Author Topic: Belief in authority is a religion  (Read 5114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2781
  • Darwins +80/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #58 on: April 19, 2014, 12:00:08 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.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6753
  • Darwins +817/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #59 on: April 19, 2014, 12:42:52 AM »
I second everything kcrady has said. And just remember, the only reason you can drive to the revolution is because people you totally disagree with built the roads, HED.

What evidence do you rely upon to prove that the people who built the roads totally disagree with me?

They built the road instead of killing each other.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1350
  • Darwins +454/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2014, 12:44:48 AM »
Part II:

205. Therefore, the constitution is NOT a contract that I am party to.

206. Admit or deny that Even if the constitution was a valid contract created by the constitutional convention, those people did NOT have a contract with me to represent me and thus could not bind me to that contract.

207. Admit or deny that Therefore, the constitution is STILL NOT a contract that I am party to.

208. Admit or deny that Since the constitution is NOT a contract that I am party to, it has NO AUTHORITY over me.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus link=topic=26669.msg611035#msg611035

Do I have a right to keep my wallet? The mugger is violating that right. Do I have a right to use whatever force is necessary to keep my wallet? Do I have a right to carry a concealed weapon just for such an event? Does "Shall not be infringed" ring a bell? But I digress.

So which is it?  Either you are not bound by the Constitution or any laws made in accordance with it--in which case you are also not protected by the Constitution or any laws made in accordance with it...or you are.

"Screw your stupid 'Constitution!'  I didn't sign it!  It doesn't apply to me!  But I got my 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms!" is bullshit.  Cognitive dissonance is an amazing thing.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1350
  • Darwins +454/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #61 on: April 19, 2014, 01:15:51 AM »
I see nothing in your post that gives evidence to a right to command.

You keep talking about this thing you call a "right."  Can you demonstrate that a "right" not to be commanded exists?  If you can't, then you'd have to agree that there's no such thing as a "right" to command or a "right" not to be commanded.
You could go further with this. There is no such thing as a "right" if it is not honored.

See, this isn't so hard.  So, if we want to have "rights," how do we go about determining what "rights" we ought to have, and making sure everybody else honors them?

Do I have a right to keep my wallet? The mugger is violating that right.

And yet, no principle of physics or bolt of lightning from the Creator stops him, nor does your "right" generate a forcefield to protect your wallet.  Please demonstrate that you "have" this "right."  Can you show it to me?  How much does it weigh?  What physical equations accurately model its behavior?  Can you prove to me that this "right" of yours exists?  Notice how this is the exact same line of argument you use to claim that "government" does not exist, and that it works just as well against your claim to "have" "rights."

Do I have a right to use whatever force is necessary to keep my wallet? Do I have a right to carry a concealed weapon just for such an event?

I dunno, do you?  Can you take a picture of them?  How many "rights" can you carry with you at a time?  Is the "right" to assemble peaceably to seek a redress of grievances too big to fit in your pocket?

right

right

right

right

right

Holy crap you use that word a lot!  I think it's time you defined what you mean by it and demonstrated that it exists.  Otherwise, your whole argument is just a bunch of argle bargle on a unicycle.

Apparently you have never googled Police brutality videos youtube. Take some time and watch a few vids at random.

I never claimed that government or police are perfect, in fact I have stated otherwise.  But, I can drive across town or across the continent I live on without having to hire a bunch of guys in a jeep with a .50 cal. mounted machine gun to escort me so I can have a chance of getting to my destination in one piece.  Try doing that in Mogadishu.

Nor have I said or even suggested that our ("our" referring to the democratic nations of the world) current form of government is the best possible way of operating a civilization.  I've just said it's the best humans come up with so far.  Yes, representative democratic governance, in the United States in particular, has many flaws and ought to be subjected to things like sousveillance (those people filming the cops and publishing the videos to put pressure on the police departments and governments involved to hold them accountable), criticism, protest, being voted out of office, etc..  That's why we made it "representative" and "democratic" in the first place--precisely so that the people being governed can hold it accountable.   

You have the advantage unless and until I read the Hobbes writing referred to.

LOL!  Next time you post a link to make an argument, you ought to find out what it's referring to first. ;)
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1350
  • Darwins +454/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #62 on: April 19, 2014, 01:19:38 AM »
I second everything kcrady has said. And just remember, the only reason you can drive to the revolution is because people you totally disagree with built the roads, HED.

What evidence do you rely upon to prove that the people who built the roads totally disagree with me?

They built the road instead of killing each other.

Also: the people who built the road all deliberately applied for, and accepted, and willingly performed, jobs that are paid for by government tax funds.  They all cashed their paychecks.  That's about the best evidence we can get concerning their thoughts and values concerning the role of government that we can get apart from telepathy, don't you think?
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline hickdive

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Darwins +33/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #63 on: April 19, 2014, 01:52:35 AM »
As with most Americans you've missed the most important point. The DoI states that all men are created equal, not that all men are equal.

The authors of the DoI certainly were not democrats in the modern understanding of that word and they certainly believed in their own superiority over the common man and that superiority gave them the right to govern.

Your hypothesis falls on that point.
Stupidity, unlike intelligence, has no limits.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13030
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #64 on: April 19, 2014, 02:22:15 AM »
So maybe the govt or state doesn't have the right to command, but the ability




HED's got a sockpuppet. How keen.

-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 Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13030
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #65 on: April 19, 2014, 02:33:39 AM »
As with most Americans you've missed the most important point. The DoI states that all men are created equal, not that all men are equal.

The authors of the DoI certainly were not democrats in the modern understanding of that word and they certainly believed in their own superiority over the common man and that superiority gave them the right to govern.

Your hypothesis falls on that point.

True but the founders were talking only about "white men" and specific type of a white man.

-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 Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6822
  • Darwins +551/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #66 on: April 19, 2014, 07:08:09 AM »

Are you addressing point 110 or the elements of a contract?
The elements of a contract: I’m surprised you ask.

Quote
If it is point 110 you are addressing, then please address point 108 as well.
108. If no one has a right to command me, then no one has a right to choose someone to command me.
Please present your refutation of point 108 which is what point 110 is based upon.
A constitution is not a contract.

Quote
If not, then please present your evidence countering the four elements posted that are required for a contract to exist.
You are obsessed with the idea of a contract. It does not exist in this context. Politicians cannot be held to statements they make and can amend constitutions. You are proof that the "contract" in the constitution does not exist as such, as you disagree. I doubt there is one person who agrees entirely and utterly with every word of any given constitution.

Your abbreviated definition of a contract is “A contract requires an offer, consideration, acceptance, and a meeting of minds.”

You will see that the minds of all those involved do not necessarily meet: only the mind of the majority.

 
Quote
What part of shall not be infringed do the gun grabbers not understand?
I do not recall any mention of guns before you introduced it. I take it that citizens owning biological weapons is fine by you? Biological weapons are “arms” aren’t they?

If you were starting a “NRA is right” thread, it would have helped if you had made that clear.

Quote
Point number 108... If no one has a right to command me, then no one has a right to choose someone to command me.
Please explain how I can choose someone to command you when I do not have the right to command you.
You do this by voting for the winning party, thus demonstrating that the will of the people is upheld.

Have you much experience of political theory? I only ask as if you don’t, I could go into it in greater detail.

Quote
Oh do please present the evidence that my statement is erroneous.
I think it lies in the idea that you have a personal contract with someone. (a) it isn’t a contract, (b) it isn’t personal to you, it is general to the State/country.

Quote

Have you always felt like this?

If I asked one of your good friends, "What caused him to be like that?" What would that friend say?

Dodging the point attempting to get personal is noted.
I have dodged nothing. Anything you felt was missing can be found by carefully re-reading what I had written.

I was not being so much personal as trying to find out what led you to such a strange, dogmatic and erroneous view of government. It appears that your critical thinking skills are hampered by a lack of background knowledge and a very narrow attitude.

These must have a cause and perhaps knowing that would help me answer your points in a manner you could understand more clearly.

I'm sure that when we have straightened out a few matters, you will find that we are in agreement.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline smokemonster

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #67 on: April 19, 2014, 09:45:56 AM »
So maybe the govt or state doesn't have the right to command, but the ability




HED's got a sockpuppet. How keen.

-Nam



Ah yes, Nam the antagonist, right on que..what took you so long buddy?

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #68 on: April 19, 2014, 12:19:20 PM »
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?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #69 on: April 19, 2014, 01:08:19 PM »
<unlurk> Egad!  Politics and solipsism have had a child out of wedlock.   ;D</relurk>
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #70 on: April 19, 2014, 10:33:19 PM »
On a more serious and pragmatic note, HED, how do you envision civil society and how do we move beyond government to provide for the needs of the average individual?
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6822
  • Darwins +551/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #71 on: April 20, 2014, 10:41:26 AM »
On a more serious and pragmatic note, HED, how do you envision civil society and how do we move beyond government to provide for the needs of the average individual?
I think he intends that we all live in log cabins without sanitation and eat roots whilst doing absolutely anything that makes us happy regardless of how unhappy others are.

Your comment on solipsism is well taken.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #72 on: April 20, 2014, 03:41:30 PM »
Oops. Not ready to post yet.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7312
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #73 on: April 20, 2014, 04:13:17 PM »
HED - are you a nihilist?

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #74 on: April 20, 2014, 04:29:18 PM »
Quote
201. The federal constitution was never given to me as an offer, therefore I never gave an acceptance in return.

HED, are you suggesting every individual US citizen, past, present, and future must be allowed the option to accept or opt-out of being governed by laws in the US Constitution?

It exists. It is called "moving elsewhere"
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #75 on: April 20, 2014, 04:50:03 PM »
I wrote this post after my post that follows. Consider it as a synopsis of the long post that follows.

kcrady admitted to these three points:
101. You were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, you were not born with a higher rank than I.
102. Therefore, you DO NOT have a right to command me by your mere birth.
103. If this is true for you, it is true for every other human being born on the planet.

In so admitting, kcrady has accepted that we are equal.

Kcrady ignores the following points:
105. Persons long dead were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, they were not born with a higher rank than I.
106. Therefore, persons long dead DO NOT have a right to command me by their mere birth.
107. If persons long dead do not have the right to command me by their mere birth, then their commands scribbled on a piece of paper DO NOT have a right to command me after their death.

Kcrady denies point 104.
104. If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.
This can only mean that kcrady believes a lower rank can command a higher rank. Private 2nd class to Brigadier General: That's an order son. You'll send the troops where I tell you to send them.

Kcrady denies point 108.
108. If no one has a right to command me, then no one has a right to choose someone to command me.
This can only mean that even though I do not have a right to command my south neighbor, by some magic mechanism, I have the right to give my north neighbor the right to command my south neighbor.

Kcrady denies point 109.
109. Thus it does not matter how many people vote to give a politician a right to command, if they do not have the right to command me, they do not have the right to give that politician the right to command me.
This can only mean the same thing as the denial of point 108.

Kcrady denies point 110.
110. Therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician the right to command me.
This can only mean the same thing as the denial of point 108.

Kcrady denies point 111.
111. If the politician does not have a right to command me, then it matters not if I am standing within the boundaries of any territory the politician believes is his to control.

How does one delegate rights that one does not have?
How does one delegate authority that one does not have?

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #76 on: April 20, 2014, 04:51:50 PM »
I am replying to this post out of order since it directly addresses the numbered points I have posted.
As those of you who post good quality posts know, It does take some time to compose them, and sometimes the real world demands attention.

There are a lot of y'all posting and only one of me replying...

Admit or deny that these words are a part of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Sure, the DoI says those things, but they're not factually correct.  We are not created. 
Are you stating that your dad didn't stick it in you mother and create you?

There is no "Creator" to endow us with anything,
Endow: to freely or naturally provide (someone or something) with something
Does "creator" refer to biblegod or nature? (Nature... That feeling your Mom and Dad had...)

and it is a demonstrable fact that no "Creator" ever shows up to make sure that any endowments it offers are respected.
Agreed.

(I can appreciate a good debate so I understand nit picking in a debate. However, I will counter pick nits as evidenced above. <shrug>)

The "Rights" in question are obviously "alienable," otherwise the Declaration of Independence would never have needed to be written in the first place.  Physics would have made the violation of those rights impossible, and their existence would have been self-evident even to the British.
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?

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.

Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
I do not consent.

The purpose of government the State is to secure INDIVIDUAL rights. The government State did NOT do that in the Kelo decision. Neither did the government State with Obamacare. (SCOTUS found it constitutional as a tax law. Not as something the State could impose as a flat out command to purchase insurance.)

Just to be clear- There is no such thing as a Collective Right without Individual Rights. Thus the legitimacy of government the State's rules (commands) fail at the State's foundation... The non-existent right of one individual to command another can NOT be given to individuals that comprise government the State. The individual right to command is something that is going to be intensely addressed as a result of what I read below.

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.

Admit. 

102. Admit or deny that Therefore, you DO NOT have a right 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.

Admit.  However, I do possess a potential capacity [to attempt] to command you by force or threat of force.
And I have the right to unleash my own capacity of reciprocal force or threat of force to stymie your attempt.

This fact is also true for every other human being born on the planet (the ones that are currently alive, anyway).
No argument. Same reply.

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.
I disagree with your rosy eyed opinion of the current system/ situation.

Here are three videos of the State's agents unleashing violence unpredictably at their individual whim.

]



You can find more here: Google police brutality

And check out what happens to honest cops: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/chicago-code-of-silence-2_n_2064058.html

The only way to limit the individual capacity for violence is to provide reliable assurance that the would-be aggressor will lose, at least in the long run.
As you peruse the various videos of police brutality, take the time to read the associated text. You will find in many cases, the gang of police (Opinion: akin to any other dangerous street gang) protect their own, and the perpetrator gets off with a slap on the wrist compared to what a private individual would get for doing the same tort (wrongdoing).

Try to get a form from the police to file a police abuse report and see what happens:



In other words: superior force.  In order to restrain an individual from exercising their capacity for violence at will, it is necessary to create a system that can command them to refrain from violence, and expect to be obeyed.
Where does the system get the right to command?

And as the above videos highlight, That system you so unquestionably and uncritically believe in fails to refrain its own actors from doing violence at will.

Two rhetorical questions:
If you are afraid of heights are you going to apply for a job as a skyscraper window washer?
Who do you think will be attracted to a job where you can aim guns at people and order them about with impunity?

In order for you to exercise a "right" not to be attacked, a system has to be in place that can command others not to attack you.  In order for others to exercise a "right" not to be attacked, a system has to be in place that can command you not to attack them. This system we call "government."
YOU call it government. I call it a bunch of thugs masquerading as the State. See rhetorical questions above.

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.

So, in order for you to have a "right to life" or a "right to liberty" that isn't just a plaintive wail you emit as you fall under a hail of bullets, knives, or fists,
Presume much?
a government has to exist that is powerful enough to make it against the law to attack you.
<smirk> Hmph. There are laws against murder in all States and Federal Zones. Please explain how that law's working for these 59,659 people.
YearMurder
200915,399
201014,772
201114,661
201214,827
Total59,659

Let me say this again: In order for there to be "rights," there must be a government that can command people--including you--to respect them.
Yeah, that really worked well to make people respect the rights of those 59,659 above.

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.

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

Police have NO DUTY TO PROTECT.

IF YOU ORDER NOW we will throw in this excerpt.
Quote from: Police Chief Magazine.
Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.
Emphasis mine. Link.

104. Admit or deny that If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.

Deny.  If I assert a "right to life," I am simultaneously commanding you not to kill me.
And thereby contradicting your own answer to points 102 and 103. You have admitted that you don't have a right to command me. In other words, you have denied that you have a higher rank than I. You have also admitted that this is true for everyone else on the planet. Thus you have denied that anyone else on the planet has a higher rank than I.

I'm not calling you on your strawman since it gives me a target rich environment.

Likewise, if you assert a "right to life," you are simultaneously commanding me not to kill you.
I'm sure you believe that.

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.

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

By asserting that no one has any "right" to command you, ever, you are asserting that you have the "right" to attack or kill anyone at will.
Make shit up much?

What evidence do you rely upon to substantiate that assertion?

That makes you a dangerous person to have around.
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.


>snip<

The same principles apply to the dead (i.e., the signers of the Constitution, dead legislators, etc.).
Not understood. Missing context? Ignored.

108. Admit or deny that If no one has a right to command me, then no one has a right to choose someone to command me.

Deny.
By this denial, you are indicating that I don't have a right to command my south neighbor but somehow I have the right to give my north neighbor the right to command my south neighbor.

You have admitted:
101. You were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, you were not born with a higher rank than I.
102. Therefore, you DO NOT have a right to command me by your mere birth.
103. If this is true for you, it is true for every other human being born on the planet.
Then you deny that If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.

How's that work where an individual with a lower rank can command an individual with a higher rank? (104.)

At this time I notice that there is no response to points 105, 106, & 107.

  Since "rights" are only possible if you can be commanded to respect them (and likewise for everyone else),
Nope. Rights are only possible WHEN they are respected. Commands to respect are just like commands (laws) to not murder.
if we want to have rights, we need to have a "system of command" with the power to uphold and enforce them.
And where exactly, does the "system of command" get its right to command?
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.

By the way, more guns=less crime.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/24/states-crime-rates-show-scant-linkage-to-gun-laws/?page=all
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

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?

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.


It turns out that the best way we've found to solve this problem is for people to delegate rights-enforcement to a cooperating group able to bring overwhelming force to bear if necessary, so that violence-competition ceases as much as practically possible.
How does one delegate rights that one does not have?

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.

We call this group "government."
YOU call it government. I call it a bunch of thugs masquerading as the State. See rhetorical questions above.

So far, the best form of government that we've developed is representative democracy--precisely, a system whereby people agree to collectively choose who can command us to respect the "rights" we want ourselves and others in society to be able to exercise.  Is this system perfect?  Nope.  It's just the best thing we've come up with so far.
Where does this collective get the right to command?  (Note to self: post anti-lilac treatise.)

Far as I am concerned, you have failed to make the case that you have the right to command me. I guess this individual right to command is going to be our focus in future posts.

If you don't have that right, you can NOT give it to anyone else. So now you need to convince me of your right to command me.

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

Deny.  Some version of that is the only way for there to be any "rights" at all.  In other words, you cannot assert a "right" not to be commanded (at all, ever), since such a "right" eliminates the social structure that makes "rights" possible in the first place.
Nice try at making a strawman... I almost missed it. I am NOT asserting a right to NOT be commanded. I am asserting that YOU have NO right to command me. Which you have already admitted in reply to points 101, 102, & 103.

And since you deny point 109, I take it to mean you are saying that even though people do not have the right to command me, they can still choose someone to command me. See neighbor example above.

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?

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

Since "rules" are worthless if they're not enforced, there must be some agency that enforces the rules and protects "rights."
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.

That agency we call "government."
There is no "government". There is only the "State."

110. Admit or deny that Therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician the right to command me.

Deny.  So far, "electing politicians who can command" the people within a society (including you) within a limited sphere has proven to be the best way we have of creating any "rights" at all.


Where is your evidence of a politician's right to command?

Where does said politician get the right to command?
This is the point that you appear to be missing.
Who gives said politician the right to command?
I certainly did not and you have failed to prove that you can give said politician the right to command me.

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

Deny.  If you are living within the physical territory of my civilization, driving on its roads, benefiting from the rights-protection services it offers, using the currency whose value the "faith and credit" of its government insures as your medium of exchange, breathing the clean air its environmental regulatory agencies insure your "right" to, using the internet its research-and-development funds created, enjoying safety in "your" home and "property" because it commands other people not to pillage you at will and mobilizes the necessary force to deter them from doing so, if you can shift a little lever on your toilet and have your stinky shit go into the sewer system my civilization provides for you so that your ungrateful ass doesn't die of cholera...

...then it bloody well matters where you're standing, and you can just sod right off if you think you're such a special little snowflake that the rules that make it all possible don't apply to you!
I "can just sod right off" Get personal much? My, my... You have just worked yourself up into a nasty frenzy haven't you? Sod right off... You must be a Brit.

All those words and you fail to provide proof to support your denial. In case you missed reading what you replied to:
Quote
111. If the politician does not have a right to command me, then it matters not if I am standing within the boundaries of any territory the politician believes is his to control.
So according to you, if the politician does not have a right to command me, he still does.

How's that work?

Admit or deny that A contract requires an offer, consideration, acceptance, and a meeting of minds.

It has been said that the Constitution is some sort of contract.

201. Admit or deny that The federal constitution was never given to me as an offer, therefore I never gave an acceptance in return.

202. Admit or deny that Since I was never given the offer, the consideration from the other party was never presented.

203. Admit or deny that Since I was never given the offer, the return consideration was never presented.

204. Since I was never given the offer, there was no meeting of minds.

205. Therefore, the constitution is NOT a contract that I am party to.

So you agree that I am fully entitled to just show up and kill you whenever I like, or kidnap you and chain you up in a basement and feed you to rats piece by piece?  Can you show me a contract I signed that says I agreed not to do that?

I dare you to post a sign in your yard, front window, or door (whichever is the most visible) that says:

LAW-FREE ZONE.
  THE RESIDENT OF THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY LAWS OR ANY RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF LAW OFFICERS OR ANY OTHER AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT.  THE RESIDENT OF THIS PROPERTY WILL NOT CALL THE POLICE, FIRE DEPARTMENT, OR ANY OTHER AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT FOR ASSISTANCE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE RESIDENT OF THIS PROPERTY MAY ALSO BE CONSIDERED NOT TO ENJOY THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW WHILE HE IS OFF OF THESE PREMISES, NOR DOES ANY OF THE RESIDENT'S POSSESSIONS OR MONEY ENJOY THE PROTECTION OF LAW.  THE RESIDENT WILL NOT CALL POLICE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Feel free to post your "I Got A Gun" "Beware of Dog" or whatever signs in addition to this.  Go ahead.  I dare ya.
Vehement, nonsensical reply noted.

Finally, I've come to the end of this <sarcasm> brief </sarcasm>

I'll read the new posts later.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6753
  • Darwins +817/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #77 on: April 20, 2014, 05:56:13 PM »
HED

Okay, you've asked enough questions. It is time for you to start telling us what you think the answers are.

And I'd prefer one that doesn't cause another 58,000 deaths all by itself.

Edit: fixed terrible english


.

« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 06:10:09 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1965
  • Darwins +110/-2
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #78 on: April 20, 2014, 06:56:44 PM »
HED,
   Your position is understandable if impractical.  I said above we must hold the laws feet to the fire - monitor the police, the state, the laws, prevent future Kelo decisions, etc.   Elect politicians who make compromises looking at the balance between individual and collective needs.   I believe western democracy has designed the best system so far - which is admittedly not a perfect system.

 
Quote
Perhaps you are self-governing... The only government there actually is.

So OK.  There is no evidence of a lawmaker's right to command.  How should society manage those that do not self govern?  Or the state that has run amuck?

This from a recent New Yorker questions but also admits a truth for your position:
Quote
The season of slaughter that decimated Rwanda twenty years ago is one of the defining outrages of humankind. At no other time in the history of our species were so many of us killed so fast or so intimately: roughly a million people in a hundred days, most of them butchered by hand, by their neighbors, with household tools and homemade weapons—machetes and hoes and hammers and clubs. The killing was programmatic, a campaign prepared and orchestrated by the state to extirpate the Tutsi minority in the name of an ideology known as Hutu Power. It was, in conception and execution, the starkest and most comprehensive case of genocide since the crime was defined in international law, in response to the Holocaust.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2014/04/21/140421taco_talk_gourevitch

Quote
I will defend using whatever method I determine is best for the situation you create when you INITIATE force against me.

To return to Mr. Bundy, a good example of your thugs vs individual debate - who initiated the problem?  The section of the US I live in, farmers purchase the land they graze animals on.  And how should Native American tribes proceed with the injustices done to them?

In a later thread I would like to know how you would address the situation where people who do not pay health insurance go to hospitals and receive health care for free - debtors prisons?

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

Is that you, Rush?  I didn't realize you views were THAT far right.  Or have they given you permission to use the computer at the prison, Mr. Kazinski?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 07:04:14 PM by shnozzola »
“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 jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #79 on: April 20, 2014, 07:02:54 PM »
To be blunt, HED, your whole position is fatally flawed.  While it is arguable that nobody has the inherent, inborn right to give you commands, that has nothing to do with most kinds of authority.  For example, when you were a child, you obeyed your parents, not because they had an inborn right to that authority, but because they provided for your needs (by virtue of having you as a child).  Once you were able to live on your own, you could release yourself from their authority, which only extended as long as they provided for you.

That's how it works in the USA, today.  By being a citizen, you implicitly agree to the social contract between you and the government, which is essentially that you agree to take on certain responsibilities in exchange for certain rights and privileges.  You can certainly choose to release yourself from that social contract by renouncing your citizenship, but then you can no longer claim the rights of a citizen.  However, that does not mean you can ignore laws passed by the government, because the government has the authority to pass those laws by virtue of the social contract agreed to by all American citizens.  That authority extends to all territory de facto controlled by the USA, so the only way to get out from under it is to not be within that territory.

Your argument that you did not agree to said social contract is invalid, because it's plainly stated in American law that being born on American soil makes one a citizen, with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities therein (though some of them do not come into effect for some years after one's birth).  That has been the case for over two hundred years.  You cannot claim that because you did not formally agree to it, that you aren't bound by it; ignorance of the law and what it states is your problem, not the country's.  You can renounce your citizenship, as you stated here; you can choose to try to flaunt the authority of the government, for what little that may accomplish.  But claiming that it never had any authority over you and thus you can do what you want in territory controlled by this country is simply not going to work unless you possess the capability to protect yourself against the actions of the government, never mind anything else.

Since I very seriously doubt that you have anything resembling that capability, any argument by you regarding authority is effectively moot.  To quote something I read, the only way to justify renouncing someone's authority over you (whether de facto or de jure) is to have the capability to overcome them when they exert it over you.  And very simply, you don't, and probably never will.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #80 on: April 20, 2014, 07:49:22 PM »
And I see in your reply something quite akin to "If you don't believe in biblegod, you're going to rot in hell"
Jails and prisons are real, so your analogy is simply awful.  If this is an example of your reasoning, I can see why Azdgari was all over you.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
Whence comes this authority?
From the people who agree with it.  You see, that's the whole point of the Constitution - to establish that the authority of the government comes from those who accept being governed by it.  It doesn't matter whether that acceptance is explicit or implicit.  If you move to this country and begin the naturalization process, your acceptance is explicit because you have to agree to it, whereas if you're a natural-born citizen, your acceptance is implicit because you gain certain rights granted you by the government, even at birth, merely because you were born here.  Either way, a citizen agrees to the authority of the government.  Naturally, they can later revoke their agreement by renouncing their citizenship, but that doesn't do a thing to the authority that the government has from everyone else.

To quote Marc Stevens: If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Another bad argument.  You really aren't very good at this, are you?

The goods and services provided by a market - specifically, by the people and companies who sell them - are almost always done because they're profitable.  However, the mere fact that something is not profitable does not mean it's not valuable.  Things can have value despite not being profitable.  For example, do you value having hot and cold running water and an indoor toilet in your house, rather than having to draw water up using a well and having to use an outhouse?  Well, water and sewage services are provided by the government because they're valuable to the people who live within the jurisdiction.  If the government did not provide them, then the market would, but it would have to charge a lot more money than the government does in order for the companies providing that service to make a profit.  Therefore, most people would not be able to afford them; because the government provides those things (at cost), it improves the standard of living of everyone who lives there, not just the lucky few with enough money to afford it.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #81 on: April 20, 2014, 08:18:30 PM »
Okay, I'll engage your distraction.
You didn't really do a very good job of it, though.

Quote from: Habenae Est Dominatus
The bartender has no authority. He's shit out of luck. The best he can do is not serve me a drink the next time I enter his bar.
See Tit for Tat programs: Cite 1  Cite 2
Except that isn't the best he can do.  He can require you to prepay him before he serves you a drink (which is how places of business generally operate in non-secure environments).  Therefore, he will have preempted attempts to cheat him out of the payment in a non-provocative way.  Naturally, that puts the onus on him to provide you with what you ordered, but as he's a businessman, he'll most likely do that if he wishes to stay in business.  That way, he doesn't have to try to keep track of people who may have cheated him in the past; he simply doesn't serve anyone who doesn't pay, whatever the reason.

There's also a point you forgot, or didn't consider - honor among thieves.  Criminals tend to abide by whatever agreements they make, because they can't appeal to the courts or the law.  This is because if they don't abide by it, there's nothing to stop the aggrieved parties from coming after them with blood in their eyes.  By comparison, people who abide by the law and the authority of a government have the additional recourse of appealing to it for intervention.  It dramatically reduces the likelihood of violence, since people don't have to fall back on the use of force to make others comply with agreements.  That's why your argument is so badly flawed - because it removes ways to solve problems without violence, rather than adding them.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #82 on: April 20, 2014, 09:01:31 PM »
Yet my evidence that it does not exist is posted in the very first post of this topic.
With all due respect, what you posted on the first page of this topic was mostly logic, not evidence.  If logic was sufficient to serve as evidence, we would have only four elements, as Aristotle argued, and other such absurdities.  The fact of the matter is that people not having birth-rank has nothing to do with the authority of a government; that authority exists due to the consent of the governed.  This is stated in the very Declaration of Independence that you cited at the beginning of said post.  Indeed, it is in the very next sentence after the one you quoted.  I will quote it here for your reading convenience.

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

In short, in order to ensure that everyone has access to the rights you cited in the opening of your post, specifically life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, a government that derives its authority from the consent of the governed is necessary.  This is for the very simple fact that individuals often cannot safeguard their rights with the power they possess, whereas a government, with the collective power derived from the individuals who consent to its authority, has a much greater capacity to safeguard all of those rights for those it governs.

Therefore, your argument is moot.  Whether you acknowledge it or not, governments, and the authority which they wield, exist, due to the consent of the governed.  Which includes you; you stated that you did not wish to pop the bubble of citizenship, but that is implicit consent to the authority of the government.  You can call it whatever you want, but that is what it actually is.  And in any case, your position does not abrogate the authority and power of the government that it derives from everyone else who consents to be governed by it.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13030
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #83 on: April 20, 2014, 11:31:00 PM »
There's also a point you forgot, or didn't consider - honor among thieves.  Criminals tend to abide by whatever agreements they make, because they can't appeal to the courts or the law.  This is because if they don't abide by it, there's nothing to stop the aggrieved parties from coming after them with blood in their eyes.  By comparison, people who abide by the law and the authority of a government have the additional recourse of appealing to it for intervention.  It dramatically reduces the likelihood of violence, since people don't have to fall back on the use of force to make others comply with agreements.  That's why your argument is so badly flawed - because it removes ways to solve problems without violence, rather than adding them.

I can vouch for the "honor amongst thieves" being a former thief, myself (the one time I was arrested was for stealing but I was also charged with resisting arrest which I felt was incorrect, whole other story[1]). I never dishonored the "code" but a friend of mine did when we once went to his place and I and another person noticed he had things that looked familiar to us. It was possible he had those things just as we did but then when we found our stuff missing we confronted him, I gave a "speech" of the do's and don't's of not stealing from your friends[2] (not kidding) and he was ostricized from the group without beating him senseless, and that was because his brother was also in our group, and the only reason why.

After I left the group (because I moved away), I heard he was let back in but did it again and flew off a building; the person who told me that laughed because his nickname (the one killed) was "fly". When I left, a year or two later I "retired" from that life. I would like to say because of that incident but it was more out of boredom. It was too easy, and I like challenges. I found following the rules and/or laws is very challenging, and it never bores.

It's very difficult for me to follow rules mainly because I can't stand people telling me what to do but since I don't like being bored, and if I did what I wanted when I wanted to, where would the challenge be?

I feel people who are against the government are not just anti-government but anti-everything that prevents them from doing what they want to do. I'm not like those people, and never have been; even as a former criminal I abided by the rule of the group; and when I "worked" alone, I still followed a set of rules. Those who do not are destined to live very short lives, and have little freedoms which contradicts their whole viewpoint.

-Nam
 1. this was 23 years ago, and I stopped being a thief when I was 21 or 22 years old. I was caught a total of 3 times in my 13/14 years of being a thief but only arrested once and charged--got only 6 months of community service
 2. we actually had a list of who you don't steal from not just us, and a list of drugs that one doesn't do like heroin and cocaine
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +437/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #84 on: April 21, 2014, 08:29:33 AM »
It should be noted that all the replies to my posts so far, wherein I ask for certain evidence, those requests are ignored just like the biblegod followers ignore your requests that they supply evidence that biblegod is real.
You've rigged the game.  You recognize that the idea of authority exists.  You've spelled it out yourself in this thread.  Many here have expressed how that same manner in which authority exists (i.e. you grant it to another entity) in the way government authority exists - you grant it to them.  You don't?  Then why the hell are you still a US citizen?  You don't recognize US government authority - that's fine - so drop the damn citizenship already.

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

Okay, I'll engage your distraction.

The bartender has no authority. He's shit out of luck. The best he can do is not serve me a drink the next time I enter his bar.
See Tit for Tat programs: Cite 1  Cite 2
jaimehler's expressed a scenario where the bartender can do better.

But you seem to be the guy in the bar who keeps asking for drinks and b*tching that the bartender wants money for it.

Quote
Please provide evidence that I am "subject to some level of government authority".
Please provide evidence that "some level of government authority" actually exists. In other words, Whence comes government State authority?
You are a US citizen.  You are a US citizen.  You live in US borders.  You are a US citizen.

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

Quote
And you're right, you didn't sign up for that by birth, and there's something to be said about opt-in vs. opt-out, but right now you're in a position to opt-out.  You're complaining about how much the party sucks but don't want to take the step to just leave.  You want everyone else at the party to change.
I'm sorry, did I offend you because I challenge your belief in authority?
You didn't offend me.  Why the above analogy makes you think that I felt offended is quite puzzling.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #85 on: April 21, 2014, 09:41:51 AM »
  I'm getting the sensation that you aren't terribly open to ideas that are different from your own.


Yeah, he just has a secular religion..just like Communists.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1350
  • Darwins +454/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #86 on: April 21, 2014, 06:10:15 PM »
Are you stating that your dad didn't stick it in you mother and create you?

Because Thomas Jefferson was totally talking about my parents when he wrote the DoI.  &)

Does "creator" refer to biblegod or nature? (Nature... That feeling your Mom and Dad had...)

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.

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."  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.  That capacity exists, at least in potential.  Each person has a certain capacity to wield force against other people.  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?

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!"

>snip more blather about "rights."<  What is a "right?"  How much does a cubic foot of "rights" weigh?  Do you believe in Santa Claus?

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?"

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.  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.  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.


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."  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.

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.  BTW, about 40,000 people die every year in car crashes.  Do you want to eliminate cars?  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.  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?! 

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

See how it works?

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 send reinforcements to help you when you called?  Even if they weren't the Justice League?  And if they could provide things like roads 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?   

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 the existence of murder proves that there are people who want to commit murder.  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..

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

Yeah?  And how much help did they get from the "Non-Aggression Principle?"  What is that, by the way?  Can it make a reindeer fly?

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?  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!"

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

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.  I do think it's pretty cool that gun owners get to leave their guns at home most of the time, and don't have to pack heat everywhere they go, always having to be ready to draw first.  I wonder how that works?

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."

2) Look around.

EXTRA CREDIT:

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


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?"  What would a "Title Insurance company" do if somebody doesn't recognize a "Title" they issue?  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?

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!"

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?

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?

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?  YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME, STOP SIGN!  BTW, where do stop signs come from?  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?"

>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<

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.   
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina