News flash: Nature does not confer "rights." You still haven't explained what a "right" is, or why it is any more real than Santa Claus yet.
Ahhh, You're the one my subconscious was addressing.
If rights do not exist, then the cooperative doesn't have them either. Therefore the cooperative doesn't have any more authority (right to command) than the individual. Ditto "government" and the State.
This is the point that all those indoctrinated in the belief of authority keep missing. You can NOT give what you do not possess, what you do not own. One CAN NOT delegate authority (right to command) that one does not have.
You are correct in the that rights that are violated are not rights. Regardless, are you going to assert that you are more equal than me, or that we are equal equal?
Then you can not authorize anybody to command me.
You keep missing the point I'm making though: I am not asserting a "right" to command you by birth. I have been talking about capacity to command, by force.
And what's the difference between a Somali Warlord, an Afghanistan Warlord, a Libyan Warlord, a Mafioso Capo, or the State when ALL command by force?
It appears to me that you already know the State uses force to control. You just won't accept that it is no more legitimate than a warlord or dictator. It's all comply or die
regardless of what the entity alleged to be "governing" is. Hence Habenae Est Dominatus - Government Is Tyranny.
That capacity exists, at least in potential. Each person has a certain capacity to wield force against other people.
And that capacity is always going to be there, whether the delusional belief in authority exists or not, whether the State exists or not.
So, should people just be able to use their capacity for violence whenever they like, or should some cooperative arrangement be made so as to regulate and minimize its use?
The form of this statement/question is A or B?
While implying B = not A
Therefore implying a conclusion of If B, then not A.
However, B is alleged to exist in reality. And even though B seems to exist in reality, we still have A that exists in reality.
Thus the reality of simultaneous A and B
negates A or B
. And since A exists in either case, it is B that is negated.
Fact of the matter is, the Colonists had to win a war and form a government in order to make the Declaration of Independence stick. If you read the next line, you'd notice that the DoI explains why we create governments. Funny how you missed that.I didn't miss it. It is not germane to my position.
Translation: "My position has no effective rebuttal to this argument. Therefore, LA LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEEEEARRRR YOUUUU!"
My statement stands: the next line is not germane to my position. So here is a more detailed addressing of this non-germane issue...
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
The State is instituted by the consent of the governed. Please provide evidence that I consented.
The simple truth is that you can NOT present such proof because it doesn't exist. And furthermore, I state and have stated, that I DO NOT CONSENT.
Therefore, the State can not be instituted based upon MY consent. My consent doesn't exist.
And as a matter of logic, it could not have been instituted by your consent. You were NOT even alive at the time of this alleged instituting. Therefore you did NOT have a contract with anyone to represent that you gave your consent to this alleged instituting either. Ergo: You did NOT, could NOT consent to this alleged instituting.
I won’t give anyone permission to rule me, and I don’t have the right to give anyone permission to rule you. Clear enough?
>snip more blather about "rights."< What is a "right?"
I will answer this where it is asked a second time below.
How much does a cubic foot of "rights" weigh?
1/27th of a cubic yard of rights.
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
Nope. Santa is just as mythical as State authority.
Replacing the context kcrady removed to better understand what follows:
Therefore, in order to prevent the destruction of society via the competitive application of this capacity (i.e., violence unleashed unpredictably at individual whim), we need a way to regulate and limit this capacity.
Here are three videos of the State's agents unleashing violence unpredictably at their individual whim.
So, your logic is, "some cops are bad, therefore there should be no cops?"
<sarcasm> Are you not paying attention? </sarcasm>
Cops are the State's agents. Cops are the alleged mechanism of the State to "prevent the destruction of society via the competitive application of this capacity (i.e., violence unleashed unpredictably at individual whim
)". Cops are the alleged mechanism to "regulate and limit this capacity.
Your statements/arguments, in the aggregate, take this form:We need not A or else we will have A
. (A is bad.)
In order to have not A, we need X
To which I point out: X does A
Thus in spite of X, we still have A
No one can delegate an authority that they do NOT have.
Cops don't have the authority they are believed to have because no one has that authority to delegate to the cops in the first place.
How about "some humans are bad, therefore there should be no humans?"I am calling you on your use of the perfect solution fallacy. Perfect_solution_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacyWiki
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.
The perfect solution fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.
I'm not arguing what to replace the State with. Other than where you have reeled me in, I have not posited anything about what to replace the illegitimate State with. Therefore, I'm also calling you on your use of the strawman argument.Straw_manWiki
I am arguing that
the State has no authority.
If the State has no authority, its officers, agents, and employees don't either.
In Libertopia, everybody abides by the Non-Aggression Principle. Even when they carry their Uzis into bars and get roaring drunk, they never get in gunfights because, Non-Aggression Principle. Nobody ever says, "Hey, I never signed any contract to obey a 'Non-Aggression Principle!' I do not consent! You can't command me!" *BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM!" Everybody always gets to do exactly what they want, and somehow this never causes any conflicts or problems. My "right" to have a DIY nuclear reactor never presents a problem for my neighbors, just as their "right" to have huge parties with heavy metal music playing at rock-concert volume never, ever bothers me. Oh, frabjous day!
Well, sure. If you compare actual capitalism with the United Federation of Planets, the UFP would win. If I could post a video about a business polluting or exploiting its employees or committing fraud or selling unsafe products, would you agree that all business should be abolished? I doubt it.
What you need to do, is compare actual governed societies with actual stateless societies.
And what you need to do is pay attention to the evidence I have provided.
Only then is it possible to determine which imperfect system works better in the real world. Because a system that does not and cannot work in the real world is a system you will never get to live in. You are only serving yourself up a recipe for permanent disappointment and frustration if you're measuring the real world against imaginary perfection that you cannot ever translate into a practical reality.
This is more of your strawman argument. It is also starting to smell a little of the Appeal_to_consequencesWiki
You continue to Rah! Rah! for the State. In the second half of this two part post I will focus you on the lack of State's authority.
What you are prescribing is this: "We need a government that is strong enough to vanquish all enemies, yet can't trample on our rights." The contradiction here is obvious.
Not quite. My prescription is more like, "We need a government that is strong enough to minimize crime and deter foreign attack, but not so strong that we cannot hold it accountable for its actions."
The contradiction is still obvious.
In the real world, we don't get to have the kind of perfected Absolutes you seem to think in. No government will ever "vanquish ALL enemies," nor will any area without a government provide Absolute Freedom.
No government will ever be legitimate if it pretends authority that it does not have.
No government has authority.
There are laws against murder in all States and Federal Zones. Please explain how that law's working for these 59,659 people.
Better than the absence of law is working for places like Somalia and Syria.
What absence of law? The warlords are the law, with the same lack of authority as the 51 States in middle North America.
BTW, about 40,000 people die every year in car crashes. Do you want to eliminate cars?
Cars don't pretend they are legitimate authority.
After all, you'd never get in wrecks with instantaneous teleportation, so why don't we use that instead?
745 ILCS 10/4?102. The 40 words in bold are verbatim in New Jersey and California statutes as well.
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.
This doesn't mean police have no obligation to fight crime. It just means they can't be sued in court for not being omnipresent, omnipotent, and infallible.
Oh come on now....
Point of logic: If person can't be sued for failure to do X, then that person has NO OBLIGATION to do X.
(This is another myth of government: the police exist to protect you.)
My wife got a hesitant admission from one of our county deputy sheriffs that they only had three legal duties. Protect prisoners, Serve warrants, and some unremembered third duty which was NOT provide protection to the public.
Bottom line: The police don't even have an obligation to respond to 911 calls.
Can you find an example of a private security firm that agrees to be held liable if they fail to prevent a robbery or property damage to a place they're hired to guard?
In order for you to "have" a "right to life," I must recognize your right to command me and constrain my actions within a limited sphere, and vice versa.Almost correct. You must recognize your own duty to treat others as you wish to be treated. You must recognize your own duty to not initiate force against others.
I must? Sez you?!
I still have a right to life. I still have a right to protect that life from threats against it. You still don't have authority over me. And you still can't delegate an authority over me to anybody else.
Likewise, if you assert a "right to life," you are simultaneously commanding me not to kill you.
See how it works?
I'm not commanding you to do or not do anything. Actions have consequences, regardless of the rules. You choose what you are going to do, and I'll choose how I will respond.
If you attempt to attack me, I will defend using whatever method I determine is best for the situation you create when you INITIATE force against me.
Sure. Wouldn't it be nice if there was an organization that could deter people from initiating force against you,
That would be the one with no obligation to protect.
that would send reinforcements to help you when you called?
That would be the one with no obligation to even answer the phone.
Yet does dialing 911 actually protect crime victims? Researchers found that less than 5 percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect. The 911 bottom line: “cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare.”
Even if they weren't the Justice League? And if they could provide things like roads
Arguing that we need the State to build roads is just like arguing that we need slaves to pick cotton.ROADS by Larken Rose
and sewers and clean air and national parks and the ability to deter whole countries from invading, wouldn't that be awesome? And if, as a bonus, they'd launch satellites that can detect exoplanets, put rovers on Mars, and create networks for nearly instantaneous global cybernetic communication, and groups of doctors to watch for disease epidemics and have plans and facilities in place to respond if one happens...how cool would that be?
It would be really cool... Really. All they would need to do is finance it by extortion. Oh wait. That is what the State does.
You have, in that instance, violated the Non Agression Principle.
So let me ask you, If every law against murder is rescinded, would you start committing murders?
but conjunction used to introduce a statement that adds something to a previous statement and usually contrasts with it in some way
The conjunctives but
basically erase everything that precedes them. Thus, "No, but
" is another way of saying "yes
". Thus I see why you want people who will tell you what to do or not do.
No, but the existence of murder proves that there are people who want to commit murder.
And it also proves they do it in spite of the load of horse crap about the State providing protection and deterrence.
If it suddenly became much easier to get away with it, people who currently just fantasize about killing might decide to do it for real, and/or the people who already murder could get away with it more often, or for a longer period of time before they're stopped. Likewise for theft, rape, etc..
You are confusing laws against murder with actual interference of the act itself. Law against murder doesn't make murder harder. Lack of law against murder doesn't make murder easier. It will take the same force to pull the trigger. It will take the same force to drive a bayonet in to the hilt.
"People need to be controlled, lest they run amok." This is related to number three, except that it's directed at those other people -- you know, the ones who can't be trusted to determine right from wrong for themselves. Usually the authoritarian will admit that he uses his own judgment to live his life, and in some cases can even prove to a Christian why he doesn't need a bunch of old men in the bible making commandments for him to obey. Then he goes out of his way to insist that a bunch of old men in congress should make commandments for everyone to obey -- including him. Unfortunately, the inevitable result is a kakistocracy, meaning "government by the worst among us." The bad guys the authoritarians want to be saved from are most likely going to be running for office to have the power to make laws and enforce them. Who else but the worst among us would want to order us around and take our money? Bad guys make bad laws. They also lie, cheat, steal, and break promises -- pretty reliable evidence that they really are the bad guys. Yet the authoritarian winds up voting for them to control everyone.
On the flip side, virtually every authoritarian claims that he himself is capable of running his own life -- as above, it's just those other people who can't. Each one of them wants an agency based on force to control everyone else -- each one of whom likewise claims to be able to run his own life. It's as if no one liked broccoli, and everyone thought everyone else needed broccoli but him. So, everyone votes for everyone else to have broccoli. It's just as bad to say some people need broccoli, so everyone else must have it, too.
Remember, those laws didn't help 59,659 people shown above.
And how much help did they get from the "Non-Aggression Principle?"
The same as they got from the State.
What is that, by the way?http://nap.univacc.net/
Can it make a reindeer fly?
Can the non-existent authority of the State?
I'm only dangerous to those who attempt to violate my RIGHT to be left alone. In other word's I am only dangerous to those who attempt to command me when I have offered no offence whatsoever.
Other than that, I'm a big teddy bear.
So, if you try to take a woman's clothes off, and she yells "Stop!" will you do as she says, or assert that she's got no right to command you?
Why would I attempt do that in the first place? That would violate the Non-Aggression Principle.
And actions still have consequences.
If the former, then you accept that other people have a "right" to command you, within a limited sphere. Do you accept that limited sphere (defined by the "Non Aggression Principle" or some comparable ethical code of civilized behavior), or just go around saying "Nobody can command me!"Loaded_questionWiki
>Snip more "rights, rights, rights," blah blah blah, pointless until you define what a "right" is and why it matters<
So a right to life is pointless? So a right to liberty is pointless?
I live. I have a life. You live. You have a life. If you initiate force against me with the intent to take my life, I am justified in using whatever force is required to resist your attack, including killing you if it comes to that. Murder and killing in self defense are not equates even though both end a life.
I have justly acquired property. If you initiate force against me in order to take my property, then I have a justifiable reason to resist using whatever force is required to prevent you from taking my property.
I am supposed to have liberty. If you initiate force against me in order to enslave me, then I have a justifiable reason to resist using whatever force is required to prevent you from enslaving me.
Thus a right is the shortcut term for "do not attempt to take this object for such an attempt justifies forceful resistance
Thus a right to life
means "do not attempt to take this life for such an attempt justifies forceful resistance
End of part 1.
Do to post size limitations, this will be continued in the next post.