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..
And as your definition proves via "shareholders", such a corporation is "owned".
A "government" is a special-purpose corporation that is created to provide a uniform system of protocols called "laws" to "govern" a given territory.
Who are its shareholders? Who owns the
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.
I command you
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?
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:
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
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
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.
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.
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?
"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
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
"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
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
government has FAILED on numerous occasions to prevent others from stealing my stuff. So unlike you, I don't believe
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
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
I'm attempting first posted first answered, so please be patient. I'll get to everyone in time.