CDZ If you . . .

[there4eyeM]

The only person you can prove it to is yourself. when talking about abstract concepts like this, they are only opinions. It is not like proving gravity or friction.

When you talk about proving social constructs, you sound like a marxist, and I doubt that is what you are going for.

You don't have a "system" to replace what we have, you just have a dislike of what we have now, and a vague hope of something better. At least the marxists have previous (bad) examples of systems that teetered along for a few decades before collapsing under their own weight.

And how are you qualified to speak on any of this? Have you studied natural law? Do you even understand what morality IS?

This is the problem - everyone thinks they have a valid opinion on every topic by mere virtue of the fact that they're breathing. NO. You have to understand something before you can accurately evaluate it and have a valid opinion on the topic. And I know for a fact that you haven't studied these matters by the way you talk. But yet you feel perfectly up to the task of discerning the validity of what I'm putting forth, despite the fact that I have a thorough understanding of this particular topic and you don't. That doesn't make me smarter, it simply makes me more experienced in this one specific area.

You think the absence of authoritarianism means there's no "system" in place. This is the arrogance of modern man - if HE didn't devise a system, then none exists. And yet he lives in a world of natural physical law that he had no hand in creating, with a system so perfectly precise that if it was off by the slightest degree, all life would become extinct. But never mind all that, you know better, right? Mankind's behavior is the only phenomenon in the universe that's exempt from defined, predictable cause-and-effect, because he's just that special.

Morality is a law of nature. To the degree mankind is moral overall, to that exact degree he will be free. This is what morality defines - the causal behaviors that yield particular results. And even on the face of it you should understand that, since immorality is always the justification for support of government. But once you see that government IS immoral, you understand that can never produce peace, freedom, and maximized prosperity. It is as impossible as dropped objects falling up.

Defense protects freedom, not man's law, and people equate government with defense, but that's not what defines government as government. People can still organize for their own defense, that's why the founders were so explicitly bent on the importance of the militia. But the militia does not have authority over other human beings, which is the defining, immoral characteristic of government.

Moral freedom is what I'm fighting for, not the overthrow of government. Anarchy by way of withdrawing support from government on moral grounds, such that it dissipates naturally, as new moral solutions replace its critical functions. This is possible, just as the abolition of African-American slavery was possible, despite all assertions to the contrary at that time. And eventually, the idea of re-establishing government would be viewed to be insane, just as the idea of re-establishing the slave trade would be now. It happens one person at a time, and right now that person is you. Will you fully commit to morality, understanding that it's the only path to man's best future, or will you stand in the way of progress and hold tight to the fear of change?

Morality, like rights, is human originated. If it is a law of nature, it is because humans are part of nature and make it real.
Society, government, economics all work because people believe in them, have faith in them. They fail when credence ceases. It is very like the illustration here of the crowd supporting the plank. When enough leave, the veil of authority is lifted.
If there is a campaign to be mounted, it is to induce people to use their potential more fully, to realize the power they have over their existence by the action of their consciousness. Attacking elements of authoritarianism and the powerful hasn't worked in the past, and is not likely to work today.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Even the most simple society....a tribe ....has some form of government

A chief or tribal elders who makes plans for the tribe, resolves tribal conflicts, represents the tribe to others

Oh, so leaders, organizers, arbitrators, spokesmen... that’s all fine. I thought you were talking about government.

That IS Government

Actually, government is an external authority. It claims the right to rule, to supersede your will or consent with its commands. Leaders, organizers, arbitrators, and spokesmen may all be engaged on a wholly voluntary basis.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I’m condoning anarchy by way of culturally-pervasive moral understanding. No power vacuum exists amongst a people who recognize the illegitimate nature of authoritarian power itself. Group defense protects them from those who would attempt to assert it.

Plus, the “transfer of power” you’re suggesting would require that the power was originally held by the party transferring it. You have the power to tax? To make laws that your neighbor must obey? If not, you obviously can’t transfer any such thing.

And now we go back to the "ideal" humans, similar to the Ideal Gas Law.

Good for teaching and discussing, horrible for actual applications.

Again, taxing is nothing more than charging for services. I can make someone pay me when I provide a service.

I explained to you why it's not simply paying for services - because the service is provided without consent. You don't willingly choose the service. It's like when a homeless guy washes your windows when you're at a stoplight, then demands payment. Not the same as voluntarily choosing service, obviously.

So "ideal humans" were required to shift the cultural consciousness to abandon the notion of African-American slavery? Because the same exact concept here. I'm the abolitionist and you're the supporter of slavery here. No different, and the supporter of slavery was wrong. It was possible to abolish slavery, and it did turn out better, and no ideal humans were required.

No, not supporting slavery, supporting limited government. The idea of no government can only lead to oppression because people are people, and until you invent your perfect person, you will be doomed to failure.

And sometimes reality sucks, but the reality is government is a necessary function of human society and civilization at the scales we are talking about.

Read up on what happened to the crew of the Bounty after they settled on Pitcairn Island as an example of how people can behave in the absence of a government style power.
\

Ok, so here's what you've proposed:

1. Limited government is not slavery.
Please define "slavery" to your complete satisfaction.

2. No government (anarchy) can only lead to oppression.
Anarchy simple means "no rulers" i.e. freedom. Freedom can only lead to oppression? You are equating freedom with immorality, because that's what you speculate will result from a free condition. Certainly, immorality can only lead to oppression - this is true - but freedom is not intrinsically linked to immorality. If all people were both free and moral, there obviously could be no oppression, since oppression is not moral. So the proposed idea, as stated, is definitively false.

However, I know what you mean, which is why I'm not calling for the immediate overthrow of government. Most modern anarchists are trying to get people to understand and commit to morality. If this succeeds, government will dissolve, and freedom will not lead to oppression. But right now, many don't know the difference between right and wrong, which leads us to our next point...

3. Government becomes necessary at a certain scale.
This implies that immorality becomes necessary at a certain scale, which cannot be. Morality is - by definition - an overarching guideline for successful human behavior, and thus is not dependent upon scale.

But since you've yet to recognize that government is fundamentally immoral, we cannot continue this line of inquiry until you answer my previous reply (#225) which demonstrated that government must be, in all cases, immoral. Please do so, and we can continue.

slavery is the ownership of one person by another. Pretty simple.

No, I mean that nature abhors a vacuum, and a power vacuum will be filled, usually by the meanest and strongest person available.

I do not accept that morality and government are exclusive. That is you view, and it is an incorrect one.

I've demonstrated how governmental authority is inherently immoral in post #225, which you have not refuted, yet persist in denying. So, let's resolve this issue definitively:

Authority is about rights, not ability. It's a claim about just powers in excess of those typically held by individuals. It means having the "right" to do things that others don’t have the right to do. Otherwise the institution of “authority” would be indistinguishable from any other group of people, as it would have precisely the same body of rights (just powers). And what do we call actions that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrong-doings, immoral actions, rights violations,etc. So to distinguish itself as authority by claiming additional rights, government must draw from this pool of non-rights, those actions outside the rights of other individuals, i.e. immoral actions - there’s simply nowhere else to draw from.

Please refute this argument directly to demonstrate your assertion that government is not inherently immoral.


The vacuum you describe is not created by the lack of authoritarian power alone. It is created by that lack, coupled with the belief on behalf of the people that such power should exist. If either of these two factors is missing, there is no power vacuum. I am working toward eliminating this second factor, so the presence of the first factor does not create this vacuum, and lasting freedom can finally come to mankind..

So slavery is "ownership of one person by another". How is this ownership established? What are its qualities?

 

[martybegan]

And now we go back to the "ideal" humans, similar to the Ideal Gas Law.

Good for teaching and discussing, horrible for actual applications.

Again, taxing is nothing more than charging for services. I can make someone pay me when I provide a service.

I explained to you why it's not simply paying for services - because the service is provided without consent. You don't willingly choose the service. It's like when a homeless guy washes your windows when you're at a stoplight, then demands payment. Not the same as voluntarily choosing service, obviously.

So "ideal humans" were required to shift the cultural consciousness to abandon the notion of African-American slavery? Because the same exact concept here. I'm the abolitionist and you're the supporter of slavery here. No different, and the supporter of slavery was wrong. It was possible to abolish slavery, and it did turn out better, and no ideal humans were required.

No, not supporting slavery, supporting limited government. The idea of no government can only lead to oppression because people are people, and until you invent your perfect person, you will be doomed to failure.

And sometimes reality sucks, but the reality is government is a necessary function of human society and civilization at the scales we are talking about.

Read up on what happened to the crew of the Bounty after they settled on Pitcairn Island as an example of how people can behave in the absence of a government style power.
\

Ok, so here's what you've proposed:

1. Limited government is not slavery.
Please define "slavery" to your complete satisfaction.

2. No government (anarchy) can only lead to oppression.
Anarchy simple means "no rulers" i.e. freedom. Freedom can only lead to oppression? You are equating freedom with immorality, because that's what you speculate will result from a free condition. Certainly, immorality can only lead to oppression - this is true - but freedom is not intrinsically linked to immorality. If all people were both free and moral, there obviously could be no oppression, since oppression is not moral. So the proposed idea, as stated, is definitively false.

However, I know what you mean, which is why I'm not calling for the immediate overthrow of government. Most modern anarchists are trying to get people to understand and commit to morality. If this succeeds, government will dissolve, and freedom will not lead to oppression. But right now, many don't know the difference between right and wrong, which leads us to our next point...

3. Government becomes necessary at a certain scale.
This implies that immorality becomes necessary at a certain scale, which cannot be. Morality is - by definition - an overarching guideline for successful human behavior, and thus is not dependent upon scale.

But since you've yet to recognize that government is fundamentally immoral, we cannot continue this line of inquiry until you answer my previous reply (#225) which demonstrated that government must be, in all cases, immoral. Please do so, and we can continue.

slavery is the ownership of one person by another. Pretty simple.

No, I mean that nature abhors a vacuum, and a power vacuum will be filled, usually by the meanest and strongest person available.

I do not accept that morality and government are exclusive. That is you view, and it is an incorrect one.

I've demonstrated how governmental authority is inherently immoral in post #225, which you have not refuted, yet persist in denying. So, let's resolve this issue definitively:

Authority is about rights, not ability. It's a claim about just powers in excess of those typically held by individuals. It means having the "right" to do things that others don’t have the right to do. Otherwise the institution of “authority” would be indistinguishable from any other group of people, as it would have precisely the same body of rights (just powers). And what do we call actions that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrong-doings, immoral actions, rights violations,etc. So to distinguish itself as authority by claiming additional rights, government must draw from this pool of non-rights, those actions outside the rights of other individuals, i.e. immoral actions - there’s simply nowhere else to draw from.

Please refute this argument directly to demonstrate your assertion that government is not inherently immoral.


The vacuum you describe is not created by the lack of authoritarian power alone. It is created by that lack, coupled with the belief on behalf of the people that such power should exist. If either of these two factors is missing, there is no power vacuum. I am working toward eliminating this second factor, so the presence of the first factor does not create this vacuum, and lasting freedom can finally come to mankind..

So slavery is "ownership of one person by another". How is this ownership established? What are its qualities?

You haven't demonstrated anything. you voiced an opinion, nothing more.

And you are asking me to prove a negative, which is just silly.

 

[rightwinger]

Even the most simple society....a tribe ....has some form of government

A chief or tribal elders who makes plans for the tribe, resolves tribal conflicts, represents the tribe to others

Oh, so leaders, organizers, arbitrators, spokesmen... that’s all fine. I thought you were talking about government.

That IS Government

Actually, government is an external authority. It claims the right to rule, to supersede your will or consent with its commands. Leaders, organizers, arbitrators, and spokesmen may all be engaged on a wholly voluntary basis.

You have it backwards

They are internal authority with the consent of the governed.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The only person you can prove it to is yourself. when talking about abstract concepts like this, they are only opinions. It is not like proving gravity or friction.

When you talk about proving social constructs, you sound like a marxist, and I doubt that is what you are going for.

You don't have a "system" to replace what we have, you just have a dislike of what we have now, and a vague hope of something better. At least the marxists have previous (bad) examples of systems that teetered along for a few decades before collapsing under their own weight.

And how are you qualified to speak on any of this? Have you studied natural law? Do you even understand what morality IS?

This is the problem - everyone thinks they have a valid opinion on every topic by mere virtue of the fact that they're breathing. NO. You have to understand something before you can accurately evaluate it and have a valid opinion on the topic. And I know for a fact that you haven't studied these matters by the way you talk. But yet you feel perfectly up to the task of discerning the validity of what I'm putting forth, despite the fact that I have a thorough understanding of this particular topic and you don't. That doesn't make me smarter, it simply makes me more experienced in this one specific area.

You think the absence of authoritarianism means there's no "system" in place. This is the arrogance of modern man - if HE didn't devise a system, then none exists. And yet he lives in a world of natural physical law that he had no hand in creating, with a system so perfectly precise that if it was off by the slightest degree, all life would become extinct. But never mind all that, you know better, right? Mankind's behavior is the only phenomenon in the universe that's exempt from defined, predictable cause-and-effect, because he's just that special.

Morality is a law of nature. To the degree mankind is moral overall, to that exact degree he will be free. This is what morality defines - the causal behaviors that yield particular results. And even on the face of it you should understand that, since immorality is always the justification for support of government. But once you see that government IS immoral, you understand that can never produce peace, freedom, and maximized prosperity. It is as impossible as dropped objects falling up.

Defense protects freedom, not man's law, and people equate government with defense, but that's not what defines government as government. People can still organize for their own defense, that's why the founders were so explicitly bent on the importance of the militia. But the militia does not have authority over other human beings, which is the defining, immoral characteristic of government.

Moral freedom is what I'm fighting for, not the overthrow of government. Anarchy by way of withdrawing support from government on moral grounds, such that it dissipates naturally, as new moral solutions replace its critical functions. This is possible, just as the abolition of African-American slavery was possible, despite all assertions to the contrary at that time. And eventually, the idea of re-establishing government would be viewed to be insane, just as the idea of re-establishing the slave trade would be now. It happens one person at a time, and right now that person is you. Will you fully commit to morality, understanding that it's the only path to man's best future, or will you stand in the way of progress and hold tight to the fear of change?

Morality, like rights, is human originated. If it is a law of nature, it is because humans are part of nature and make it real.
Society, government, economics all work because people believe in them, have faith in them. They fail when credence ceases. It is very like the illustration here of the crowd supporting the plank. When enough leave, the veil of authority is lifted.
If there is a campaign to be mounted, it is to induce people to use their potential more fully, to realize the power they have over their existence by the action of their consciousness. Attacking elements of authoritarianism and the powerful hasn't worked in the past, and is not likely to work today.

Absolutely. Morality is a function of consciousness. You raise an excellent.point. Perhaps rather than demonstrating the invalidity of authority, I should focus on pointing out people's power and self-ownership directly. This is the ultimate recognition being sought, after all. But how does one do this in a context relevant to focus on these boards? I'm already encouraging self-responsibility, and noting how society does not need authority to prosper. I'm proposing turning away from the false promise of authority, in favor of faith in the individual and cooperative power of humanity.

Many suffer from fear and low self-worth. They often subscribe to dogmatic religious beliefs or scientific materialism, both of which diminish the individual. Speaking to them on that core level would require that they will "go there" with you. The people on these boards are here because they are involved in politics. I'm speaking about "rights" as a bridge between politics and morality.

The overwhelming majority already accept the morality being proposed in my arguments, but are missing how their support of authority is in conflict with their own morality. There is a culturally-indoctrinated blind spot, and recognizing this dissonance is hard enough, never mind beginning the conversation on a deeper level that would obviate their political focus entirely. I'm trying to meet the supporters of authority where they are - do you feel there is no hope in that? That one cannot be invited to see their power by way of asserting their own moral code in the face of that which defies it?

Dark forces prop up false enemies to garner complicity with evil; can light forces not reveal the nature of real enemies to foster an understanding of truth?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Even the most simple society....a tribe ....has some form of government

A chief or tribal elders who makes plans for the tribe, resolves tribal conflicts, represents the tribe to others

Oh, so leaders, organizers, arbitrators, spokesmen... that’s all fine. I thought you were talking about government.

That IS Government

Actually, government is an external authority. It claims the right to rule, to supersede your will or consent with its commands. Leaders, organizers, arbitrators, and spokesmen may all be engaged on a wholly voluntary basis.

You have it backwards

They are internal authority with the consent of the governed.

Internal in regard to what? Are they inside of YOU? Government is a group of people outside yourself. Only you can be an internal authority to you.

There is no "consent of the governed". They claim to govern me, but I do not consent. Case closed. And even if there was consent of the governed, it doesn't matter, because man has unalienable rights. That means these rights cannot be removed from the individual by any means, even his own consent.

To be subject to external authority is a violation of man's inherent freedom - a denial of the reality of his unalienable rights. Even if this country had 100% true "consent of the governed" - which it does not - it would merely be a group of misguided people suffering from the cognitive dysfunction called "denial". It wouldn't make the authority valid in the least bit.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I explained to you why it's not simply paying for services - because the service is provided without consent. You don't willingly choose the service. It's like when a homeless guy washes your windows when you're at a stoplight, then demands payment. Not the same as voluntarily choosing service, obviously.

So "ideal humans" were required to shift the cultural consciousness to abandon the notion of African-American slavery? Because the same exact concept here. I'm the abolitionist and you're the supporter of slavery here. No different, and the supporter of slavery was wrong. It was possible to abolish slavery, and it did turn out better, and no ideal humans were required.

No, not supporting slavery, supporting limited government. The idea of no government can only lead to oppression because people are people, and until you invent your perfect person, you will be doomed to failure.

And sometimes reality sucks, but the reality is government is a necessary function of human society and civilization at the scales we are talking about.

Read up on what happened to the crew of the Bounty after they settled on Pitcairn Island as an example of how people can behave in the absence of a government style power.
\

Ok, so here's what you've proposed:

1. Limited government is not slavery.
Please define "slavery" to your complete satisfaction.

2. No government (anarchy) can only lead to oppression.
Anarchy simple means "no rulers" i.e. freedom. Freedom can only lead to oppression? You are equating freedom with immorality, because that's what you speculate will result from a free condition. Certainly, immorality can only lead to oppression - this is true - but freedom is not intrinsically linked to immorality. If all people were both free and moral, there obviously could be no oppression, since oppression is not moral. So the proposed idea, as stated, is definitively false.

However, I know what you mean, which is why I'm not calling for the immediate overthrow of government. Most modern anarchists are trying to get people to understand and commit to morality. If this succeeds, government will dissolve, and freedom will not lead to oppression. But right now, many don't know the difference between right and wrong, which leads us to our next point...

3. Government becomes necessary at a certain scale.
This implies that immorality becomes necessary at a certain scale, which cannot be. Morality is - by definition - an overarching guideline for successful human behavior, and thus is not dependent upon scale.

But since you've yet to recognize that government is fundamentally immoral, we cannot continue this line of inquiry until you answer my previous reply (#225) which demonstrated that government must be, in all cases, immoral. Please do so, and we can continue.

slavery is the ownership of one person by another. Pretty simple.

No, I mean that nature abhors a vacuum, and a power vacuum will be filled, usually by the meanest and strongest person available.

I do not accept that morality and government are exclusive. That is you view, and it is an incorrect one.

I've demonstrated how governmental authority is inherently immoral in post #225, which you have not refuted, yet persist in denying. So, let's resolve this issue definitively:

Authority is about rights, not ability. It's a claim about just powers in excess of those typically held by individuals. It means having the "right" to do things that others don’t have the right to do. Otherwise the institution of “authority” would be indistinguishable from any other group of people, as it would have precisely the same body of rights (just powers). And what do we call actions that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrong-doings, immoral actions, rights violations,etc. So to distinguish itself as authority by claiming additional rights, government must draw from this pool of non-rights, those actions outside the rights of other individuals, i.e. immoral actions - there’s simply nowhere else to draw from.

Please refute this argument directly to demonstrate your assertion that government is not inherently immoral.


The vacuum you describe is not created by the lack of authoritarian power alone. It is created by that lack, coupled with the belief on behalf of the people that such power should exist. If either of these two factors is missing, there is no power vacuum. I am working toward eliminating this second factor, so the presence of the first factor does not create this vacuum, and lasting freedom can finally come to mankind..

So slavery is "ownership of one person by another". How is this ownership established? What are its qualities?

You haven't demonstrated anything. you voiced an opinion, nothing more.

And you are asking me to prove a negative, which is just silly.

That's just utter cop-out nonsense. I have not provided an "opinion" here - it is based on logically provable fact (demonstrated even more succinctly below). Are you telling me that you cannot speak to this at all? That there is nothing you can say because I'm asking you to prove that something doesn't exist? Absolutely not. I'm asking you to prove that something does exist, namely a pool of rights/just powers that are outside the scope of those possessed by any individual, but still moral; a third category.

If you still believe I'm asking you to prove a negative, then please cite what negative I am asking you to prove.

Logical proof for government's immorality:
- All human actions are either moral or immoral.
- All individuals have have the right to perform moral actions, and do not have the right to perform immoral actions.
- To distinguish itself as authority, Government must claim "rights" in excess of those possessed by the individual.
- Since any such "rights" in excess of those possessed by the individual are non-rights, i.e. immoral actions, government must claim the "right" to perform immoral actions to distinguish itself as authority.

You must either show that one or more of the premises are false, or that the conclusion doesn't logically proceed from the premises. If you cannot do that, then any denial of the argument is an just an unfounded, illogical assertion.

Alternatively, you can simply recognize the blatant facts before you, and we can both rejoice in truth together and spread the word. I don't get why you're rigidly determined to embrace a demonstrably false position. There's no shame in standing in truth. I wasn't born knowing this stuff, you know; someone had to show me, and I had to say, "Damn, you're right. I guess I'm an anarchist now. Good Lord, I've got some thinking to do."

 

[martybegan]

No, not supporting slavery, supporting limited government. The idea of no government can only lead to oppression because people are people, and until you invent your perfect person, you will be doomed to failure.

And sometimes reality sucks, but the reality is government is a necessary function of human society and civilization at the scales we are talking about.

Read up on what happened to the crew of the Bounty after they settled on Pitcairn Island as an example of how people can behave in the absence of a government style power.
\

Ok, so here's what you've proposed:

1. Limited government is not slavery.
Please define "slavery" to your complete satisfaction.

2. No government (anarchy) can only lead to oppression.
Anarchy simple means "no rulers" i.e. freedom. Freedom can only lead to oppression? You are equating freedom with immorality, because that's what you speculate will result from a free condition. Certainly, immorality can only lead to oppression - this is true - but freedom is not intrinsically linked to immorality. If all people were both free and moral, there obviously could be no oppression, since oppression is not moral. So the proposed idea, as stated, is definitively false.

However, I know what you mean, which is why I'm not calling for the immediate overthrow of government. Most modern anarchists are trying to get people to understand and commit to morality. If this succeeds, government will dissolve, and freedom will not lead to oppression. But right now, many don't know the difference between right and wrong, which leads us to our next point...

3. Government becomes necessary at a certain scale.
This implies that immorality becomes necessary at a certain scale, which cannot be. Morality is - by definition - an overarching guideline for successful human behavior, and thus is not dependent upon scale.

But since you've yet to recognize that government is fundamentally immoral, we cannot continue this line of inquiry until you answer my previous reply (#225) which demonstrated that government must be, in all cases, immoral. Please do so, and we can continue.

slavery is the ownership of one person by another. Pretty simple.

No, I mean that nature abhors a vacuum, and a power vacuum will be filled, usually by the meanest and strongest person available.

I do not accept that morality and government are exclusive. That is you view, and it is an incorrect one.

I've demonstrated how governmental authority is inherently immoral in post #225, which you have not refuted, yet persist in denying. So, let's resolve this issue definitively:

Authority is about rights, not ability. It's a claim about just powers in excess of those typically held by individuals. It means having the "right" to do things that others don’t have the right to do. Otherwise the institution of “authority” would be indistinguishable from any other group of people, as it would have precisely the same body of rights (just powers). And what do we call actions that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrong-doings, immoral actions, rights violations,etc. So to distinguish itself as authority by claiming additional rights, government must draw from this pool of non-rights, those actions outside the rights of other individuals, i.e. immoral actions - there’s simply nowhere else to draw from.

Please refute this argument directly to demonstrate your assertion that government is not inherently immoral.


The vacuum you describe is not created by the lack of authoritarian power alone. It is created by that lack, coupled with the belief on behalf of the people that such power should exist. If either of these two factors is missing, there is no power vacuum. I am working toward eliminating this second factor, so the presence of the first factor does not create this vacuum, and lasting freedom can finally come to mankind..

So slavery is "ownership of one person by another". How is this ownership established? What are its qualities?

You haven't demonstrated anything. you voiced an opinion, nothing more.

And you are asking me to prove a negative, which is just silly.

That's just utter cop-out nonsense. I have not provided an "opinion" here - it is based on logically provable fact (demonstrated even more succinctly below). Are you telling me that you cannot speak to this at all? That there is nothing you can say because I'm asking you to prove that something doesn't exist? Absolutely not. I'm asking you to prove that something does exist, namely a pool of rights/just powers that are outside the scope of those possessed by any individual, but still moral; a third category.

If you still believe I'm asking you to prove a negative, then please cite what negative I am asking you to prove.

Logical proof for government's immorality:
- All human actions are either moral or immoral.
- All individuals have have the right to perform moral actions, and do not have the right to perform immoral actions.
- To distinguish itself as authority, Government must claim "rights" in excess of those possessed by the individual.
- Since any such "rights" in excess of those possessed by the individual are non-rights, i.e. immoral actions, government must claim the "right" to perform immoral actions to distinguish itself as authority.

You must either show that one or more of the premises are false, or that the conclusion doesn't logically proceed from the premises. If you cannot do that, then any denial of the argument is an just an unfounded, illogical assertion.

Alternatively, you can simply recognize the blatant facts before you, and we can both rejoice in truth together and spread the word. I don't get why you're rigidly determined to embrace a demonstrably false position. There's no shame in standing in truth. I wasn't born knowing this stuff, you know; someone had to show me, and I had to say, "Damn, you're right. I guess I'm an anarchist now. Good Lord, I've got some thinking to do."

1. Humans can be both depending on the situation and timeframe.

2. People can indeed claim the right to immoral actions, the question is can this be justified or not.

3. I can be granted those rights as well as claim them, depending on the system.

4. 100% opinion, not backed up by any logical process. To get there you need steps 3a-3f or so, and even then it is a stretch.

You aren't spreading logic, you are trying to use long passages to spread your dogmatic beliefs, and you are not doing a very good job of it.

 

[rightwinger]

Even the most simple society....a tribe ....has some form of government

A chief or tribal elders who makes plans for the tribe, resolves tribal conflicts, represents the tribe to others

Oh, so leaders, organizers, arbitrators, spokesmen... that’s all fine. I thought you were talking about government.

That IS Government

Actually, government is an external authority. It claims the right to rule, to supersede your will or consent with its commands. Leaders, organizers, arbitrators, and spokesmen may all be engaged on a wholly voluntary basis.

You have it backwards

They are internal authority with the consent of the governed.

Internal in regard to what? Are they inside of YOU? Government is a group of people outside yourself. Only you can be an internal authority to you.

There is no "consent of the governed". They claim to govern me, but I do not consent. Case closed. And even if there was consent of the governed, it doesn't matter, because man has unalienable rights. That means these rights cannot be removed from the individual by any means, even his own consent.

To be subject to external authority is a violation of man's inherent freedom - a denial of the reality of his unalienable rights. Even if this country had 100% true "consent of the governed" - which it does not - it would merely be a group of misguided people suffering from the cognitive dysfunction called "denial". It wouldn't make the authority valid in the least bit.

Abe Lincoln said it best....

A government of the people, by the people and for the people

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Ok, so here's what you've proposed:

1. Limited government is not slavery.
Please define "slavery" to your complete satisfaction.

2. No government (anarchy) can only lead to oppression.
Anarchy simple means "no rulers" i.e. freedom. Freedom can only lead to oppression? You are equating freedom with immorality, because that's what you speculate will result from a free condition. Certainly, immorality can only lead to oppression - this is true - but freedom is not intrinsically linked to immorality. If all people were both free and moral, there obviously could be no oppression, since oppression is not moral. So the proposed idea, as stated, is definitively false.

However, I know what you mean, which is why I'm not calling for the immediate overthrow of government. Most modern anarchists are trying to get people to understand and commit to morality. If this succeeds, government will dissolve, and freedom will not lead to oppression. But right now, many don't know the difference between right and wrong, which leads us to our next point...

3. Government becomes necessary at a certain scale.
This implies that immorality becomes necessary at a certain scale, which cannot be. Morality is - by definition - an overarching guideline for successful human behavior, and thus is not dependent upon scale.

But since you've yet to recognize that government is fundamentally immoral, we cannot continue this line of inquiry until you answer my previous reply (#225) which demonstrated that government must be, in all cases, immoral. Please do so, and we can continue.

slavery is the ownership of one person by another. Pretty simple.

No, I mean that nature abhors a vacuum, and a power vacuum will be filled, usually by the meanest and strongest person available.

I do not accept that morality and government are exclusive. That is you view, and it is an incorrect one.

I've demonstrated how governmental authority is inherently immoral in post #225, which you have not refuted, yet persist in denying. So, let's resolve this issue definitively:

Authority is about rights, not ability. It's a claim about just powers in excess of those typically held by individuals. It means having the "right" to do things that others don’t have the right to do. Otherwise the institution of “authority” would be indistinguishable from any other group of people, as it would have precisely the same body of rights (just powers). And what do we call actions that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrong-doings, immoral actions, rights violations,etc. So to distinguish itself as authority by claiming additional rights, government must draw from this pool of non-rights, those actions outside the rights of other individuals, i.e. immoral actions - there’s simply nowhere else to draw from.

Please refute this argument directly to demonstrate your assertion that government is not inherently immoral.


The vacuum you describe is not created by the lack of authoritarian power alone. It is created by that lack, coupled with the belief on behalf of the people that such power should exist. If either of these two factors is missing, there is no power vacuum. I am working toward eliminating this second factor, so the presence of the first factor does not create this vacuum, and lasting freedom can finally come to mankind..

So slavery is "ownership of one person by another". How is this ownership established? What are its qualities?

You haven't demonstrated anything. you voiced an opinion, nothing more.

And you are asking me to prove a negative, which is just silly.

That's just utter cop-out nonsense. I have not provided an "opinion" here - it is based on logically provable fact (demonstrated even more succinctly below). Are you telling me that you cannot speak to this at all? That there is nothing you can say because I'm asking you to prove that something doesn't exist? Absolutely not. I'm asking you to prove that something does exist, namely a pool of rights/just powers that are outside the scope of those possessed by any individual, but still moral; a third category.

If you still believe I'm asking you to prove a negative, then please cite what negative I am asking you to prove.

Logical proof for government's immorality:
- All human actions are either moral or immoral.
- All individuals have have the right to perform moral actions, and do not have the right to perform immoral actions.
- To distinguish itself as authority, Government must claim "rights" in excess of those possessed by the individual.
- Since any such "rights" in excess of those possessed by the individual are non-rights, i.e. immoral actions, government must claim the "right" to perform immoral actions to distinguish itself as authority.

You must either show that one or more of the premises are false, or that the conclusion doesn't logically proceed from the premises. If you cannot do that, then any denial of the argument is an just an unfounded, illogical assertion.

Alternatively, you can simply recognize the blatant facts before you, and we can both rejoice in truth together and spread the word. I don't get why you're rigidly determined to embrace a demonstrably false position. There's no shame in standing in truth. I wasn't born knowing this stuff, you know; someone had to show me, and I had to say, "Damn, you're right. I guess I'm an anarchist now. Good Lord, I've got some thinking to do."

1. Humans can be both depending on the situation and timeframe.

2. People can indeed claim the right to immoral actions, the question is can this be justified or not.

3. I can be granted those rights as well as claim them, depending on the system.

4. 100% opinion, not backed up by any logical process. To get there you need steps 3a-3f or so, and even then it is a stretch.

You aren't spreading logic, you are trying to use long passages to spread your dogmatic beliefs, and you are not doing a very good job of it.

1. I didn’t say what humans can or cannot be, I said “human actions” are either moral or immoral, there is no third category.

2. I didn’t say people couldn’t claim the right to immoral actions - this whole discussion is about government doing precisely that, and whether it’s justified is the whole topic.

3. So now people can be “granted” rights? We established last week that rights are innate.

4. It couldn’t be more clear. To deny this argument you’d have to prove a third category outside of moral and immoral actions.

I’m sorry you don’t like my “long passages” that take a whole 1 or 2 minutes to read. You don’t answer half the questions, your responses to the ones you do answer don’t even logically address what’s being said, and you’re just in way over your head and don’t even care.

I’m done trying to get you to give a damn. If any lurkers want to address the issues being raised, I’m more than willing to discuss them in earnest.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Oh, so leaders, organizers, arbitrators, spokesmen... that’s all fine. I thought you were talking about government.

That IS Government

Actually, government is an external authority. It claims the right to rule, to supersede your will or consent with its commands. Leaders, organizers, arbitrators, and spokesmen may all be engaged on a wholly voluntary basis.

You have it backwards

They are internal authority with the consent of the governed.

Internal in regard to what? Are they inside of YOU? Government is a group of people outside yourself. Only you can be an internal authority to you.

There is no "consent of the governed". They claim to govern me, but I do not consent. Case closed. And even if there was consent of the governed, it doesn't matter, because man has unalienable rights. That means these rights cannot be removed from the individual by any means, even his own consent.

To be subject to external authority is a violation of man's inherent freedom - a denial of the reality of his unalienable rights. Even if this country had 100% true "consent of the governed" - which it does not - it would merely be a group of misguided people suffering from the cognitive dysfunction called "denial". It wouldn't make the authority valid in the least bit.

Abe Lincoln said it best....

A government of the people, by the people and for the people

Ok, yeah, because a guy saying a thing proves your point completely. Whatever... if this is what passes for debate, they should just shut this forum down. If I wanted to hear mind-controlled zombies regurgitate civics class rhetoric, I’d turn on Fox News.

 

[martybegan]

slavery is the ownership of one person by another. Pretty simple.

No, I mean that nature abhors a vacuum, and a power vacuum will be filled, usually by the meanest and strongest person available.

I do not accept that morality and government are exclusive. That is you view, and it is an incorrect one.

I've demonstrated how governmental authority is inherently immoral in post #225, which you have not refuted, yet persist in denying. So, let's resolve this issue definitively:

Authority is about rights, not ability. It's a claim about just powers in excess of those typically held by individuals. It means having the "right" to do things that others don’t have the right to do. Otherwise the institution of “authority” would be indistinguishable from any other group of people, as it would have precisely the same body of rights (just powers). And what do we call actions that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrong-doings, immoral actions, rights violations,etc. So to distinguish itself as authority by claiming additional rights, government must draw from this pool of non-rights, those actions outside the rights of other individuals, i.e. immoral actions - there’s simply nowhere else to draw from.

Please refute this argument directly to demonstrate your assertion that government is not inherently immoral.


The vacuum you describe is not created by the lack of authoritarian power alone. It is created by that lack, coupled with the belief on behalf of the people that such power should exist. If either of these two factors is missing, there is no power vacuum. I am working toward eliminating this second factor, so the presence of the first factor does not create this vacuum, and lasting freedom can finally come to mankind..

So slavery is "ownership of one person by another". How is this ownership established? What are its qualities?

You haven't demonstrated anything. you voiced an opinion, nothing more.

And you are asking me to prove a negative, which is just silly.

That's just utter cop-out nonsense. I have not provided an "opinion" here - it is based on logically provable fact (demonstrated even more succinctly below). Are you telling me that you cannot speak to this at all? That there is nothing you can say because I'm asking you to prove that something doesn't exist? Absolutely not. I'm asking you to prove that something does exist, namely a pool of rights/just powers that are outside the scope of those possessed by any individual, but still moral; a third category.

If you still believe I'm asking you to prove a negative, then please cite what negative I am asking you to prove.

Logical proof for government's immorality:
- All human actions are either moral or immoral.
- All individuals have have the right to perform moral actions, and do not have the right to perform immoral actions.
- To distinguish itself as authority, Government must claim "rights" in excess of those possessed by the individual.
- Since any such "rights" in excess of those possessed by the individual are non-rights, i.e. immoral actions, government must claim the "right" to perform immoral actions to distinguish itself as authority.

You must either show that one or more of the premises are false, or that the conclusion doesn't logically proceed from the premises. If you cannot do that, then any denial of the argument is an just an unfounded, illogical assertion.

Alternatively, you can simply recognize the blatant facts before you, and we can both rejoice in truth together and spread the word. I don't get why you're rigidly determined to embrace a demonstrably false position. There's no shame in standing in truth. I wasn't born knowing this stuff, you know; someone had to show me, and I had to say, "Damn, you're right. I guess I'm an anarchist now. Good Lord, I've got some thinking to do."

1. Humans can be both depending on the situation and timeframe.

2. People can indeed claim the right to immoral actions, the question is can this be justified or not.

3. I can be granted those rights as well as claim them, depending on the system.

4. 100% opinion, not backed up by any logical process. To get there you need steps 3a-3f or so, and even then it is a stretch.

You aren't spreading logic, you are trying to use long passages to spread your dogmatic beliefs, and you are not doing a very good job of it.

1. I didn’t say what humans can or cannot be, I said “human actions” are either moral or immoral, there is no third category.

2. I didn’t say people couldn’t claim the right to immoral actions - this whole discussion is about government doing precisely that, and whether it’s justified is the whole topic.

3. So now people can be “granted” rights? We established last week that rights are innate.

4. It couldn’t be more clear. To deny this argument you’d have to prove a third category outside of moral and immoral actions.

I’m sorry you don’t like my “long passages” that take a whole 1 or 2 minutes to read. You don’t answer half the questions, your responses to the ones you do answer don’t even logically address what’s being said, and you’re just in way over your head and don’t even care.

I’m done trying to get you to give a damn. If any lurkers want to address the issues being raised, I’m more than willing to discuss them in earnest.

1. There is always a middle ground. Again, when you go binary you assume either a perfect human or an imperfect one.

2. By using it as a logical proof chain you are claiming exactly that. no wiggle room.

3. I meant (it) I.e. government, forgot the "t"

4. No, again I am explaining reality, not some ivory tower concept.

 

[rightwinger]

That IS Government

Actually, government is an external authority. It claims the right to rule, to supersede your will or consent with its commands. Leaders, organizers, arbitrators, and spokesmen may all be engaged on a wholly voluntary basis.

You have it backwards

They are internal authority with the consent of the governed.

Internal in regard to what? Are they inside of YOU? Government is a group of people outside yourself. Only you can be an internal authority to you.

There is no "consent of the governed". They claim to govern me, but I do not consent. Case closed. And even if there was consent of the governed, it doesn't matter, because man has unalienable rights. That means these rights cannot be removed from the individual by any means, even his own consent.

To be subject to external authority is a violation of man's inherent freedom - a denial of the reality of his unalienable rights. Even if this country had 100% true "consent of the governed" - which it does not - it would merely be a group of misguided people suffering from the cognitive dysfunction called "denial". It wouldn't make the authority valid in the least bit.

Abe Lincoln said it best....

A government of the people, by the people and for the people

Ok, yeah, because a guy saying a thing proves your point completely. Whatever... if this is what passes for debate, they should just shut this forum down. If I wanted to hear mind-controlled zombies regurgitate civics class rhetoric, I’d turn on Fox News.

Maybe we can discuss your theory of “government inside you”

 

[task0778]

If you are a democrat, what democratic policies do you disagree with?

If you are a republican, what republican policies do you disagree with?

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line in every single instance? I am starting this thread to find out exactly how much do people disagree with the respective parties? Do they disagree with them about any of their stances or policies? Are you always in COMPLETE agreement with your party, no matter their policies or their ways of going about getting what they want? Perhaps there are some tactics that your party uses that you might disagree with? I started this in the CDC because I actually want some answers instead of our usual battering of one another's views and party affiliations.

Thanks for your input.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's more likely that most people on either side will have some issues that they do not agree with the party line on. And there are also a bunch of independents who may lean one way or the other on most issues but depart from the party line on certain positions. The problem at least in part is due to the extremely vocal components on both sides that drown out the more moderates and in many cases are getting them ousted from office or in the primaries. So, the Left is moving further left and the Right is kinda splintered between the Freedom Caucus and the Populists.

Personally, I have never been a member of either party although generally I do support most of the GOP policies. I would have to say that I am mostly a fiscal conservative that believes this gov't has a spending problem that is much more troublesome than raising revenue is. We are spending ourselves into an ever-increasing level of debt that is already depressing economic growth and will continue to do so at an ever-increasing rate. Which is why I think the GOP has to be more hard-line about spending, but they seem to be just as willing as the democrats are to spend more money to get votes.

 

[ChrisL]

slavery is the ownership of one person by another. Pretty simple.

No, I mean that nature abhors a vacuum, and a power vacuum will be filled, usually by the meanest and strongest person available.

I do not accept that morality and government are exclusive. That is you view, and it is an incorrect one.

I've demonstrated how governmental authority is inherently immoral in post #225, which you have not refuted, yet persist in denying. So, let's resolve this issue definitively:

Authority is about rights, not ability. It's a claim about just powers in excess of those typically held by individuals. It means having the "right" to do things that others don’t have the right to do. Otherwise the institution of “authority” would be indistinguishable from any other group of people, as it would have precisely the same body of rights (just powers). And what do we call actions that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrong-doings, immoral actions, rights violations,etc. So to distinguish itself as authority by claiming additional rights, government must draw from this pool of non-rights, those actions outside the rights of other individuals, i.e. immoral actions - there’s simply nowhere else to draw from.

Please refute this argument directly to demonstrate your assertion that government is not inherently immoral.


The vacuum you describe is not created by the lack of authoritarian power alone. It is created by that lack, coupled with the belief on behalf of the people that such power should exist. If either of these two factors is missing, there is no power vacuum. I am working toward eliminating this second factor, so the presence of the first factor does not create this vacuum, and lasting freedom can finally come to mankind..

So slavery is "ownership of one person by another". How is this ownership established? What are its qualities?

You haven't demonstrated anything. you voiced an opinion, nothing more.

And you are asking me to prove a negative, which is just silly.

That's just utter cop-out nonsense. I have not provided an "opinion" here - it is based on logically provable fact (demonstrated even more succinctly below). Are you telling me that you cannot speak to this at all? That there is nothing you can say because I'm asking you to prove that something doesn't exist? Absolutely not. I'm asking you to prove that something does exist, namely a pool of rights/just powers that are outside the scope of those possessed by any individual, but still moral; a third category.

If you still believe I'm asking you to prove a negative, then please cite what negative I am asking you to prove.

Logical proof for government's immorality:
- All human actions are either moral or immoral.
- All individuals have have the right to perform moral actions, and do not have the right to perform immoral actions.
- To distinguish itself as authority, Government must claim "rights" in excess of those possessed by the individual.
- Since any such "rights" in excess of those possessed by the individual are non-rights, i.e. immoral actions, government must claim the "right" to perform immoral actions to distinguish itself as authority.

You must either show that one or more of the premises are false, or that the conclusion doesn't logically proceed from the premises. If you cannot do that, then any denial of the argument is an just an unfounded, illogical assertion.

Alternatively, you can simply recognize the blatant facts before you, and we can both rejoice in truth together and spread the word. I don't get why you're rigidly determined to embrace a demonstrably false position. There's no shame in standing in truth. I wasn't born knowing this stuff, you know; someone had to show me, and I had to say, "Damn, you're right. I guess I'm an anarchist now. Good Lord, I've got some thinking to do."

1. Humans can be both depending on the situation and timeframe.

2. People can indeed claim the right to immoral actions, the question is can this be justified or not.

3. I can be granted those rights as well as claim them, depending on the system.

4. 100% opinion, not backed up by any logical process. To get there you need steps 3a-3f or so, and even then it is a stretch.

You aren't spreading logic, you are trying to use long passages to spread your dogmatic beliefs, and you are not doing a very good job of it.

1. I didn’t say what humans can or cannot be, I said “human actions” are either moral or immoral, there is no third category.

2. I didn’t say people couldn’t claim the right to immoral actions - this whole discussion is about government doing precisely that, and whether it’s justified is the whole topic.

3. So now people can be “granted” rights? We established last week that rights are innate.

4. It couldn’t be more clear. To deny this argument you’d have to prove a third category outside of moral and immoral actions.

I’m sorry you don’t like my “long passages” that take a whole 1 or 2 minutes to read. You don’t answer half the questions, your responses to the ones you do answer don’t even logically address what’s being said, and you’re just in way over your head and don’t even care.

I’m done trying to get you to give a damn. If any lurkers want to address the issues being raised, I’m more than willing to discuss them in earnest.

Well, it seems as if you would be more in line with an anarchist way of thinking. I am not to that extreme. I feel that while government is going to be inherently corrupt, it needs watching but at the same time is kind of necessary in order to have a healthy and well functioning population of people who can work together to achieve common goals.

 

[ChrisL]

Thanks again for the replies. There have been some interesting points of view.

 

[ChrisL]

I do believe that government should definitely be limited to their constitutional jurisdictions though. The pants the government is wearing have gotten very LARGE indeed.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Well, it seems as if you would be more in line with an anarchist way of thinking. I am not to that extreme. I feel that while government is going to be inherently corrupt, it needs watching but at the same time is kind of necessary in order to have a healthy and well functioning population of people who can work together to achieve common goals.

“...a healthy and well functioning population of people who can work together to achieve common goals”... under threat of violent punishment.

Does that sound like a reasonable, consistent statement to you?

The entire population is robbed of a huge portion of their income under threat of violence, then the band of corrupt thugs called “government” takes another cut every time you do anything, and will throw you in a cage if you and another consenting adult make a trade without paying this tribute. Meanwhile, they live lavish lifestyles above the law, and present a facade of being something other than gangsters by lying with every word, and offering notoriously inefficient, immensely overpriced, and sub-standard services.

You have no way to control what they do with the money, there’s no way to object on moral grounds when they fly around the world killing people and stealing resources. Governments make war - hundreds of millions innocents slaughtered at their hands throughout the world in the last 100 years alone. They make Stalins and Hitlers possible, Hiroshimas and Nagasakis. Cities crushed to dust, lives torn to pieces, children burning in their beds - made possible by the fruit of your labor, with your voting support.

The population claws at each for control of a sword that dangles between them, because there will be one law to rule the land, and I don’t want to be subject to your ideals, and you don’t want to be subject to mine. Each citizen is both slave and master, some laws he supports oppressing his neighbor, and some laws his neighbor supports oppressing him. Not a single one able to simply make choices for themselves and leave other people in peace, but each leveraging the violent coercion of the State against the other.

And yet, we are “taught” by ubiquitous and repetitive assertion that government is “necessary in order to have a healthy and well functioning population of people who can work together to achieve common goals.” But it's never been that, and can never be that, no matter how much you "watch' it, because it is rooted in immorality; not healthy, moral interaction. It's rooted in divisiveness and coercion, not true cooperation. And "watch" is all you can ever do, because your only "power" over it is to choose which sociopath will be your master.

But I’m the “extremist” for suggesting this is all an elaborate con that leverages our fear of facing life’s challenges as self-responsible adults in order for the most evil amongst us to rape and pillage our world with our support. It's extreme to ask people to stop believing that they can launder immorality through this ritualistic political process and have it come out clean. To ask that they actually behave in accordance with the morality they claim to value, and stop supporting this utter insanity that's plagued the world since the beginning of recorded history.

 

[Mac1958]

If there were (far) more people who didn't want to be governed, we'd just vote it out of existence.

That's not going to happen, because most people recognize the net value of an organized civilization.