Individual rights v. governent intervention

[utbagpiper]

The coercive imposition of the state, as a violation of principle, doesn't meet the minimal requirements of an acceptable proposal, let alone a solution.

A nice assertion, devoid of any logic or facts to back it up, I'm afraid.

The fact is, under this supposedly horrific system, over 300 million very diverse people live in greater peace and prosperity than at any point in human history and arguably better than in almost the entire rest of the world currently. Tens of millions of persons violate our immigration laws to enter and live in our nation illegally. Many of those who attempt to enter or do enter illegally will endure grave deprivations of their rights along the way to get here. Almost 4,000 have died in the last 10 years on our side of the border making the attempt. Dozens of Cubans die (15% of those who make the effort by one report) trying to reach the USA.

In contrast, there are no laws preventing our citizens from leaving; no physical barriers; no security checks. I've left other nations and they check and stamp passports before letting you leave. Not here. No government official checks my papers before leaving by either land or air. Airlines check to make sure I can get off the plane when it lands. But the government doesn't seem to care in the least if I leave. Yet how many leave?

All evidence is that our current system is doing at least an adequate job compared to every other system or non-system in existence on the planet today. And make no mistake, there are a fair number of beautiful locations in the world without any real government.

Sound bites and overly simplified assertions do not for intelligent, reasoned discussion make.

Charles

 

[J_dazzle23]

A nice assertion, devoid of any logic or facts to back it up, I'm afraid.

The fact is, under this supposedly horrific system, over 300 million very diverse people live in greater peace and prosperity than at any point in human history and arguably better than in almost the entire rest of the world currently. Tens of millions of persons violate our immigration laws to enter and live in our nation illegally. Many of those who attempt to enter or do enter illegally will endure grave deprivations of their rights along the way to get here. Almost 4,000 have died in the last 10 years on our side of the border making the attempt. Dozens of Cubans die (15% of those who make the effort by one report) trying to reach the USA.

In contrast, there are no laws preventing our citizens from leaving; no physical barriers; no security checks. I've left other nations and they check and stamp passports before letting you leave. Not here. No government official checks my papers before leaving by either land or air. Airlines check to make sure I can get off the plane when it lands. But the government doesn't seem to care in the least if I leave. Yet how many leave?

All evidence is that our current system is doing at least an adequate job compared to every other system or non-system in existence on the planet today. And make no mistake, there are a fair number of beautiful locations in the world without any real government.

Sound bites and overly simplified assertions do not for intelligent, reasoned discussion make.

Charles

Charles has made some good points here that really have still not been addressed, merely brushed aside.

How do you mitigate differences legally when neither party is willing to bend?

Regardless........forgive me charles, but you tee'd this one up for me. I couldn't help but take a break in this thread to chuckle.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Charles has made some good points here that really have still not been addressed, merely brushed aside.

How do you mitigate differences legally when neither party is willing to bend?

Regardless........forgive me charles, but you tee'd this one up for me. I couldn't help but take a break in this thread to chuckle.

View attachment 12457

How do you mitigate now?

Fairness and right isn't done now.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I should make these great quotes into bumber stickers....they are axiomatic.

"There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]." Chuang Tzu

"A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State." Chuang Tzu

 

[georg jetson]

George I meant to reply to an earlier comment.

Your mention of Christians and law.

Yes many Christians have argued for natural law. Thomas Aquina and others. The Jewish Carpenter did so too in many of his parables even though often not directly.

Thomas E. Woods Junior is a christian and has very good arguments against statism. So are Lew Rockwell, Gary North and others like William Griggs all whom I respect and admire greatly, even if I don't share the christian beliefs and remain agnostic.

Thanks for the elaboration.

 

[georg jetson]

That is a fine position to take. But never again claim you heard crickets when asking how to correct the current situation.

I happen to think abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed is less likely to right the wrongs than is the efforts I proposed. Especially when none of the proponents of abolishing the current forms is capable of providing any synopsis of their preferred alternative, much less to answer two very simple questions.

In any event, differences of opinion on what course is better are valid. But there is a material difference between disagreeing, and others' failing to post any alternatives. Indeed, at this point, it is the anarchist who have failed to post any meaningful alternatives.



Again, I do not believe this kind of personal sniping advances the discussion. Please stop.

Charles

I dont't know what's worse. Hearing crickets or hearing suggestions with no relevance.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I dont't know what's worse. Hearing crickets or hearing suggestions with no relevance.

The argument for him sort of boils down to. I don't care that your point is I am doing is evil lets end the evil. What are you going to do to replace me.

 

[georg jetson]

How do you mitigate now?

Fairness and right isn't done now.

J_dazzle didn't use the words "fair" or "right". Is it enough that the force of government ends a "difference" irrespective of "fairness"? If fairness is a concern, then how do you keep the government "fair". It always has its own interests as priority.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

J_dazzle didn't use the words "fair" or "right". Is it enough that the force of government ends a "difference" irrespective of "fairness"? If fairness is a concern, then how do you keep the government "fair". It always has its own interests as priority.

That's true. That was an assumption on my part of what they want the system to do.

I agree 100%. The system may put a veneer of altruism over their acts but it is an illusion.

 

[J_dazzle23]

J_dazzle didn't use the words "fair" or "right". Is it enough that the force of government ends a "difference" irrespective of "fairness"? If fairness is a concern, then how do you keep the government "fair". It always has its own interests as priority.

I'll expound on this point. Our government right now does have self-serving individuals that get in the way of doing the right thing.

But additionally, you may say that the way these differences are mitigated now is poorly done.

I would assert that regardless of how these differences are mitigated now to your liking, these differences have proved EXTREMELY hard to navigate.

I think to infer that the government is the reason it is hard to mitigate differences on abortion, property rights, or foreign policy, etc etc is extremely short-sighted.

These are big issues whether it is anarchy or communism, imo.

 

[utbagpiper]

forgive me charles, but you tee'd this one up for me. I couldn't help but take a break in this thread to chuckle.

View attachment 12457

Funny that is.

 

[utbagpiper]

How do you mitigate now?

Fairness and right isn't done now.

We arbitrate now through a process of majority rules, tempered by representative bodies (rather than direct democracy) as well as the courts. Through prior super-majority votes we have determined that certain things really are rights that are beyond popular vote and the court applies these enumerated rights to the facts of cases at hand.

The system is far from perfect. But demonstrably it seems to work well enough for 300 million+ diverse persons to live together in relative peace and tremendous prosperity.

Our current system works well within its own paradigm that once a majority or court has decided, some level of force is permitted to enforce the laws.

The (non) proposed, anarchy (non)system fails to abide its own paradigm There is no way to peacefully arbitrate between two groups, neither of whom will voluntarily retreat from its position. The anarchy social order is promoted as a great improvement in human freedom because it rejects any initiation of force and yet it almost immediately fails to abide that principle.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

I dont't know what's worse. Hearing crickets or hearing suggestions with no relevance.

You are free to you personal views on that. But the suggestions I make have a proven, 25 year track record of dramatically improving the legal situation relative to our practical ability to carry firearms for self defense.

No one can honestly, credibly argue against that. And so we see semantics, dodges, or just ignoring of that history.

I suspect that anyone who thinks establishing a brand new social order from scratch would be easier or more likely to lead to success than political activism within the current system has not spent much time actually trying either.

Charles

 

[ATM]

10 lines of irrelevant facts do not 1 instance of principle violation refute.

If you can't defend the state in principle, just admit it. There's really no need for further discussion of the state as an option beyond that simple point of failure.

 

[utbagpiper]

10 lines of irrelevant facts do not 1 instance of principle violation refute.

If you can't defend the state in principle, just admit it. There's really no need for further discussion of the state as an option beyond that simple point of failure.

18 pages of inability to provide the most basic over-view of how simple conflicts between incompatible beliefs can be resolved within the paradigm of anarchy demonstrate your preferred solution is a figment, a fiction,a pipe dream.

If you cannot explain the most simple operations of your preferred "alternative" then it is no alternative at all. Just admit it. There is really no need for further discussion.

The principle of the federal Constitution and the States that created it is rather simple:

1-A basic respect for certain individual rights as those rights are recognized by super-majority vote and/or judicial application.

2-Majority rule in other cases, generally tempered by representative bodies rather than direct democracy.

3-The system works better than any other system in existence, including any non-system or de facto anarchy.

Force is appropriate, even necessary to defend against violation of rights. That you--and even I--may not always agree with the claimed rights being enforced is no more an indictment of the US Constitution than it is of your mythical utopia since your utopian ideal cannot resolve those disagreements over rights within its own paradigm.

At this point, the anarchists might just as well tell me that your preferred plan to solve our problems involves unicorns farting out pots of gold and puking up rainbows. Unicorns don't exist and your mythical utopian cannot resolve conflicts even within its own paradigm.

Admit the logical failure of your myth and your own inability to resolve the simple conflict I've put you. 18 pages, a half dozen books, 100 google entries, some posters who are so arrogant as to openly claim they are refusing to discuss or explain the issue because others are not worthy of them, and yet not a single proponent nor even sympathizer of anarchy can answer two simple questions.

Myth. Pipe-dream. Fiction. Utter waste of time.

Charles

 

[ATM]

I guess the admission got lost in all those words again. :lol:

I will continue to reject any attempted claims of support for the state as irrelevant and evasive until you are able to defend the violation of principle as an acceptable necessity.

Most of your recurring straw man fallacies have been previously called out, so no need to cover those again, either.

Liberty stands on principle, without suggestion or promise of utopia or even comfort.

 

[utbagpiper]

I agree 100%. The system may put a veneer of altruism over their acts but it is an illusion.

No, the current system is quite open and honest: Majority rules except in cases where super-majority has previously agreed to enumerate rights as being beyond majority vote. Toss in some tempering by courts and representatives rather than direct democracy.

It ain't perfect. It doesn't claim to be ideologically pure.

Our federal constitution contains elements that are fairly libertarian. Some other elements that are rather authoratarian. It has both democratic and very un-democratic mechanisms. It contains a couple of provisions that are nothing but rank political compromise to get past very difficult issues (eg "3/5ths of a person" and limiting direct taxing authority within the nation to a population tax).

It is a melding of principles with pragmatism.

And unlike your pipe dream, it has over 200 years of proven history.

It doesn't claim to be perfectly consistent with any simple-minded philosophy. But it seems to work and we all understand how disputes get resolved.

Which is a lot more than can be said for anarchy.

Charles

 

[J_dazzle23]

Liberty stands on principle, without suggestion or promise of utopia or even comfort.

So what you are saying (correct me if wrong) is that the two questions being asked repeatedly (you know, how to solve a conflict when neither party backs down, how to protect sovereignty, that kinda thing) doesn't really matter, and life may not be comfortable or great, but it doesn't matter because having liberty is the end goal with everything else being a distant second?

Sounds good in theory, but I will ask again-

How do you mitigate differences in this society?

And please don't redirect this back to the inability of the current government to do this- it's a terribly hard job with 300 million people, and so far it has worked about as well as anything else out there.

I'm trying to give benefit of the doubt here, but this is one of the most basic concepts of civilization, if anyone here has a viable answer, I'm all ears.

 

[utbagpiper]

I will continue to reject any attempted claims of support for the state as irrelevant and evasive until you are able to defend the violation of principle as an acceptable necessity.

Ah. You are claiming the current system is so bad that it must be discarded without regard to what might replace it.

How did that myopic view work out for the Russians greatly oppressed by the Czar who thought communism must be better?

Or the Germans, unhappy with the state of affairs following their defeat in WWI who brought Hitler to power?

Or the French who figured anything but the monarchy would be an improvement?

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Most of your recurring straw man fallacies have been previously called out, so no need to cover those again, either.

I don't think "straw man" means what you think it means.

You cannot answer two simple questions about the most basic functions of your preferred social structure. It fails.

Liberty stands on principle, without suggestion or promise of utopia or even comfort.

Liberty does not long exist in anarchy. The inability to resolve conflicts within its own paradigm means anarchy is doomed to failure.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Repeated, emphatic assertion on your part, do not a rational, logical, nor convincing argument make. You are entitled to religious beliefs. But don't confuse Utopian or heavenly promises for rational social systems with a snowball's chance of working among a diverse group of mortal men. "If men were angels they would need no government...."

Charles

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

The change being proposed is not as significant as you imply. It's mostly a change in understanding rather than one in practice or structure.

Reminds me of something I heard on Stossel a little while back. With such a system we are in now we are "addicted to government".
With a change in understanding it may be possible to slow and reverse the trend. But imagine the carnage if the liberty cure was immediate.
The real problem is you can't even hint at slowing the problem and remain in office. The Rs won't even talk about a military budget that is preposterous compared to the rest of the world. The Ds won't even talk about their welfare state and now health care. Neither will touch a doomed social security system. And both want too keep the wars coming and surveillance on citizens beefed up.