Author Topic: Belief in authority is a religion  (Read 1053 times)

xyzzy and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #145 on: Yesterday at 02:00:18 PM »
To be blunt, HED, your whole position is fatally flawed.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

While it is arguable that nobody has the inherent, inborn right to give you commands, that has nothing to do with most kinds of authority.

While it is arguable that nobody has the inherent, inborn right to give you commands, that has nothing to do with most kinds of rights to command. Yep. Good logic there.

For example, when you were a child, you obeyed your parents, not because they had an inborn right to that authority, but because they provided for your needs (by virtue of having you as a child).
Are you asserting that you are a child psychologist? A clairvoyant who can read children's minds?

Or perhaps because the parents literally have life and death control over the infants, to the infants, the parents are gods.
What does one do with a god... Worship. At least until the rebellious age begins. (Perhaps this is the early programming that allows charlatans to establish a beach head for biblegod in one's belief system.)

But then there's the toddler's inherent wish to help mommy and daddy. Likely an offshoot of mimicry as a method of socialization and learning the tribe's mores.

Once you were able to live on your own, you could release yourself from their authority, which only extended as long as they provided for you.
At some point it becomes a contract. You want a roof over your head, I want these behaviors from you...

Compromise and cooperation can be learned in spite of the State buggering it up. Minor wants to be emancipated, fine, There's the door. Until the State steps in with its background of force saying the proper steps for emancipation wasn't followed.

That's how it works in the USA, today.  By being a citizen, you implicitly agree to the social contract between you and the government, which is essentially that you agree to take on certain responsibilities in exchange for certain rights and privileges.
Remember, A contract requires an offer, consideration, acceptance, and a meeting of minds.
Quote
Contract#ElementsWiki
At common law, the elements of a contract are offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, and consideration.

Please provide proof of this "implicit" contract. Show me my signature on a document wherein I agreed to this social contract.

Quote
SOCIAL CONTRACT

between an individual and the United States Government
WHEREAS I wish to reside on the North American continent, and

WHEREAS the United States Government controls the area of the continent on which I wish to reside, and

WHEREAS tacit or implied contracts are vague and therefore unenforceable,

I agree to the following terms:

SECTION 1: I will surrender a percentage of my property to the Government. The actual percentage will be determined by the Government and will be subject to change at any time. The amount to be surrendered may be based on my income, the value of my pro- perty, the value of my purchases, or any other criteria the Government chooses. To aid the Government in determining the percentage, I will apply for a Government identification number that I will use in all my major financial transactions.

SECTION 2: Should the Government demand it, I will surrender my liberty for a period of time determined by the government and typically no shorter than two years. During that time, I will serve the Government in any way it chooses, including military service in which I may be called upon to sacrifice my life.

SECTION 3: I will limit my behavior as demanded by the govern- ment. I will consume only those drugs permitted by the Govern- ment. I will limit my sexual activities to those permitted by the Government. I will forsake religious beliefs that conflict with the Government's determination of propriety. More limits may be imposed at any time.

SECTION 4: In consideration for the above, the Government will permit me to find employment, subject to limits that will be determined by the Government. These limits may restrict my choice of career or the wages I may accept.

SECTION 5: The Government will permit me to reside in the area of North America which it controls. Also, the Government will permit me to speak freely, subject to limits determined by the Government's Congress and Supreme Court.

SECTION 6: The Government will attempt to protect my life and my claim to the property it has allowed me to keep. I agree not to hold the Government liable if it fails to protect me or my property.

SECTION 7: The Government will offer various services to me. The nature and extent of these services will be determined by the Government and are subject to change at any time.

SECTION 8: The Government will determine whether I may vote for certain Government officials. The influence of my vote will vary inversely with the number of voters, and I understand that it typically will be minuscule. I agree not to hold any elected Government officials liable for acting against my best interests or for breaking promises, even if those promises motivated me to vote for them.

SECTION 9: I agree that the Government may hold me fully liable if I fail to abide by the above terms. In that event, the Government may confiscate any property that I have not previously surrendered to it, and may imprison me for a period of time to be determined by the Government. I also agree that the Government may alter the terms of this contract at any time without my permission.

---------------------------------- ---------------

signature date

Copyright 1989 by Robert E. Alexander.

May be distributed freely.

You can certainly choose to release yourself from that social contract by renouncing your citizenship, but then you can no longer claim the rights of a citizen.
It's time to burst that delusion of being a CITIZEN.

a person who legally belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country
a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien ).
A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.

[T]he police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime.

It’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.” (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981), quoting the trial court decision.)

No duty to protect - No citizenship.



However, that does not mean you can ignore laws passed by the government, because the government has the authority to pass those laws by virtue of the social contract agreed to by all American citizens.
I'm sorry jaimehlers, the logic does not support your assertion.

I've provided you with the elements of a contract.
I've placed a copy of this alleged social contract above in this post.
I've shown you that being a citizen is a fraud perpetrated by ignorance of the reality of "government" protection.

So now I'll repeat myself, Show me my signature on a document wherein I agreed to alleged this social contract.

That authority extends to all territory de facto controlled by the USA, so the only way to get out from under it is to not be within that territory.
Yep. If one does not like being a producer on a human farm, one is free to move to another farm.



Your argument that you did not agree to said social contract is invalid, because it's plainly stated in American law that being born on American soil makes one a citizen, with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities therein (though some of them do not come into effect for some years after one's birth).
Repeat the WWGHA mantra with me. Evidence?  Evidence?  Evidence?

Or in different words: Cite?

That has been the case for over two hundred years.
Cite?

You cannot claim that because you did not formally agree to it, that you aren't bound by it; ignorance of the law and what it states is your problem, not the country's.
Please provide evidence of the law to which you refer to. Failure to produce said law is your admission that you are simply repeating the myth you heard at some watercooler somewhere.

I'm probably more aware of law than you are. And I am definitely more up on the actual written words of the US tax law than you are.

You can renounce your citizenship,
What citizenship?
as you stated here; you can choose to try to flaunt the authority of the government,
What authority?
for what little that may accomplish.  But claiming that it never had any authority over you
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I've posted the proof in the OP. You have failed to impeach the posted proof.

and thus you can do what you want in territory controlled by this country is simply not going to work unless you possess the capability to protect yourself against the actions of the government, never mind anything else.
Tell me you were completely unemotional as you typed that diatribe.

Since I very seriously doubt that you have anything resembling that capability, any argument by you regarding authority is effectively moot.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

To quote something I read, the only way to justify renouncing someone's authority over you (whether de facto or de jure) is to have the capability to overcome them when they exert it over you.  And very simply, you don't, and probably never will.

So, are you claiming that might makes right?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11989
  • Darwins +251/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #146 on: Yesterday at 02:09:03 PM »
While it is arguable that nobody has the inherent, inborn right to give you commands, that has nothing to do with most kinds of authority.

While it is arguable that nobody has the inherent, inborn right to give you commands, that has nothing to do with most kinds of rights to command. Yep. Good logic there.

Actually, it is.  Here's a parallel sentence, in response to someone who denies the existence of cubic zirconia on the basis that it's not natural:

"While it is arguable that nobody has a natural, mineralized sample of cubic zirconia (ZrO2), that has nothing to do with most kinds of cubic zirconia."

Not perfectly analogous to your example, but close enough that you hopefully get my point.  Arguing against the existence of one subset of a category doesn't argue against that whole category.
Unless you are Scarlett Johansason or something.  lol  i'd like to punish her with  my baby.  lol

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6200
  • Darwins +414/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #147 on: Yesterday at 02:17:39 PM »
At common law, the elements of a contract are offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, and consideration.

And tell me, do you want a contract? Have you written one[1]? You don't have one now, but if this "contract" is with "the people" and they break it - what happens to them? Who enforces the contract?

The second point is that you have told us what you don't like, but you have not described the structure of the state you wish to live in and how it would function. Are you going to do that?
 1. you've written (badly) one you do not want
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #148 on: Yesterday at 03:36:10 PM »
And I see in your reply something quite akin to "If you don't believe in biblegod, you're going to rot in hell"
Jails and prisons are real, so your analogy is simply awful.  If this is an example of your reasoning, I can see why Azdgari was all over you.
I never said jails and prisons aren't real. This is a non sequitur.

Replacing the missing context:
What evidence do you rely upon to prove the laws in the US Constitution apply to me?
If you presume they do not apply to you, go ahead and break them. Maybe your jail cell will be imaginary as well.
Your failure to provide the proof requested is noted.
And I see in your reply something quite akin to "If you don't believe in biblegod, you're going to rot in hell"
In rebuilding the context, I see that you, jaimehlers, have failed to provide the proof requested as well.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Whence comes this authority?
From the people who agree with it.
I don't agree with it. NEXT!

You see, that's the whole point of the Constitution - to establish that the authority of the government comes from those who accept being governed by it.
I don't accept it. NEXT!

It doesn't matter whether that acceptance is explicit or implicit.
I've already addressed this in my reply to your previous post. Social contract... Bwaa ha ha.

If you move to this country and begin the naturalization process, your acceptance is explicit because you have to agree to it, whereas if you're a natural-born citizen, your acceptance is implicit because you gain certain rights granted you by the government, even at birth, merely because you were born here.
I've already addressed the myth of citizen in my previous reply to you.

Either way, a citizen agrees to the authority of the government.
Please present your proof.

Naturally, they can later revoke their agreement by renouncing their citizenship, but that doesn't do a thing to the authority that the government has from everyone else.
What authority?

Please provide evidence that I am wrong in my original post. Just work the first error you see as you go down the numbered list of points. Each following point depends on the preceding point. Break the chain and you win.


To quote Marc Stevens: If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Another bad argument.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

You really aren't very good at this, are you?
I'm sure that's your opinion.

The goods and services provided by a market - specifically, by the people and companies who sell them - are almost always done because they're profitable.  However, the mere fact that something is not profitable does not mean it's not valuable.
Proof?

Things can have value despite not being profitable.
Proof?

For example, do you value having hot and cold running water and an indoor toilet in your house, rather than having to draw water up using a well and having to use an outhouse?
I draw my own water... It's called a "well". It runs on electricity. On the other end, it's called a septic tank and septic field. There are other methods for household sanitation that does not require the State.

Well, water and sewage services are provided by the government because they're valuable to the people who live within the jurisdiction.
You forgot trash pickup. Oh wait... That was a private service when I lived in New Jersey.

If the government did not provide them, then the market would, but it would have to charge a lot more money than the government does in order for the companies providing that service to make a profit.
Please provide your evidence to support your assertion that the State can do it cheaper than non-State providers. Be sure to fully internalize all costs.

Therefore, most people would not be able to afford them; because the government provides those things (at cost), it improves the standard of living of everyone who lives there, not just the lucky few with enough money to afford it.
Proof?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11539
  • Darwins +563/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #149 on: Yesterday at 03:40:40 PM »
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981
No duty to protect - No citizenship.

Are you intentionally misconstruing that decision or do you just not understand it?


And I am definitely more up on the actual written words of the US tax law than you are.

Let me guess:  you are currently in prison for tax evasion.  Am I close?

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #150 on: Yesterday at 04:37:43 PM »
Edit: removed errant sentence pasted.

Okay, I'll engage your distraction.
You didn't really do a very good job of it, though.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
The bartender has no authority. He's shit out of luck. The best he can do is not serve me a drink the next time I enter his bar.
<snipped links to allow post to upload>
Except that isn't the best he can do.  He can require you to prepay him before he serves you a drink (which is how places of business generally operate in non-secure environments).
I'll concede the point without argument. Purchasing gasoline in the States is a good example.

Therefore, he will have preempted attempts to cheat him out of the payment in a non-provocative way.  Naturally, that puts the onus on him to provide you with what you ordered, but as he's a businessman, he'll most likely do that if he wishes to stay in business.  That way, he doesn't have to try to keep track of people who may have cheated him in the past; he simply doesn't serve anyone who doesn't pay, whatever the reason.
Dunno about you, but I typically put my federal reserve note on the bar when I order. Likewise I have some in hand when I order fast food.

The problem with your scenario here, is that you are relying upon the exception instead of the customary to make your case.

There's also a point you forgot, or didn't consider - honor among thieves.
And your evidence to prove honor among thieves is...?

Criminals tend to abide by whatever agreements they make, because they can't appeal to the courts or the law.
Proof?

This is because if they don't abide by it, there's nothing to stop the aggrieved parties from coming after them with blood in their eyes.
Not having been to drug deals gone bad, I can't address this honor among thieves assertion. Neither have I been to drug deals that haven't gone bad.

Perhaps you could enlighten us all with your federal rules of evidence #602 first hand knowledge of this honor among thieves?

By comparison, people who abide by the law and the authority of a government have the additional recourse of appealing to it for intervention.  It dramatically reduces the likelihood of violence, since people don't have to fall back on the use of force to make others comply with agreements.
Well of course... If you ignore the State's violence against the people.

That's why your argument is so badly flawed - because it removes ways to solve problems without violence, rather than adding them.
Perhaps you missed the post wherein I showed the amount of deaths, i.e. the violence, IN SPITE of the (alleged) authority of government the State.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 04:46:05 PM by Habenae Est Dominatus »

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5972
  • Darwins +645/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Entropy isn’t what it used to be
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #151 on: Yesterday at 04:57:13 PM »
If the government did not provide them, then the market would, but it would have to charge a lot more money than the government does in order for the companies providing that service to make a profit.
Please provide your evidence to support your assertion that the State can do it cheaper than non-State providers. Be sure to fully internalize all costs.

How do you feel about privately run prisons, run by large companies that have lots of lobbyists. And said lobbyists spend most of their time trying to get new laws passed that will put even more people in prison so that they can make more money.

The California "3 strikes and you're out" law? That was created, promoted and shoved through the legislature by private prison corporations. So California tax payers are now paying those corporations to keep people in prison for the rest of their life because of a stolen piece of pizza.

Can we internalize those costs as well?

Never trust an atom. They make up everything!

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #152 on: Yesterday at 05:50:22 PM »
I want to thank you for helping expose the religious (superstitious) belief in authority.

Yet my evidence that it does not exist is posted in the very first post of this topic.
With all due respect, what you posted on the first page of this topic was mostly logic, not evidence.
And with all due respect in return, your disproof and impeachment of that logic is in which reply of yours?

101a. Where is your evidence that you were born my king, my superior, or my sovereign?  Where is your evidence that you were born with a higher rank than I?
102a. Where is your evidence that you DO have a right to command me by your mere birth?
108a. Where is your evidence that you DO have a right to choose someone to command me?


If logic was sufficient to serve as evidence, we would have only four elements, as Aristotle argued, and other such absurdities.  The fact of the matter is that people not having birth-rank has nothing to do with the authority of a government; that authority exists due to the consent of the governed.
I do not consent. NEXT!

This is where you mumble something about the majority...

Let me preemptively close that exit:
Any person who represents another is called an agent. The person being represented is called the principal. The agent is required to obey the principal's wishes. Your wish is that there is to be no law X and you voted for person A to keep the law X bill from becoming law. Person B won the election and is now the elected representative. Person B voted to make the law X bill into law which is exactly opposite of what you wanted your representative, your agent, to do for you. Person B does not represent you. Only a delusional person would claim Person B represents them.

I don't vote because I refuse to validate the delusion that I am "represented" by a lying politician.

By not voting, I have withheld consent.

This is stated in the very Declaration of Independence that you cited at the beginning of said post.  Indeed, it is in the very next sentence after the one you quoted.  I will quote it here for your reading convenience.

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

Quote from: Jackney Sneeb
"The government exists to protect the rights of the people."  Give yourself 1/2 point if you thought it said "the government should exist to protect the rights of the people."  In reality, rulers protect their own interests first, and when that conflicts with the rights of the people, the people get screwed.  No piece of paper with lofty prose on it can stop those who rule by force and propaganda from acting like rulers who resort to force and propaganda.
Here is a link to just one site that demonstrates what your government thinks about protecting your rights: The Police Have No Obligation To Protect You.
I hereby incorporate by reference, these words:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26704.0.html
(I would paste them in, but it will make this post very long, and I presume I've presented another target on this forum, so it's available for its own discussion when I finish here.)

In short, in order to ensure that everyone has access to the rights you cited in the opening of your post, specifically life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, a government that derives its authority from the consent of the governed is necessary.
I do not consent. And I'm waiting to see your logical reasoning that does not rely upon magic to prove consent.

This is for the very simple fact that individuals often cannot safeguard their rights with the power they possess, whereas a government, with the collective power derived from the individuals who consent to its authority, has a much greater capacity to safeguard all of those rights for those it governs.

Therefore, your argument is moot.
Since government the State has no duty to protect, I find your argument moot.

Whether you acknowledge it or not, governments, and the authority which they wield, exist, due to the consent of the governed.
You keep stating that, but I've yet to see any logical reasoning posted on your part. Nevermind evidence to prove your assertion.

Which includes you; you stated that you did not wish to pop the bubble of citizenship, but that is implicit consent to the authority of the government.
When are you going to post your evidence this instead of just asserting this?

When are you going to address the points I presented specifically to pop the citizen bubble?

You can call it whatever you want, but that is what it actually is.  And in any case, your position does not abrogate the authority and power of the government that it derives from everyone else who consents to be governed by it.
Please present your evidence that you have the authority to choose somebody to command me.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #153 on: Yesterday at 06:00:12 PM »
There's also a point you forgot, or didn't consider - honor among thieves.  Criminals tend to abide by whatever agreements they make, because they can't appeal to the courts or the law.  This is because if they don't abide by it, there's nothing to stop the aggrieved parties from coming after them with blood in their eyes.  By comparison, people who abide by the law and the authority of a government have the additional recourse of appealing to it for intervention.  It dramatically reduces the likelihood of violence, since people don't have to fall back on the use of force to make others comply with agreements.  That's why your argument is so badly flawed - because it removes ways to solve problems without violence, rather than adding them.

I can vouch for the "honor amongst thieves" being a former thief, myself [...]  I heard he was let back in but did it again and flew off a building; the person who told me that laughed because his nickname (the one killed) was "fly".
There you go jaimehlers- You have an FRE 602 testimony of ONE (former) thief supporting your honor among thieves concept. However, "Fly" didn't honor the rules...

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4316
  • Darwins +450/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #154 on: Yesterday at 06:26:26 PM »
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
Except that I did establish it through my post.  Therefore, your favorite Latin saying does not apply here.  To be more blunt, just because you say it was asserted without evidence does not mean it actually was.  You need to spend a bit less time saying "quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur" and a little more time actually considering the argument you're cavalierly dismissing.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
While it is arguable that nobody has the inherent, inborn right to give you commands, that has nothing to do with most kinds of rights to command. Yep. Good logic there.
You were a little too quick to dismiss this.  For example, my boss at work does not have the inherent, inborn right to command me.  However, since I am employed by him, he gains the right (more accurately, the ability) to command me, so long as I am employed by him.  The same thing applies in other situations (for example, the military - a sergeant has the authority to give commands to a private even though he does not have the inborn right to give commands to that private).  Therefore my logic stands - establishing that nobody has the inherent, inborn right to give you commands does not establish anything regarding other ways to gain the ability to command people.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Are you asserting that you are a child psychologist? A clairvoyant who can read children's minds?
I do not have to be a child psychologist or a mind-reader to be able to make and interpret observations of human behavior, including children.  My statement was the result of my observations, both as a child and as an adult.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Or perhaps because the parents literally have life and death control over the infants, to the infants, the parents are gods.
Or perhaps you are simply making an assertion without evidence.  Can you show evidence to support this assertion of yours?

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
What does one do with a god... Worship. At least until the rebellious age begins. (Perhaps this is the early programming that allows charlatans to establish a beach head for biblegod in one's belief system.)
I never worshiped my parents.  I never observed my siblings worshiping my parents.  I never observed my cousins worshiping their parents.  I have never observed any child engaging in worship of his or her parents.  I have seen numerous religious worship services, so I know much of what to look for.  Granted, it could be exclusively in private, but most people do not worship in private.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
But then there's the toddler's inherent wish to help mommy and daddy. Likely an offshoot of mimicry as a method of socialization and learning the tribe's mores.
Empathy and reciprocity are far better explanations for this "inherent wish to help" than mere mimicry.  As a toddler grows, they develop the capacity to understand and share the feelings of others.  This leads them to be helpful, not just to their parents, but to other humans, such as siblings, friends, relatives, and even strangers, because they learn that when they do helpful things, they tend to get helpful things done back to them.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
At some point it becomes a contract. You want a roof over your head, I want these behaviors from you...
Albeit an informal one, usually without the threat of legal enforcement.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Compromise and cooperation can be learned in spite of the State buggering it up. Minor wants to be emancipated, fine, There's the door. Until the State steps in with its background of force saying the proper steps for emancipation wasn't followed.
What exactly do you mean by "the State", anyway?  The only entities I know of as states in this country are the fifty states.  Yet you are using it as a synonym for the federal government, as well as for the organs of various levels of government.  Instead of saying "the State" and assuming that others will understand you, perhaps you should be more specific.

Also, how is kicking a minor out of the house a way to teach or learn compromise or cooperation?  Seems to me that it is the antithesis of both - "my way or the highway" teaches neither compromise nor cooperation, but ultimately obedience.

That aside, you are repeating the mistake you made earlier in treating a single situation as if it were the whole.  What about a child who is physically or sexually abused, or simply neglected, by their parents or other adults?  In that situation, the state's Department of Human Services intervenes to protect the child against this mistreatment.  Yet if you had your way, there would not be a DHS to intervene - the parents and adults would be expected to govern themselves.  But what happens when they don't?

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Remember, A contract requires an offer, consideration, acceptance, and a meeting of minds.
Learn to read your own quotes.  The wiki page you cited does not talk about a meeting of minds.  Instead, it speaks of the intention to create legal relations.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Please provide proof of this "implicit" contract. Show me my signature on a document wherein I agreed to this social contract.
Maybe you should look up what the word 'implicit' means next time.

Implicit - capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed.

In other words, all I have to show is that it can be reasonably understood from something else.

You have stated that you are a citizen of the United States.  Per USCIS, there are only three ways to be a citizen in this country - to be a citizen at birth, to be recognized as a citizen after birth (through your parents), and to be a citizen through naturalization.  The latter two both require one to submit a formal application for citizenship, and if you had done so, this would not be an issue.  Therefore you are a citizen at birth, also known as a natural-born citizen.

Also per http://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-rights-and-responsibilities, citizens are considered to have certain specific rights and responsibilities.

Rights:  "Freedom to express yourself", "Freedom to worship as you wish", "Right to a prompt, fair trial by jury", "Right to vote in elections for public officials", "Right to apply for federal employment requiring U.S. citizenship", "Right to run for elected office", "Freedom to pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Responsibilities:  "Support and defend the Constitution", "Stay informed of the issues affecting your community", "Participate in the democratic process", "Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws", "Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others", "Participate in your local community", "Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities", "Serve on a jury when called upon", "Defend the country if the need should arise".

You may have never signed an official document saying you would do these things, but these are the rights and responsibilities of citizens.  As a natural-born citizen, you are implicitly considered to have agreed to these things unless and until you state that you do not, by revoking your citizenship.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
SOCIAL CONTRACT
Irrelevant, because an implicit agreement does not take the form of a formalized written contract.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
It's time to burst that delusion of being a CITIZEN.
Except it is not a delusion.  It is not even an opinion.  It is a statement of fact that you are a natural-born citizen.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
No duty to protect - No citizenship.
Is this "duty to be protected" listed above as a right?  No.  Therefore, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
I'm sorry jaimehlers, the logic does not support your assertion.

I've provided you with the elements of a contract.
I've placed a copy of this alleged social contract above in this post.
I've shown you that being a citizen is a fraud perpetrated by ignorance of the reality of "government" protection.
I'm sorry, Habenae Est Dominatus, but your attempt to rebut contained several mistakes and is thus invalid.  My argument stands.

You made at least two separate mistakes regarding the elements of a contract - mistaking "a meeting of minds" for  "the intention to create legal relations", and in assuming that a contract requires formal, written agreement in order to be valid.

You presented a piece of propaganda written by a member of the Libertarian Party, that has no relevance or bearing to the situation as it actually exists as if it were what citizens actually had to sign in order to become citizens.

And your claim that citizenship requires government protection has been shown to be outright false.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
So now I'll repeat myself, Show me my signature on a document wherein I agreed to alleged this social contract.
Repeat yourself all you want; it will not change the facts of the situation, namely that you were naturally born a citizen and as such, have certain rights and responsibilities as set down by U.S. law.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Yep. If one does not like being a producer on a human farm, one is free to move to another farm.
I watched this earlier and was not impressed.  Honestly, it sounds like someone mistook the book Animal Farm for how governments actually work.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Repeat the WWGHA mantra with me. Evidence?  Evidence?  Evidence?

Or in different words: Cite?
Done and done.  Enjoy.

That has been the case for over two hundred years.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Cite?
In 1790, Congress passed the first naturalization act, which regulated the process of becoming a naturalized citizen; in Article 1 Section 8, the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass such laws.  Furthermore, the Constitution mentions "natural born citizen" in Article II, Section 1; therefore, the existence of natural born citizens was already recognized as of 1787.  This means that people were already citizens, and thus had the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, as of that time, which was approximately 227 years ago.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Cite?
In 1790, Congress passed the first naturalization act, which regulated the process of becoming a naturalized citizen; in Article 1 Section 8, the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass such laws.  Furthermore, the Constitution mentions "natural born citizen" in Article II, Section 1; therefore, the existence of natural born citizens was already recognized as of 1787.  This means that people were already citizens, and thus had the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, as of that time, which was approximately 227 years ago.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Please provide evidence of the law to which you refer to. Failure to produce said law is your admission that you are simply repeating the myth you heard at some watercooler somewhere.
8 U.S. Code 1401 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401) specifically states who shall be citizens at birth;  I believe this section of Title 8 has been in effect since at least 1940 and possibly earlier.  As you have claimed to be a citizen, and I demonstrated earlier that you must therefore be a natural born citizen, you fall under one of the categories listed.

Kindly refrain from insinuating further straw man arguments, such as claiming that I am repeating a myth I heard at some watercooler somewhere.  This is both pointless and insulting.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
I'm probably more aware of law than you are.
As you keep saying:  Evidence?  So far, I am not impressed with your apparent lack of knowledge.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
And I am definitely more up on the actual written words of the US tax law than you are.
Which doesn't matter, as we aren't talking about tax law.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
What citizenship?
The citizenship you claimed in an earlier post (you stated you did not want to burst the bubble of citizenship, which means you are considered a citizen under U.S. law; if necessary I can find the post in question), and which I have now shown the legal basis for via U.S. Code Title 8.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
What authority?
Do I really need to further demonstrate your ignorance and lack of knowledge of U.S. law before the forum, or can we dispense with this charade?

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I've posted the proof in the OP. You have failed to impeach the posted proof.
Your OP is not evidence (or as you put it, proof), it is merely a logical chain of reasoning.  Furthermore, I already refuted your point 104 in an earlier post, and I did so again in this one.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Tell me you were completely unemotional as you typed that diatribe.
I am not a computer or a Vulcan, so I was probably not completely unemotional, but one of my strengths on this forum is that I can keep my emotions in check when I write posts.  There is a saying; patience is a millstone by which one can grind out results.  I exercise a lot of patience when writing posts on this forum.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
My point was that you can state whatever you want regarding whether the government has authority over you or not, but your statements do not actually affect whether it does.  The only way to change that is to have the capability to resist the actions of the government, and I doubt you have that capability, for the simple reason that if you did, you would be acting rather than talking.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
So, are you claiming that might makes right?
Nope.  The fact that gravity will cause you to smash into the ground if you fall off of a cliff doesn't make it right.  Nonetheless, in order to keep gravity from smashing you into the ground like that, you must have the capability to prevent it, such as by not falling off of the cliff, or having a parachute if you do fall off, or having a bungee cord tied to the clifftop, or having something at the bottom to cushion your fall.

--------

Worldviews:  Everyone has one, everyone believes them to be an accurate view of the world, and everyone ends up at least partially wrong.  However, some worldviews are stronger and well-supported, while others are so bizarre that they make no sense to anyone else.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #155 on: Yesterday at 07:09:12 PM »
I also want to thank you for helping expose the religious (superstitious) belief in authority.

It should be noted that all the replies to my posts so far, wherein I ask for certain evidence, those requests are ignored just like the biblegod followers ignore your requests that they supply evidence that biblegod is real.
You've rigged the game.
I'm sure you believe that.

You recognize that the idea of authority exists.
Correct. I recognize the IDEA of authority. I do not recognize that authority itself exists.

You've spelled it out yourself in this thread.
Yes. I have spelled out why I don't believe in the myth of authority.

Many here have expressed how that same manner in which authority exists (i.e. you grant it to another entity) in the way government authority exists - you grant it to them.
Do you have personal first hand knowledge that I granted the State authority over me? If so, please present it.

You don't?  Then why the hell are you still a US citizen?  You don't recognize US government authority - that's fine - so drop the damn citizenship already.
It's time to burst that delusion of being a CITIZEN.

a person who legally belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country
a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien ).
A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.

[T]he police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime.

It’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.” (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981), quoting the trial court decision.)

No duty to protect - No citizenship.


This really isn't that hard.  I'm getting the sensation that you aren't terribly open to ideas that are different from your own.
Ditto.

Okay, I'll engage your distraction.

The bartender has no authority. He's shit out of luck. The best he can do is not serve me a drink the next time I enter his bar.
jaimehler's expressed a scenario where the bartender can do better.

But you seem to be the guy in the bar who keeps asking for drinks and b*tching that the bartender wants money for it.
And this statement furthers your argument how?

Please provide evidence that I am "subject to some level of government authority".
Please provide evidence that "some level of government authority" actually exists. In other words, Whence comes government State authority?
You are a US citizen.  You are a US citizen.  You live in US borders.  You are a US citizen.
So are you asserting that because I'm within the US borders, this magically creates authority?

How does that work exactly? Don't skip any details.
Oh, and you might want to review the points from the original post (presented below for your convenience) before you explain how this magic works.

This really isn't all that hard dude.  If you don't want the benefits (and detriments) of being a US citizen (one of the detriments, certainly according to you, is necessity to recognize US government authority), then reject your US citizenship.  It's as simple as that.  Holy crap.  Really.  It is.  Why are you having such a hard time with this?
Why are you having such a hard time with this?

101. You were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, you were not born with a higher rank than I.
102. Therefore, you DO NOT have a right to command me by your mere birth.
103. If this is true for you, it is true for every other human being born on the planet.
104. If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.
108. If no one has a right to command me, then no one has a right to choose someone to command me.
109. Thus it does not matter how many people vote to give a politician a right to command, if they do not have the right to command me, they do not have the right to give that politician the right to command me.
110. Therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician the right to command me.
111. If the politician does not have a right to command me, then it matters not if I am standing within the boundaries of any territory the politician believes is his to control.


Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4316
  • Darwins +450/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #156 on: Yesterday at 07:43:49 PM »
I never said jails and prisons aren't real. This is a non sequitur.
You asked for evidence that the laws of the Constitution applied to you, Dante replied that if you broke them, maybe your jail cell would be imaginary (as you had described the authority of those laws over you as also being imaginary), and you claimed that was akin to saying "if you don't believe in Biblegod, you're going to rot in hell."  However, as you just stated, jails are not imaginary, therefore the two statements cannot be akin, for the simple fact that hell is imaginary while jails are real.  You can be thrown in a real jail cell, but you cannot be thrown into hell.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
In rebuilding the context, I see that you, jaimehlers, have failed to provide the proof requested as well.
In actual point of fact, most of the Constitution has to do with the powers of the states and the federal government.  They don't really apply to ordinary citizens, or non-citizens for that matter.  But your analogy was bad, and I was pointing that out.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
I don't agree with it. NEXT!

I don't accept it. NEXT!
First, if you don't agree with it or accept it, why then are you still a citizen?  Second, your disagreement and non-acceptance in no way prevents other people from agreeing with it and accepting it, and the government derives its authority from those people.  Therefore, your disagreement and non-acceptance does not prevent the government from receiving that authority and using it.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
I've already addressed this in my reply to your previous post. Social contract... Bwaa ha ha.
The fake "social contract" posted by a Libertarian as propaganda for his party has no bearing on how the situation actually stands.  I posted the actual rights and responsibilities of citizens, which bears no resemblance at all to what you posted.  Therefore my point still stands.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
I've already addressed the myth of citizen in my previous reply to you.
Actually, you did not.  The closest you came was in claiming that if I did not provide evidence of the law which makes one born on American soil a natural born citizen, that I would be 'admitting' that I was simply repeating a 'myth' I heard around some watercooler somewhere.  As I then posted a link to the relevant U.S. Code, that negated your assertion.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Please present your proof.
The Declaration of Independence states that to secure the rights of the people, governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.  That necessarily includes the authority to use that power, else it would be impossible for a government to actually secure those rights.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
What authority?
The authority derived from the consent of the governed.  Which, by the way, includes you, as you are still a citizen.  Claiming that you don't accept it or agree with it is meaningless when you still hold the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.  It is like saying that you could fly if gravity wasn't holding you down.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Please provide evidence that I am wrong in my original post. Just work the first error you see as you go down the numbered list of points. Each following point depends on the preceding point. Break the chain and you win.
Already done.  Point #104 only refers to the right of command derived from birth rank, which is irrelevant in American society and law, and as I showed in that same post, command is not a right, but an ability.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
This applies to your Marc Stevens quote - as I said, it was a bad argument.  Most government services are not compulsory; a family can opt their children out of public school, and out of many other things that government provides.  The reason government provides those services is not because they aren't valuable, but because they're not profitable to provide to the general public.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
I'm sure that's your opinion.
If so, it's easy to show.  How many people have you actually convinced of your thesis?

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Proof?
I value my cats, even though they cost me quite a bit of money (paying for food, cat litter, flea treatments when they need it, not to mention vaccinations and occasional vet visits).  So even though I take a significant monetary loss by owning them, I value them more than the money I lose.  So something can be valuable without being profitable.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
I draw my own water... It's called a "well". It runs on electricity. On the other end, it's called a septic tank and septic field. There are other methods for household sanitation that does not require the State.
Well, if you do it that way, that's your business.  But many people, especially those who live in cities, rely on the water and sewage infrastructure of that city, which the city maintains.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
You forgot trash pickup. Oh wait... That was a private service when I lived in New Jersey.
Why do you think I didn't mention trash pickup?  In some places, it's a public service, and in some places, it's private.  Depends on how the city does t.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Please provide your evidence to support your assertion that the State can do it cheaper than non-State providers. Be sure to fully internalize all costs.
I did not assert that; you need to work on your reading comprehension.

A service provided by an organ of a government does not need to make a profit (because government receives money through taxes).  If it does not need to make a profit, then its costs are generally less.  Do I need to spell this out further?

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Proof?
Let's take the money a city charges for water and sewage service.  Because the city brings in tax revenues from other sources, it does not need to pay the employees who work on these things with the proceeds it charges for the service.  Furthermore, it does not need to make a profit to pay shareholders and owners.  For a private company to provide the same service, it would have to pay its employees from the proceeds and it would also have to make a profit for the shareholders, owners, executive staff, and so on.  I suppose it might be possible for a private corporation that was willing to cut costs and shave its profit margin enough to be able to 'compete' with the city, but would it then be able to provide a comparable level of service?  I honestly can't think of any examples where this has been done.

Do you have any?  Please avoid hyperbole in your response.
Worldviews:  Everyone has one, everyone believes them to be an accurate view of the world, and everyone ends up at least partially wrong.  However, some worldviews are stronger and well-supported, while others are so bizarre that they make no sense to anyone else.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11539
  • Darwins +563/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #157 on: Yesterday at 10:52:55 PM »
And with all due respect in return, your disproof and impeachment of that logic is in which reply of yours?

Sorry.  That's now how it works.  You do not make assertions ansd then demand they be disproved.  The burden of proof is yours.  Logic is nice and dandy.  But logic alone is insufficient. 

101a. Where is your evidence that you were born my king, my superior, or my sovereign?  Where is your evidence that you were born with a higher rank than I?
102a. Where is your evidence that you DO have a right to command me by your mere birth?
108a. Where is your evidence that you DO have a right to choose someone to command me?

Straw man arguments.  Please stop doing that.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11539
  • Darwins +563/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #158 on: Yesterday at 11:21:12 PM »
I a I have spelled out why I don't believe in the myth of authority.
 you have personal first hand knowledge that I granted the State authority over me? If so, please present it.

So, what is the difference between you, who apparently is some kind of nutziod antigovernment anarchist, but someone who generally stays within the law (I assume, otherwise we'd be reading about some crazy standoff and murder-suicide in the news), and a serial killer who also does not "consent to authority"?  Besides the killing, I mean.  If neither of you are beholden to our laws, then how are we to handle the serial killer?


a person who legally belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country

Nope.  You do not get to use a dictionary definition of citizen and then quote a legal decision (without actually understanding it, btw). They are apples and oranges.  Like when idiot religious people say evolution is just a theory.  F minus on both counts.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4316
  • Darwins +450/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #159 on: Today at 12:25:22 AM »
You didn't really do a very good job of it, though.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
I showed this in my post.  You really need to at least look the post over before you trot out catchphrases like this.  This is part of the reason your arguments tend to be less effective than you think they are.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
I'll concede the point without argument. Purchasing gasoline in the States is a good example.
That was why I said you didn't do a very good job of it, because you identified an option which would really not be very effective as the best one the bartender could do.  Take purchasing gasoline - how would the cashiers be able to identify the person (or their automobile) who drove off without paying in order to ensure they couldn't buy gas in the future?  Say they did get sufficient identifying information to tell who it was; then they would have to identify the person again if they came back, before the person could fill their tank at the station's expense.  It would be quite difficult, especially considering that gas stations tend to do a lot of business, including walk-in customers who purchase various things, which requires an employee to be inside the store.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Dunno about you, but I typically put my federal reserve note on the bar when I order. Likewise I have some in hand when I order fast food.
I usually carry my money (or bank card) inside my wallet, but I usually pull my wallet out once the clerk has started totaling up the purchases.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
The problem with your scenario here, is that you are relying upon the exception instead of the customary to make your case.
Therein lies the problem.  It's an exception in the society we currently live in, with law enforcement that generally acts as a deterrent to crime, but it's questionable if the same could be said for the libertopia[1] you espouse.  Such a society would depend on individuals governing themselves, which sounds all well and good, but what happens if and when you have individuals who aren't interested in abiding by that code, or are simply too stupid to see past short-term selfishness?  Per the laws of stupidity, we will always underestimate the number of stupid individuals in circulation, and non-stupid people always underestimate the dangers of associating with stupid people.  So it's pretty reasonable to conclude that even a libertopia would have its share of stupid people, who could easily crash the system despite the actions of the intelligent people who would act to support it.

Let me give an example.  Last week, my martial arts instructor had a couple of new students in his class.  While he was changing out of his practice gi in a changing booth, with only one long-term student, a young woman, out in the main dojo room, one of the new students took several of the practice weapons and ran out of the dojo when the instructor called on him to halt.  In the society we actually live in, he was able to call the police and give them the name, address, and phone number of this student due to him having signed a liability waver before he could take the class.  As a result, he had his weapons returned to him and the young man is now sitting in a jail cell, charged with grand larceny.

In the libertopia you espouse, the instructor would have had no recourse but to either accept the loss of the weapons plus the cost of replacing them, or to attempt to track down the thief himself.  But that would have been very problematic, for the simple reason that the owner of the home could simply bar him entrance.  In the libertopia, the thief escapes with his ill-gotten gains, and the instructor ends up having to pay to replace the missing weapons.  In short, the one who practiced responsible self-governance would be penalized, and the ones who ignored responsible self-governance and acted on short-term selfishness profit.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
And your evidence to prove honor among thieves is...?
It's a truism and an aphorism.  Thieves and other people who break the laws of normal societies have no recourse to the law if someone attempts to cheat them, so it's in their interests to abide by the agreements they make with each other.  And even then, you still get people who are stupid enough to break those agreements anyway for purely short-term gain.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
]Proof?
It's a reasonable conclusion from the "honor among thieves" aphorism.  Would you ask for proof of "the boy who cried wolf" story too?

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Not having been to drug deals gone bad, I can't address this honor among thieves assertion. Neither have I been to drug deals that haven't gone bad.

Perhaps you could enlighten us all with your federal rules of evidence #602 first hand knowledge of this honor among thieves?
As my statement was a truism and an aphorism, your question only displays your literal-mindedness.  If I tell the story of "the boy who cried wolf", do I have to actually have been one of the villagers, or the boy himself, in order to explain the moral of the story?

Also, your strawman insinuation that I would have firsthand knowledge of honor among thieves is not appreciated.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Well of course... If you ignore the State's violence against the people.
What is this 'State' you keep referring to?  It sounds like you're using it the way you would use Big Brother (from George Orwell's 1984), or possibly as if it were the name of an organism.  As you have given no evidence to show that this 'State' you keep referring to exists, I cannot be sure.

Anyway, the videos you linked are of the brutality of a subset of police officers.  How do you know that their actions represent the aggregate policy of police departments across the country, especially since many of those brutal police officers are ultimately punished for their actions (by the police department, or the city/county government, or by civil litigation)?

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Perhaps you missed the post wherein I showed the amount of deaths, i.e. the violence, IN SPITE of the (alleged) authority of government the State.
You may wish to watch this video:    It is a talk given by Steven Pinker in 2007 about the overall decline of violence through history, and it's really interesting.

To summarize his conclusion, violence has decreased overall from the beginnings of human history; the 20th and 21st centuries are arguably the most peaceful worldwide ever.  But don't take my word for it; watch the video.
 1. in lieu of typing "libertarian utopia"
Worldviews:  Everyone has one, everyone believes them to be an accurate view of the world, and everyone ends up at least partially wrong.  However, some worldviews are stronger and well-supported, while others are so bizarre that they make no sense to anyone else.