Author Topic: Belief in authority is a religion  (Read 4817 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #87 on: April 22, 2014, 07:14:59 AM »
In reviewing this thread I find that I have a second answer to Dante's post.

What evidence do you rely upon to prove the laws in the US Constitution apply to me?

If you presume they do not apply to you, go ahead and break them.

They are applied to me without authority. It is the basis of that alleged authority that I am aiming at with my posts in this thread.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #88 on: April 22, 2014, 07:31:28 AM »
Again, in review of the thread I find something I need to further address.

Neither does Authority.

Whence comes authority?
Please show the details of your work to prove authority has something to support it.

I just told you. People have the mindset that they have to obey authority because they do, under threat of something (usually imprisonment or death). To them, that is justification. It is a real danger.

Elsewhere in this thread, someone brought up the issue of an armed robber. By the definition you've provided, said armed robber has authority also... Because the robber has commanded the victim "under threat of something" (usually imprisonment or "death). To them, that is justification. It is a real danger."

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.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12548
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #89 on: April 22, 2014, 08:18:43 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? 

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5050
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #90 on: April 22, 2014, 09:55:36 AM »
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.  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".  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.

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.  It is not a wise idea to remove that safeguard without having one of equal or better effectiveness to go in its place.  So, as screwtape asked, what's your alternative to the existing government?
 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

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2249
  • Darwins +406/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #91 on: April 22, 2014, 10:12:36 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?
"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 Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #92 on: April 22, 2014, 02:19:29 PM »
I missed this post the first time through.

Tip O' the hat to kcrady for being a most interesting sparring partner.

It is interesting that you bring up corporations since the "State" (erroneously called "government") is a corporation.

What then is a corporation?

A "corporation" is a group of people who agree to act in concert in accordance with a certain set of protocols (e.g., having a "Board of Directors" and "management" structure, "shareholders" and "stock" which can be traded under certain conditions, as defined by the regulations of the government under which the corporation is chartered, etc..
Agreed.

And as your definition proves via "shareholders", such a corporation is "owned".

A "government" is a special-purpose corporation[1] that is created to provide a uniform system of protocols called "laws" to "govern" a given territory.
 1. Unless it is an absolute monarchy or dictatorship under the unlimited control of a single individual, in which case it's more like a "property owner" and people who work for him/her.
Who are its shareholders? Who owns the government incorporated State?

And your footnote applies to the federal and 50 States as well. It owns property and people (flesh and blood) work for it as well. Thus I do not see the distinction that your footnote highlights.

Who was authorized (given permission to act) to create the incorporated State?
And who authorized (gave permission to act) to those who created the incorporated State?

So we are right back to the same point I keep bringing up: If you don't have authority (the right, the permission) to command me, you do not have authority (the right, the permission to act) to give someone else authority (the right, the permission to act) to command me.

Also, unless I specifically authorize you (give you permission to act) to represent me, you don't have permission to act in my stead because you are not my Agent.

Among other things, this system of "laws" exists to place the use of force under non-arbitrary control, so that "the gun under the table" may itself be governed. 
<snort> Ruby Ridge, Waco, Kelo, and most important, the police brutality links I gave above.

Do you believe in Santa Claus?

The difference between government and Santa Claus is that somebody told you the truth about Santa Claus.

Interesting fact about Santa Claus: "He" has far greater cultural and economic impact than you will ever have, mere "real" person!  How is this possible?  Of course Santa Claus does not exist as a physical magic person with magic flying reindeer.  "He" does exist as a cultural meme prevalent in our society, the exact same sense in which "Jehovah God Almighty" exists.
Which includes the meme of State authority as well.

In both cases, people choose to act in concert in various ways because they value the meme.  The meme has powerful effects in reality as a result.
And in both your example cases (Santa and Jehovah God Almighty), both are based upon an imagined thing. I submit that State authority is the same because it also is based on an imagined thing.

Political abstractions like "government," "rights," "corporations," "laws," etc. "exist" and have their effects in reality in the same way. 
That would be in 'the exact same sense in which "Jehovah God Almighty"' does, based on an imaginary thing.

Sorry, I no longer accept the myth of State authority as something real. The logic (which is being ignored as I expected) does not support State authority as anything but a myth just like Santa or Jehovah God Almighty.

As you graciously point out, the non-existent Santa has an impact. Just like the State's alleged authority.

Authority, as a right to command, does not exist.

Neither, in your metaphysics, does a "right" not to be commanded.  How much does a "right" weigh?  What is it made of?
I command you to shut the fuck up and stop posting your drivel.

Are you going to comply? Of course not. It's not an issue of your right to not be commanded. It's an issue of me NOT having the right to command you at all.

Oh... And it's not metaphysics. It's a logical progression with each point in the 100 series based upon the preceding point.


You can not choose somebody to command me since you yourself do not have a right to command me.

The State's alleged authority works like this: Do what we say or we will kill you.

Well, there you go.  "Authority" is the ability to impose one's will upon another by force.  I can gain the "authority" to command you by drawing my gun first.  Of course, you can gain the "authority" to command me if you're faster on the draw.  Notice that there are no "rights" involved here.  All we're talking about here is physical capacity to wield force against one another.  If I can get a gang together, even if you draw first one of us can probably still bring you down before you kill us all, so you'd probably better do what we say.  The same applies if you get a gang together first.
Very good. You are mostly correct.

Let me rephrase what you said to illustrate my point:
Quote
If I can get a gang government together, even if you draw first one of us can probably still bring you down before you kill us all, so you'd probably better do what we say.
So what's the difference between a government and a gang? The PERCEPTION of legitimacy.

Just as with the various sects of biblegod believers, it is the cultural indoctrination to believe and thus perceive this alleged legitimacy.

I submit that logic does not support that perception anymore than it supports Santa or biblegod as something other than a myth.

So, each individual, and groups of individuals working together, have a capacity (not a "right," that's one of those abstractions you're denying), to impose their will on others by initiating force.  This is all very concrete, very real in the direct, physical sense of the term.
With the strikethrough, I agree completely. Since that abstraction is the topic... I'd guess it still is.

Now, every place where people exercise this capacity at will (Somalia, Syria, etc.) is demonstrably a hell-hole.
Guess what's missing...? Balance of power and uncritical examination of the (cultural?) standards.

Consider that in the states united (sic), crime is higher in gun free victim zones.

Also, crime that happens in the US happens IN SPITE of having government a state and laws.

Few, if any people genuinely want to live like that.  You don't, or you'd be on the first tramp freighter to Somalia you could find.
Project much?

So, people invented a solution to the problem of random violence: they delegate their capacity for violence to an organization of people to wield on their behalf.
Sorry, that is wrong on its face. As pointed out, all people have a capacity for violence. This includes the people who are in, or members of, the organization. And if the people do not have a legitimate right to use violence, then they simply CAN NOT DELEGATE such authority, right, or permission to act to anybody else.

Unless you are going to argue that one CAN give something one does not own or have in their possession to somebody else.

I remind you that you have already agreed to the following 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.

Having agreed to point 103, you have agreed that politicians, aka congressmen, aka legislators do not have a right (authority, permission) to command me by their mere birth.

Therefore that right (authority, permission) MUST COME FROM SOMEWHERE. If you do not have the right (authority, permission) to command me, you CAN NOT DELEGATE IT.

In exchange for this privilege, the organization of people agrees to do everything in their power (which they have been given) to make violence within the territory they control non-random.
I guess that the non-random violence you refer to is the cops killing people JUST LIKE CRIMINALS kill people.

This group of people create a set of rules or principles that define when they can, and cannot use force.
Yep. they'll make their own rules up. And they'll also be the judge of if they broke their  own rules or if they used too much force in making you obey their rules.

Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws is a revealing critique of what happens when the government breaks its own laws. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the inalienable God-given rights of the individual are being assailed. “Because it breaks the law, the government is not your friend,” surmises Judge Andrew Napolitano. He admits he came to the bench with “impeccable conservative law-and-order credentials” and left the bench eight years later cognizant of “how the criminal justice system works to subvert and shred the Constitution.” Taking a cue from Thomas Jefferson, Napolitano iterates that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Emphasis mine.

In addition, this group of people act in concert to prevent individuals or other groups of people from using force.
With the murder rates being what they are, how's that working out for you?

And as I quoted in my post above, the police have NO DUTY to protect.

In this way, the use of force itself is brought under control, so that the people living under the system can have some ability to predict when and under what conditions force can or will be used, and organize their lives accordingly.
With both government and non-government criminals killing at will, I will argue that the use of force is NOT under control.

Who controls the controllers?
Quote from: Jackney Sneeb
"We need a government that is strong enough to vanquish all enemies, yet can't trample on our rights."  The contradiction here is obvious.

For example, if the city a trader lives in and the city in the next valley are both under the control of the same group of people, and that group of people acts to prevent other people from, say, ambushing travelers along the road to loot them, then the trader can load up a wagon of goods and take it to the other city to sell.
Traveler Ambush Procedure.

Place your patrol car just over the top of a hill, or around a curve at the bottom of a hill.
Point your radar so that you can register the speed of the motorists before they see you.
Initiate force against the motorists by illuminating your emergency lights, and using your siren if necessary.
When motorists stop, approach their cars with your hand on your gun.
Take the motorist's information and write a citation for $200.
This $200 will be used to fund our extortion racket law enforcement activities.
If motorist resists, shoot him.

Oh... And I forgot to mention the 85th percentile regarding your previous frothing about speeders.

  S/he can do this with some degree of confidence because even if there are still some highwaymen out there, they have to act in secret and limit their numbers in order to stay under the radar of the group of people to whom the trader has delegated the use of force.
The highwaymen don't stay under the radar... They use radar to justify their theft.

The trader may need to hire a few bodyguards, but s/he won't need an army.
I presume you haven't noticed the militarization of the police force.

We call this group of people to whom we delegate our capacity to use force a "government."
I call it a gang of thugs masquerading under the presumed legitimacy of the State.

Now, "governments" can be organized in a number of different ways and under different principles (e.g. "monarchy," "oligarchy," "representative constitutional democracy," etc., and some of these work better for protecting the people who live under them and enhancing their prosperity than others.
All operate under the Do as we say or we will kill you format.

"Government" turns out to be quite a remarkable invention.
And you worship it just like the bible thumpers worship god. You imply with the words just below, that "government" is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Not only does it put a damper on random violence and enhance public safety, it can be used to provide all manner of public goods that disorganized individuals could not provide for themselves.  For example, roads--and a system of rules for traveling on them that, when heeded, prevent vehicles from crashing into one another--airports (with, you guessed it, another set of rules for aircraft), railroads, enforced rules that protect commons such as our shared environment, money for scientific research and development, a social safety net that (when designed and operated properly) makes it so that a medical emergency or the loss of a job does not ruin one's whole life.  And on, and on, and on. 
I reject your statist propaganda.

Like any invention--especially a very powerful invention--it can be misused to do horrible things.  So can rockets, but that doesn't mean we want to destroy all rockets, does it?
You're right. We only want to put down rabid dogs. That said, if every dog is rabid, we want to destroy every dog that is rabid. Governments are rabid.

"But I don't choose to delegate my capacity to use force to this 'government' of yours!  I don't agree!  Just because I won't pay taxes to your 'government' doesn't mean you can command me not to drive on the roads it builds or enjoy its national parks or take shelter behind its military!  WHA'EVAH!  I DO WHAT I WAAANT!"
Get emotional much?

I see the same type of emotionalism here as I saw from biblethumpers when they were schooled on their "beliefs".

Very well.  You'd better get off our land then.
What evidence do you rely upon to prove that I am on YOUR land.?

Because, as soon as you decide to wield your capacity to use force against others at will, refuse to pay your fair share for the operation of our government or the like "because nobody can command you," you'll find out the hard way that we can.  We are members of a civilization.  We can cooperate (a power you lone-wolf libertarian anarcho-capitalists lack), and we can bring far more force to bear than you can all by your lonesome.
What's this we shit Kemo Sabe?

Your unthinking emotional rant is noted. Your missing evidence of the legitimate authority of the state is also noted.

Now, you're welcome to hold your eccentric beliefs if you like.
And you are welcome to attempt prove the legitimacy of yours. Something you are continuing to fail at.

I numbered my logical points and you started spewing words at 104. Since each point relies upon the preceding point, you only need to prove that your denial of point 104 is valid.

Here it is again: 104. If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.
I did address this in my prior reply to you, so I simply refer to that post.


You're welcome to hate our civilization and our government and criticize both openly, so long as you don't practice your belief that you can use force whenever you like,
Make shit up much?

What evidence do you rely upon to prove I believe I can use force whenever I like?
Put up or retract.

refrain from paying taxes, obeying laws, etc. because you think no rules apply to you.
You have failed to prove they have any legitimacy at all.

Our civilization incorporates and values certain abstractions called "rights," such as a "right" to hold and express an opinion even if it's idiotic,
Ad hominem noted.

a "right" under certain conditions to call land and other objects "your property" and expect that our government will act to prevent others from randomly taking it from you,
Your  omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god government has FAILED on numerous occasions to prevent others from stealing my stuff. So unlike you, I don't believe god government will act to prevent others from stealing my stuff.

And as proven in my other reply to you, Police have no duty to protect which means god government has no duty to protect.

etc..  However, these "rights" are an abstraction of the same sort that our "government" and "civilization" are, so if you deny the legitimacy of the latter two and act on it, you cannot claim the protection of the first.
What protection?  The police and thus government have NO DUTY TO PROTECT. It's time you dropped your superstitious belief in god government.



I'm attempting first posted first answered, so please be patient. I'll get to everyone in time.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #93 on: April 22, 2014, 02:24:29 PM »
Second reply required.

I take exception to your use of the term "lawbreaker", since it is actually the denial of the politician's command authority. A parable if I may...

Cop:
The reason I pulled you over sir, is I noticed you were not wearing your seat belt. I am issuing you a citation for failing to do so.
Driver:

What is the purpose of this seat belt law?
Cop:
It's for your safety.

Driver:
What happens if I ignore this citation?
Cop:
The court assume you are guilty and will fine you.

Driver:
What happens if I ignore the fine?
Cop:
The court will issue a bench warrant for your arrest, and I'll have to come to your home to arrest you.

Driver:
What happens when I resist your attempt to arrest me?
Cop:
I'll call for backup.

Driver:
While you are waiting for backup, I'll be making sure all my guns are loaded with rounds in the chamber. What then?
Cop:
We will escalate force until you comply.

Driver:
If I present an armed refusal to obey you, what happens?
Cop:
You could be killed if we are forced to shoot you.

Driver:
Didn't you say the purpose of this law was my safety?

Government always uses force. It may be hid behind euphemisms, but the gun is ALWAYS under the table.

So?  The gun is always under the table for Random Guy Driving Around With a Gun Who Doesn't Want To Obey Traffic Laws too.  The law doesn't just exist for his safety--it also exists for the safety of everyone else.  This loose cannon you describe in your parable is a threat to everyone around him.  The cops should arrest a person like that.  It's what we hire them for.

Are you stating the the State has the legitimate right to use force, lethal force, to insure somebody wears a seat belt?

Perhaps you'll be all for the death penalty for anyone convicted of attempted suicide.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #94 on: April 22, 2014, 02:42:26 PM »
So, HED, what's your thing, man?  Are you an anarchist?  A weirdo loner who hates society?  Just a country bumpkin who chafes at authority?
Maybe all of the above...  ;) and more.  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?

I don't get your whole approach to collective endeavors.
I don't have a problem with collective endeavors. I help my neighbors whenever I see that I have something to offer that will benefit them. It's my choice to help or not.

Why is everything seen through the lens of commands and threat of violence?
Quote from: George Washington
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

ANY "government" aka State relies on COMPLY OR DIE.
Quote from: Frederick Douglass
Find out just what any people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

Do you really not see the benefits of group action?

The issue I am addressing is not group action. It is legitimacy of authority. That is why I asked kcrady to admit or deny the numbered points. He chokes at 104.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #95 on: April 22, 2014, 02:49:12 PM »
Well we could start with the right to life and the right to liberty.

Can you provide any evidence that either of these things exists?  If you catch Ebola, how does your "right to life" prevent you from dying?  If you're trapped in a coal mine, how does your "right to liberty" interact with the several thousand tons of dirt and rock that prevent you from leaving?

Can you provide any physics equations that model their behavior?  Any experimental demonstration of their reality?  If not, then you aren't in a position to argue that "authority" of "government" is a delusion that violates your "rights" as if the latter are any more real than the former.  I can make a case for "rights" within the context of my political and metaphysical models.  From what you've said so far, I don't see how a case for "rights" can be made within the context of your viewpoint.

So are you saying I have no rights just as "government" has not "authority"?

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #96 on: April 22, 2014, 02:55:58 PM »
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.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #97 on: April 22, 2014, 02:56:53 PM »
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.

That only proves that they didn't kill each other. Have you got federal rule of evidence 602 personal knowledge of what you assert?

Edit: punched post too quick.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2014, 02:59:42 PM by Habenae Est Dominatus »

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3034
  • Darwins +270/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #98 on: April 22, 2014, 03:01:59 PM »
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.  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.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #99 on: April 22, 2014, 03:12:52 PM »
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.

What evidence do you rely upon to prove that I am party to the contract of the constitution?
What evidence do you rely upon to prove that those who wrote the constitution had a contract with me to represent me?
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 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.

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?

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3948
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #100 on: April 22, 2014, 03:47:19 PM »
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?
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 screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12548
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #101 on: April 22, 2014, 04:19:38 PM »
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. 

And let's face it, you are not arguing for eating our vegetables.  While I do not disagree with a couple of the things you have said (I have an ongoing thread on militarized police), I think most of what you have to say stems from some of the absolute worst impusles in American culture and, frankly, sounds nuts.  Plus, you've left a lot of gaps. 
It appears to be intentional, though I do not know why. 

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.

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

No, that's hyperbole.  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.  In your speed trap example, 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.  And this is what I am talking about.  Your perspective seems to be that of a paranoiac with extreme tendencies. 

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

He chokes at 104.

I think it is likely you are the only person here who thinks that.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5050
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #102 on: April 22, 2014, 04:37:42 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.

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.

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

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).

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.  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.  Your opinion that you are not bound by that authority is noted; it is also moot, because you do not have the power to buck it.

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.  They are not arbitrated or adjudicated by individual citizens.

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.

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.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12421
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #103 on: April 22, 2014, 08:31:04 PM »
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?

This point here is rather critical to you being taken remotely seriously, HED.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6771
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #104 on: April 23, 2014, 05:57:04 AM »
In reviewing this thread I find that I have a second answer to Dante's post.

What evidence do you rely upon to prove the laws in the US Constitution apply to me?

If you presume they do not apply to you, go ahead and break them.

They are applied to me without authority. It is the basis of that alleged authority that I am aiming at with my posts in this thread.

Have you read this? Consent of the governedWiki
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 #105 on: April 23, 2014, 10:19:04 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?
The first part of the question is simple. 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. (Then again, with your fervent belief in State, maybe you do want to be searched just because you are there.)

Warrants are created by mechanisms within the State. And as of late, the State has been ignoring its own rules regarding no warrantless searches.

As to the second part, the State that you worship violates rights with impunity and you look to the State to protect these rights. So I don't know. How do you propose to make the State obey its own rules?

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.
And yet, no principle of physics or bolt of lightning from the State (government) 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."
Imagine you standing there looking at the barrel of a big assed gun pointing at you. So you don't have a right to life because you claim you don't know how much it weighs, what its equations are.

All the while you are pounding on this point, you continue to fail to address point 104.  If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.

How does somebody with a lower rank than I get to command me? I'm calling you on ignoring this point.

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? What are YOU going to do when your abstract "government" violates YOUR abstract rights?

right
<snip>

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.
Let me know on what day you intend to come to my home and attempt to steal my stuff. I'll demonstrate it to you at that time. No State's agents will be involved since the police have not duty to protect

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.   
Again I must correct you. The United States is a REPUBLIC.
Quote
I pledge allegiance to the Flag,
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
One Nation, under God
Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.

Quote
Article 4 Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

BTW: How's that protect them against invasion going in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California?

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. ;)
And what topic is this about? You are the one who referred to Hobbes without a link.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12548
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #106 on: April 23, 2014, 10:27:37 AM »
HED

It seems to me some of us are confused by the language you are using.  For one, the argument you put forth is that the federal government does not exist.  But in your arguments it seems that is not what you actually mean.  It seems what you are actually arguing is that other people's right to have authority over you is not a tangible thing.  I somewhat agree.  Or you are saying that government's authority - like god - is a purely mental construction.  I agree to that as well.  In fact, that is the whole basis of democracy.  The consent to rule must be given by the ruled.

But neither of these are what you have said in plain language.  You make one claim or challenge and then argue obliquely, with what appear to be hidden or burried assumptions. 

It would help with the conversation if you more plainly and completely expressed your points.

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 #107 on: April 23, 2014, 10:30:04 AM »
does not answer the question

Should I start slinging negative Darwins for unanswered questions. Some of my key points/ questions are being outright ignored.

Who or what do you believe does have authority, HED, and why?

Authority, as a right to command, does not exist.

You can choose somebody to lead you, thus giving them a right to command you if you choose to obey.

You can not choose somebody to command me since you yourself do not have a right to command me.

The State's alleged authority works like this: Do what we say or we will kill you.

As will be shown in the other thread, this alleged authority is created magically.

And yes, sorry, your question is not really answered.
DIRECTLY....

sorry, your question is not really answered DIRECTLY.

It should have been clear by my statement: Authority, as a right to command, does not exist, that I don't believe anyone has authority.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12548
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #108 on: April 23, 2014, 10:56:26 AM »
does not answer the question

Should I start slinging negative Darwins for unanswered questions. Some of my key points/ questions are being outright ignored.


Hi.  My use of green text is an indication that I am acting as a moderator, not a participant in the discussion. 

Normally we try to discourage discussion of karma in threads. It tends to derail the discussion.

You could take the karma system as feedback and adjust your posting accordingly.  Or you could see the karma system as an irrelevant facet of the forum and ignore it.  Or you could take it personally and whine about it.  Before you decide which, just remember: no one loves a whiner.

Key points are skipped over for a number of reasons.  Sometimes the other party does not recognize the point as "key".  Sometimes the other party thinks someone else handled it.  Sometimes the other party just missed it.  Sometimes it is avoided because it is too dificult to handle.  Try to not assume it is always one thing.

You are free to give out karma as you see fit once you achieve 50 or 100 posts (I forget which).  We ask that your commentary in the description is useul as feedback and that you do not abuse it.   
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5050
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #109 on: April 23, 2014, 02:02:56 PM »
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.

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.  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.  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.  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.

To put it another way, the government derives its authority from the fact that people are willing to consent to it (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.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 02:44:02 PM by jaimehlers »

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #110 on: April 23, 2014, 03:35:49 PM »
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?

What I think is that both of you have posted ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to support your assertions that they all disagree with me.

Get one of those road builders to post here that he totally disagrees with me and then you will have proven that that one road builder, and that road builder ONLY, disagrees with me.

Do I see a double standard on evidence starting to show?

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #111 on: April 23, 2014, 03:45:08 PM »
As with most Americans you've missed the most important point.
Your OPINION is noted;

The DoI states that all men are created equal, not that all men are equal.
Congrats... You've put your finger on the problem.

If they are not all equal, but they were created (started) equal, how did they get un-equal?

I maintain that they are STILL all equal. Those that "believe" in magic and the state think they are not. I refer you to my OP in this thread.

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.
By their own words, they do not have the right to govern, to command. Again, see my OP.

Your hypothesis falls on that point.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #112 on: April 23, 2014, 03:47:55 PM »
So maybe the govt or state doesn't have the right to command, but the ability




HED's got a sockpuppet. How keen.

-Nam
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

What I do got (sic) is YOUR number.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11121
  • Darwins +292/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #113 on: April 23, 2014, 03:53:17 PM »
So maybe the govt or state doesn't have the right to command, but the ability




HED's got a sockpuppet. How keen.

-Nam
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

What I do got (sic) is YOUR number.

Habenae Est Dominatus, you should check into English lessons. Nam's sentence was gramatically correct. Allow me to "unfold" his contraction:
HED has got a sockpuppet. How keen.

The sentence is perfect, gramatically speaking.

Also, don't think I have forgotten about this thread. I'm just busy with other things, and this thread is low on my priority list.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Habenae Est Dominatus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Darwins +0/-11
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #114 on: April 23, 2014, 04:02:34 PM »
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
Unfortunately you are correct that the founders were talking only about "white men".

14th amendment civil rights belong to freed slaves. They had no citizenship in the states so the states did not recognize their rights. So the feds made them a United States Citizen. (As opposed to a united States Citizen.)

Quote from: 42USC1981(a)
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

Quote from: 42USC1982
All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

But I digress...
The founders, due likely to their own beliefs, didn't realize what they had done. If a black man is not a man, then the all are equal phrase wouldn't be seen to apply.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12663
  • Darwins +332/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Belief in authority is a religion
« Reply #115 on: April 23, 2014, 04:37:14 PM »
They did that to white women, too by your logic. The black man became a citizen before white women did. The sad thing is, the founding fathers were knee deep in superiority not just over non-whites but also women, and the uneducated. The founding fathers were mainly all men of privilege and wealth.

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

Let's get back on topic, please.