Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
☭proletarian☭;1784928 said:How can a governing body necessarily protect life, liberty, and property when it must, by necessity, remove life, liberty and property?
Some liberties (such as killing at random) are limited to protect those liberties the people as a whole value more greatly (such as life).
While your boss does own your free actions while you work for him. This may seem that he owns you by definition but since you can reclaim your freedom at any time by quitting this means you are free because if the form can simply cease to be controlled by its own choosing then it is the form (aka employee) that is ultimately in control of their free actions and not the employer.
How can a governing body necessarily protect life, liberty, and property when it must, by necessity, remove life, liberty and property?
Its called negative liberty where government basically did nothing whatsoever and laws only existed to protect citizens from other citizens. In this kind of law government always protected the interest of any citizen against other citizens such as laws against theft.
☭proletarian☭;1784928 said:Some liberties (such as killing at random) are limited to protect those liberties the people as a whole value more greatly (such as life).
Via a law enforcement agency that is not paid through taxation- although I highly doubt any such experiment would be very successful. Taxation is, under ideal conditions, one example of the individual surrendering some liberties (in case surrendering wealth to the collective system of government and bodies formed to enforce the law) in order to defend other liberties and self-interest. It is much like two nations agreeing to pool their resources in mutual defense against a perceived mutual enemy.How can a governing body necessarily protect life, liberty, and property when it must, by necessity, remove life, liberty and property?
Its called negative liberty where government basically did nothing whatsoever and laws only existed to protect citizens from other citizens. In this kind of law government always protected the interest of any citizen against other citizens such as laws against theft.
How can it enforce this without taxes (which are nothing more than institutionalized theft)?
Via a law enforcement agency that is not paid through taxation- although I highly doubt any such experiment would be very successful.
Taxation is, under ideal conditions, one example of the individual surrendering some liberties (in case surrendering wealth to the collective system of government and bodies formed to enforce the law) in order to defend other liberties and self-interest.
It is much like two nations agreeing to pool their resources in mutual defense against a perceived mutual enemy.
Via a law enforcement agency that is not paid through taxation- although I highly doubt any such experiment would be very successful.
It would not be successful when the government has a monopoly on such services (thus making your service illegal) and the government forces everyone to pay for their service regardless of the fairness, quality, or justice is provides.
If I am forced at gunpoint (which everyone is, just think it out logically when someone refuses to pay) to pay a tax how are my liberties and self-interests protected when the person is taking what I earned fairly and peacefully? Isn't the person taking it violating my rights?
[/QUOTE]It is much like two nations agreeing to pool their resources in mutual defense against a perceived mutual enemy.
What happens if the two nations are my enemies?
Exactly.The concepts and myths about social contract and government protection do not go over my head. They are misunderstood and accepted when they should be rejected because they are self-contradicting.
☭proletarian☭;1788045 said:How can they be self-contradicting. Social contract as an explanation of individual and social actions is independent of whether one believes a given form of government serves the desired ends.
☭proletarian☭;1788045 said:How can they be self-contradicting. Social contract as an explanation of individual and social actions is independent of whether one believes a given form of government serves the desired ends.
It's self contradictory because the theory itself is bunk. It is not a valid explanation of individual and social actions.
☭proletarian☭;1788110 said:never heard of a clique or a constitution? What about the consent of the governed?
☭proletarian☭;1788110 said:never heard of a clique or a constitution? What about the consent of the governed?
Heard of 'em all. I was brainwashed with all that nonsense as a youngster just as I'm sure you were. It takes time, reading, and effort to realize it was complete crap...
☭proletarian☭;1788133 said:☭proletarian☭;1788110 said:never heard of a clique or a constitution? What about the consent of the governed?
Heard of 'em all. I was brainwashed with all that nonsense as a youngster just as I'm sure you were. It takes time, reading, and effort to realize it was complete crap...
so you're saying none of the above really exist?
☭proletarian☭;1788133 said:Heard of 'em all. I was brainwashed with all that nonsense as a youngster just as I'm sure you were. It takes time, reading, and effort to realize it was complete crap...
so you're saying none of the above really exist?
Cliques and constitutions exist. They however are only as powerful as the guns behind them and their acceptance by the majority of those they apply to as valid.
"consent" of the governed is nothing more than code for "consent of the majority". If one person governed does not give consent then "consent of the governed" crumbles as justifiable.
☭proletarian☭;1788177 said:☭proletarian☭;1788133 said:so you're saying none of the above really exist?
Cliques and constitutions exist. They however are only as powerful as the guns behind them and their acceptance by the majority of those they apply to as valid.
"consent" of the governed is nothing more than code for "consent of the majority". If one person governed does not give consent then "consent of the governed" crumbles as justifiable.
The red is exactly what the consent of the governed is all about and exactly what SCT describes. Thanks for proving the validity of that you were trying to refute
I was trying to point out when the founders believed that govt existed to secure our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness they might have meant life, liberty, and pursuit of property but could not use the word property because of the slavery issue.
This makes more sense to me because what other force defines who owns what and who can use what is out there than the government itself. When you own a piece of land the government draws boundries that everyone recognizes so government has an instrumental role in securing your rights to your property.
Even though slavery is a contradiction it was the intent of the founder to create the freest society possible.
