Question for believers: Are we within God's jurisdiction?

[ding]

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.

So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.

Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).

If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.

To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?

It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

Do I really have to explain the figurative speech of what necessary evil means. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers said the same thing.

They did, and I think they meant it literally. These men understood natural law freedom. They explicitly said “all men are created equal” then created a system of inherent inequality. They said men had an “inalienable right” to liberty, then devised the means by which men exchange portions of that liberty for other perceived benefits. They knew what they were doing, and did it anyway. And their apprehension, warnings, and (dare I say) implied regret litters their writings.

What would a figurative connotation even mean? What word would be used in place of “evil” to change it to a literal statement?

No. They did not mean it literally. They understood that government is a double edged sword. I can't wait to see how you will take that figurative statement out of context.

 

[ding]

Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.

So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.

Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).

If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.

To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?

It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

I'm on the outside looking in. And I am not taking sides. So don't take this as a personal slight. It is intended only as constructive criticism.

IMO, some of your posts seem to be overly philosophical as opposed to issue specific. Most people will not engage you in that kind of in depth conversation. Many posters think a discussion board is another form of tweeting. If I do ten paragraphs, the bulk of posters are going TLDR. I don't know how to reduce some important points down to a bumper sticker slogan size, so I'm the last to be qualified to criticize you. But, I know where the disconnect is. I have the same problem you do.

It isn't his length that is the problem.

What if his girlfriend disagrees? I'm sorry. I couldn't pass that one up. Just kidding.

I would like you elaborate more as well, ding. That's a polite way of saying people respect what you say.

He has two problems as I see it. He misrepresents what others say and makes assumptions about what they believe.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.

So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.

Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).

If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.

To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?

It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

Do I really have to explain the figurative speech of what necessary evil means. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers said the same thing.

They did, and I think they meant it literally. These men understood natural law freedom. They explicitly said “all men are created equal” then created a system of inherent inequality. They said men had an “inalienable right” to liberty, then devised the means by which men exchange portions of that liberty for other perceived benefits. They knew what they were doing, and did it anyway. And their apprehension, warnings, and (dare I say) implied regret litters their writings.

What would a figurative connotation even mean? What word would be used in place of “evil” to change it to a literal statement?

No. They did not mean it literally. They understood that government is a double edged sword. I can't wait to see how you will take that figurative statement out of context.

Ok, if you don't want to elaborate on your position, or directly address each other's arguments in full, that's understandable; we can just go on with our business. I've enjoyed talking to you.

 

[ding]

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

Do I really have to explain the figurative speech of what necessary evil means. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers said the same thing.

They did, and I think they meant it literally. These men understood natural law freedom. They explicitly said “all men are created equal” then created a system of inherent inequality. They said men had an “inalienable right” to liberty, then devised the means by which men exchange portions of that liberty for other perceived benefits. They knew what they were doing, and did it anyway. And their apprehension, warnings, and (dare I say) implied regret litters their writings.

What would a figurative connotation even mean? What word would be used in place of “evil” to change it to a literal statement?

No. They did not mean it literally. They understood that government is a double edged sword. I can't wait to see how you will take that figurative statement out of context.

Ok, if you don't want to elaborate on your position, or directly address each other's arguments in full, that's understandable; we can just go on with our business. I've enjoyed talking to you.

Thanks.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Hierarchy can be based on status, like voluntarily heeding a more experienced person; and authority can have different connotations. You have authority to kick me off your property. Non-compliance is punishable via your right of self-defense, which naturally includes property as an extension of your labor. However, authority can also be used to indicate an expert in a given field. Not heeding such an expert is not morally punishable.

So we can have hierarchy without authority of the punishing sort. And even in the case of a business owner having authority to fire you and make you leave his property, that authority is based upon natural law rights of defense, and is thus non-aggressive. Governmental authority is different because it claims the right to make a command and punish without any valid defensive claim.

Anarchy, as an anti-political position, has no connotation of disorder. A corporation is highly ordered, and perfectly consistent with anarchy; as is a boy scout troop, baseball team, or a dungeons and dragons session. As it relates to government, anarchy is synonymous with voluntaryism (the belief that all human interaction should be voluntary, except in cases of self-defense).

If you want to call voluntary hierarchy “the right kind of government”, I’m fine with that, but typically we don’t use “government” to describe an organizational body which can be voluntarily disobeyed without punishment.

To say government is “a necessary evil that we can’t live without” is to suggest that evil is a requirement for man to survive and thrive. Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?

It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above an institution of immoral violence and work cooperatively without killing each other. Do you count yourself among these violent heathens? Your friends? Your family? Of all the people you’ve ever known, how many do you think would go around attacking people if there was no law against it? And remember that we are not defenseless without government; not by a long shot. But how many violent aggressors do you think you encounter each day, such that your worldview sees nothing but bloody mayhem in a free society?

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

Do I really have to explain the figurative speech of what necessary evil means. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers said the same thing.

They did, and I think they meant it literally. These men understood natural law freedom. They explicitly said “all men are created equal” then created a system of inherent inequality. They said men had an “inalienable right” to liberty, then devised the means by which men exchange portions of that liberty for other perceived benefits. They knew what they were doing, and did it anyway. And their apprehension, warnings, and (dare I say) implied regret litters their writings.

What would a figurative connotation even mean? What word would be used in place of “evil” to change it to a literal statement?

Actually the founders said unalienable Rights. Hate to be a nitpicker, but our Courts have interpreted the two words differently.

I disagree that the founders created a system of inequality. They stated in the Preamble of the Constitution WHO that document was for and about.

Nobody would accuse China of any wrong-doing there; nor Japan; North Korea doesn't get criticized; Zimbabwe - never.

If you check out the earliest court rulings, they said with great specificity that unalienable Rights were absolute and above the law. It wasn't until the United States Supreme Court declared themselves to be the greater branch of government that you started seeing this gradual trend toward socialism and tyranny.

A land of contradiction from day one. Regardless of the history, my concern is the present day contradictions in the minds of men.

I want people to answer for their support of government by explaining how anyone can validly delegate rights they don’t have themselves. This is the lie at the foundation of our system.

Before unleashing an immense contruct of violent coercion upon the world, we have a duty to make sure we are well-justified in doing so. I contend that we are not.

 

[Humorme]

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

Do I really have to explain the figurative speech of what necessary evil means. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers said the same thing.

They did, and I think they meant it literally. These men understood natural law freedom. They explicitly said “all men are created equal” then created a system of inherent inequality. They said men had an “inalienable right” to liberty, then devised the means by which men exchange portions of that liberty for other perceived benefits. They knew what they were doing, and did it anyway. And their apprehension, warnings, and (dare I say) implied regret litters their writings.

What would a figurative connotation even mean? What word would be used in place of “evil” to change it to a literal statement?

Actually the founders said unalienable Rights. Hate to be a nitpicker, but our Courts have interpreted the two words differently.

I disagree that the founders created a system of inequality. They stated in the Preamble of the Constitution WHO that document was for and about.

Nobody would accuse China of any wrong-doing there; nor Japan; North Korea doesn't get criticized; Zimbabwe - never.

If you check out the earliest court rulings, they said with great specificity that unalienable Rights were absolute and above the law. It wasn't until the United States Supreme Court declared themselves to be the greater branch of government that you started seeing this gradual trend toward socialism and tyranny.

A land of contradiction from day one. Regardless of the history, my concern is the present day contradictions in the minds of men.

I want people to answer for their support of government by explaining how anyone can validly delegate rights they don’t have themselves. This is the lie at the foundation of our system.

Before unleashing an immense contruct of violent coercion upon the world, we have a duty to make sure we are well-justified in doing so. I contend that we are not.

I may not understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that we should be the world's police.

It is a contradiction in our society that the government is claiming more and more jurisdiction over things they have NO business in. People who profess to wanting less government have endorsed spending TRILLIONS of dollars imposing themselves on others and jeopardizing our Liberties. Nobody has been called more names than I have over pointing that fact out.

But, people will endorse major spending, a loss of fundamental Liberties, and outright socialism IF the government will address their pet agenda. I dare not even give examples because it would end in a whizzing contest whereby people try to convince you of one position over another.

My default is simple: I never endorse any legislation that would increase the size, power and / or scope of government even if the proposed benefit promises to give me something or do something for me personally.

 

[Humorme]

You make a lot of assumptions about what I believe. So many that it would be illogical for me to correct them all. Not to mention your deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written.

So let me repeat what I wrote previously as it is still valid.

Actually hierarchy does imply authority. The definition of hierarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The definition of anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Like I said before, government is a necessary evil you can't live without it. Your argument , it seems, is that you want the right kind of government. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, we don't always get what we want.

Everything has a way of working itself out. I am afraid we are going to have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways. I don't like this anymore than you do, but I do accept it as reality. That's just the way things are.

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

I'm on the outside looking in. And I am not taking sides. So don't take this as a personal slight. It is intended only as constructive criticism.

IMO, some of your posts seem to be overly philosophical as opposed to issue specific. Most people will not engage you in that kind of in depth conversation. Many posters think a discussion board is another form of tweeting. If I do ten paragraphs, the bulk of posters are going TLDR. I don't know how to reduce some important points down to a bumper sticker slogan size, so I'm the last to be qualified to criticize you. But, I know where the disconnect is. I have the same problem you do.

It isn't his length that is the problem.

What if his girlfriend disagrees? I'm sorry. I couldn't pass that one up. Just kidding.

I would like you elaborate more as well, ding. That's a polite way of saying people respect what you say.

He has two problems as I see it. He misrepresents what others say
and makes assumptions about what they believe.

Does he give you the opportunity to give a rebuttal? If so, you should use it. Then again,that could be bad advice. I've tried that before with professional trolls and gotten banned. Oh well, I guess if you feel disrespected, you have to do what you think is in your best interest. I won't judge you regardless of your decision. I will support it and respect it.

 

[ding]

There's a failure to communicate, though I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies. To my mind, I directly addressed what you have said, but perhaps you mean something different than I'm perceiving.

I don't mean to misrepresent you; please don't think that. I'm not here to win an argument, but to find consensus on truth and reason. My position is born of logical necessity as I perceive it, via the best of my critical ability. My motivation for these discussions is to have my mind changed, or the rest of the world's, and I don't care which one it is. I just want everyone thinking clearly and perceiving truth for what it is.

You said, "we are going to have to reach rock bottom" to which I responded, "It seems that you think mankind cannot rise above". I'm interpreting your view as pessimistic, and making a case for a more hopeful view; namely that mankind can achieve a rise in consciousness without having it come to bloody mayhem. It's possible, if not likely. Where have I misread you here?

You say that "government is a necessary evil, you can't live without it", to which I reply, "Is this really your worldview? That humanity is literally dependent upon evil?" This follows directly from what you said, doesn't it?

The hierarchy/authority thing seems to be a matter of which connotation we're using, but I've explained what I intend fully. If you think I misunderstood you the first time, perhaps elaborate or correct me where I'm wrong, if you care to. Repeating what was misunderstood the first time like it's a riddle I'm supposed to figure out isn't helping.

I'm on the outside looking in. And I am not taking sides. So don't take this as a personal slight. It is intended only as constructive criticism.

IMO, some of your posts seem to be overly philosophical as opposed to issue specific. Most people will not engage you in that kind of in depth conversation. Many posters think a discussion board is another form of tweeting. If I do ten paragraphs, the bulk of posters are going TLDR. I don't know how to reduce some important points down to a bumper sticker slogan size, so I'm the last to be qualified to criticize you. But, I know where the disconnect is. I have the same problem you do.

It isn't his length that is the problem.

What if his girlfriend disagrees? I'm sorry. I couldn't pass that one up. Just kidding.

I would like you elaborate more as well, ding. That's a polite way of saying people respect what you say.

He has two problems as I see it. He misrepresents what others say
and makes assumptions about what they believe.

Does he give you the opportunity to give a rebuttal? If so, you should use it. Then again,that could be bad advice. I've tried that before with professional trolls and gotten banned. Oh well, I guess if you feel disrespected, you have to do what you think is in your best interest. I won't judge you regardless of your decision. I will support it and respect it.

I have an opportunity to correct him, sure. But it seems a waste of time if he is intentionally taking everything I write out of context or making assumptions about what I believe.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

My default is simple: I never endorse any legislation that would increase the size, power and / or scope of government even if the proposed benefit promises to give me something or do something for me personally.

Well, that's a position indicative of upstanding character. Self-responsibility dictates that we make choices with such considerations in mind, not simply do whatever we can get away with. People who understand freedom know that its cost is a commitment to moral behavior.

So take your position to its logical conclusion: If you don't endorse actions that would increase government, then why do you endorse that which maintains government? The same reasons you have for not wanting an increase in government equally prescribe a reduction in government, even to the point of dissolution.

The category of things that government has "NO business in" includes everything. They are simply other human beings, and no human being has a rightful claim to authority over any other, even if people vote in support of that claim. Voting for a person to do something immoral does not change morality; it's still immoral. Seems simple enough, but people allow fear to obfuscate this fundamental truth.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I have an opportunity to correct him, sure. But it seems a waste of time if he is intentionally taking everything I write out of context or making assumptions about what I believe.

Ding, I just want you to know that I would never intentionally do that. I appreciate and respect the time that people spend replying to my posts. If I'm misunderstanding you and making assumptions it's because your replies seem vague and I feel compelled to guess at what you mean. I wholly admit that this is a one-sided evaluation of what's going on, and obviously you have a different interpretation; I'm only trying to cite my reasons for responding the way I do, from my subjective perspective.

 

[Humorme]

I'm on the outside looking in. And I am not taking sides. So don't take this as a personal slight. It is intended only as constructive criticism.

IMO, some of your posts seem to be overly philosophical as opposed to issue specific. Most people will not engage you in that kind of in depth conversation. Many posters think a discussion board is another form of tweeting. If I do ten paragraphs, the bulk of posters are going TLDR. I don't know how to reduce some important points down to a bumper sticker slogan size, so I'm the last to be qualified to criticize you. But, I know where the disconnect is. I have the same problem you do.

It isn't his length that is the problem.

What if his girlfriend disagrees? I'm sorry. I couldn't pass that one up. Just kidding.

I would like you elaborate more as well, ding. That's a polite way of saying people respect what you say.

He has two problems as I see it. He misrepresents what others say
and makes assumptions about what they believe.

Does he give you the opportunity to give a rebuttal? If so, you should use it. Then again,that could be bad advice. I've tried that before with professional trolls and gotten banned. Oh well, I guess if you feel disrespected, you have to do what you think is in your best interest. I won't judge you regardless of your decision. I will support it and respect it.

I have an opportunity to correct him, sure. But it seems a waste of time if he is intentionally taking everything I write out of context or making assumptions about what I believe.

I correct people anyway. It could be a frustrating experience if the person you are arguing with is a paid troll / LEO doing their shopping. Not knowing any of these posters on this thread, that is not a call I could make.

OTOH, PM me some time for an alternative.

 

[harmonica]

there is no god

 

[Humorme]

there is no god

If there were no God, you would not exist.

Okay, here we go. A question posed by the OP to believers and we are now being trolled over whether or not there is a God. There are more appropriate places for such a comment and to get into this debate here would only derail the thread.

Unfortunately, non-believers have little respect for those who do believe. This kind of debate, i.e. the existence of a God does not change anybody's mind or end in a win for either side. So it makes me wonder if the atheists and other non-believers who hijack these kinds of threads are trying to convince believers of their atheist position OR themselves. Thomas Jefferson once said:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Now. let us presume that is true. The atheists are always claiming that Jefferson was not a Christian (though most honest people know better.) So, if believers are having a conversation on the premise that God exists and a non-believer is so offended that they attempt to hijack a thread, it only tells me one thing:

Atheists and other non-believers aren't very secure in their beliefs. They react to every discussion of God as a slight; as an offense that does pick their pocket or break their leg. So, since they cannot butt out of conversations like this and leave their arguments for another thread, it makes me wonder, who was this guy trying to convince.... us OR himself???

 

[ding]

there is no god

If there were no God, you would not exist.

Okay, here we go. A question posed by the OP to believers and we are now being trolled over whether or not there is a God. There are more appropriate places for such a comment and to get into this debate here would only derail the thread.

Unfortunately, non-believers have little respect for those who do believe. This kind of debate, i.e. the existence of a God does not change anybody's mind or end in a win for either side. So it makes me wonder if the atheists and other non-believers who hijack these kinds of threads are trying to convince believers of their atheist position OR themselves. Thomas Jefferson once said:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Now. let us presume that is true. The atheists are always claiming that Jefferson was not a Christian (though most honest people know better.) So, if believers are having a conversation on the premise that God exists and a non-believer is so offended that they attempt to hijack a thread, it only tells me one thing:

Atheists and other non-believers aren't very secure in their beliefs. They react to every discussion of God as a slight; as an offense that does pick their pocket or break their leg. So, since they cannot butt out of conversations like this and leave their arguments for another thread, it makes me wonder, who was this guy trying to convince.... us OR himself???

To your point about Thomas Jefferson...

As our forefathers sought to build “one nation under God,” they purposely established their legal codes on the foundation of Natural Law. They believed that societies should be governed, as Jefferson put it, by “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society,… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.” (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:228)

 

[ding]

It isn't his length that is the problem.

What if his girlfriend disagrees? I'm sorry. I couldn't pass that one up. Just kidding.

I would like you elaborate more as well, ding. That's a polite way of saying people respect what you say.

He has two problems as I see it. He misrepresents what others say
and makes assumptions about what they believe.

Does he give you the opportunity to give a rebuttal? If so, you should use it. Then again,that could be bad advice. I've tried that before with professional trolls and gotten banned. Oh well, I guess if you feel disrespected, you have to do what you think is in your best interest. I won't judge you regardless of your decision. I will support it and respect it.

I have an opportunity to correct him, sure. But it seems a waste of time if he is intentionally taking everything I write out of context or making assumptions about what I believe.

I correct people anyway. It could be a frustrating experience if the person you are arguing with is a paid troll / LEO doing their shopping. Not knowing any of these posters on this thread, that is not a call I could make.

OTOH, PM me some time for an alternative.

OK, let me give it a shot. Thanks for the standing offer, I may take you up on that.

 

[ding]

I have an opportunity to correct him, sure. But it seems a waste of time if he is intentionally taking everything I write out of context or making assumptions about what I believe.

Ding, I just want you to know that I would never intentionally do that. I appreciate and respect the time that people spend replying to my posts. If I'm misunderstanding you and making assumptions it's because your replies seem vague and I feel compelled to guess at what you mean. I wholly admit that this is a one-sided evaluation of what's going on, and obviously you have a different interpretation; I'm only trying to cite my reasons for responding the way I do, from my subjective perspective.

No worries. Let me try this again.

I don't accept that government is evil. In fact, I don't believe evil exists per se. Evil is not extant. It is like darkness or cold. They don't exist by themselves. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good. But let's use the word evil for the absence of good. Men do not do evil for the sake of evil, men do evil for the sake of their own good. When I say government is a necessary evil, I don't mean to say it is absent of good. All it means is that government can do good and bad. Not because it is inherently evil but because men are imperfect, They are subject to pride, greed and any other number of imperfections.

My belief that we will have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways is grounded in history and logic. We see the same patterns repeating in history. Logic tells us that when men become satisfied they become complacent. By complacent I mean to say, they forget the behaviors that made them successful. The behaviors of virtue. Suffering has a unique ability to force men to become virtuous because it is only through these successful behaviors can man end his suffering. It takes two generations for man to forget suffering. Then it takes two more generations for him to fail. This cycle has been repeated throughout man's history. So while you believe I am being resigned to fail, I say I am seeing reality. And that reality is this... change does not occur without a reason for changing. We literally have to fail before we change our ways. This not only applies at a societal level but at the individual level as well. Societies and people do not crumble overnight.

So while I cannot change my society I can change myself and let that work through concentric circles. That is the extent of what I can do. Which I am doing.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No worries. Let me try this again.

I don't accept that government is evil. In fact, I don't believe evil exists per se. Evil is not extant. It is like darkness or cold. They don't exist by themselves. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good. But let's use the word evil for the absence of good. Men do not do evil for the sake of evil, men do evil for the sake of their own good. When I say government is a necessary evil, I don't mean to say it is absent of good. All it means is that government can do good and bad. Not because it is inherently evil but because men are imperfect, They are subject to pride, greed and any other number of imperfections.

My belief that we will have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways is grounded in history and logic. We see the same patterns repeating in history. Logic tells us that when men become satisfied they become complacent. By complacent I mean to say, they forget the behaviors that made them successful. The behaviors of virtue. Suffering has a unique ability to force men to become virtuous because it is only through these successful behaviors can man end his suffering. It takes two generations for man to forget suffering. Then it takes two more generations for him to fail. This cycle has been repeated throughout man's history. So while you believe I am being resigned to fail, I say I am seeing reality. And that reality is this... change does not occur without a reason for changing. We literally have to fail before we change our ways. This not only applies at a societal level but at the individual level as well. Societies and people do not crumble overnight.

So while I cannot change my society I can change myself and let that work through concentric circles. That is the extent of what I can do. Which I am doing.

Ok, thank you for that, I largely agree, and see the logic of your perspective. We both recognize that change on the individual level is the focus. From there, it's a matter of speaking our perspective to others, but ultimately they will have to decide for themselves.

The only point of contention here is whether or not government can be good. To me, saying that government can be good is the same as saying slavery can be good. There are some institutions that can never be good because they are founded on an immoral premise.

The premise of government is that some people can have a valid right to authority over others. This I reject absolutely. There is no valid basis for this claim to authority. Our government makes the hopeless attempt by citing "consent of the governed" via representative democracy. There is such a thing as "consent of the governed" - a business is an example of this, as is a sports team. The validity of these institutions is founded upon expressed consent of the affected individual, and a recognition of their right to revoke that consent at any time.

Representative democracy is invalid because the people who vote do not only give consent to be governed on behalf of themselves, but on behalf of others. If I don't vote, I am still made subject to the decision made by others. My consent is not considered at all, and this oversight is explained away with the fallacious notion of "implied consent". This is the idea that one party can decide unilaterally what constitutes the implication, then cite consent of the other party without ever actually getting it.

Voters do not have the right (or the actual ability) to grant or delegate powers they do not have. They do not individually have the right to any authority over their neighbors, and so cannot validly delegate that right to others. It is an immoral violation of man's inherent self-ownership to believe and act as if they can. This is what makes government inherently invalid and immoral, no matter what it does, and why I implore others to act morally, and withdraw their support of it in any way they can without martyring themselves.

 

[ding]

No worries. Let me try this again.

I don't accept that government is evil. In fact, I don't believe evil exists per se. Evil is not extant. It is like darkness or cold. They don't exist by themselves. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good. But let's use the word evil for the absence of good. Men do not do evil for the sake of evil, men do evil for the sake of their own good. When I say government is a necessary evil, I don't mean to say it is absent of good. All it means is that government can do good and bad. Not because it is inherently evil but because men are imperfect, They are subject to pride, greed and any other number of imperfections.

My belief that we will have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways is grounded in history and logic. We see the same patterns repeating in history. Logic tells us that when men become satisfied they become complacent. By complacent I mean to say, they forget the behaviors that made them successful. The behaviors of virtue. Suffering has a unique ability to force men to become virtuous because it is only through these successful behaviors can man end his suffering. It takes two generations for man to forget suffering. Then it takes two more generations for him to fail. This cycle has been repeated throughout man's history. So while you believe I am being resigned to fail, I say I am seeing reality. And that reality is this... change does not occur without a reason for changing. We literally have to fail before we change our ways. This not only applies at a societal level but at the individual level as well. Societies and people do not crumble overnight.

So while I cannot change my society I can change myself and let that work through concentric circles. That is the extent of what I can do. Which I am doing.

Ok, thank you for that, I largely agree, and see the logic of your perspective. We both recognize that change on the individual level is the focus. From there, it's a matter of speaking our perspective to others, but ultimately they will have to decide for themselves.

The only point of contention here is whether or not government can be good. To me, saying that government can be good is the same as saying slavery can be good. There are some institutions that can never be good because they are founded on an immoral premise.

The premise of government is that some people can have a valid right to authority over others. This I reject absolutely. There is no valid basis for this claim to authority. Our government makes the hopeless attempt by citing "consent of the governed" via representative democracy. There is such a thing as "consent of the governed" - a business is an example of this, as is a sports team. The validity of these institutions is founded upon expressed consent of the affected individual, and a recognition of their right to revoke that consent at any time.

Representative democracy is invalid because the people who vote do not only give consent to be governed on behalf of themselves, but on behalf of others. If I don't vote, I am still made subject to the decision made by others. My consent is not considered at all, and this oversight is explained away with the fallacious notion of "implied consent". This is the idea that one party can decide unilaterally what constitutes the implication, then cite consent of the other party without ever actually getting it.

Voters do not have the right (or the actual ability) to grant or delegate powers they do not have. They do not individually have the right to any authority over their neighbors, and so cannot validly delegate that right to others. It is an immoral violation of man's inherent self-ownership to believe and act as if they can. This is what makes government inherently invalid and immoral, no matter what it does, and why I implore others to act morally, and withdraw their support of it in any way they can without martyring themselves.

If you believe that then what is the alternative to government?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No worries. Let me try this again.

I don't accept that government is evil. In fact, I don't believe evil exists per se. Evil is not extant. It is like darkness or cold. They don't exist by themselves. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good. But let's use the word evil for the absence of good. Men do not do evil for the sake of evil, men do evil for the sake of their own good. When I say government is a necessary evil, I don't mean to say it is absent of good. All it means is that government can do good and bad. Not because it is inherently evil but because men are imperfect, They are subject to pride, greed and any other number of imperfections.

My belief that we will have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways is grounded in history and logic. We see the same patterns repeating in history. Logic tells us that when men become satisfied they become complacent. By complacent I mean to say, they forget the behaviors that made them successful. The behaviors of virtue. Suffering has a unique ability to force men to become virtuous because it is only through these successful behaviors can man end his suffering. It takes two generations for man to forget suffering. Then it takes two more generations for him to fail. This cycle has been repeated throughout man's history. So while you believe I am being resigned to fail, I say I am seeing reality. And that reality is this... change does not occur without a reason for changing. We literally have to fail before we change our ways. This not only applies at a societal level but at the individual level as well. Societies and people do not crumble overnight.

So while I cannot change my society I can change myself and let that work through concentric circles. That is the extent of what I can do. Which I am doing.

Ok, thank you for that, I largely agree, and see the logic of your perspective. We both recognize that change on the individual level is the focus. From there, it's a matter of speaking our perspective to others, but ultimately they will have to decide for themselves.

The only point of contention here is whether or not government can be good. To me, saying that government can be good is the same as saying slavery can be good. There are some institutions that can never be good because they are founded on an immoral premise.

The premise of government is that some people can have a valid right to authority over others. This I reject absolutely. There is no valid basis for this claim to authority. Our government makes the hopeless attempt by citing "consent of the governed" via representative democracy. There is such a thing as "consent of the governed" - a business is an example of this, as is a sports team. The validity of these institutions is founded upon expressed consent of the affected individual, and a recognition of their right to revoke that consent at any time.

Representative democracy is invalid because the people who vote do not only give consent to be governed on behalf of themselves, but on behalf of others. If I don't vote, I am still made subject to the decision made by others. My consent is not considered at all, and this oversight is explained away with the fallacious notion of "implied consent". This is the idea that one party can decide unilaterally what constitutes the implication, then cite consent of the other party without ever actually getting it.

Voters do not have the right (or the actual ability) to grant or delegate powers they do not have. They do not individually have the right to any authority over their neighbors, and so cannot validly delegate that right to others. It is an immoral violation of man's inherent self-ownership to believe and act as if they can. This is what makes government inherently invalid and immoral, no matter what it does, and why I implore others to act morally, and withdraw their support of it in any way they can without martyring themselves.

If you believe that then what is the alternative to government?

I’d say 90% of everything would be about the same. The only thing being removed is the belief that anyone has a right to non-consensual authority (domination) over anyone else. Everyone who agrees with this will cooperate and organize, just as they do now (most interactions that run society are mutually voluntary); and anyone who thinks it’s OK to dominate others via violent coercion finds himself in an extreme minority confronted by a population willing to defend themselves, and each other. That’s basically it.

Maybe you can’t build pyramids without enslaving people... so then we won’t have pyramids. But we’ll have true freedom, true cooperation, and a society that reflects the best of man’s free natural state, with the additon of his advanced organizational and technological capabilities.

My personal work is to live this, and find other people who agree. When that number of people is sufficient, it will be so. And this is in perfect accord with most people’s values. So once they realize that the support of government is not truly in accord with their own values, they stop doing it and become participatory in the evolution of man’s society toward the peace and prosperity we all desire.

 

[ding]

No worries. Let me try this again.

I don't accept that government is evil. In fact, I don't believe evil exists per se. Evil is not extant. It is like darkness or cold. They don't exist by themselves. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light. Evil is the absence of good. But let's use the word evil for the absence of good. Men do not do evil for the sake of evil, men do evil for the sake of their own good. When I say government is a necessary evil, I don't mean to say it is absent of good. All it means is that government can do good and bad. Not because it is inherently evil but because men are imperfect, They are subject to pride, greed and any other number of imperfections.

My belief that we will have to reach rock bottom before we change our ways is grounded in history and logic. We see the same patterns repeating in history. Logic tells us that when men become satisfied they become complacent. By complacent I mean to say, they forget the behaviors that made them successful. The behaviors of virtue. Suffering has a unique ability to force men to become virtuous because it is only through these successful behaviors can man end his suffering. It takes two generations for man to forget suffering. Then it takes two more generations for him to fail. This cycle has been repeated throughout man's history. So while you believe I am being resigned to fail, I say I am seeing reality. And that reality is this... change does not occur without a reason for changing. We literally have to fail before we change our ways. This not only applies at a societal level but at the individual level as well. Societies and people do not crumble overnight.

So while I cannot change my society I can change myself and let that work through concentric circles. That is the extent of what I can do. Which I am doing.

Ok, thank you for that, I largely agree, and see the logic of your perspective. We both recognize that change on the individual level is the focus. From there, it's a matter of speaking our perspective to others, but ultimately they will have to decide for themselves.

The only point of contention here is whether or not government can be good. To me, saying that government can be good is the same as saying slavery can be good. There are some institutions that can never be good because they are founded on an immoral premise.

The premise of government is that some people can have a valid right to authority over others. This I reject absolutely. There is no valid basis for this claim to authority. Our government makes the hopeless attempt by citing "consent of the governed" via representative democracy. There is such a thing as "consent of the governed" - a business is an example of this, as is a sports team. The validity of these institutions is founded upon expressed consent of the affected individual, and a recognition of their right to revoke that consent at any time.

Representative democracy is invalid because the people who vote do not only give consent to be governed on behalf of themselves, but on behalf of others. If I don't vote, I am still made subject to the decision made by others. My consent is not considered at all, and this oversight is explained away with the fallacious notion of "implied consent". This is the idea that one party can decide unilaterally what constitutes the implication, then cite consent of the other party without ever actually getting it.

Voters do not have the right (or the actual ability) to grant or delegate powers they do not have. They do not individually have the right to any authority over their neighbors, and so cannot validly delegate that right to others. It is an immoral violation of man's inherent self-ownership to believe and act as if they can. This is what makes government inherently invalid and immoral, no matter what it does, and why I implore others to act morally, and withdraw their support of it in any way they can without martyring themselves.

If you believe that then what is the alternative to government?

I’d say 90% of everything would be about the same. The only thing being removed is the belief that anyone has a right to non-consensual authority (domination) over anyone else. Everyone who agrees with this will cooperate and organize, just as they do now (most interactions that run society are mutually voluntary); and anyone who thinks it’s OK to dominate others via violent coercion finds himself in an extreme minority confronted by a population willing to defend themselves, and each other. That’s basically it.

Maybe you can’t build pyramids without enslaving people... so then we won’t have pyramids. But we’ll have true freedom, true cooperation, and a society that reflects the best of man’s free natural state, with the additon of his advanced organizational and technological capabilities.

My personal work is to live this, and find other people who agree. When that number of people is sufficient, it will be so. And this is in perfect accord with most people’s values. So once they realize that the support of government is not truly in accord with their own values, they stop doing it and become participatory in the evolution of man’s society toward the peace and prosperity we all desire.

I'm not sure I am following you. Can you provide an example of what our government is doing now that would be different under your model?