CDZ The Government of No Authority, Part 2: Delegation of Powers

[Mac1958]

So how many people have to agree with you? A majority? So if a majority of people delegate to a cannibal the "right" to eat you and your family, that delegation is valid and just?

If you'd like a serious conversation, we can have one.

I think that taxes are the price we pay for civilization. That is simply a decision to which a vast majority of people in advanced countries have agreed. It is what it is. It will not change. So yes, the cannibals can eat my children. So then we move to the next issue.

The rate of taxes we pay will exist on a continuum, per the current climate of that society/country. If more people are convinced that higher taxes are worth the drag they create on a dynamic economy, then that's what's going to happen.

Now, instead of tossing around absurd questions, you're welcome to comment specifically on my response.
.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You likely do not claim the right to forcibly confiscate a portion of your neighbor's income by threat of violence. So how can you validly delegate this "right" to another? Where in the process of delegation does the immoral act become moral, and how does it become so?

Any such deprivation of liberty or property requires due process.
Any such unreasonable search or seizures requires probable cause and lawful process as well.
Any "compelling interest" is based on least restrictive measures and not "excessive" use of force.

If someone is abusing their own property such as a gun to commit crimes or their car to go drive drunk and risk life and safety, then yes, we can use the proportionate among of force they are using, and the same degree of coercion they are using to prevent this dangerous act while defending laws, life and liberty to get them help to fix whatever problem is causing this dangerous behavior.

We certainly don't want make the problem worse, but seek to de escalate it.

the most effective approach I know to prevent and correct abuses
is to respect consent of the governed and voluntary compliance with better solutions.
If we respect free will, then this teaches and enforces the same respect of others.
And if we all do this, then no crimes or abuses would happen but we would communicate, correct conflicts or agree to separate, and not violate or impose on anyone's rights or freedom.

We do this among friends with whom we have transparent relations.
Multiple that by a whole community and we can have cities run by democratic
decision making where people agree to follow policies or agree to resolve conflicts civilly.

then we can build states and nations based on localized democratically self-managed districts and towns.

This idea of treating others as you would treat friends may resonate more than the golden rule, as it is more readily available to one’s mind. It is less intellectually cumbersome to imagine the person standing before you as a friend, since a friend is still an “other”, wheras to imagine yourself being both you and the other person may be a less immediate source of guidance. Very useful idea there.

Yes, in situations where someone is violating the rights of another, clearly self-defense may be delegated to anyone and everyone. I balk at the note of centralized authority in some of your solutions, but overall we are pretty close.

I do feel the divergence is significant, however, because any discussion of a “system” must account for its corruption; and I don’t think there’s any system to which there is no hack. For this reason, if no other, the only mitigation to corruption is equality; and equality and authority are mutually exclusive.

No matter how small the government, it is still vulnerable to abuse, as such abuse magnifies immorality beyond what’s possible in the absence of that authority. What’s more, any government is inherently immoral insofar as it lays claim to an authority that supersedes that of individual conscience. If government is to be legitimate, it must claim to be moral; and if it is moral, than obeying its dictates must be considered moral. However, where its dictates diverge with an individual’s morality, it essentially makes the claim that it is moral to act immorally (i.e. it is moral to follow law, and law dictates you do something you consider immoral). This absurdity obviates man’s law as a fundamental concept to any person who claims to be moral.

I hope this makes sense hahaha. I discussed this at length in the thread: CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality

 

[danielpalos]

the freedom of association to debate and ratify a social Contract such as a Constitution via a political process.

I’m going to humbly suggest - with all due respect - that there is nothing in this sentence that explains anything. It sounds like something a politician would say.

The freedom to debate and ratify a social contract via a political process... So basically, just an assertion that they have the freedom to do this, without citing any origin of that power.

I would like to assemble with my friends and ratify a social contract - is that equally valid?

The People ratify our Constitutions, not politicians.

I thought it was self-evident and the context of this thread.

Yes, you can; people do it all the time.

 

[danielpalos]

No idea what you are babbling about

If it is wrong for you to do something, is it OK to ask someone else to do it?

If it is wrong for you to kill your neighbor’s dog, is it OK to ask your brother to kill the dog?

If it is wrong for you to claim a part of your neighbor’s income under threat of violence, is it OK to vote for someone else to do it?

can you be more specific? you have a fallacy composition that is unclear.

Right now, if you went to your neighbor’s house and said, “Every week, I will take 30% of your income. If you don’t give it to me, I will come here with a gun and drag you to a cage”, morally speaking, do you feel this action would be right or wrong?

And, this is relevant in what manner?

Any capital contract can cover this.

This is relevant because if you believe it is wrong for YOU to do something, how do you suppose it is right for you to delegate that action to someone else? You clearly don't believe you have a right to do it, so by what power does your delegate acquire the right to do it? A delegate (or representative) only has the right to do things on behalf of another; if the person delegating doesn't have the right, the delegate cannot have it either. Wouldn't you agree?

It is covered by the concept of natural rights. You need to present an example.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Yes it is possible that I as a civilian do not have the right to declare war
on a whole nation, but I agree to relegate to Congress the right to declare war.

It seems you’re making “agreement” a relevant factor, and it simply isn’t in this context. Primarily because that agreement is not between all parties involved.

Did you get the agreement of every person in Iraq before you “delegated the right” of Congress to declare war on them? Did you get my agreement before supporting an institution that claims the right to dictate what constitutes proper education for my children, under threat of kidnapping them away from me and the rest of their family?

The agreement you describe is invalid because it is unilateral. How about this... every person who votes gets an ID card, and the laws issued by their chosen candidate only apply to the people who voted for them? I’ve suggested this many times, but nobody takes me up on it - you know why? Because people don’t want government so THEY can be governed; they want a government that will force their values on everyone else, be they willing or not. Is this not so? Is this not why people vote for those who best align with their values?

That is why government is not only inherently immoral itself, but it actually increases the immorality of the entire culture. People would never dream of dragging me to a cage for growing pot plants - not only because it’s risky, or they don’t have the time, but because they don’t even suppose they have the moral right to do so - but they will vote for someone else to do it because they have bought into the lie that a ritual called voting, and choosing a “representative” to make “governmental law” launders the immoral act and makes it clean.

You don’t have the right to make war on a nation, to tax my income, or any of a thousand other things you “delegate” Congress to do. To participate in these actions by proxy is no less immoral, and in reality, you are your neighbors’ enemy for doing so, despite all your well intentions.

Please take this in the spirit it is offered, because I can tell you desire to be a good person, and I respect you greatly for that; but as a friend, I have to tell you, you’re doing a shabby job at it if you think it’s ok to support the fallacious “right” of a violent institution to dominate your fellow man in any capacity, no matter how minimal.

 

[danielpalos]

What a difference a social Contract makes. We have a First Amendment and State equivalents.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

What a difference a social Contract makes. We have a First Amendment and State equivalents.

To be perfectly candid, Daniel, I'm hanging on by a thread here... I barely understand what you're trying to say in these posts. It would be helpful if you would elaborate more. That being said, I'm truly thankful for your attention to the topic.

The 1st Amendment is just something people wrote down. I'm talking about fundamental philosophy here. The social contract I believe you're suggesting is not a valid contract because it is established unilaterally. I never agreed to the terms, yet I'm told I "implied" my consent simply by not fleeing the place of my birth. I never agreed to the terms of what will constitute the implication either, so one party is making up all the rules of this contract and signing both signatures, and the other party (me) has no participation in it whatsoever. Please tell me... in what other scenario would this be deemed a valid contract?

Maybe you're still approaching this from within the governmental paradigm? That's like trying to see your eyes (without a mirror). This thread is an evaluation of the validity of governmental authority. You can only do this from an objective perspective. To cite law (in the form of Amendments, etc.) as evidence of government's validity is like using the Bible as evidence Christianity's validity.

The questions that head this thread have yet to be addressed. If it is wrong for YOU to do something, how can it be right for someone else to do it as your representative? If they are representing you, then by definition, their rights are limited to those you have, are they not?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

So how many people have to agree with you? A majority? So if a majority of people delegate to a cannibal the "right" to eat you and your family, that delegation is valid and just?

If you'd like a serious conversation, we can have one.

I think that taxes are the price we pay for civilization. That is simply a decision to which a vast majority of people in advanced countries have agreed. It is what it is. It will not change. So yes, the cannibals can eat my children. So then we move to the next issue.

The rate of taxes we pay will exist on a continuum, per the current climate of that society/country. If more people are convinced that higher taxes are worth the drag they create on a dynamic economy, then that's what's going to happen.

Now, instead of tossing around absurd questions, you're welcome to comment specifically on my response.
.

I don’t need to press the cannibal thing, but I stand by it as a wholly relevant example, on a principle level.

Your response is basically, “it is what it is”, i.e. that’s just what people do. This thread is not about discerning what people do - as recognition of this
is implied by the fact that I deemed it necessary to address “what people do” by initiating a discussion about the validity of those practices.

And that’s what this thread seeks to discern - is governmental authority valid, legitimate, right, just, in accord with reason. This, your response does not satisfactorily address; other than to say, “it’s legitimate if a bunch of people agree to it” which opens the door to all manner of atrocity, including (dare I say) cannibals.

Since when does agreement equate to valid? Surely we can both think of examples where it does not. And tell me what limits there are on this “mob rule” theory of government. Can a majority agree to delegate ANY so-callled “right” to Congress and have it be just and valid? The right to enslave people based on race, for example?

 

[Mac1958]

So how many people have to agree with you? A majority? So if a majority of people delegate to a cannibal the "right" to eat you and your family, that delegation is valid and just?

If you'd like a serious conversation, we can have one.

I think that taxes are the price we pay for civilization. That is simply a decision to which a vast majority of people in advanced countries have agreed. It is what it is. It will not change. So yes, the cannibals can eat my children. So then we move to the next issue.

The rate of taxes we pay will exist on a continuum, per the current climate of that society/country. If more people are convinced that higher taxes are worth the drag they create on a dynamic economy, then that's what's going to happen.

Now, instead of tossing around absurd questions, you're welcome to comment specifically on my response.
.

I don’t need to press the cannibal thing, but I stand by it as a wholly relevant example, on a principle level.

Your response is basically, “it is what it is”, i.e. that’s just what people do. This thread is not about discerning what people do - as recognition of this
is implied by the fact that I deemed it necessary to address “what people do” by initiating a discussion about the validity of those practices.

And that’s what this thread seeks to discern - is governmental authority valid, legitimate, right, just, in accord with reason. This, your response does not satisfactorily address; other than to say, “it’s legitimate if a bunch of people agree to it” which opens the door to all manner of atrocity, including (dare I say) cannibals.

Since when does agreement equate to valid? Surely we can both think of examples where it does not. And tell me what limits there are on this “mob rule” theory of government. Can a majority agree to delegate ANY so-callled “right” to Congress and have it be just and valid? The right to enslave people based on race, for example?

There is a spectrum of options. On one end is absolute totalitarianism, which might be represented in real life by North Korea. On the opposite end is absolute anarchy, for which one definition is "the absence or non-recognition of authority". I suppose there are small places on the planet in such a condition, but they're be hard to find, and they certainly haven't prospered.

So, the task is to identify, establish and manage a point of equilibrium, a general area on the spectrum in which an order is maintained for general use and safety, but freedoms are maintained for both individual liberty and dynamic innovation and progress. The validity of that area of spectrum is ultimately judged by its overall success.

Humans have decided over the millennia that agreeing to an order, an established and enforceable set of rules and behaviors, is the obvious and logical approach in creating the most effective balance of prosperity, safety, security and continuity. So each society maintains its own (ultimately flexible) point on the spectrum and proceeds.

Within that area on the spectrum, and usually through the vote of the people, societies make certain value judgements, such as murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, and having cannibals eat your family is wrong. So then, within that society, unless better opinions are offered and agreed to, the rules are valid through the vote. People are then (usually) free to find and exist in the society that best pleases them.

Nothing is perfect and not everyone is going to be happy with this approach. But yes, it is what it is, essentially. So in the real world, not the theoretical world, the (very, very) few who decide to object to this approach have three options. They can:

1. Work within that society's system (presumably through the vote) to change minds and lead the society towards and into the anarchic end of the spectrum
2. Locate a place on this planet in which they can start from scratch, live off the land, find some twigs to build a hut, avoid us, and see how it works out for them
3. Get over it and move on

So, where are YOU on this spectrum, and what is your specific approach going to be going forward?
.

 

[danielpalos]

What a difference a social Contract makes. We have a First Amendment and State equivalents.

To be perfectly candid, Daniel, I'm hanging on by a thread here... I barely understand what you're trying to say in these posts. It would be helpful if you would elaborate more. That being said, I'm truly thankful for your attention to the topic.

The 1st Amendment is just something people wrote down. I'm talking about fundamental philosophy here. The social contract I believe you're suggesting is not a valid contract because it is established unilaterally. I never agreed to the terms, yet I'm told I "implied" my consent simply by not fleeing the place of my birth. I never agreed to the terms of what will constitute the implication either, so one party is making up all the rules of this contract and signing both signatures, and the other party (me) has no participation in it whatsoever. Please tell me... in what other scenario would this be deemed a valid contract?

Maybe you're still approaching this from within the governmental paradigm? That's like trying to see your eyes (without a mirror). This thread is an evaluation of the validity of governmental authority. You can only do this from an objective perspective. To cite law (in the form of Amendments, etc.) as evidence of government's validity is like using the Bible as evidence Christianity's validity.

The questions that head this thread have yet to be addressed. If it is wrong for YOU to do something, how can it be right for someone else to do it as your representative? If they are representing you, then by definition, their rights are limited to those you have, are they not?

I believe we are not on the same page. Our Constitution was Ratified by the majority as that form of representative democracy and government.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I believe we are not on the same page. Our Constitution was Ratified by the majority as that form of representative democracy and government.

Are you saying that a majority has the right to do whatever it wants to a minority? Isn’t this the same idea that permitted slavery to exist in this country for hundreds of years?

I’m saying that no one - not even a majority of people - can delegate rights that they do not have themselves. I do not have the right to make laws which others must follow, so I cannot delegate that right to someone else.

-A person, or group of people, must first have a right in order to delegate that right to someone else.
-Person A does not have the right to steal.
-Person B does not have the right to steal.
-Persons A and B together do not have the right to steal.
-Therefore Person A, B, or A and B together, cannot delegate the right to steal to someone else.

This is the argument. Do you deny the truth of any of these premises, or the logical validity of the conclusion?

 

[danielpalos]

I believe we are not on the same page. Our Constitution was Ratified by the majority as that form of representative democracy and government.

Are you saying that a majority has the right to do whatever it wants to a minority? Isn’t this the same idea that permitted slavery to exist in this country for hundreds of years?

We have a social Contract and Constitution for our Body Politic and Republic.

Slavery was supposed to end after 1808, due to our social Contract and Constitution.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

We have a social Contract and Constitution for our Body Politic and Republic.

Slavery was supposed to end after 1808, due to our social Contract and Constitution.

You have not answered the questions. Yes, we have a social contract, and this thread is demonstrating that this contract is invalid.

This "social contract" is not agreed upon by every individual, which means that some people are forcibly imposing their will upon others. How does the social contract prevent the majority from enslaving the minority? Clearly it doesn't, as the social contract was in place for over 400 years while slavery existed in this country. The idea of some people delegating the right to rule ALL people in the country, when they do not have the right to rule others themselves, is fundamentally invalid and immoral.

Please, if you would, address the following concern:

-A person, or group of people, must first have a right in order to delegate that right to someone else.
-Person A does not have the right to steal.
-Person B does not have the right to steal.
-Persons A and B together do not have the right to steal.
-Therefore Person A, B, or A and B together, cannot delegate the right to steal to someone else.

This is the argument. Do you deny the truth of any of these premises, or the logical validity of the conclusion?

 

[danielpalos]

We have a social Contract and Constitution for our Body Politic and Republic.

Slavery was supposed to end after 1808, due to our social Contract and Constitution.

You have not answered the questions. Yes, we have a social contract, and this thread is demonstrating that this contract is invalid.

This "social contract" is not agreed upon by every individual, which means that some people are forcibly imposing their will upon others. How does the social contract prevent the majority from enslaving the minority? Clearly it doesn't, as the social contract was in place for over 400 years while slavery existed in this country. The idea of some people delegating the right to rule ALL people in the country, when they do not have the right to rule others themselves, is fundamentally invalid and immoral.

Please, if you would, address the following concern:

-A person, or group of people, must first have a right in order to delegate that right to someone else.
-Person A does not have the right to steal.
-Person B does not have the right to steal.
-Persons A and B together do not have the right to steal.
-Therefore Person A, B, or A and B together, cannot delegate the right to steal to someone else.

This is the argument. Do you deny the truth of any of these premises, or the logical validity of the conclusion?

Our Founding Fathers solved it through recourse to the concept of natural rights and our federal form of limited government.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

There is a spectrum of options. On one end is absolute totalitarianism, which might be represented in real life by North Korea. On the opposite end is absolute anarchy, for which one definition is "the absence or non-recognition of authority". I suppose there are small places on the planet in such a condition, but they're be hard to find, and they certainly haven't prospered.

So, the task is to identify, establish and manage a point of equilibrium, a general area on the spectrum in which an order is maintained for general use and safety, but freedoms are maintained for both individual liberty and dynamic innovation and progress. The validity of that area of spectrum is ultimately judged by its overall success.

Humans have decided over the millennia that agreeing to an order, an established and enforceable set of rules and behaviors, is the obvious and logical approach in creating the most effective balance of prosperity, safety, security and continuity. So each society maintains its own (ultimately flexible) point on the spectrum and proceeds.

Within that area on the spectrum, and usually through the vote of the people, societies make certain value judgements, such as murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, and having cannibals eat your family is wrong. So then, within that society, unless better opinions are offered and agreed to, the rules are valid through the vote. People are then (usually) free to find and exist in the society that best pleases them.

Nothing is perfect and not everyone is going to be happy with this approach. But yes, it is what it is, essentially. So in the real world, not the theoretical world, the (very, very) few who decide to object to this approach have three options. They can:

1. Work within that society's system (presumably through the vote) to change minds and lead the society towards and into the anarchic end of the spectrum
2. Locate a place on this planet in which they can start from scratch, live off the land, find some twigs to build a hut, avoid us, and see how it works out for them
3. Get over it and move on

So, where are YOU on this spectrum, and what is your specific approach going to be going forward?
.

Thank you for taking the time to fully explain your position. Upon closer inspection, I think you'll find that there actually is not a spectrum between totalitarianism and anarchy - simply one or the other, at least on a principle level. Anarchy is freedom, and freedom does not have degrees. Slavery has degrees, and that's essentially what totalitarianism is, so there is a spectrum regarding how far the totalitarian regime infringes upon individual liberties.

A representative democracy, for example, manipulates who participates directly in the power structure, and offers options for altering it, but not choosing what is done during the term of the representatives, and not disobeying law once it's in place. I understand this is a broad definition of totalitarianism because power is spread out in an oligarchical fashion, and the power is only absolute as it concerns the entire government, while checks and balances exist within it; but I will explain this view below.

As discussed in the thread CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality , either governmental law has total authority over the individual - to the exclusion of all other systems of behavioral control - or it has no authority at all. Law, to be law, must be absolute. The individual is not at liberty to decide when he will follow the law and when he will not. The interaction is entirely one-sided, and so law is always totalitarian in principle. Even if people have the ability to switch out the players every 2-4 years, or fight to have laws changed, while those representatives are in place, the people have no control over what laws they create, and while laws are in place, the people are bound to obey them under threat of punishment.

The three options you present to the dissenter do not include the whole of his options. What you are essentially saying is that you can change the system, run from it, or just give up. There is no option here for doing away with it entirely. I have made arguments on these boards for the fundamental invalidity and immorality of governmental authority. If this is correct, you are admitting no option for the moral person to combat this immorality. If a street gang is terrorizing a neighborhood, your perspective would limit the people's options to begging them to change their ways, running away, or submitting to their every whim. What about trying to dismantle their power?

Is there no place left for the freedom fighter in this land born of revolution? The King's rule in 1776 was no burden at all compared to the weight of our current government's oppression. The founders of this country would look upon our situation with tears and gaping mouths, flabbergasted and dismayed at how far we've come from the principles they set at our foundation - and more so at our willingness to accept it. I'm not calling for violent revolt, because I don't think it would do any good. The people would just establish a new ruling class because they don't understand liberty and self-ownership. But I am condoning removing your support and compliance from this invalid power structure wherever you can get away with it, and spreading the logic and virtue of freedom to anyone who will listen. This is a fourth option which many have forgotten. I intend to remind them.

 

[Moonglow]

The franchise is that power; you have to vote them out of office.

I don't understand how this answers the questions posed. Please explain.

It is the simple answer regarding the power of the of People.

But the "power of the people" doesn't include taxing each other, or writing laws which the others must obey, so how do they validly grant these powers to their representatives?

Through the idea of natural law...

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You have not answered the questions. Yes, we have a social contract, and this thread is demonstrating that this contract is invalid.

This "social contract" is not agreed upon by every individual, which means that some people are forcibly imposing their will upon others. How does the social contract prevent the majority from enslaving the minority? Clearly it doesn't, as the social contract was in place for over 400 years while slavery existed in this country. The idea of some people delegating the right to rule ALL people in the country, when they do not have the right to rule others themselves, is fundamentally invalid and immoral.

Please, if you would, address the following concern:

-A person, or group of people, must first have a right in order to delegate that right to someone else.
-Person A does not have the right to steal.
-Person B does not have the right to steal.
-Persons A and B together do not have the right to steal.
-Therefore Person A, B, or A and B together, cannot delegate the right to steal to someone else.

This is the argument. Do you deny the truth of any of these premises, or the logical validity of the conclusion?

Our Founding Fathers solved it through recourse to the concept of natural rights and our federal form of limited government.

I'm sorry, but you're still not answering the question; which incidentally, concerns the very same natural rights you are citing.

-A person, or group of people, must first have a right in order to delegate that right to someone else.
-Person A does not have the right to steal.
-Person B does not have the right to steal.
-Persons A and B together do not have the right to steal.
-Therefore Person A, B, or A and B together, cannot delegate the right to steal to someone else.

This is the argument. Do you deny the truth of any of these premises, or the logical validity of the conclusion?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The franchise is that power; you have to vote them out of office.

I don't understand how this answers the questions posed. Please explain.

It is the simple answer regarding the power of the of People.

But the "power of the people" doesn't include taxing each other, or writing laws which the others must obey, so how do they validly grant these powers to their representatives?

Through the idea of natural law...

And what is natural law? Does it not dictate that one man may not infringe upon the natural rights of another, including his right not to be subject to violent aggression? So how are you operating within natural law when you vote for a representative to dictate law to others under threat of violent punishment when they are innocent and are not hurting anyone, and when you do not have that right yourself? How are you operating within natural law when you - by proxy - rob me of a portion of my labor via taxation to pay for things you think are important, whether I agree with you or not?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Brian Blackwell
if people set up the govt to be more like nonprofit with voluntary contributions,
then we could prevent "taxation" from forcing people to pay for things
that don't represent us or our consent or beliefs.

If we agree "voluntarily" to use the federal govt/irs/tax system and federal reserve to manage collective resources, we can exercise that as part of our "free exercise of religion or beliefs."

But where we disagree, no you are right, technically it is against Constitutional principles and natural laws to coerce people against their free will, especially if forcing people to comply or pay for programs or policies "against their beliefs."

No taxation without representation.

Unfortunately we've gotten into bad habits of agreeing
to pay under certain terms, and when those change, it's not so easy
to recall our right not to pay into that.

The easiest way I see to fix this mess is to
allow taxpayers equal choice of plans to fund or defund,
and start shifting control of resources and decisions
back to people and states, by using parties to organize and facilitate this change.

We can organize proportional representation by district
through voluntary participation by party. as long as it's all
voluntary people can have a free choice to participate in
problem solving, conflict resolution and policy reforms
on the district level. then feed any input on solutions
to the govt reps at each level of govt, and start reforming
both local and state levels of govt so this takes the
bureaucracy and burdens off federal govt.

We can facilitate this shift using public school districts,
party precincts, Electoral college districts and city councils.

Start locally, separate people's preferences of funding programs
and policies by party or by other organizations, and only reserve
public policy and govt jurisdiction to where all people agree
should be managed on that level. The rest we don't agree on
can be relegated back to local individuals or groups instead of
imposing "taxation" or policies on people collectively against anyone's
will belief or consent.

A step in the right direction would be to give people more choice about where their money goes, but even that is just "slavery light". Your plan has merit, no doubt, but I am focused solely on helping people realize that they have no obligation to obey man's law, and that to support a system that imposes governmental authority upon their neighbors is inherently immoral. Once a significant minority of people recognize this immutable truth, they can simply turn their backs on government, and it will fade away by sheer lack of support. As we approach that critical juncture in humanity's progress, we can begin discussing how to solve problems in a free society. And these solutions will vary widely, as there will be no centralized solution to which all must conform.

People must come to recognize their inherent self-ownership if a peaceful, prosperous society is ever to exist upon this (or any other) world. Self-regulation is the only solution that actually solves, and no matter how implausible a society built upon this notion may seem, it is the only path that even has a chance of getting us where we hope to go. Freedom does not have degrees; only slavery does. When this recognition becomes prevalent in the broader culture, man will usher in a new age of previously-unimaginable success... and not a moment before.

Dear Brian Blackwell
I would clarify that where man's law aligns with natural law,
yes, we naturally should follow that by conscience.

I believe that "consent" is part of the natural laws,
which man's laws are SUPPOSED to reflect, but
we too often fail because of group dynamics, social
pecking order, and rallying to defend our interests
"as a group identity" from a different tribe we fear or blame.

In Christian culture and Biblical scripture (which Muslims also follow) there is a concept of "civil obedience" and complying out of respect for human institutions, even if this means testifying against injustice. The purpose is not to allow oppression, but to go through the system to teach and correct where laws or decisions are unjust. People will not respect the petitions of a person who is rebellious and lawless, but someone who is clearly not criminal but is clearly law abiding and trying to RESPECT law and order has more "authority" or leverage to ask for reform and correction.

It's like standing on higher moral ground in order to have more leverage to argue. So Christians are called to be witnesses to truth, by taking this higher ground even in the face of injustice.

And all the nonviolent peacemakers from Gandhi to King have used this "meek" approach to move mountains.

 

[emilynghiem]

Rights are something a society creates and bestows upon itself. They are not necessarily permanent or impervious to being ignored.

Since no one, or no society, is perfect, all we can do is try to set and maintain rights.

This is tangential, but you believe that people create rights? So there's no self-evident principle at play dictating that it's wrong to walk up to an old lady and split her head with an axe? That's just a neutral event, like sniffing a rose? The innocent have no right to be violently imposed upon? Remember that a right is not a guarantee...

In any case, whatever you cite as its origin, I assume you have some moral code that says we should not steal from innocent people, or attack and/or murder them just because we don't like them or their victimless habits, etc. You say we should try to set and maintain rights, and this thread is about that very thing...

Do you believe it is wrong, for you personally, to claim a portion of your neighbor's income under threat of violence, regardless of what you're going to use that money for?

In other words, do you believe it would be violation of your neighbor's rights, and that you have no right to do this yourself? If you do believe it is wrong for you to do this yourself, how do you justify asking someone else to do it (i.e. supporting a government agent's "right" to do this very thing)?

I think that a society does its best to create rules that it can agree on, generally, and then we do our best to enforce them.

No, I believe that taxation is part of the price of a civilization. If we want lower taxes, we vote accordingly. If we want more services at a cost, we vote accordingly. If we lose, then we have to do a better job of convincing people of our position. And sometimes we have to admit to ourselves that ours is simply not the prevailing view.
.

We can talk about "the price of civilization" at another point, but this does not address the question being asked. I am asking whether you believe you have the right to personally tax your neighbor, and if not, how do you validly delegate this right to government agents?

Dear Brian Blackwell
there are two situations I would consider this to be agreed behavior
1. civil contracts and agreements.
If parties to a service agreement already signed onto terms by which services would be covered for a price, then any members signing up and agreeing to pay agreed costs for that service can be held to that. When Govt is used for services such as military defense for security, and taxpayers AGREE to pay for these services, and AGREE to use the IRS and return system to manage those payments through govt as the mgmt, then we AGREE to taxation for this purpose and under those terms.
As a civil contract we AGREE represents us
(unfortunately that's not what we have now, so we disagree
and this causes the problems we see now not agreeing
what to pay for under which terms or which agencies etc)

2. criminal violations and agreed process for penalties
if people AGREE to criminal codes that require loss of liberty or labor to pay penalties and we AGREE to go through govt as the authority for managing this, then yes we can agree to taxation as prescribed by laws and agree to use govt as the enforcing agent

however again, we have not means to ensure that taxpayers OR the criminal convicts ever agreed to the laws or system currently enforced

Brian Blackwell on these two notes I get blank stares or cries of denial and rejection when I ask about people consenting to pay for these two systems as is. Instead I have proposed:
1. to separate taxation by party so people can choose what to fund or defund organized collectively by party to keep as much as possible out of govt. And only where all parties AGREE should be federal or state, then those policies or programs are managed there
2. people go through training on the laws they are expected to follow and the procedures and COSTS of violations; and then sign agreements that they will PAY these costs of their own convicted wrongdoing instead of charging to taxpayers who don't agree to pay. So this way we can deter and prevent crime by preventative education (and also mental health screening and medial/legal assistance for those unable to comply for mental or other reasons in order to remedy the cause of legal incompetence and/or require a legal guardian to sign for responsibility for this person).
And this is how I was proposing to reform and pay for health care.
But I got blank stares from a lot of my liberal friends who never thought through the process of where the resources and facilities are going to come from to cover health care for mass populations. I said by reforming prisons and using those resources.

Brian people are not used to resolving problems by consent, and don't know there are methods of healing mental and criminal illness.

So when I bring up solutions based on this knowledge they don't have, their brains cannot assimilate what I am saying is coming.

So if you run into resistance and emotional dead ends from people, when their brains can't process this, they will just bring up past issues they never resolved and hold on to that emotionally as a wall between the old and new. Not everyone is ready for change at this level.

When they SEE PROOF of the different approaches working, their brains can grasp that. But without proof, they can't see the future because their minds and perceptions are stuck in the past.