Author Topic: Belief in authority is a religion  (Read 4629 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1646
  • Darwins +62/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #174 on: April 26, 2014, 05:15:55 PM »
The idea of private property implies property owners voluntarily suscribe to a set of enforceable laws to maintain it and a system of control to implement the laws and physically protect and prosecute.

this all voluntary and rational...we call it society to claim it is a fiction is mischief at best and out of touch with reality.


check the hovind court case...he denied owing taxes to the state cos the laws of man are invalid and he only answers to god.  he also claim he had no wealth to tax cos it all belonged to god not him...he got 10 in prison.
Signature goes here...

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #175 on: April 27, 2014, 07:12:52 AM »
News flash: Nature does not confer "rights."  You still haven't explained what a "right" is, or why it is any more real than Santa Claus yet.
Ahhh, You're the one my subconscious was addressing.

If rights do not exist, then the cooperative doesn't have them either. Therefore the cooperative doesn't have any more authority (right to command) than the individual. Ditto "government" and the State.

This is the point that all those indoctrinated in the belief of authority keep missing. You can NOT give what you do not possess, what you do not own. One CAN NOT delegate authority (right to command) that one does not have.

You are correct in the that rights that are violated are not rights. Regardless, are you going to assert that you are more equal than me, or that we are equal equal?

"Equal equal."
Then you can not authorize anybody to command me.

You keep missing the point I'm making though: I am not asserting a "right" to command you by birth.  I have been talking about capacity to command, by force.
Uh huh.

And what's the difference between a Somali Warlord, an  Afghanistan Warlord, a Libyan Warlord, a Mafioso Capo, or the State when ALL command by force?

It appears to me that you already know the State uses force to control. You just won't accept that it is no more legitimate than a warlord or dictator. It's all comply or die regardless of what the entity alleged to be "governing" is. Hence Habenae Est Dominatus - Government Is Tyranny.

That capacity exists, at least in potential.  Each person has a certain capacity to wield force against other people.
And that capacity is always going to be there, whether the delusional belief in authority exists or not, whether the State exists or not.

So, should people just be able to use their capacity for violence whenever they like, or should some cooperative arrangement be made so as to regulate and minimize its use?
The form of this statement/question is A or B? While implying B = not A.
Therefore implying a conclusion of If B, then not A.
However, B is alleged to exist in reality. And even though B seems to exist in reality, we still have A that exists in reality.

Thus the reality of simultaneous A and B negates A or B. And since A exists in either case, it is B that is negated.

Fact of the matter is, the Colonists had to win a war and form a government in order to make the Declaration of Independence stick.  If you read the next line, you'd notice that the DoI explains why we create governments.  Funny how you missed that.
I didn't miss it. It is not germane to my position.

Translation: "My position has no effective rebuttal to this argument.  Therefore, LA LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEEEEARRRR YOUUUU!"
My statement stands: the next line is not germane to my position. So here is a more detailed addressing of this non-germane issue...

Quote from: DoI
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The State is instituted by the consent of the governed. Please provide evidence that I consented.

The simple truth is that you can NOT present such proof because it doesn't exist. And furthermore, I state and have stated, that I DO NOT CONSENT.

Therefore, the State can not be instituted based upon MY consent. My consent doesn't exist.

And as a matter of logic, it could not have been instituted by your consent. You were NOT even alive at the time of this alleged instituting. Therefore you did NOT have a contract with anyone to represent that you gave your consent to this alleged instituting either. Ergo: You did NOT, could NOT consent to this alleged instituting.

Quote from: Larken Rose
I won’t give anyone permission to rule me, and I don’t have the right to give anyone permission to rule you.   Clear enough?

>snip more blather about "rights."<  What is a "right?"
I will answer this where it is asked a second time below.

How much does a cubic foot of "rights" weigh?
1/27th of a cubic yard of rights.

Do you believe in Santa Claus?

Nope. Santa is just as mythical as State authority.

Replacing the context kcrady removed to better understand what follows:
Therefore, in order to prevent the destruction of society via the competitive application of this capacity (i.e., violence unleashed unpredictably at individual whim), we need a way to regulate and limit this capacity.
Here are three videos of the State's agents unleashing violence unpredictably at their individual whim.
So, your logic is, "some cops are bad, therefore there should be no cops?"
<sarcasm> Are you not paying attention? </sarcasm>

Cops are the State's agents. Cops are the alleged mechanism of the State to "prevent the destruction of society via the competitive application of this capacity (i.e., violence unleashed unpredictably at individual whim)". Cops are the alleged mechanism to  "regulate and limit this capacity."

Your statements/arguments, in the aggregate, take this form:

We need not A or else we will have A. (A is bad.)
In order to have not A, we need X.

To which I point out: X does A.
Thus in spite of X, we still have A.

PLUS:

No one can delegate an authority that they do NOT have.
Cops don't have the authority they are believed to have because no one has that authority to delegate to the cops in the first place.

How about "some humans are bad, therefore there should be no humans?"

Here's your main problem: You are comparing real (and therefore, flawed) government, police, etc. with a perfect libertarian utopia that exists, and can exist, only in your head.
I am calling you on your use of the perfect solution fallacy. Perfect_solution_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacyWiki
Quote
The perfect solution fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.
I'm not arguing what to replace the State with. Other than where you have reeled me in, I have not posited anything about what to replace the illegitimate State with.

Therefore, I'm also calling you on your use of the strawman argument.Straw_manWiki

I am arguing that government the State has no authority.
If the State has no authority, its officers, agents, and employees don't either.

In Libertopia, everybody abides by the Non-Aggression Principle.  Even when they carry their Uzis into bars and get roaring drunk, they never get in gunfights because, Non-Aggression Principle.  Nobody ever says, "Hey, I never signed any contract to obey a 'Non-Aggression Principle!'  I do not consent!  You can't command me!"  *BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM!"  Everybody always gets to do exactly what they want, and somehow this never causes any conflicts or problems.  My "right" to have a DIY nuclear reactor never presents a problem for my neighbors, just as their "right" to have huge parties with heavy metal music playing at rock-concert volume never, ever bothers me.  Oh, frabjous day!

Well, sure.  If you compare actual capitalism with the United Federation of Planets, the UFP would win.  If I could post a video about a business polluting or exploiting its employees or committing fraud or selling unsafe products, would you agree that all business should be abolished?  I doubt it.

What you need to do, is compare actual governed societies with actual stateless societies.
And what you need to do is pay attention to the evidence I have provided.

Only then is it possible to determine which imperfect system works better in the real world.  Because a system that does not and cannot work in the real world is a system you will never get to live in.  You are only serving yourself up a recipe for permanent disappointment and frustration if you're measuring the real world against imaginary perfection that you cannot ever translate into a practical reality.
This is more of your strawman argument. It is also starting to smell a little of the Appeal_to_consequencesWiki fallacy.

You continue to Rah! Rah! for the State. In the second half of this two part post I will focus you on the lack of State's authority.


What you are prescribing is this: "We need a government that is strong enough to vanquish all enemies, yet can't trample on our rights."  The contradiction here is obvious.

Not quite.  My prescription is more like, "We need a government that is strong enough to minimize crime and deter foreign attack, but not so strong that we cannot hold it accountable for its actions."
The contradiction is still obvious.

In the real world, we don't get to have the kind of perfected Absolutes you seem to think in.  No government will ever "vanquish ALL enemies," nor will any area without a government provide Absolute Freedom.

No government will ever be legitimate if it pretends authority that it does not have.
No government has authority.

There are laws against murder in all States and Federal Zones. Please explain how that law's working for these 59,659 people.

Better than the absence of law is working for places like Somalia and Syria.
What absence of law? The warlords are the law, with the same lack of authority as the 51 States in middle North America.

BTW, about 40,000 people die every year in car crashes.  Do you want to eliminate cars?
Cars don't pretend they are legitimate authority.

After all, you'd never get in wrecks with instantaneous teleportation, so why don't we use that instead?

Quote from: Illinois Compiled Statutes
745 ILCS 10/4?102.
Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals. This immunity is not waived by a contract for private security service, but cannot be transferred to any non?public entity or employee.
The 40 words in bold are verbatim in New Jersey and California statutes as well.

This doesn't mean police have no obligation to fight crime.  It just means they can't be sued in court for not being omnipresent, omnipotent, and infallible.
Oh come on now....

Point of logic: If person can't be sued for failure to do X, then that person has NO OBLIGATION to do X.

(This is another myth of government: the police exist to protect you.)

My wife got a hesitant admission from one of our county deputy sheriffs that they only had three legal duties. Protect prisoners, Serve warrants, and some unremembered third duty which was NOT provide protection to the public.

Bottom line: The police don't even have an obligation to respond to 911 calls.

Can you find an example of a private security firm that agrees to be held liable if they fail to prevent a robbery or property damage to a place they're hired to guard?

In order for you to "have" a "right to life," I must recognize your right to command me and constrain my actions within a limited sphere, and vice versa.
Almost correct. You must recognize your own duty to treat others as you wish to be treated. You must recognize your own duty to not initiate force against others.

I must?  Sez you?! 
Then don't.

I still have a right to life. I still have a right to protect that life from threats against it. You still don't have authority over me. And you still can't delegate an authority over me to anybody else.

Likewise, if you assert a "right to life," you are simultaneously commanding me not to kill you.

See how it works?
I'm not commanding you to do or not do anything. Actions have consequences, regardless of the rules. You choose what you are going to do, and I'll choose how I will respond.

If you attempt to attack me, I will defend using whatever method I determine is best for the situation you create when you INITIATE force against me.

Sure.  Wouldn't it be nice if there was an organization that could deter people from initiating force against you,
That would be the one with no obligation to protect.

that would send reinforcements to help you when you called?
That would be the one with no obligation to even answer the phone.

Yet does dialing 911 actually protect crime victims? Researchers found that less than 5 percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect. The 911 bottom line: “cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare.”

Even if they weren't the Justice League?  And if they could provide things like roads
Arguing that we need the State to build roads is just like arguing that we need slaves to pick cotton.

ROADS by Larken Rose

and sewers and clean air and national parks and the ability to deter whole countries from invading, wouldn't that be awesome?  And if, as a bonus, they'd launch satellites that can detect exoplanets, put rovers on Mars, and create networks for nearly instantaneous global cybernetic communication, and groups of doctors to watch for disease epidemics and have plans and facilities in place to respond if one happens...how cool would that be?   
It would be really cool... Really. All they would need to do is finance it by extortion. Oh wait. That is what the State does.

You have, in that instance, violated the Non Agression Principle.

So let me ask you, If every law against murder is rescinded, would you start committing murders?

No, but
Quote
but conjunction used to introduce a statement that adds something to a previous statement and usually contrasts with it in some way
The conjunctives but and however basically erase everything that precedes them. Thus, "No, but" is another way of saying "yes". Thus I see why you want people who will tell you what to do or not do.

No, but the existence of murder proves that there are people who want to commit murder.
And it also proves they do it in spite of the load of horse crap about the State providing protection and deterrence.

If it suddenly became much easier to get away with it, people who currently just fantasize about killing might decide to do it for real, and/or the people who already murder could get away with it more often, or for a longer period of time before they're stopped.  Likewise for theft, rape, etc..
Uh huh.

You are confusing laws against murder with actual interference of the act itself. Law against murder doesn't make murder harder. Lack of law against murder doesn't make murder easier. It will take the same force to pull the trigger. It will take the same force to drive a bayonet in to the hilt.

Quote from: Jackney Sneeb
"People need to be controlled, lest they run amok."  This is related to number three, except that it's directed at those other people -- you know, the ones who can't be trusted to determine right from wrong for themselves.  Usually the authoritarian will admit that he uses his own judgment to live his life, and in some cases can even prove to a Christian why he doesn't need a bunch of old men in the bible making commandments for him to obey.  Then he goes out of his way to insist that a bunch of old men in congress should make commandments for everyone to obey -- including him.  Unfortunately, the inevitable result is a kakistocracy, meaning "government by the worst among us."  The bad guys the authoritarians want to be saved from are most likely going to be running for office to have the power to make laws and enforce them.  Who else but the worst among us would want to order us around and take our money?  Bad guys make bad laws.  They also lie, cheat, steal, and break promises -- pretty reliable evidence that they really are the bad guys.  Yet the authoritarian winds up voting for them to control everyone.
 
On the flip side, virtually every authoritarian claims that he himself is capable of running his own life -- as above, it's just those other people who can't.  Each one of them wants an agency based on force to control everyone else -- each one of whom likewise claims to be able to run his own life.  It's as if no one liked broccoli, and everyone thought everyone else needed broccoli but him.  So, everyone votes for everyone else to have broccoli.  It's just as bad to say some people need broccoli, so everyone else must have it, too.

Remember, those laws didn't help 59,659 people shown above.

Yeah?
Yeah.

And how much help did they get from the "Non-Aggression Principle?"
The same as they got from the State.

What is that, by the way?
http://nap.univacc.net/

Can it make a reindeer fly?
Can the non-existent authority of the State?

I'm only dangerous to those who attempt to violate my RIGHT to be left alone. In other word's I am only dangerous to those who attempt to command me when I have offered no offence whatsoever.

Other than that, I'm a big teddy bear.

So, if you try to take a woman's clothes off, and she yells "Stop!" will you do as she says, or assert that she's got no right to command you?
Loaded_questionWiki
Why would I attempt do that in the first place? That would violate the Non-Aggression Principle.

And actions still have consequences.


If the former, then you accept that other people have a "right" to command you, within a limited sphere.  Do you accept that limited sphere (defined by the "Non Aggression Principle" or some comparable ethical code of civilized behavior), or just go around saying "Nobody can command me!"
Loaded_questionWiki

>Snip more "rights, rights, rights," blah blah blah, pointless until you define what a "right" is and why it matters<
So a right to life is pointless? So a right to liberty is pointless?

I live. I have a life. You live. You have a life. If you initiate force against me with the intent to take my life, I am justified in using whatever force is required to resist your attack, including killing you if it comes to that. Murder and killing in self defense are not equates even though both end a life.

I have justly acquired property. If you initiate force against me in order to take my property, then I have a justifiable reason to resist using whatever force is required to prevent you from taking my property.

I am supposed to have liberty. If you initiate force against me in order to enslave me, then I have a justifiable reason to resist using whatever force is required to prevent you from enslaving me.

Thus a right is the shortcut term for "do not attempt to take this object for such an attempt justifies forceful resistance".
Thus a right to life means "do not attempt to take this life for such an attempt justifies forceful resistance."

End of part 1.

Do to post size limitations, this will be continued in the next post.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #176 on: April 27, 2014, 07:13:51 AM »
Part 2.
If individuals are left to fend for themselves in protecting their rights, then we're in a situation of competitive individual violence between aggressors and victims...
Your responses in this post indicate that you just might be a GUN GRABBER, that is, somebody who thinks gun control laws reduce crime. Please confirm or deny.

I am neither a GUN GRABBER!!!!one!!!eleventy!!1 nor a "I should be able to buy a missile launcher at the hardware store!" nut.
Maybe not at the hardware store... Nevertheless, I should be able to buy a missile launcher. No different than buying a cannon.
For your perusal on the subject: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=234839.0

I do think it's pretty cool that gun owners get to leave their guns at home most of the time,
Get to? I've provided you with the Illinois statute clearly stating that the police have no duty to protect. Here's the rest of the story:

Quote
720 ILCS 5/24?1.
Unlawful Use of Weapons.
(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly: (4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person [...] any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm
[...] ;or (10) Carries or possesses on or about his person, upon any public street, alley, or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town [...] any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, [...]

720 ILCS 5/24?1.6.
Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.
(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon when he or she knowingly: (1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person
[...] any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm; or (2) Carries or possesses on or about his or her person, upon any public street, alley, or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town, [...] any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm; and (3) One of the following factors is present: (A) the firearm possessed was uncased, loaded and immediately accessible at the time of the offense; or [...] (C) the person possessing the firearm has not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card; [...]

And what part of "shall not be infringed" did the politician's of Illinois not understand? Thus proving that the State and those within that corporation don't even obey the rules as required.

and don't have to pack heat everywhere they go, always having to be ready to draw first.  I wonder how that works?
It works just like when you held your mommy's or nanny's hand when out and about. They'll protect you just like the State is alleged to protect you.

If individuals are left to fend for themselves in protecting their rights, then we're in a situation of competitive individual violence between aggressors and victims and/or between people who have disputes over whose "rights" are being violated...
The WWGHA mantra... Say it with me: EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE?

1) Go to a populated stateless area, or a "failed state."
Done. I'm within the borders of the central north american human farm.

2) Look around.
Done.

I see a State with no authority. I see an illegitimate State because it lacks authority, pretends it has authority, and threatens people daily with violence.

I see that murders and robbery still happen in spite of the state.

EXTRA CREDIT:

3) Name a region that operates under a successful Libertarian Anarchy (or whatever label you'd use for your viewpoint).
My neighborhood.

My neighbors and I get along just fine. We don't need cops sitting on the street to keep us from each other's throats. We don't need cops sitting on the street to keep us from stealing each other's property. We, like the majority of the population, respect each other's non-existent rights.

If individuals are left to fend for themselves in protecting their rights, then we're in a situation of competitive individual violence between aggressors and victims and/or between people who have disputes over whose "rights" are being violated (e.g. one person claims a "right" to build a house on a certain spot, but another person claims that the land in question is "their property"--who's the aggressor?).
Make shit up much?

The issue here, is who certifies the ownership. And non-government State organizations can handle this... Just think Title Insurance companies.

What, pray tell, is a "Title Insurance company?"
If you don't know what a title insurance company is, then you have never purchased real estate.

Go, Read, Learn.

GIYF

What would a "Title Insurance company" do if somebody doesn't recognize a "Title" they issue?
Probably the same thing they do now with encumbered titles.

I didn't sign any contract with "Acme Title Insurance Company"--whatever that is--to recognize its "titles!"  You can't command me, "Acme Title Insurance Company!" 

301. Admit or deny: Does "Acme Title Insurance Company" (whatever that is) have a right to command me by birth?
Deny.

Sniff, sniff. Something is wafting in on the air. Perhaps Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imaginationWiki
Quote
P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

Some of the immediate words of kcrady amount to a strawman set up to attack my position because I have not presented a solution to replace the illegitimate State. 

Quote
Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacyWikiThe perfect solution fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.
Point of observation: My sparring partner is coming up with all sorts of arguments FOR government the State and nothing of consequence proving that it has "authority" or "a right to command".

If rights don't exist - Then the State doesn't have them either.

And what's this WE shit Kemo Sabe? WE were born into this system... Just as second generation slaves were born into that system. Just as the slave had no say, WE had no say in creating the system.

Yeah!  Take THAT, "Acme Title Insurance Company!"
YEAH! Take THAT "Habenae Est Dominatus!"

(Whatever the fuck THAT is...)

In order for you to have "rights" to life, liberty, etc., you must live in a civilization wherein you agree to be commanded within a limited sphere (i.e., you'll obey commands not to violate others' rights) in return for others abiding by the same rules.
Evidence to support your assertion?

Can you find me a single example of people having "rights" outside the context of a governed civilization?
Philosophic_burden_of_proofWiki
Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacyWiki

Are you asserting that without those rules you would violate other's rights?

Nope.  Are you asserting that without any rules, nobody would violate others' rights?
We have rules and rights are still being violated.

So who enforces the traffic rules when there are no cops around? Perhaps you are self-governing... The only government there actually is. That is unless you blow through every stop sign you come to when no cops are around.

Can you give me a reason why I shouldn't blow through a stop sign?
I could... But I won't.

I'm not the boss of you. It's not my job to teach you that Actions Have Consequences. It's your choice to learn it or not.

YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME, STOP SIGN!  BTW, where do stop signs come from?
Funds extorted from the People by the State.

I don't think I've ever seen one appear by magic.

There is no "government". There is only the "State."

What is the difference, in your view?  Why would it matter if we call it a "government" vs. calling it a "State?"
Calling the State "government" implies it has the authority to govern. It doesn't.

Before I fully digested Lysander Spooner's NO TREASON, I was referring to the State as the Proxy. The servant does not command the master on what to do. If you like, I can cite the SCOTUS opinions that support this point.

>snip more "rights" "rights" "rights," still not relevant if you can't define "rights," show that they exist, explain why they matter in reality, and explain how your system can provide/protect/etc. them better than a representative democratic government can<
First off, I don't have the burden of explaining what you creatively call my "system". I never asserted one existed.  Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacyWiki You are pretending that I did. Philosophic_burden_of_proofWiki

Second, if rights don't exist, then a representative democratic government doesn't have a right to command, thereby making its commands illegitimate.

You started this thread by claiming that government does not exist, which requires a concretes-only metaphysics to pull off.  You seem to be willing to accept the existence of "rights" and "Title Insurance companies" though, so I don't see how your argument is consistent.
That's because you are a religious believer in government, i.e. the State. In order to believe in those things, you need to believe in authority, because without authority, the State can't govern (make commands of the People.).

Any of your posts wherein you have challenged what happens without a government State is just one big appeal to consequences fallacy. Appeal_to_consequencesWiki

Since you want to continue to argue for the State, and you don't accept "rights" as originally posted, I'll set you up with something else to deny.

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 authority over me 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 authority over me.
108. If no one has authority over me, then no one has a right to choose someone to have authority over me.
109. Thus it does not matter how many people vote to give a politician authority, if they do not have authority over me, they do not have the authority to give that politician authority over me.
110. Therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician authority over me.
111. If the politician does not have authority over me, then it matters not if I am standing within the boundaries of any territory the politician believes is his to control.

This is a chain of logic. Break one link and the chain is broken. Break the chain and you terminate my position.

Start with the lowest numbered point where you think I am in error and focus on that point. Provide your logical disproof of that one point.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #177 on: April 27, 2014, 07:35:42 AM »
Maybe you already posted and I missed it. 

What is your alternative? 

edit - by that I mean, what is your alternative to our current government?  No government at all?  Every man for himself?  Feudalism?

Not to aggravate any more than necessary, and certainly without malice, I'm not under any duty to provide alternatives to replace the current system that is provably lacking in authority.

Some here have been attempting to use the lack of alternative in order to negate my point(s).

This doesn't mean I won't discuss it. It just means I won't discuss it now.


Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #178 on: April 27, 2014, 08:50:29 AM »
I want to thank you (again) for helping expose the religious (superstitious) belief in authority.

In starting this thread, belief in authority, in the case of the State's commands, has as a component, the belief that the State's authority is somehow legitimate while the robber's is not. Yet as you so thoughtfully point out, it is based upon the same thing: Do what I/we say or I/we will hurt you.
Actually, no.
Actually yes.

Quote
Use_of_force_continuumWiki
A use of force continuum is a standard that provides law enforcement officials & security officers (such as police officers, probation officers, or corrections officers) with guidelines as to how much force may be used against a resisting subject in a given situation. [...] Most often the models are presented in "stair step" fashion, with each level of force matched by a corresponding level of subject resistance, although it is generally noted that an officer need not progress through each level before reaching the final level of force.

The US government's authority[1] is not based on the threat of force, ala "I have my hand around your throat (or a gun pointed at you) so you'd better give me what I want".
 1. you can call it "the State" if you want, as if we lived in one of Orwell's books, or some other dystopian fantasy, but that doesn't make a government in the real world synonymous with, say, the rulers in the Hunger Games, or the Divergent trilogy, or even The Giver



The US government's authority is derived from the people who accept the necessity of having a government, and act in a manner consistent with that.
Argumentum_ad_populumWiki

Just because indoctrinated people believe something to be true doesn't prove it is true.
Just because these people believe the State has authority doesn't mean it does.
If the people don't have a specific authority, they can NOT give that authority to any other entity.
Therefore, no one can give the State authority over anybody else.

One of the reasons that government exists is to safeguard the common good.  As the Declaration of Independence states, government exists to protect certain rights which we hold to exist for ourselves, and when government stops protecting those rights, it becomes necessary to alter it, or replace it with something that does.
Little problem there.

"Government", i.e. the State, is the biggest violator of certain rights.
What are you going to replace it with... Another "government"?
Regardless of what you replace it with, you don't have the ability to give it authority over me, because you don't have authority over me.

It is not a wise idea to remove that safeguard without having one of equal or better effectiveness to go in its place.
What safeguard?

I'll bet you think there were no human rights violations at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib.

Quote
Guantanamo_Bay_detention_campWiki
The Washington Post, in a 8 May 2004 article, described a set of interrogation techniques approved for use in interrogating alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, characterized them as cruel and inhumane treatment illegal under the U.S. Constitution.[129] On 15 June, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, commander at Abu Ghraib in Iraq during the prisoner abuse scandal, said she was told from the top to treat detainees like dogs "as it is done in Guantánamo [Camp Delta]." The former commander of Camp X-Ray, Geoffrey Miller, had led the inquiry into the alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq during the Allied occupation. Ex-detainees of the Guantanamo Camp have made serious allegations, including alleging Geoffrey Miller's complicity in abuse at Camp X-Ray.

So, as screwtape asked, what's your alternative to the existing government?

And as I answered screwtape:
Quote
Not to aggravate any more than necessary, and certainly without malice, I'm not under any duty to provide alternatives to replace the current system that is provably lacking in authority.

Some here have been attempting to use the lack of alternative in order to negate my point(s).

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #179 on: April 27, 2014, 09:16:50 AM »
Again, in review of the thread I find something I need to further address.
Here's something in this thread for you to address.  It may help the rest of us understand what it is you're looking for:

Well we could start with the right to life and the right to liberty.

As asked by others:  What is your evidence that these exist?

Quote from: In answer to the same question by kcrady
So a right to life is pointless? So a right to liberty is pointless?

I live. I have a life. You live. You have a life. If you initiate force against me with the intent to take my life, I am justified in using whatever force is required to resist your attack, including killing you if it comes to that. Murder and killing in self defense are not equates even though both end a life.

I have justly acquired property. If you initiate force against me in order to take my property, then I have a justifiable reason to resist using whatever force is required to prevent you from taking my property.

I am supposed to have liberty. If you initiate force against me in order to enslave me, then I have a justifiable reason to resist using whatever force is required to prevent you from enslaving me.

Thus a right is the shortcut term for "do not attempt to take this object for such an attempt justifies forceful resistance".
Thus a right to life means "do not attempt to take this life for such an attempt justifies forceful resistance."
Quote from: Another answer to kcrady on the same issue
If you don't think something should be done to you, then it is a right. You don't want anybody taking your life, so you have a right to life (your weaseling about rights not existing notwithstanding.) You don't want anybody enslaving you, so you have a right to liberty. You don't want anybody taking your stuff, so you have a right to property. (It must be justly acquired property.) You don't want people rifling through your papers, so you have a right to be free of (warrantless) searches of your person or property. You don't want to be harassed in going about your daily affairs, so you don't want warrantless police checkpoints.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #180 on: April 27, 2014, 09:20:21 AM »
What evidence do you rely upon to prove they even know I exist?

Perhaps they don't care whether or not you exist, and they're more interested in the benefits of cooperating with one another.
Yep.

Disagreement only becomes a problem if your actions impact them negatively, or if their actions affect them negatively; until and unless that happens, this is a thought experiment.
Yep.

I appreciate your neutral observation.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #181 on: April 27, 2014, 09:34:49 AM »
Perhaps I missed something along the way, but how is the term "religion" being defined in this context?  Right now, it sounds like the word is being used so broadly, it's hard to take this conversation seriously.

Fair question.

Religion is a set of variously organized beliefs about the relationship between natural and supernatural aspects of reality, and the role of humans in this relationship.

Quote
Religion is a set of variously organized beliefs about the relationship between natural and supernatural aspects of authority, and the role of humans in this relationship.

You keep saying we are asserting authority has supernatural aspects. How many times do you need to be told we asserting no such thing? Are you really that dense, or just that willing to lie?

The only attempts made to prove the State's alleged authority, the State's alleged right to command, is the blather that it was consented to. As I address those posts in this thread, I will be whittling away any logical support of this belief. What will be left is illogical proof, i.e. "magic".

What follows is the path of authority. It does NOT connect back to the people, thus belief in State's alleged authority, created by consent, that can not be proven, is belief in magic.

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 authority over me 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 authority over me.
108. If no one has authority over me, then no one has a right to choose someone to have authority over me.
109. Thus it does not matter how many people vote to give a politician authority, if they do not have authority over me, they do not have the authority to give that politician authority over me.
110. Therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician authority over me.
111. If the politician does not have authority over me, then it matters not if I am standing within the boundaries of any territory the politician believes is his to control.

I've narrowed this down to only eight steps, and reworded it since some here have such a hard time (and gave me such a hard time) with the concept of rights.
(And I thank them for helping me refine my presentation of my position.)

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #182 on: April 27, 2014, 11:17:47 AM »
What I am, is irrelevant to what I say. If Charles Manson says you should eat your vegetables because the fiber is good for you, are you going to argue it isn't true because Manson is crazy?

No.  I'm going to totally ignore it because it came from Charles Manson. And I'm certainly not going to have a conversation with him about it. 
Quote
Appeal_to_accomplishmentWikiThe inverse, saying that a person of a particular type cannot be trusted to speak on a matter

I think most of what you have to say stems from some of the absolute worst impusles in American culture and, frankly, sounds nuts.
I'm not sure about what you are addressing.

  Plus, you've left a lot of gaps. 
It appears to be intentional, though I do not know why. 
Again, I'm not sure what you are aiming at.

I will 'fess up that I am aware of how most people will react to the thoughts I present. Could be I simply wasn't clear in my presentation. Could be the gaps are things not germane to my position, Like the next part of the DoI that I maintain is still not germane to my position. Could be gaps are perceived that don't actually exist.

You've been asked a couple times in the other thread what you think the alternative to government should be, but apparently you are only working in this thread.
Correct. I'm attempting to address the posts in the order they have been posted. Since I am the only one on my side of the position, I am the one to field every post in this thread. I don't really want to address those other posts because I have so many to address here.

I view my posts in the other thread as a form of thread-jack. I had to reply to three posts before I could start a topic. Your post opened the door for me to post three mostly on topic posts.

And by the time you read this post, you should have already read
Quote
I'm not under any duty to provide alternatives to replace the current system that is provably lacking in authority.

Some here have been attempting to use the lack of alternative in order to negate my point(s).

ANY "government" aka State relies on COMPLY OR DIE.

No, that's hyperbole.
: language that describes something as better or worse than it really is
We can agree to disagree even though you are in error.

Quote
Use_of_force_continuumWiki
A use of force continuum is a standard that provides law enforcement officials & security officers (such as police officers, probation officers, or corrections officers) with guidelines as to how much force may be used against a resisting subject in a given situation. [...] Most often the models are presented in "stair step" fashion, with each level of force matched by a corresponding level of subject resistance, although it is generally noted that an officer need not progress through each level before reaching the final level of force.

Law is a politician's command, backed by threat of force, up to and including killing you for refusal to comply. Do you deny this fact?

While it is possible you can end up dying, most of the time we don't go around killing people for not following the law.
That's because most comply before the State's use of force is fully ramped up. It's still COMPLY OR DIE.

In your speed trap example,
Uh, that's the seatbelt example... Example in this post.

you can ignore the tickets until you are put in jail.  You may try to physically resist and end up dead.  But that's on you.  That's not a matter of comply or die.
What is being resisted? The politician's commands. Pay the fine. Put your hands up. Put the gun down. Get down on the ground.

Government always uses force. It may be hid behind euphemisms, but the gun is ALWAYS under the table.
It is by the use of euphemisms that the populace ignores COMPLY OR DIE or makes/uses apologetics for COMPLY OR DIE.

And this is what I am talking about.  Your perspective seems to be that of a paranoiac with extreme tendencies. 
I don't really care about what you think about me. I'm much more interested in the abilities of the members to address the numbered points presented.

Do you not want laws and rules people have to follow?  Do you want people to only do whatever they feel like? 
Appeal_to_consequencesWiki

He chokes at 104.

I think it is likely you are the only person here who thinks that.
Well then... Point 104 needs a focused review. Here is 104 as originally posted, and as edited:

104. If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me
104. If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has authority over me.

Private 2nd class to Brigadier General: That's an order son. You'll send the troops where I tell you to send them.
So please explain how that works, A lower rank can command a higher rank.

Perhaps in doing so, you will be able to answer:
How does somebody with a lower rank than I get to command me?

Offline shnozzola

Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #183 on: April 27, 2014, 11:35:37 AM »
   I enjoy this thread.  It is so much better than "a god exists, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't,....."  But it threatens to become "belief in authority is a religion, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't....,"  I suppose as an attempt to show an atheist can be as hypocritical as a theist.  Fine.

   The reason I find WWGHA important is because of the likes of 9/11.  I hope to see a fundamentalist Muslim relax and respect, just as a fundamentalist of any belief relax and respect.  HED, if your intention is to sway me toward your fundamentalist view concerning rights and individual sovereignty, you continue to fail until you show me a more workable system than western democracy. 

   *An aside -  it is arguable that Bin Laden and his militants attack based on economics and anger (not so much theism) at the hypocrisy of western democracies (HED's "state") that pretend to institute freedoms, but having more interest in oil. 
 
   I go back to Africa, because the idea of weak government is best shown there.  The little country of Lesotho is surrounded by South Africa.   It is one of the poorest countries in the world on paper.  But a person could get several acres in the mountains and be self sufficient - crops, cattle and horses, wood for heat, springs for water, - a lot of singing and dancing mixed with hard work.  Lack of "the state's" interference, and, who is to say how life should be lived  - Until the have-nots want what the haves have.  Then what happens?  You end up with little fiefdoms and fences, armed to the teeth - kings, or the wild wild west, or the Hatfield's and the McCoy's - reinventing the history of man, always force against force - your sovereign citizen against sovereign citizen is exactly the same as citizen against state, state against citizen, or state against state.  HED, how much have you lived outside of the "north american human farm"?
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #184 on: April 27, 2014, 01:11:03 PM »
What evidence do you rely upon to prove that I am party to the contract of the constitution?
The Constitution is an agreement between the various states that make up this country.  It was passed by representatives of those states, as noted in Article VII.  Said representatives were legally accorded the authority to represent the individual state governments at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  Ultimately, each state ratified the Constitution, and it became the law of the land.
Correct, correct, correct, and correct.

The Constitution separates the powers between what's accorded to the federal government (and how it's split between the different organs of that government) and what's reserved to the states or to the people.  As you note later, a lot of it is intended to limit the powers of the individual branches of the federal government, although it also limits the powers of the various states in other ways.
Correct, correct, correct, correct, and correct.

You are a citizen of the United States, and a citizen of the state in which you reside.
I disagree.

The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

[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 is due to Article IV, Section 2:  "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States", as well as United States common law, no less than four Supreme Court rulings (the Venus case in 1814, Shanks vs Dupont in 1830, Minor vs Happersett in 1875, and United States vs Wong Kim Ark in 1898), and the Fourteenth Amendment.  As a result, you are entitled to those privileges and immunities, provided you remain a citizen.

That is how you are a 'party' to the Constitution; you are still a citizen of the United States, and thus covered by it.
Emphasis mine.

Nevermind that I challenge the delusion of being a citizen based upon the definition of citizen...

I also challenge the 14th amendment and those court cases you cited that refer to the 14th amendment... Because of: Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

What evidence do you rely upon to prove that I am subject to the jurisdiction of any of the 50 States or the federal State?

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
What evidence do you rely upon to prove that those who wrote the constitution had a contract with me to represent me?
The Constitution is an agreement between the various states, therefore there was no need for the writers of the Constitution to have a contract with all the individual citizens of each state (never mind citizens who had not yet been born).
Where did the members of the constitutional convention get their authority to write the constitution? Where did the States get the authority to create a federal State via the convention members and the constitution they wrote?

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
What evidence do you rely upon to prove that I am bound by the constitution? (By the way, I'm not. I'm not the State of the United States. Nor am I an officer, agent, or employee of the United States or any of the States united.)
The Constitution is not a set of laws to govern citizens; it is a set of laws to govern the federal government and the state governments.  So you are not 'bound' by the Constitution; you are protected by it.
Kelo says you are wrong.

So does every non drug dealer who has had large amounts of cash confiscated without proof of wrongdoing.

What you are bound by is the various laws passed by Congress and the states, which they have the authority to pass due to consisting of legally elected representatives of the voters in each state or federal district.
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 authority over me 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 authority over me.
108. If no one has authority over me, then no one has a right to choose someone to have authority over me.
109. Thus it does not matter how many people vote to give a politician authority, if they do not have authority over me, they do not have the authority to give that politician authority over me.
110. Therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician authority over me.
111. If the politician does not have authority over me, then it matters not if I am standing within the boundaries of any territory the politician believes is his to control.

This is a chain of logic. Break one link and the chain is broken. Break the chain and you terminate my position.

Start with the lowest numbered point where you think I am in error and focus on that point. Provide your logical disproof of that one point.

Your opinion that you are not bound by that authority is noted;
So is your inability to comprehend and follow the logic that nobody can delegate authority they do not have.

it is also moot, because you do not have the power to buck it.
Ah yes... The old MIGHT MAKES RIGHT argument.


Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
The bill of rights is not where those rights come from. All those rights are antecedent to the creation of the federal State. The second amendment is a notice to the State to keep it's grubby little thieving paws off.
The various amendments are further restrictions on the power of the federal government, and to a lesser degree the states.
Agreed.

They are not arbitrated or adjudicated by individual citizens.
Are you one of those who can not see the bleeding obvious unless some alleged authority tells you what to see?

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Shall not be infringed means just that... I can carry concealed or not. My choice. The fact that the gun grabbers are trying to give the State permission to grab guns has not escaped my notice. Are you a gun grabber like Dianne Feinstein?
It's the Supreme Court which stated that the right to own firearms was vested in individuals and not in, say, state militias.  It also stated that said right was not unlimited and could be regulated.
By what authority? Refer to numbered points above.

However, I wonder if you've realized that it is very inconsistent to claim that you aren't accountable to laws passed by governing units, and then to use a law passed by a governing unit to justify gun ownership however you want.  You see, if the state and federal governments didn't have the authority to make the Constitution (and various other laws) stick, then they also didn't have the authority to pass the Second Amendment.  If they didn't have the authority to pass the Second Amendment, then using it to justify gun ownership is nonsensical.

The point of bringing up the 2nd amendment is that it proves that the State(s) don't even follow their own rules.

The right to life precedes the creation of the State.
The right of liberty and thus choice precedes the creation of the State.
Thus the right of choosing to carry a weapon, ancillary to the right to life, precedes the creation of the State.

So I refer you back to the numbered points in this post... Again.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #185 on: April 27, 2014, 02:04:23 PM »
I want to thank you (again) for helping expose the religious (superstitious) belief in authority.
Think again; you still have yet to actually show that authority is a religion or a superstition.  The only thing you're actually showing is your own religious belief in a nonexistent "citizen sovereignty".  As I showed earlier in this thread, by establishing that nobody has supreme rank, power, or authority, you are establishing that nobody is sovereign, not that they are equally sovereign.  Claiming that everyone is equally sovereign is an oxymoron.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Actually yes.

Use_of_force_continuumWiki
The answer is still no.  Quoting from a wiki article on the "use of force continuum" does not demonstrate "do as I say or I will hurt you", as you assume it must.  Instead, what it demonstrates is that law enforcement officials and the like (and even private citizens) have an obligation to keep from harming others unless those others are attempting to harm them.  For example, attempting to restrain someone from causing injury.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
(snipped image claiming the IRS had ordered a million dollars of pistols and shotguns)
For someone who constantly demands evidence and that people cite that evidence, you tend to be inconsistent in doing so yourself.  Or did you really think posting an image of a gun along with an unsupported claim about IRS officials was sufficient?  Find real evidence that the IRS did in fact order all those guns, not some captioned image you pulled from some website.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Argumentum_ad_populumWiki
Argumentum ad populum, also known as appealing to popularity, does not apply here, as it refers to substituting a widely-held belief for evidence.  Just because a belief is widely held does not make it wrong.  What matters is whether the evidence supports it.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Just because indoctrinated people believe something to be true doesn't prove it is true.
Indeed.  Like, say, your "citizen sovereignty"?  I read over your whole "Who is the Sovereign?" post, but you failed to actually establish that individuals were sovereign.  All you succeeded in establishing is that nobody is sovereign, because nobody has superior rank, power, or authority.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Just because these people believe the State has authority doesn't mean it does.
If it were just the belief, then you would be right.  But it's not just the belief.  The authority of a government, or anything else along those lines, is based on the people who agree with it, are willing to abide by its decisions, and act to support it.  Trying to pretend otherwise is meaningless.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
If the people don't have a specific authority, they can NOT give that authority to any other entity.
Who said they did not have that authority?  If you live with a group of people (even if you are not part of that group), and you act in such a way as to endanger individuals or the group, then they certainly have the authority to prevent you from doing so.  That overrides your authority to decide what happens to you, because you don't have any right to endanger others by your own actions.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Therefore, no one can give the State authority over anybody else.
It's true that nobody has the right to decide what you do for yourself, but once your actions start causing problems for other people, their right to prevent that kicks in.  That's the authority that you're trying to pretend that a government doesn't have, which is why your argument isn't working - because you're acting as if each person somehow acts in isolation, which is certainly not true.  If your actions affect me, and I don't like the results, I have the right to act to stop you.  If I am part of a larger group of people, say a country, then I can call on the support of those other people.  That's why these things so often boil down to who has the most power.  It isn't great, but it's better than letting someone do whatever they want to other people.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Little problem there.

"Government", i.e. the State, is the biggest violator of certain rights.
That's why it's the responsibility of citizens to act to correct it when it does start to violate those rights.  As the saying goes, power tends to corrupt.  The only way to keep that under control is to minimize the opportunity power has to corrupt someone.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
What are you going to replace it with... Another "government"?
Who says it needs to be replaced?  When something isn't working, do you just throw it out without at least trying to fix it?

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Regardless of what you replace it with, you don't have the ability to give it authority over me, because you don't have authority over me.
As long as you are a citizen (meaning, you abide by the responsibilities of citizens I pointed out in an earlier post), you've given the government authority over you, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
What safeguard?

I'll bet you think there were no human rights violations at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib.
Stop with the strawman accusations!  Of course there were, and I disagree strenuously with them.  But do those abuses - as bad as they were, they were quite limited in both scope and number - mean that government no longer safeguards any rights?  The solution is to act to keep such things from happening again, not to try to prove that the government has no authority.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Not to aggravate any more than necessary, and certainly without malice, I'm not under any duty to provide alternatives to replace the current system that is provably lacking in authority.

Some here have been attempting to use the lack of alternative in order to negate my point(s).
Leaving aside the fact that you have consistently failed to prove that the current system is lacking in authority, the fact is that unless you at least have ideas on what to replace the current system with, your movement is almost guaranteed to fail for the simple reason that even people who might otherwise agree with you will not want to wreck the system without at least having an idea of what they want to put in its place.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #186 on: April 27, 2014, 03:35:15 PM »
I disagree.
You do not seem to understand that there are different levels of government - it is not just "the State" as you keep saying.  For example, you quoted from the Minor v Happersett decision of 1875 to support your argument that you trade allegiance for protection.  Then you refer to a diatribe against the 911 emergency services number to therefore claim that "the State" has no duty to protect.

Except that they do have a duty to protect; specifically, a duty to protect the public at large.  Immediately following the sentence you quoted from Warren v District of Columbia, it continues:  "The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."  I consider the actions of the police in both situations cited there to be at least partially negligent, but, nonetheless, the court was correct to conclude that there was no special relationship between those individuals and the police and thus no specific legal duty to protect them as opposed to others.

If you call 911, the police do not owe you, personally, a response.  However, they still must respond because of their general legal duty towards the public at large, of which you are a member.

That aside, 911 emergency services are a local governmental service.  This ruling does not apply to either the federal government or the states' governments, because their obligations are different.  So you cannot use a specific ruling about 911 emergency services to justify the claim that you owe no allegiance to the federal government or a given state government.  Furthermore, this is irrelevant to whether you are a citizen or not.  You are still a citizen of this country, whatever your feelings about it, until such time as you renounce your citizenship.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Emphasis mine.

Nevermind that I challenge the delusion of being a citizen based upon the definition of citizen...

I also challenge the 14th amendment and those court cases you cited that refer to the 14th amendment... Because of: Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
You are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, however.  You may have recently decided that you are not, but that does not actually change the fact that you are.  Jurisdiction refers to the power to do certain things within a certain area, such as to make judgments about the law, to arrest and punish criminals, and to govern.  Meaning, as long as you are within territory where a government has that power, you're under its jurisdiction.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
What evidence do you rely upon to prove that I am subject to the jurisdiction of any of the 50 States or the federal State?
The fact that you are a citizen and hold the rights and responsibilities of citizenship (even if you choose not to exercise those rights, such as voting).  The fact that you reside within a specific state's jurisdiction, as well as that of the United States as a whole.  Do you deny either of these?

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Where did the members of the constitutional convention get their authority to write the constitution? Where did the States get the authority to create a federal State via the convention members and the constitution they wrote?
The delegates to the Philadelphia Convention got their authority from the states which had sent them.  The states got their authority from the Articles of Confederation which they originally agreed to, and which they unanimously agreed needed to be revised.  They also got their authority from the people who they governed - and who obviously consented to be governed by them.  This, in fact, illustrated the necessity of having a reasonably strong federal government after Daniel Shays and his followers revolted and tried to topple the government of Massachusetts (granted, you could argue that Shays and his followers no longer consented to being governed, but they attempted to attack the state government, which the rest of Massachusetts's citizens evidently still approved of, which justified stopping them from harming those citizens through their actions).

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Kelo says you are wrong.
I have no idea who this Kelo is, let alone why I should care what he says.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
So does every non drug dealer who has had large amounts of cash confiscated without proof of wrongdoing.
Why do you make a distinction between drug dealers and non-drug dealers?  Aside from that, you will have to provide evidence of this.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
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 authority over me 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 authority over me.
108. If no one has authority over me, then no one has a right to choose someone to have authority over me.
109. Thus it does not matter how many people vote to give a politician authority, if they do not have authority over me, they do not have the authority to give that politician authority over me.
110. Therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician authority over me.
111. If the politician does not have authority over me, then it matters not if I am standing within the boundaries of any territory the politician believes is his to control.
#104 is invalid because rank is not the only way to gain authority over someone.  Therefore, you have not shown that no one has authority over you, and the rest of your argument falls apart.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
This is a chain of logic. Break one link and the chain is broken. Break the chain and you terminate my position.

Start with the lowest numbered point where you think I am in error and focus on that point. Provide your logical disproof of that one point.
I already did this.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
So is your inability to comprehend and follow the logic that nobody can delegate authority they do not have.
Oh, I comprehend that logic.  What you fail to understand is that nobody is delegating authority they do not have.  A government has the obligation and the authority to act on behalf of its citizens as a whole (since each person can pass up the authority to act on their own behalf).  If someone acts in a way which prevents that, or actually threatens those citizens, the government is certainly authorized to act.  It's the same logic by which I, as an individual, shouldn't just attack someone, but if someone attacks me, I can defend myself even if it means hurting them.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Ah yes... The old MIGHT MAKES RIGHT argument.
No, it is not "might makes right".  Merely having the power to do something doesn't make it right.  But if you don't have the power to do it, whether it's right to do so or not is moot.  And if you claim that it's right to do something, but don't have the power to actually do it, then it doesn't really matter whether you think it's right or not.  It's really that simple.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Are you one of those who can not see the bleeding obvious unless some alleged authority tells you what to see?
And just what makes you think it's actually obvious?  In case you haven't figured this out yet, just because something seems obvious to you does not mean it actually is obvious.  It also doesn't mean that you have it right in the first place.  It's entirely possible for a person, or even a group, to get a wrong idea in their heads - indeed, this is a big part of your argument.  But what makes you think that you and the people like you aren't the ones who have that wrong idea stuck in their heads?  And you're compounding it by failing to actually listen to people, or even consider that their responses to you are largely provoked by your attitude.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
By what authority? Refer to numbered points above.
Your numbered points above have already been refuted at #104.  You have only shown that authority does not come from birth rank.  You have not shown that it cannot come from some other source.  On top of that, the authority that a government wields comes primarily from its obligation to see to the welfare of the people who agree with it, and if someone else's actions imperil that welfare, the government has the responsibility to act to preserve it.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
The point of bringing up the 2nd amendment is that it proves that the State(s) don't even follow their own rules.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that your own interpretation of the text of the Second Amendment is paramount.  Indeed, it does not even apply directly to you, so your interpretation is less important than you might think.  It applies to the government, and relies on the interpretation of the word 'infringed'.  The fact that your interpretation does not match that of other people does not mean their interpretation is wrong.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
The right to life precedes the creation of the State.
Who established this right to life?  This is a serious question, because the Declaration says that people are endowed by their 'creator' with certain rights.  Yet, what creator might that be?  If humans were not created, then the logic of this argument fails.  In order for this "right to life" to be valid and thus have been established before the creation of a 'state', you must show evidence that humans were created.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
The right of liberty and thus choice precedes the creation of the State.
See above.  Who established this right of liberty, etc?

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Thus the right of choosing to carry a weapon, ancillary to the right to life, precedes the creation of the State.
I would argue that people do not have the 'right' of life, liberty, etc, because there has never been any evidence to support a creator.  What they have are the ability to live, the ability to exercise liberty, the ability to pursue happiness, and so on.  But because they are abilities and not rights, they have limits, because no ability is unlimited.  And that means that your argument has another flaw; abilities can precede other things without automatically taking precedence over them.  So the ability to live, the ability to exercise liberty, and so on, can certainly have preceded the establishment of a government, but that does not mean they automatically outrank government.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
So I refer you back to the numbered points in this post... Again.
And I refer you to the fact that your numbered points have already been shown to be invalid.  Again.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #187 on: April 27, 2014, 06:57:41 PM »
The US government's authority[1] is not based on the threat of force, ala "I have my hand around your throat (or a gun pointed at you) so you'd better give me what I want".
 1. you can call it "the State" if you want, as if we lived in one of Orwell's books, or some other dystopian fantasy, but that doesn't make a government in the real world synonymous with, say, the rulers in the Hunger Games, or the Divergent trilogy, or even The Giver


I'm surprised that you oppose the 2nd Amendment.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #188 on: April 28, 2014, 06:58:02 AM »
You need to read Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social ContractWiki” As you will see, it concerns “consent to be governed.” and addresses most (or perhaps all) of your objections.

Your point
Quote
And as I answered screwtape:
Quote
Not to aggravate any more than necessary, and certainly without malice, I'm not under any duty to provide alternatives to replace the current system that is provably lacking in authority.

Some here have been attempting to use the lack of alternative in order to negate my point(s).

is, to an extent, invalid, and whilst it does not, as you say, negate your points, it does render them pointless. We are not commanding you to provide your vision of an alternative to the Social Contract: we are advising you that if you do not or cannot give an alternative, then asking for any support for, or agreement with, your claims or ideas, even in theory, would be irrational.

People get used to things and don’t like change. If they are not told what the change will be, they are unable to assess the advantages and disadvantages, and thus, rightly, they will not consider the proposition.

For example, on the question of slavery, the question to the slaves was, “Would you like to live as free men with all the rights and responsibilities?” and to the free men and slave-owners the question was, “Should slaves have the same the rights and responsibilities as you?”

The effects and options were discussed on both sides and there was support and opposition on both sides.

Slavery was abolished and it took a while for things to be sorted out, but there was a road map.

It is this road map that you should address; otherwise, it appears that all you have is a general but nebulous objection and no solution or alternative.

It is as if you are saying, “I am starving. I know you are trying to help me but (i) I do not like the food you are giving me and (ii) I am not going to tell you what food I would like so that you may help me.”


Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #189 on: April 28, 2014, 09:31:41 AM »
I am calling you on your use of the perfect solution fallacy

That's funny.  Hilariously funny, in fact.  You are arguing against government because government is imperfect and then trying to say kcrady is the one using a perfect solution fallacy.  If you looked in a mirror, would you even recognize who you were looking at?


It is also starting to smell a little of the Appeal_to_consequences fallacy.

I think you do not understand what that is. Things like "governments" are solutions to certain consequences, whether or not they are ideologically pure or perfect.  I hate analogies, but I am going to use one.  I hope you get the point.  We are outside and it is very cold.  I suggest we build a fire.  You say we ought to just be warm enough on principle and that my suggestion is an "Appeal_to_consequences fallacy".  Yeah, it is an appeal to consequences.  The consequences being death by hypothermia.  So what?  Why let philosophical purity get in the way?

This seems to be the key point you have missed.  Governement is not a philosophically perfect thing.  It is a practical answer to problems bigger than any individual.  It is not perfect.  It is messy.  You may not like it.  We may not be able to get past the ideas of rights and authority.  But if certain things are to be done, we have to have some kind of organized system for doing them and some kind of way to compel people to do it.  Most people will recognize that giving up a little personal liberty will pay back much larger dividends in benefits.  Some people don't see that and they will only hold up those benefits for the rest of us.  Those jackholes have two other options: gtfo or suffer violence.  Push, pull or get out of the way.


The other large point you seem to be utterly missing is that when we form a government (at least, the one we have) we agree on a set of principles of how to treat everyone.  We call these rights.  They are those things you have completely failed to prove exist.  Anyway, in the lone-wolf anarchy you seem to advocate, there are no rights.  There is only power.  Right wingers (and others) have said governments don't give us rights, but they are mostly wrong.  You can say you have whatever rights you want.  But without collective power to back that up and enforce it, you have as many rights as a chimp.  That is not "might makes right".  It is simply realpolitik.  Might makes. Period.



Maybe you already posted and I missed it. 

What is your alternative? 

edit - by that I mean, what is your alternative to our current government?  No government at all?  Every man for himself?  Feudalism?

Not to aggravate any more than necessary, and certainly without malice, I'm not under any duty to provide alternatives to replace the current system that is provably lacking in authority.

Some here have been attempting to use the lack of alternative in order to negate my point(s).

This doesn't mean I won't discuss it. It just means I won't discuss it now.

No, I think you are obligated in this case.  You are saying that a practical solution to real problems should be disqualified because of philosophical reasons.  If I were to agree with you on every single point, we are still left with problems.  Very, very big problems.  For which you have provided absolutely no answer. 

We are trying to get across a river and you are unhappy with the bridge we are trying to build.  Okay, fine.  How the heck are we to get across the river?  Throwing stones is easy and, as I have said before, lazy.



Why do you make a distinction between drug dealers and non-drug dealers?  Aside from that, you will have to provide evidence of this.

He's talking about forfeiture and seizure laws.  Depending on the state, police may seize property on mere suspicion that a law is broken. And the laws are written in such a way that the owner is not the defendant, the property is.  And because the property is not a person, it is not guaranteed a right to defense.  So the owners have to hire a lawyer at their own expense to try to get their stuff back.  Because they target poor people, they rarely even bother.

Many small communities abuse these laws and fund the police by seizing out of town or out of state travelers' stuff.
good links which will make your blood boil:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/easy-money-civil-asset-forfeiture-abuse-police

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #190 on: April 28, 2014, 12:04:50 PM »
I wasn't aware of those things, screwtape.  I also wasn't aware that property could be a defendant.  Even just hearing about it, it's pretty awful.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #191 on: April 28, 2014, 12:19:55 PM »
I wasn't aware of those things, screwtape.  I also wasn't aware that property could be a defendant.  Even just hearing about it, it's pretty awful.

Yeah.  That's understandable.  Most people don't know about them.  They think those laws are only for drug kingpins (they originally were).  But the police and prosecutors will be creative and use any tool available in any fight.  This is one of the results of the War on Drugs. 

In one article I read about a retired couple whose house was seized because their layabout son who lived with them sold a couple ounces of pot to an undercover cop.

This may have been posted in my Militarized Police thread.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #192 on: April 30, 2014, 10:47:52 AM »
I challenge a group spokesperson to a formal debate. Since Hatter23's sniping is the reason for this, I would prefer it be him. If not, then whoever wishes to step to the plate. I don't want to deal with whipsawing I've been getting so I am specific in the term spokesperson. I will not be reading the commentary thread.

As the topic says:  Belief in authority is a religion.

To prove this assertion, I need only expose that the belief continues to exist after authority is shown to be non-existent (Illegitimate authority is not authority).

The following points will be introduced to the formal debate by myself, one at a time.

101. Admit or Deny that you were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, you were not born with a higher rank than I.

102. Admit or Deny that therefore, you DO NOT have authority to command me by your mere birth.

103. Admit or Deny that if this is true for you, it is true for every other human being born on the planet.

104. Admit or Deny that if no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has authority to command me.

108. Admit or Deny that if no one has authority to command me, then no one has the authority to choose someone to have authority to command me.

109. Admit or Deny thus it does not matter how many people vote to give a politician authority, if they do not have the authority to command me, they do not have the authority to give that politician the authority to command me.

110. Admit or Deny that therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician the authority to command me.

111. Admit or Deny that if the politician does not have authority to command me, then it matters not if I am standing within the boundaries of any territory the politician believes is his to control.

With this posted, I will be ignoring this thread until the formal debate is over.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2210
  • Darwins +73/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #193 on: April 30, 2014, 02:27:11 PM »
One would think, logically, that if one hasn't presented an arument that has swayed the people one is trying to sway, one would either reassess one's argument, or present it in a different, more convincing way.

To keep posting the same list over and over, yet expecting a different reaction is.....what's the word I'm looking for? I forget.....
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #194 on: April 30, 2014, 06:51:57 PM »
104 has already been denied by everyone you're addressing.

Rather than repeat yourself blindly, why don't you honestly re-assess your reasoning?

Yes. 104 has been denied by everyone. These denials have been made by assertion.

104. Admit or Deny that if no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has authority to command me.

So why don't YOU re-assess YOUR reasoning.

NO ONE has put forth a reasonable explanation of how this works.

So why don't you explain how a private in the army has authority to command a Brigadier General.


Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12294
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #195 on: April 30, 2014, 07:21:13 PM »
Yes. 104 has been denied by everyone. These denials have been made by assertion.

To be fair, you didn't ask for anything more than an assertion, in the form or admission or denial - though more was offered, particularly by jaimehlers.  You said "admit or deny".  Don't ask people to do something and then piss and moan when they actually do it.

104. Admit or Deny that if no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has authority to command me.

That is not point 104 as previously written.  I'm glad you changed it, in light of its flaws as pointed out by others.  You've taken their assertions to heart, even if it hasn't changed your attitude.  Kudos.

So why don't YOU re-assess YOUR reasoning.

My reasoning as to what?  It's your syllogism.  And you've adjusted it in light of criticism - demonstrating that you've re-assessed at least some of your reasoning.

NO ONE has put forth a reasonable explanation of how this works.

For how what works?  Internet debate?  I suppose you could use an explanation of that, given that you're in the habit of responding to posts in other threads than those in which those posts were made.

So why don't you explain how a private in the army has authority to command a Brigadier General.

I don't know, why would I?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 07:26:06 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #196 on: April 30, 2014, 07:33:57 PM »
Nobody is arguing that a private has authority over a general.  What I am arguing, at least, is that your premise is flawed; authority does not just come from birth rank.  For that matter, authority does not just come from rank in general, either.

Let's take a town which elects a mayor and gives him executive authority over the town.  What that means is that he speaks for the town as a whole until such time as he is removed from office, such as by losing a subsequent election.  Yet, if we follow your logic, someone who lives somewhere else could come to the town and claim that since the mayor doesn't speak for him, and he didn't consent to the mayor's authority, he doesn't have to pay attention to what the mayor says, or any of the mayor's subordinates.  He can go in and do whatever he wants, at least according to him.  Yet someone who actually tries that will come up against the reality that unless he has a sufficiently strong organization backing him, any attempt to buck the authority of the mayor (which is actually the authority of the people who live in the town, since they elected him) will most likely get stopped cold by the police which the town hires in order to keep order.

Furthermore, to claim that the mayor doesn't actually have any authority is the same thing as saying that the people of the town don't have the authority to elect someone to speak for them and to make decisions for the town.  The non-resident, by going in and claiming that he doesn't have to pay attention to what the mayor says, is essentially claiming that his right to do whatever he wants is greater than the rights of all the actual residents to set the rules for their town.  In short, he's claiming sovereignty over them, which isn't going to be accepted.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #197 on: May 01, 2014, 06:07:16 AM »

To prove this assertion, I need only expose that the belief continues to exist after authority is shown to be non-existent (Illegitimate authority is not authority).

The following points will be introduced to the formal debate by myself, one at a time.

101. Admit or Deny that you were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, you were not born with a higher rank than I. We may admit this as true.

102. Admit or Deny that therefore, you DO NOT have authority to command me by your mere birth. We may admit this as true.

103. Admit or Deny that if this is true for you, it is true for every other human being born on the planet. We may admit this as true.

However, the following point does not flow from any of the above:

104. Admit or Deny that if no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has authority to command me.


Let us assume that you either are not very good at woodwork or do not have the time for woodwork, and yet you want a chair.

Your solution is to find someone who is a chair-maker or someone who sells the products of a chair-maker. After considering various chair-makers and retailers and their wares, you approve of the products and agree with a particular person to take one of his products.

Let us assume that you either are not very good at politics or do not have the time for politics, and yet you want some sort of order.

Your solution is to find someone who is a politician or someone who represents a political party. After considering various politicians  and political parties, you approve of the policies and agree with a particular person to take him/her as your supplier of policy.

You see, we agree to give the authority to command.

I did refer you earlier to Rousseau’s The Social ContractWiki, but it is clear that you read this and suffered cognitive dissonance  to such an extent that you went into denial again and ignored it.

As your premise has been defeated in the 18th century, 250 years before you thought of it, there seems to be no point in a debate.

Quote
With this posted, I will be ignoring this thread until the formal debate is over.
A bravura exhibition of blind arrogance: you are attempting to guilt trip us into a position that we will obey your commands for no reason other than “you say so.”

I would ask, “Where is your contract with us? What gives you the right to expect anything of us?”
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12525
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #198 on: May 01, 2014, 11:41:05 PM »
I can prove administration has authority over him; so...his whole stance is flawed based on that alone.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #199 on: May 06, 2014, 11:46:28 AM »
I have just skimmed through this thread looking for the instances where point 104 has been addressed, since that is the sticking point.

In doing so, I wonder if y'all have missed noticing that in my attempt to answer every post, I had a time lag of a day or so. I think assumptions may have been made about what I had actually read. (Not to mention that with that many posts to read, I probably (read did) miss some things posted.

In my lurking, I read a post wherein a biblethumper had the suggestion given to him that he do a formal debate because of the shear numbers of others. I wonder if the biblethumper was given more respect than I.

No matter. As I said, I reviewed the thread for point 104's discussion.




Jaimehlers has done a good job focussing on the issue. (In a post I have not read until today.)


Just to make a point that I don't think HED has really considered...

He has stated repeatedly that nobody has a higher birth rank than him.  That also means that nobody has a lower birth rank than him.  That means the concept of "birth rank" is a meaningless non sequitur as he is using it, and authority cannot be based on it.  That demolishes his point #104 - that nobody has the right to command him based on birth rank - because birth rank is not a recognized concept in this country to begin with.

Actually you have just validated point 104. Authority does NOT come from personal rank. (Personal rank is wider than birth rank because, as you point out below, authority MAY have other avenues.)

Authority in this country is not based on birth rank, and never has been.  It is based on the consent of the governed, taken as a group.

You convey that 'Authority is based upon the consent of the governed, taken as a group.'

A group is a collection of individuals.

Since you have actually conceded that there is no birth rank, and that there can be no authority based upon this nonexistent birth rank, it follows that since you and every other member of this group have no authority over me, You, or any other member of this group, can not give consent for me to be governed. Only I can do that. And you can only consent for yourself to be governed.

This leads directly to point 108. If no one has authority over me, then no one has a right to choose someone to have authority over me.

This is where believers in authority invoke MAGIC.

Let's say, for example, that everybody has a token that represents their consent.  The authority of the government is based on the combined total of the tokens given it by all the people who consent to its governance of this country.

How's that work when nobody holding those tokens has authority over me?

You can only consent for yourself to be governed with your token.

So even if you get someone who withdraws their token (meaning that they no longer consent to be governed), it does nothing to all the other tokens still held in trust by the government.

You can only consent for yourself to be governed with your token. Everybody else can only consent for themselves to be governed with their token. None of you can consent for me.

Furthermore, if the one who withdrew their token then acts in such a way that it causes problems for the people who have entrusted their tokens to the government, the government is perfectly justified to act in a way that keeps that person from continuing to cause trouble.

Irrelevant to the issue of the "government's" non authority.

To put it another way, the government derives its authority from the fact that people are willing to consent to it

You can NOT consent for me to be governed. The people can NOT consent for me to be governed.

(which allows it to pass laws and such), just as a bank derives its income from the fact that people are willing to loan their money to it (which allows it to invest that money).  Granted, people such as HED may not be willing to consent to the government, but they are far outweighed by the number of people who do, and they cannot themselves negate the authority derived from that consent.

Please attend to the issue presented:

Since you have actually conceded that there is no birth rank, and that there can be no authority based upon this nonexistent birth rank, it follows that since you and every other member of this group have no authority over me, You, or any other member of this group, can not give consent for me to be governed. Only I can do that. And you can only consent for yourself to be governed.



Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
104. If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.
You have established that people do not have the right to command you based on the birth rank they do not have.  However, this does not establish that there is no other way for someone to gain the right to command you.

Agreed.

So let's take a look at your proposals for those other ways...

Furthermore, you are presuming that command is a right.  If command is not a right, then your argument is invalidated.
Uh huh.

I'll just take notice of your word weaseling for now.

I contend that command is an ability instead of a right, which can be based on several things.

At some point, the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such command will have to be addressed.

For example, the ability to command can be based on birth rank, but as Americans do not have or recognize birth ranks, that particular basis is invalidated.

I'm glad you have admitted that.

The ability to command can also be based on the capacity to threaten or commit violence, but that only works as long as one is in the position to threaten or commit violence.

Which is how "government"... Any "government" commands. Comply or die. Habenae Est Dominatus.

I have already observed how many in this thread refuse to acknowledge that the gun under the table is what backs every "law" legitimate or illegitimate.

A third way, and the one which actually matters here, is basing the ability to command on the consent of others.

Since you have actually conceded that there is no birth rank, and that there can be no authority based upon this nonexistent birth rank, it follows that since you and every other member of this group have no authority over me, You, or any other member of this group, can not give consent for me to be governed. Only I can do that. And you can only consent for yourself to be governed.

If I consent to giving someone the ability to command, then their ability to command is valid as far as I'm concerned.

You can NOT consent for me. You can ONLY consent for yourself. So such ability to command ONLY applies to yourself.

If a large number of people agree with me and also give their consent, then their ability to command is consequently valid to all of those people.

Correct. "to all of those people" who have consented FOR THEMSELVES.

Just as you can NOT consent for me, neither can they.

If the decision to give someone the ability to command is an election, where all the people voting agreed to abide by the results, then the winner's ability to command is based on the consent of all of those people, and thus is valid to all of them.

That would be 'and thus is valid to all who voted.'

And again, Just as you can NOT consent for me, neither can they.
And since I don't vote, I do not agree to abide by the results.

Again: No authority to command me.


A person who consents to be governed (giving someone else the ability to command, whether implicitly or explicitly) is a citizen.  You are a citizen, therefore you have at least implicitly consented to be governed.  This will remain true as long as you are a citizen.

Larken Rose says it best:
Quote
But in reality, no one ever agrees to let those in "government" do whatever they want. So, in order to fabricate "consent" where there is none, believers in "authority" add another, even more bizarre step to the mythology: the notion of "implied consent." The claim is that, by merely living in a town, or a state, or a country, one is "agreeing" to abide by whatever rules happen to be issued by the people who claim to have the right to rule that town, state or country. The idea is that if someone does not like the rules, he is free to leave the town, state or country altogether, and if he chooses not to leave, that constitutes giving his consent to be controlled by the rulers of that jurisdiction.

Though it is constantly parroted as gospel, the idea defies common sense. It makes no more sense than a carjacker stopping a driver on a Sunday and telling him,"By driving a car in this neighborhood on a Sunday, you are agreeing to give me your car." One person obviously cannot decide what counts as someone else "agreeing" to something. An agreement is when two or more people communicate a mutual willingness to enter into some arrangement. Simply being born somewhere is not agreeing to anything, nor is living in one's own house when some king or politician has declared it to be within the realm he rules.



Nobody is arguing that a private has authority over a general.  What I am arguing, at least, is that your premise is flawed; authority does not just come from birth rank.  For that matter, authority does not just come from rank in general, either.

Good.

Let's take a town which elects a mayor and gives him executive authority over the town.

What, specifically and factually do you mean by "town"?

What that means is that he speaks for the town as a whole until such time as he is removed from office, such as by losing a subsequent election.

I have not given him authority to speak for me. You can not give him authority to speak for me. So if by "town" you actually mean all the inhabitants therein, you are in error.

If by "town" you mean the corporate entity (that would be the incorporated town), he can certainly speak for that, since he is an officer of the same. However, we are back to the same lack of authority discussed all along.

Yet, if we follow your logic, someone who lives somewhere else could come to the town and claim that since the mayor doesn't speak for him, and he didn't consent to the mayor's authority, he doesn't have to pay attention to what the mayor says, or any of the mayor's subordinates.

I think you are beginning to understand the concept.

However, you don't need to use a person from somewhere else in your scenario. Let's use me as a person living in that town.

So, yes. The mayor doesn't speak for me. (I didn't vote for him to speak for me.) I didn't give the mayor consent to govern me. (I didn't vote for him to govern me.) I didn't give the mayor authority over me. (I didn't vote to give the mayor any authority because I didn't vote for him at all.)

Therefore the mayor has NO authority over me. With no authority over me I DON'T have to pay attention to the mayor's proclamations.

He can go in and do whatever he wants, at least according to him.

Is your crystal ball that good? You can look into it and know what I would or would not do? I'm calling you on your fearmongering. This is related to the "we've always done it this way" argument as well as an appeal to consequences.

What is missing is your proof of authority.

Yet someone who actually tries that will come up against the reality that unless he has a sufficiently strong organization backing him, any attempt to buck the authority of the mayor (which is actually the authority of the people who live in the town, since they elected him) will most likely get stopped cold by the police which the town hires in order to keep order.

So the mayor's authority is the authority of the people of the town...?

How did the people of the town get authority over me, that they could then give to the mayor?

Furthermore, to claim that the mayor doesn't actually have any authority is the same thing as saying that the people of the town don't have the authority to elect someone to speak for them and to make decisions for the town.

You can elect anybody you want to speak for you. You can NOT elect anybody to speak for me.
You can elect anybody you want to tell you what to do. You can NOT elect anybody to tell me what to do.

The non-resident, by going in and claiming that he doesn't have to pay attention to what the mayor says, is essentially claiming that his right to do whatever he wants is greater than the rights of all the actual residents to set the rules for their town.  In short, he's claiming sovereignty over them, which isn't going to be accepted.

Make shit up much?

The sovereignty is equal.




However, the following point does not flow from any of the above:

104. Admit or Deny that if no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has authority to command me.


Let us assume that you either are not very good at woodwork or do not have the time for woodwork, and yet you want a chair.

Your solution is to find someone who is a chair-maker or someone who sells the products of a chair-maker. After considering various chair-makers and retailers and their wares, you approve of the products and agree with a particular person to take one of his products.

Let us assume that you either are not very good at politics or do not have the time for politics, and yet you want some sort of order.

Your solution is to find someone who is a politician or someone who represents a political party. After considering various politicians  and political parties, you approve of the policies and agree with a particular person to take him/her as Your supplier of policy.

You see, we agree to give the authority to command.
you
you
Your
you
you
you
Your
you
Your

we

I am just flabbergasted by this post of yours.

<shaking head>
I'm calling you on your use of magic.


I did refer you earlier to Rousseau’s The Social ContractWiki, but it is clear that you read this and suffered cognitive dissonance  to such an extent that you went into denial again and ignored it.

And it is just as clear that you read this and suffered cognitive dissonance  to such an extent that you went into denial and ignored it.

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.


As your premise has been defeated in the 18th century, 250 years before you thought of it, there seems to be no point in a debate.

So you assert.


<snip>

I would ask, “Where is your contract with us? What gives you the right to expect anything of us?”

I'm getting exactly what I expected.

You failed to Admit or Deny with proof that if no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has authority to command me.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12525
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #200 on: May 07, 2014, 03:56:52 PM »
You want someone never to have authority over you: kill yourself. At least we wouldn't have to read your incessant whining all the time.

When you joined this website you allowed the website to have authority over you by agreeing to the terms of the website. Granted that's voluntary but so is staying where you live. You don't like it there because stop signs, red lights, etc., have authority over you than either move to a place where no one but you could live in, or kill yourself: those are your only two options. Attempting to impose your beliefs hasn't worked here and won't work anywhere else.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #201 on: May 07, 2014, 06:05:15 PM »
In my lurking, I read a post wherein a biblethumper had the suggestion given to him that he do a formal debate because of the shear numbers of others. I wonder if the biblethumper was given more respect than I.
In case you're wondering, it's because you're being pretty abrasive in the way you're acting.  Many theists are at least reasonably polite to start with.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Actually you have just validated point 104. Authority does NOT come from personal rank. (Personal rank is wider than birth rank because, as you point out below, authority MAY have other avenues.)
The point I was trying to make is that #104 covered one particular means of having authority (birth rank), but not any other.  Your whole argument rests on the idea that nobody has authority over you, but you only established one particular way in which they did not have authority over you.  That means, at the very best, your argument is incomplete.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
You convey that 'Authority is based upon the consent of the governed, taken as a group.'

A group is a collection of individuals.
The fact that a group is a collection of individuals is irrelevant in this case.  It's the fact that those people, collectively, agreed to give a specific entity the authority to govern a specific geographical area (area that they claim as theirs).  As long as they have the ability to enforce that authority, that's all that's required.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Since you have actually conceded that there is no birth rank, and that there can be no authority based upon this nonexistent birth rank, it follows that since you and every other member of this group have no authority over me, You, or any other member of this group, can not give consent for me to be governed. Only I can do that. And you can only consent for yourself to be governed.
Someone can still gain authority over you even if you didn't, personally, consent to their authority.  You've stated that you own property.  Owning property means that you have the right to make decisions about that property, which includes the right to decide if other people have the right to enter it or stay there.  In short, you're claiming the authority to make decisions regarding that land.  If someone came onto your property, they wouldn't have the right to do whatever they wanted there, because it isn't their land.  You would have every right to expect them to abide by your rules or suffer the consequences.  Because they came onto your land, you have authority over what they do while they're there.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
This leads directly to point 108. If no one has authority over me, then no one has a right to choose someone to have authority over me.

This is where believers in authority invoke MAGIC.
No, you're just missing the point.  Or do you think that someone who enters this country illegally has the right to do as they want?  Because that's ultimately where your argument leads.  According to your chain of reasoning, Mexicans have the right to enter this country as they desire, and do as they like while they live here, because nobody has the authority to stop them.  If the only person who has authority over an individual is that individual, and there's no way for anyone else to gain authority over them without their direct, explicit consent, then who's gonna stop them?

That's just a small part of what's likely to happen when you start claiming that the consent of the governed only applies to the individuals who thus consented.  If you're going to claim that you can live in this country without abiding by the laws decided on by the representatives of the people, then you open the door to anyone else who wants to live in this country without abiding by those laws.  You also open a bunch of other doors that I'm pretty sure you'd prefer to remain shut - for example, how do you argue that you have the authority to make decisions about the specific plot of land where you live when other people can presumably just ignore it, since you don't have authority over them?

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
How's that work when nobody holding those tokens has authority over me?

You can only consent for yourself to be governed with your token.
So, I take it you don't mind the idea of tens of millions of Mexicans coming and living here in this country, and doing as they please?  You see, they didn't "consent to be governed"; they aren't citizens.  Yet the government's authority doesn't just lie over the individuals who consented to be governed by it, it also lies over the geographical area that makes up this country.  That's why the government can take action regarding Mexicans here illegally, including deporting them back to Mexico and taking steps to keep Mexicans from crossing over in the first place.  That also means that people like yourself fall under the umbrella of that authority.  So even if you were to renounce your citizenship, you'd still end up under the authority of the various levels of government for wherever you happened to live.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
You can only consent for yourself to be governed with your token. Everybody else can only consent for themselves to be governed with their token. None of you can consent for me.
Granted, but you haven't taken your token back yet, have you?  As long as you're a citizen, you consent to be governed (even if you say you don't want to be, because that's just you exercising your freedom of speech).  Of course, if you do take it back and stop being a citizen, you'll have other problems, but there's no point in worrying about that unless and until you stop being a citizen.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Irrelevant to the issue of the "government's" non authority.
On the contrary, it's totally relevant.  Let's say you went to a town you didn't live in, and decided to block traffic at one of the main intersections.  The government of the town would have every right to act on behalf of the people who live there, who elected that government, and remove whatever you were using to block the intersection, including yourself if need be.  You don't have any right to interfere with their town, and they have the right to act to prevent such disruption on behalf of the people of that town.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
You can NOT consent for me to be governed. The people can NOT consent for me to be governed.
By retaining your citizenship, you yourself consent to be governed, whether you like it or not.  And if you go to (or live in) an area governed by a group, you don't have the right to do whatever you like, because your actions will affect other people who did consent to that governance.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Please attend to the issue presented:

Since you have actually conceded that there is no birth rank, and that there can be no authority based upon this nonexistent birth rank, it follows that since you and every other member of this group have no authority over me, You, or any other member of this group, can not give consent for me to be governed. Only I can do that. And you can only consent for yourself to be governed.
Birth rank has never been the only way to gain authority over someone.  If someone comes onto my property, for example, then I gain a limited authority over them, because I'm claiming that property as my own.  Their right to act is curtailed by my right to act on behalf of my property, similar to how their right to swing their fist is curtailed by my physical body being in the way.  If they act in a way which I don't like on my property, I have the right to demand that they stop.  If they refuse, I can then act to stop them, the same as I can act to stop people from doing things that I don't like to my person.  That's my authority over them.

That aside, at least you're acknowledging that individuals can consent to be governed.  Do you also acknowledge that this covers their property?  That is to say, that individuals can consent to having their property be governed?

(I will respond to the subsequent parts later on)

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #202 on: May 08, 2014, 07:33:35 AM »
You want someone never to have authority over you: kill yourself. At least we wouldn't have to read your incessant whining all the time.

When you joined this website you allowed the website to have authority over you by agreeing to the terms of the website. Granted that's voluntary but so is staying where you live. You don't like it there because stop signs, red lights, etc., have authority over you than either move to a place where no one but you could live in, or kill yourself: those are your only two options. Attempting to impose your beliefs hasn't worked here and won't work anywhere else.

-Nam

Your failure to address point 104 is noted.
Your failure to Admit or Deny with proof that if no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has authority to command me is noted.