and them. I take it one step further, I think they're organized under the flag of Haliburton and carrying MP-5's, signing you up for protective services or X'n you off the list. And you'd probably have electricity the whole time. Maybe rolling brown-outs, but the system would be "up".
So when I hear all this dreamy horseshit about a stateless society, thats what it conjures up for me. And I'm not enough of a chucklehead that I'd think fifteen buddies with a good supply of Spam in a farmhouse, two miles from the local Blockbuster is gonna pull off some impossible coup where the Black Horde says "nevermind" and keeps on truckin.
So, as Eco is saying in his own way, we have no rights now. I know that. And we'd have no rights then, either. But at least, right now, we kinda have a shape to the whole mess. Theres a process, albeit a completely shitty one - which definitely needs a major overhaul. And personally, I think I'd rather apply the evasion tactics within the framework, than the society that would erupt without the checks-and-balances that prevent the fuckin' freak-bomb from going off.
But if it did, I don't particularly care. I just don't subscribe to the illusion that everything would be hunky-dory in the vacuum.
-
But I'd never want to hear the word "rights" again. That shit gets left at the door, and only comes out where structure has been established to support whatever philosophy is deemed appropriate by the superior force in whatever territory it manages to sustain.
Isn't this is the mental trap that structure can only exist in a certain way?
I don't think civilization is going to end, and I also don't think government is sustainable.
-
I just thought of this so bear with me here...but what if in the Libertarian (etc) world, rights are whatever the bear minimum an individual is going to allow.
For example, if I claim I have a right to bear arms, I'll never go to a place where they do not allow guns.
If I feel as though I have the right to free speech, then I'll say what I want where I want. If I say it on private property then I'll say it till they kick me out.
Get what I'm saying? I havent thought this through yet so bear with me and dont bite my head off over it just yet.
-
But I'd never want to hear the word "rights" again. That shit gets left at the door, and only comes out where structure has been established to support whatever philosophy is deemed appropriate by the superior force in whatever territory it manages to sustain.
Isn't this is the mental trap that structure can only exist in a certain way?
I don't think civilization is going to end, and I also don't think government is sustainable.
I think the world kinda works like this:
You have no rights. In an anarchy where you actually have No Rights, its all up to whoever rules the territory. You can get as philosophical as you want, but it all comes down to power. If you managed to find a nice orderly village in, say, Vermont... maybe the prevailing atmosphere would be conducive to a polite society, with a benevolent loose-knit voluntary structure of Libertarian-esque law. You'd probly be happy there, and all the people are open minded, and think whatever they want. Right? There, you would have rights because the society wills it. Or you could opt-out, and live on the fringe, and just sort of co-exist with parts of it.
But maybe you get snagged in Arizona. Economical reasons, you can't pay the toll out of Arizona. There, they hate Catholicism, and you're Catholic. Kinda like the nazi's hated Jews. So you really have absolutely no rights to practice Catholicism. In fact, they'll kill you for it.
Only when the climate is suitable for certain things do you have the "right" to do it. You could whisper it under the covers, I guess. But thats not rights. Rights come from power. They are granted to you.
In our present society, we actually live on the fringe of rights. They can be taken away, but people raise a stink over it when it hits the mainstream. We watch each others backs, and even among the statists, most judges are basically - kinda- watching out for you. They're careful, at least, to not shit all over your rights completely - like the Guantanimo situation. They'd catch major hell for trying that - at least, right now, maybe in the future they won't.
Rights are very fluid and dynamic. They're arguable, and supposed to be inarguable. Thats the thing that fucks 'em up the most. Philosophical hucksters play word games - which is why I fucking HATE playing semantics debates with people who make me want to rip their fucking eyeballs out. Eventually it becomes so droning and boring that people get lost in the goddamn words, and it all becomes meaningless.
Watch... Guns. I can own them.
Unless blabbedy blah bla bla blah... forever. That right is now officially up for all sorts of interpretation, which means its useless, fucked, and pretty much a privilege which is NOT a right.
So, you're right, civilization will not come to an end. But it may be different in ways you definitely do not like. I would suggest you BT the Ross Kemp Gangs documentaries, and check out how disorderly some places are. Brazil, for example. In Rio, the tourist area is nice, all touristy. Up in the hills, its a fuckin' murder spree. The government has black-ops running 24/7 killing the street gangs, and they're killing them back. Their prisons are stacked like 100 per cell, which are supposed to hold maybe four prisoners. Its just crazy. And Brazil has a constitution, and society exists, and all that shit. If the government just threw its hands up and said "fuckit" who knows what would happen. But I think its very likely, Brazil would fall apart, nobody would visit on vacation, their economy would fall to pieces, their banks would be looted, their economy would turn to shambles. It would collapse. People would leave in droves, and the gangs would organize, fill the vacuum, and become the government.
And you have to ask yourself, in that situation, don't you kinda feel sorry for the millions of average dopes who would get crushed in the wave of insanity as everyone chopped up turf, looted everything, and the ensuing civil war between the two most prominent factions that would arise? I know I would feel some pity for that old fart that lives across the street from me, getting his house burned down, or his car jacked. He's just a fuckin old dork who worked all his life for a two-bedroom chunk of house, raised his kids, and mows the lawn.
Not everybody is like you, you know. And that sorta what this flag is supposed to represent, people in varying stages of their lives, with a "good guy" watching their back, silently preserving a normalcy, and preventing a weird craziness that children, young moms, and old folks aren't supposed to concern themselves with.
I'm not saying I'm all gung-ho for this incarnation, because its very broken. But the concept is legitimate and sound, even if its actual practice is terribly mismanaged. Our purpose as dissenters is to raise awareness and try to prevent it from becoming more fucked up. Pull it back from the brink, and re-capture rights and privileges that are becoming more bureaucratically obscured, before they slide into oblivion. My argument with the pure anarchists is they think the oblivion is the path, from which will spring a healthier society. And I completely disagree with that. It would take decades, and millions of lives, if it were pushed over the brink tomorrow. We would never live to see the new "better" society that would theoretically grow from god-knows how many civil wars, and an incalculable amount of chaos that would arise in all the major cities, generations of hostile MadMax civilization. It'd be fuckin' awful, man. For all we know, our own govt would apply surgical nuke strikes to certain zones, to restore control and then just re-invent itself in a propaganda blitz, blame it on the NK's or something. Government's hardcore, dude.
-
I'm not saying I'm all gung-ho for this incarnation, because its very broken. But the concept is legitimate and sound, even if its actual practice is terribly mismanaged.
Um, no. It only seems sound if you don't want to understand how complete liberty could work.
My argument with the pure anarchists is they think the oblivion is the path, from which will spring a healthier society.
See, this is the problem that occurs when you think government is an actual thing. It's not.
Government is an idea, for better or worse, and ideas change.
I don't think government should be overthrown, which is exactly what you think I want.
I think government should be educated out of existence. The misunderstanding of this concept shows very clearly in your fear-based and ultimately irrelevant-to-the-point writing.
-
Government is no different to religion.It is incredibly difficult or next to impossible to convince the believers that it doesn't actually exist.That is why the modern form of heresy/terrorism is believing in liberty.Some places you can be executed by the priests/cops/beauracrats for advocating it.The next spanish inquisition will be state sponsored,they have already legalised torture and imprisonment just for being accused of heresy/terrorism.As religion has gone in history so will government untill we enter the age of enlightenment.
-
Government is no different to religion.It is incredibly difficult or next to impossible to convince the believers that it doesn't actually exist.That is why the modern form of heresy/terrorism is believing in liberty.Some places you can be executed by the priests/cops/beauracrats for advocating it.The next spanish inquisition will be state sponsored,they have already legalised torture and imprisonment just for being accused of heresy/terrorism.As religion has gone in history so will government untill we enter the age of enlightenment.
But governments do exist. They exist the same as businesses, schools, associations, etc.
Government is an idea, for better or worse, and ideas change.
Government is an institution which is based on ideas. But it is more than an idea. The same way that a business is (or can be) more than an idea. Is McDonald's just an idea? No. It is created from an idea, but it also has property, employees, etc.
-
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=33758.0
-
But governments do exist. They exist the same as businesses, schools, associations, etc.
In other words, you're saying if people stopped believing in businesses, schools, associations, etc. they would stop existing too? I agree. Those institutions don't rob and murder though.
Government is an institution which is based on ideas. But it is more than an idea.
The point is not that the people with guns say they own certain white houses, it is that if no one believed in government there would not be government. In this way government is a fiction.
-
But governments do exist. They exist the same as businesses, schools, associations, etc.
In other words, you're saying if people stopped believing in businesses, schools, associations, etc. they would stop existing too? I agree. Those institutions don't rob and murder though.
Government is an institution which is based on ideas. But it is more than an idea.
The point is not that the people with guns say they own certain white houses, it is that if no one believed in government there would not be government. In this way government is a fiction.
If no one ate meat, there wouldn't be McDonalds. But that doesn't make it "a fiction" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
-
"Existence exists". Sound familiar?
If it is perceived, it exists.
Government exists, boundaries, borders, nations, laws, penalties all exist. The "imaginary lines on paper" angle is quirky.. all around the globe those lines are acknowledged. A handful of people who want total liberty will not change that. Doesn't mean it isn't a wonderful & worthy concept, just means a border-less globe isn't likely to happen, ever.
Makes me wonder at what point noble aspirations morph into naive desires.
-
The point is not that the people with guns say they own certain white houses, it is that if no one believed in government there would not be government. In this way government is a fiction.
If no one ate meat, there wouldn't be McDonalds. But that doesn't make it "a fiction" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
Government aggression cannot be legitimate because government legitimacy comes, not from an outside government, and not from a mistaken view of the necessity of government, but from consent of the governed. Given that governments are currently monopolies, consent does not exist.
If it is perceived, it exists.
Sure, people in the name of government will put you in a cage if they want. I know this. However, the point is government should not be fought like a boxer would fight another boxer. Government, just like slavery, is an institution that can only be undermined through education. In this way I differ sharply from the view that a particular government being overthrown is inherently good. Only by replacing the faulty belief system of government with a better one such as voluntaryism, can government truly be ended.
-
Government is a fiction, the same way a story is not a book. The book exists even if there is nothing printed on the page.
The social institution "government", like the story, comes and goes as people in general want it to. Buildings, individuals, remain regardless of what the name is on the plaque at the front door.
Only by replacing the faulty belief system of government with a better one such as voluntaryism, can government truly be ended.
Couldn't agree more. A violent revolution would simply install a new set of people utilizing power, because the dependency on being told what to do has not been removed.
Education is the key.
I do not want to "overthrow" government, since I do not want the government that would rise in its place.
I want government to go away, preferably because the people who work within it discover they are better needed elsewhere.
Sadly, there will always be individuals who cling to power. So long as the institution exists, the sociopathic will be drawn to it like flies to sugar. Getting enough people to recognize that the institution of legitimate coercion can and should be ignored into non-existence is the hard part.
That brainwashing by the public schools and mass media really works.
-
Couldn't agree more. A violent revolution would simply install a new set of people utilizing power, because the dependency on being told what to do has not been removed.
And it would most likely be Glenn Beck types. I don't know if that is better or worse than what we have now. You can bet abortion and homosex (except lesbionics, of course) would be punishable by death.