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

[emilynghiem]

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?

Yes Brian Blackwell
You are spelling out what is wrong with
"involuntary servitude" and
"depriving people of liberty without due process"
to prove what crime was committed by which person.

Thank you, and I will ask C_Clayton_Jones
again, to explain how ACA mandates are not
a violation of freedom of choice by people who
committed no violations to deserve to lose liberty
and "freedom to choose" to pay or provide for
health care by OTHER MEANS besides govt.

the SADDEST thing here Brian is when well meaning liberals
who understand protecting "freedom of choice" from
BELIEFS of OTHERS such as "right to life" which is faith based
to argue this applies to unborn at conception who are not legally recognized persons,
DON'T equally respect "freedom of choice" from
BELIEFS in RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE as a "compelling govt interest"

I argue this constitutes "discrimination by creed" to treat right to life beliefs
one way and right to health care another way through THROUGH GOVT.
You are right, that individuals have the right to discriminate and pay for
our own party platforms of choice, but I'm saying it's unlawful to
push these beliefs through govt which violates equal civil rights of others
and denies "equal protection" of the laws by "discrimination by creed."

This political belief that health care is a right VIOLATES
the political belief of Constitutionalists in limited govt that
has no authority yet to regulate health care without an Amendment
and that votes by Congress on ACA as a public health bill
are not justified by rulings by Courts on ACA as a tax bill,
which treated the bill as two different laws and didn't approve both!
One body passed it as a public health bill but would have rejected it as a tax,
the other ruled it lawful as a tax but rejected it as a public health/general welfare bill!
So it NEVER passed both to meet the govt standards on process.

Further it establishes one political belief while penalizing the other.

So Brian Blackwell what do you think of my argument that
ACA was a violation of civil rights by "discrimination by creed."
ie REGARDLESS if people AGREE or DISAGREE with
* political belief in right to health care
* political belief in limited govt by Constitutional limits
(including the Judicial not having power to rewrite the law from the bench)
Then this STILL violated the beliefs of one by establishing the other!

So the D party leaders Obama and Pelosi who led this process
are guilty of "conspiring to violate equal civil rights" of those
with Constitutional beliefs or beliefs in health care without insurance mandates
and all taxpayers affected have a right to sue them for debts and damages.

That is my argument I presented to C_Clayton_Jones
I offered to set up a class action lawsuit and ask all taxpayers
to TAKE SIDES: either sign up as Plaintiff seeking reimbursement and damages
or argue this ACA process was constitutional and get SUED for damages.

You either support one or the other, either it was proper
or you objected to at least SOME of it. And see who sues whom!

Brian Blackwell do you know any lawyers willing to
push this argument in the public media for consideration?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

I agree that You are begging the question by stating what you do.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

 

[there4eyeM]

It is both rational and valid that people will decide what is rational and valid. What works is what is important, and it is the solution to all problems that do not destroy themselves or the necessary processes before even getting to what works.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is both rational and valid that people will decide what is rational and valid. What works is what is important, and it is the solution to all problems that do not destroy themselves or the necessary processes before even getting to what works.

dear there4eyeM
what I don't get is people pushing to experiment with unproven solutions
at the expense of other taxpayers who don't agree.
If you believe you have a solution, then prove it. let people choose to
fund and adopt it. All the best nonprofits with cost effective programs
and solutions run by voluntary donations and participation.

why can't we base govt programs on what works and let people CHOOSE?

 

[there4eyeM]

Who chose to set the U.S., and the world, on a course of nuclear madness?
All economic and political systems are unproven solutions that are in process. None, so far, have proven so successful as to be clearly 'the' solution. Just as with religions; if one were really right, we would know it by now.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Yes Brian Blackwell
You are spelling out what is wrong with
"involuntary servitude" and
"depriving people of liberty without due process"
to prove what crime was committed by which person.

Thank you, and I will ask C_Clayton_Jones
again, to explain how ACA mandates are not
a violation of freedom of choice by people who
committed no violations to deserve to lose liberty
and "freedom to choose" to pay or provide for
health care by OTHER MEANS besides govt.

the SADDEST thing here Brian is when well meaning liberals
who understand protecting "freedom of choice" from
BELIEFS of OTHERS such as "right to life" which is faith based
to argue this applies to unborn at conception who are not legally recognized persons,
DON'T equally respect "freedom of choice" from
BELIEFS in RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE as a "compelling govt interest"

I argue this constitutes "discrimination by creed" to treat right to life beliefs
one way and right to health care another way through THROUGH GOVT.
You are right, that individuals have the right to discriminate and pay for
our own party platforms of choice, but I'm saying it's unlawful to
push these beliefs through govt which violates equal civil rights of others
and denies "equal protection" of the laws by "discrimination by creed."

This political belief that health care is a right VIOLATES
the political belief of Constitutionalists in limited govt that
has no authority yet to regulate health care without an Amendment
and that votes by Congress on ACA as a public health bill
are not justified by rulings by Courts on ACA as a tax bill,
which treated the bill as two different laws and didn't approve both!
One body passed it as a public health bill but would have rejected it as a tax,
the other ruled it lawful as a tax but rejected it as a public health/general welfare bill!
So it NEVER passed both to meet the govt standards on process.

Further it establishes one political belief while penalizing the other.

So Brian Blackwell what do you think of my argument that
ACA was a violation of civil rights by "discrimination by creed."
ie REGARDLESS if people AGREE or DISAGREE with
* political belief in right to health care
* political belief in limited govt by Constitutional limits
(including the Judicial not having power to rewrite the law from the bench)
Then this STILL violated the beliefs of one by establishing the other!

So the D party leaders Obama and Pelosi who led this process
are guilty of "conspiring to violate equal civil rights" of those
with Constitutional beliefs or beliefs in health care without insurance mandates
and all taxpayers affected have a right to sue them for debts and damages.

That is my argument I presented to C_Clayton_Jones
I offered to set up a class action lawsuit and ask all taxpayers
to TAKE SIDES: either sign up as Plaintiff seeking reimbursement and damages
or argue this ACA process was constitutional and get SUED for damages.

You either support one or the other, either it was proper
or you objected to at least SOME of it. And see who sues whom!

Brian Blackwell do you know any lawyers willing to
push this argument in the public media for consideration?

Wow, yes, once again you've offered a perspective that I've not considered before. That is certainly a violation of civil rights via "discrimination by creed", though this argument is like the 7th bullet to hit a man riddled with 20. In other words, there's so much wrong with the situation that many people don't understand, it would be difficult to get them to grasp and become motivated by that particular aspect of the injustice. That being said, a lot of people are so upset about it, they would get behind any movement to fight it, whether they understood it or not Hahaha

The fact that anyone could be so deluded about the nature of rights that they suppose health care is among them is quite disheartening. What ever happened to good ol' American hatred for communists? Hahaha I'm joking, but really, imagine two people on a deserted island and one of them telling the other, "You know, I have a right to affordable health care". What's the other guy supposed to do? Teach himself to become a doctor in order to be a moral person and respect that lunatic's rights?

The concept of rights can best be thought of in the apophatic sense - it is more clearly defined by what people don't have a right to do. This clears up a lot of misunderstanding, as that is a very short list. Something like: You don't have a right to commit acts of violent aggression or fraud against people (and this extends to their property, being a by-product of their labor). Anything else is within your rights to DO (presuming it does not infringe upon the rights of another), but where in this can you find a right to GET something? But the government version of rights becomes a list of things you get, in addition to the list of things you are protected from. That's because government claims the power to parcel out certain rights and withhold others from among the very long list of things you already have a natural law right to do; such as drive a car, build a deck, swim at the beach after 9pm, etc, etc. etc., ad infinitum. If they portrayed rights accurately, they'd largely be out of work, since most of what they do concerns the management of details regarding their mutilated interpretation of rights.

As for initiating a lawsuit, I'm afraid I can't offer any advice or referrals on that front, as that process concerns governmental law, which I wholly reject. As of right now, my position is sufficiently "purist" as to prohibit my use of law, even to redress wrongs caused by the law itself. I do see some justification for latitude on this point - as it seems appropriate to encourage the dragon to bite its own tail - but as of now, I do not voluntarily engage the law where I can reasonably avoid it.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

I also think that no discussion about the failings of government is complete without acknowledging the influence of corruption, psychopathy, and dare I say, dark occultism. It's not just a matter of "the people" themselves (though of course, it all begins with them), but of those who make their way into seats of power (and, in fact, have often devised the nature of those seats in the first place).

It all begins with public outcry: "Thieves are stealing our corn - we must do something!" Here, an opportunity arises for one, or some, to garner power greater than that possessed by the general populace. It is not very difficult for a manipulator to seize upon this opportunity. Even the well-intentioned soon find themselves corrupted by the influence they wield, or at the very least, find themselves having to make difficult choices which erode their morality. Think of a perfectly moral President (though this is an impossibility)... they must resign themselves to the fact that their decisions will invariably result in death. If we build a bridge, people will die building it. If we go to war, even if necessary, many will die by that command. It puts one in a position to see death as a trade-off, which could easily lead to less benign applications of that idea.

But more importantly, the position of power naturally draws to it psychopaths and other dominators. This is well-documented. Not just politicians, but police, military, and top business leaders have a higher percentage of these scoundrels among their ranks. Having these people in such influential positions is a factor that cannot be ignored; particularly because their ability to deceive and manipulate magnifies their power by garnering the support of others.

And yes, the dark occult. Secret societies, fraternal orders, etc., ARE a factor, despite people wanting to keep their head in the sand about this. It's an undeniable fact that occult organizations have been influential in government for centuries, and if there's any doubt about this, ten minutes of research into their symbology will prepare one's eyes to see it all over the place, most prominently on government buildings, etc. The perversion of ancient knowledge about human psychology and spirituality has been used to increase the power of many historical political figures and wealthy elites. The most important thing to remember is that we don't have to believe in any of this stuff to be affected by it, any more than we have to believe in radical religionism to be blown up by a suicide bomber. THEY believe it, and they will act in accordance with those beliefs. A brief investigation into what those beliefs are will reveal the danger of having even just a handful of these people in positions of authority.

Bit of a tangent there, but I felt it was important to note that it's not just about how we vote and what we, the people, are thinking on our own. First of all, much of what we think results from the poisoned worldview promulgated by the aforementioned manipulators, but those in power have their own agendas and clandestine activities that we know nothing about. We don't have to adopt an "us" and "them" mentality; the wealthiest, most powerful people in the world are prone to that mentality themselves, and it only takes one side to break down the whole notion of "representative government".

Ah yes, Gandhi. I was just studying him recently. An amazing person who embodied a steadfast commitment to justice, and the struggle of the flawed human creature striving to be good. Love the message of non-compliance. I wish more people had the courage to adopt it.

I do see the value of the "moral high ground" via working within the system. Like I said, I'm too much of a philosophical purist to participate in a system I see to be clearly invalid, and too committed to the notion of categorical moral imperatives to employ an inherently immoral institution, even in the furtherance of a higher good. There is practicality in doing so, however, and I understand the political Libertarian motivation. I even have anarchist friends who support the Ron Pauls of the world, seeing it as a step-wise progression toward true freedom. Maybe that is the wiser course, but I just can't over the hurdles myself.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I agree that You are begging the question by stating what you do.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

If you can cite the fallacy, then you'll have no problem pointing out how it is so. Show me how the argument is wrong.

If you believe that people can validly grant rights to others that they don't have themselves, you at least have the obligation to explain what limits exist on this magical power, and why those limits are where they are, because the implications of your assertion are disastrous without this explanation. As it stands now, according to what you're saying, I can validly delegate the power to anyone to do anything. If you're simply going to justify this idea by pointing to the Constitution, then it's ironic to suggest that my argument is circular.

As to your quote, it's a raw assertion that government is an "indispensable necessity". Even if it is, that does not necessarily make it valid or moral, which is the crux of this discussion.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

It is both rational and valid that people will decide what is rational and valid. What works is what is important, and it is the solution to all problems that do not destroy themselves or the necessary processes before even getting to what works.

Ehhhh.... I get it, but you must recognize the mathematical quality of logic. At the very least, it is a standard by which we may judge the consistency of thought, even if that standard is subjective to the species or wholly arbitrary. Most importantly, it is a standard which nearly all people who support government would insist they are faithful to, and I am challenging them to step up and prove it, or abandon the claim.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

]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.

I have to say, I can’t think of another person on any board that I’ve seen offer such lucid, practical solutions from. Now many will not see them as practical, simply because they are different,; and as you noted, a healthy imagination is not all that common.

I’ve heard it said that the educational system dampens the imagination, and I could see how this is so (given its focus on left-brain activities). But mine seems to be working fine, as I can see a vastly different world being possible, and your ideas are a step in that direction.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree that You are begging the question by stating what you do.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

If you can cite the fallacy, then you'll have no problem pointing out how it is so. Show me how the argument is wrong.

If you believe that people can validly grant rights to others that they don't have themselves, you at least have the obligation to explain what limits exist on this magical power, and why those limits are where they are, because the implications of your assertion are disastrous without this explanation. As it stands now, according to what you're saying, I can validly delegate the power to anyone to do anything. If you're simply going to justify this idea by pointing to the Constitution, then it's ironic to suggest that my argument is circular.

As to your quote, it's a raw assertion that government is an "indispensable necessity". Even if it is, that does not necessarily make it valid or moral, which is the crux of this discussion.

begging the question is a fallacy. you are simply assuming special conditions that fit your argument.

How is this, inaccurate:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I agree that You are begging the question by stating what you do.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

If you can cite the fallacy, then you'll have no problem pointing out how it is so. Show me how the argument is wrong.

If you believe that people can validly grant rights to others that they don't have themselves, you at least have the obligation to explain what limits exist on this magical power, and why those limits are where they are, because the implications of your assertion are disastrous without this explanation. As it stands now, according to what you're saying, I can validly delegate the power to anyone to do anything. If you're simply going to justify this idea by pointing to the Constitution, then it's ironic to suggest that my argument is circular.

As to your quote, it's a raw assertion that government is an "indispensable necessity". Even if it is, that does not necessarily make it valid or moral, which is the crux of this discussion.

begging the question is a fallacy. you are simply assuming special conditions that fit your argument.

How is this, inaccurate:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

I know what the fallacy is, I’m asking you to point out where you perceive it in my argument. What is the “special condition” being assumed?

I already said how the quote is inaccurate - it’s an unfounded assertion to say “nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government”; an opinion with no supporting evidence. I’m not challenging the second part of the quote, which is reasonable enough.

I’ve asked you countless times to explain yourself, but you answer in short bursts that provide insufficient information. I appreciate your coming here, but if you’re not going to actually engage in the discussion, I don’t see how this is a worthy expenditure of time for either of us.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree that You are begging the question by stating what you do.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

If you can cite the fallacy, then you'll have no problem pointing out how it is so. Show me how the argument is wrong.

If you believe that people can validly grant rights to others that they don't have themselves, you at least have the obligation to explain what limits exist on this magical power, and why those limits are where they are, because the implications of your assertion are disastrous without this explanation. As it stands now, according to what you're saying, I can validly delegate the power to anyone to do anything. If you're simply going to justify this idea by pointing to the Constitution, then it's ironic to suggest that my argument is circular.

As to your quote, it's a raw assertion that government is an "indispensable necessity". Even if it is, that does not necessarily make it valid or moral, which is the crux of this discussion.

begging the question is a fallacy. you are simply assuming special conditions that fit your argument.

How is this, inaccurate:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

I know what the fallacy is, I’m asking you to point out where you perceive it in my argument. What is the “special condition” being assumed?

I already said how the quote is inaccurate - it’s an unfounded assertion to say “nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government”; an opinion with no supporting evidence. I’m not challenging the second part of the quote, which is reasonable enough.

I’ve asked you countless times to explain yourself, but you answer in short bursts that provide insufficient information. I appreciate your coming here, but if you’re not going to actually engage in the discussion, I don’t see how this is a worthy expenditure of time for either of us.

begging the question means you want me to accept "your preconceived notions".

Why do You believe Government is not an Indispensable necessity? We Only need, Ten simple Commandments from a God, to not have the Expense of Government.

 

[there4eyeM]

What is needed is not commandments from anyone, but a populace that is willing to co-operate on agreed 'commandments'.
We create words, we define them, and everything in society works in relation to how the participants relate to those words.
This is so simple, obvious and clear that it is bewildering that certain individuals claim otherwise.

 

[danielpalos]

What is needed is not commandments from anyone, but a populace that is willing to co-operate on agreed 'commandments'.
We create words, we define them, and everything in society works in relation to how the participants relate to those words.
This is so simple, obvious and clear that it is bewildering that certain individuals claim otherwise.

we have a Constitution. There is nothing ambiguous about our supreme law of the land.

 

[there4eyeM]

The mere presence of amendments tells a story about the U.S. Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

The mere presence of amendments tells a story about the U.S. Constitution.

the plan was Good, execution is the hard part.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I agree that You are begging the question by stating what you do.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

If you can cite the fallacy, then you'll have no problem pointing out how it is so. Show me how the argument is wrong.

If you believe that people can validly grant rights to others that they don't have themselves, you at least have the obligation to explain what limits exist on this magical power, and why those limits are where they are, because the implications of your assertion are disastrous without this explanation. As it stands now, according to what you're saying, I can validly delegate the power to anyone to do anything. If you're simply going to justify this idea by pointing to the Constitution, then it's ironic to suggest that my argument is circular.

As to your quote, it's a raw assertion that government is an "indispensable necessity". Even if it is, that does not necessarily make it valid or moral, which is the crux of this discussion.

begging the question is a fallacy. you are simply assuming special conditions that fit your argument.

How is this, inaccurate:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

I know what the fallacy is, I’m asking you to point out where you perceive it in my argument. What is the “special condition” being assumed?

I already said how the quote is inaccurate - it’s an unfounded assertion to say “nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government”; an opinion with no supporting evidence. I’m not challenging the second part of the quote, which is reasonable enough.

I’ve asked you countless times to explain yourself, but you answer in short bursts that provide insufficient information. I appreciate your coming here, but if you’re not going to actually engage in the discussion, I don’t see how this is a worthy expenditure of time for either of us.

begging the question means you want me to accept "your preconceived notions".

Why do You believe Government is not an Indispensable necessity? We Only need, Ten simple Commandments from a God, to not have the Expense of Government.

I didn’t say it wasn’t an indispensable necessity - although I don’t believe that it is - I said that it’s a mere opinion/assertion until demonstrated how it is so. This notion of having to demonstrate or explain what’s being said seems either over your head, or too much trouble for you to bother with. I find this type of exchange to be a waste of time, so I’m choosing to cease our dialogue. No hard feelings. Enjoy your evening.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree that You are begging the question by stating what you do.

If you can cite the fallacy, then you'll have no problem pointing out how it is so. Show me how the argument is wrong.

If you believe that people can validly grant rights to others that they don't have themselves, you at least have the obligation to explain what limits exist on this magical power, and why those limits are where they are, because the implications of your assertion are disastrous without this explanation. As it stands now, according to what you're saying, I can validly delegate the power to anyone to do anything. If you're simply going to justify this idea by pointing to the Constitution, then it's ironic to suggest that my argument is circular.

As to your quote, it's a raw assertion that government is an "indispensable necessity". Even if it is, that does not necessarily make it valid or moral, which is the crux of this discussion.

begging the question is a fallacy. you are simply assuming special conditions that fit your argument.

How is this, inaccurate:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number 2

I know what the fallacy is, I’m asking you to point out where you perceive it in my argument. What is the “special condition” being assumed?

I already said how the quote is inaccurate - it’s an unfounded assertion to say “nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government”; an opinion with no supporting evidence. I’m not challenging the second part of the quote, which is reasonable enough.

I’ve asked you countless times to explain yourself, but you answer in short bursts that provide insufficient information. I appreciate your coming here, but if you’re not going to actually engage in the discussion, I don’t see how this is a worthy expenditure of time for either of us.

begging the question means you want me to accept "your preconceived notions".

Why do You believe Government is not an Indispensable necessity? We Only need, Ten simple Commandments from a God, to not have the Expense of Government.

I didn’t say it wasn’t an indispensable necessity - although I don’t believe that it is - I said that it’s a mere opinion/assertion until demonstrated how it is so. This notion of having to demonstrate or explain what’s being said seems either over your head, or too much trouble for you to bother with. I find this type of exchange to be a waste of time, so I’m choosing to cease our dialogue. No hard feelings. Enjoy your evening.

Not at all; from my perspective, it is a self-evident Truth.

For comparison and contrast, States exist, true AnCaps don't.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

What is needed is not commandments from anyone, but a populace that is willing to co-operate on agreed 'commandments'.
We create words, we define them, and everything in society works in relation to how the participants relate to those words.
This is so simple, obvious and clear that it is bewildering that certain individuals claim otherwise.

Precisely. Self-regulation (sometimes described as morality) is the only solution that truly solves. External anarchy and internal monarchy. Democracy in all its forms, touted as cooperative, is the antithesis of true cooperation.