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

[zaangalewa]

... Voters do not have the right (or the actual ability) to grant or delegate powers they do not have. ...

To say so means you are an antidemocratic extremist. In a democracy all state power emanates from the people (= the voters).

 

[zaangalewa]

there is no god

but many idiots?

 

[cnm]

The implications of this are that the actions of every government that ever existed are in perfect accord with God's law - Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Nero - does this reflect your view?

It's YHWY's view.

 

[zaangalewa]

The implications of this are that the actions of every government that ever existed are in perfect accord with God's law - Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Nero - does this reflect your view?

It's YHWY's view.

Third Commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"

 

[Brian Blackwell]

... Voters do not have the right (or the actual ability) to grant or delegate powers they do not have. ...

To say so means you are an antidemocratic extremist. In a democracy all state power emanates from the people (= the voters).

It’s sad that simply describing reality makes one an extremist. Please tell me in what other scenario you would accept people delegating rights they don’t have themselves.

Can I grant my brother the right to use your car? Can you grant me the right to fire people from your local Wal-Mart? Can we all get together and choose a delegate to kidnap every Asian child in our city? We can play pretend and act like this is valid and moral, but it’s just not.

A person must first HAVE a right before they can validly delegate it to someone else. This is simple logic, and when it comes to delegating power to punish with violence, it becomes a question of morality as well.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No worries. Let me try this again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our government is making laws which are outside the scope of defending natural law rights. Improsoning people for not paying taxes, ticketing parked cars, claiming the right to permit or deny moral behaviors by requiring licenses, deciding who may enter the country, charging rent (property taxes) on private property, etc., etc., etc.

Anything that you don’t have a right to do personally, government does not - and can not - have the right to do. After all, how could they have gotten the right, if not from you? And you don’t have it to give. They are just other people. People don’t magically get extra rights and an exemption from morality just because of some political ritual, any more than crops grow better from throwing people into volcanos.

 

[ding]

No worries. Let me try this again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our government is making laws which are outside the scope of defending natural law rights. Improsoning people for not paying taxes, ticketing parked cars, claiming the right to permit or deny moral behaviors by requiring licenses, deciding who may enter the country, charging rent (property taxes) on private property, etc., etc., etc.

Anything that you don’t have a right to do personally, government does not - and can not - have the right to do. After all, how could they have gotten the right, if not from you? And you don’t have it to give. They are just other people. People don’t magically get extra rights and an exemption from morality just because of some political ritual, any more than crops grow better from throwing people into volcanos.

So before I get into the details, let me start at a high level first.

I believe that the role of government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. The role of the government is NOT to do for the people what they can and should do for themselves.

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[harmonica]

there is no god

but many idiots?

we've had this discussion on many threads
no one can prove god

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our government is making laws which are outside the scope of defending natural law rights. Improsoning people for not paying taxes, ticketing parked cars, claiming the right to permit or deny moral behaviors by requiring licenses, deciding who may enter the country, charging rent (property taxes) on private property, etc., etc., etc.

Anything that you don’t have a right to do personally, government does not - and can not - have the right to do. After all, how could they have gotten the right, if not from you? And you don’t have it to give. They are just other people. People don’t magically get extra rights and an exemption from morality just because of some political ritual, any more than crops grow better from throwing people into volcanos.

So before I get into the details, let me start at a high level first.

I believe that the role of government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. The role of the government is NOT to do for the people what they can and should do for themselves.

Do you agree or disagree?

I guess I’d disagree, only because of terminology. It depends what you mean by “government”. If it is just a body of people, its only valid role is cooperation and organization. So it’s not really doing something the people cannot do themselves, they are the ones doing it, it is merely their attempt to do it better by pooling their efforts.

But “government”, as we know it, does do something we cannot do ourselves - it operates free of the moral burdens which restrain the individual. This is the source of all its additional power. It would be no better than any other equally large group of people if it didn’t add this exemption from morality. This immediately makes anyone way more effective.

 

[ding]

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

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

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

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

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

Our government is making laws which are outside the scope of defending natural law rights. Improsoning people for not paying taxes, ticketing parked cars, claiming the right to permit or deny moral behaviors by requiring licenses, deciding who may enter the country, charging rent (property taxes) on private property, etc., etc., etc.

Anything that you don’t have a right to do personally, government does not - and can not - have the right to do. After all, how could they have gotten the right, if not from you? And you don’t have it to give. They are just other people. People don’t magically get extra rights and an exemption from morality just because of some political ritual, any more than crops grow better from throwing people into volcanos.

So before I get into the details, let me start at a high level first.

I believe that the role of government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. The role of the government is NOT to do for the people what they can and should do for themselves.

Do you agree or disagree?

I guess I’d disagree, only because of terminology. It depends what you mean by “government”. If it is just a body of people, its only valid role is cooperation and organization. So it’s not really doing something the people cannot do themselves, they are the ones doing it, it is merely their attempt to do it better by pooling their efforts.

But “government”, as we know it, does do something we cannot do ourselves - it operates free of the moral burdens which restrain the individual. This is the source of all its additional power. It would be no better than any other equally large group of people if it didn’t add this exemption from morality. This immediately makes anyone way more effective.

Can the people secure and defend the borders? How would that work?

Can the people fight wars? How would that work?

Can the people secure justice? How would that work?

 

[ding]

there is no god

but many idiots?

we've had this discussion on many threads
no one can prove god

I've done it many times.

 

[ding]

Improsoning people for not paying taxes

Who has been imprisoned for not paying taxes?

ticketing parked cars

So people should just be able to park anywhere?

by requiring licenses

So anyone should be able to drive a car? How about a ten year old? Or a blind person?

deciding who may enter the country

You want open borders?

charging rent (property taxes) on private property,

Not sure what you are talking about here. Can you provide an example of this?

 

[ding]

No offense Brian but it sounds like there is way more than 10% that you would like to change.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Improsoning people for not paying taxes

Who has been imprisoned for not paying taxes?

ticketing parked cars

So people should just be able to park anywhere?

by requiring licenses

So anyone should be able to drive a car? How about a ten year old? Or a blind person?

deciding who may enter the country

You want open borders?

charging rent (property taxes) on private property,

Not sure what you are talking about here. Can you provide an example of this?

If we acknowledge that people own themselves, can they park where they want, drive without permission, cross the border? Well, does anyone have a right to stop them? Sometimes they do, if it’s private property, or if there is a clear and present danger.

Instead of asking my opinion, or relying on someone else’s centralized solution, how would you handle it? Do you feel justified personally mugging someone for parking in a bus stop while he runs into a store for a bagel? I wouldn’t do anything about it, and it’s kind of slimy to ask someone else - like a cop - to do something I wouldn’t do myself.

Government tempts us to abdicate self-responsibity. But shirking that natural duty has a price. Trillions of dollars are coerced from individuals every year. Governments create policies and wars which have killed billions. Individuals could never achieve this level of theft and destruction without leveraging the belief in authority. So the net result of government “protection” against theft and violence is way more of both. Its “solutions” in all areas plug one hole and cause three others to spring up. Not by accident or incompetence, but as a necessary result of its inherent nature.

We could still have organized protection and infrastructure of every kind, without allowing one group to exercise a unique right to violently dominate. People do it all the time. Precisely how is not for me to say. I will not be the king of our free society; no one will. So we will develop our own solutions in our own communities. Most of it is already in place, and will work just fine with small modifications. It’s not like politicians are brilliant geniuses; people will find a way.

 

[ding]

If we acknowledge that people own themselves, can they park where they want, drive without permission, cross the border? Well, does anyone have a right to stop them? Sometimes they do, if it’s private property, or if there is a clear and present danger.

Yes. If they are being disruptive or have ill intent. Unless of course, you want anarchy, right?

Instead of asking my opinion, or relying on someone else’s centralized solution, how would you handle it? Do you feel justified personally mugging someone for parking in a bus stop while he runs into a store for a bagel? I wouldn’t do anything about it, and it’s kind of slimy to ask someone else - like a cop - to do something I wouldn’t do myself.

Not me, but others do. Not everyone can do something about it. To argue that we should be responsible for policing others doesn't make much sense. Unless of course, you want anarchy, right?

Government tempts us to abdicate self-responsibity. But shirking that natural duty has a price. Trillions of dollars are coerced from individuals every year. Governments create policies and wars which have killed billions. Individuals could never achieve this level of theft and destruction without leveraging the belief in authority. So the net result of government “protection” against theft and violence is way more of both. Its “solutions” in all areas plug one hole and cause three others to spring up. Not by accident or incompetence, but as a necessary result of its inherent nature.

Not necessarily. Government does serve good. It keeps order and provides justice. Something we can't do for ourselves unless we are all moral people. If men were angels there would be no need for government.

We could still have organized protection and infrastructure of every kind, without allowing one group to exercise a unique right to violently dominate. People do it all the time. Precisely how is not for me to say. I will not be the king of our free society; no one will. So we will develop our own solutions in our own communities. Most of it is already in place, and will work just fine with small modifications. It’s not like politicians are brilliant geniuses; people will find a way.

I am afraid that is not possible. Men are not angels. There will always be those who try to take advantage of others. Especially the weak and elderly and sick and young.

The problem isn't the government. The problem is the people themselves. How are you going to fix that?

 

[ding]

Everyone gains the security of knowing that their rights to life, liberty, and property are protected. According to Locke, the main purpose of government is to protect those natural rights that the individual cannot effectively protect in a state of nature.

 

[ding]

John Locke believed that reasoning (thinking logically) can determine what rights people would have in a state of nature. He decided that life, liberty (freedom), and property are natural rights, which are rights everyone should have just because they are human beings.

The Founding Fathers based American’s rights on the laws of nature, which were made by God. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “the Laws of Nature” when it says that people are “endowed (given) by their Creator” with certain basic rights that no one may take away.

What did John Locke say might happen in a state of nature?
1. Locke believed that most people are good and respect the rights of others because their conscience tells them they should. However, some people are not so good. Sometimes people who are stronger and more skilled abuse those who are weaker or less skilled.

2. Locke believed that in a state of nature, people protect their natural rights – life, liberty and property- by using their own strength and skill. The weaker and less skilled would find it difficult to protect their rights. Instead, the weaker people would try to protect their rights by joining together against the strong.

3. Locke believed that in a state of nature, no one’s life, liberty or property would be safe because there would be no government or laws to protect them. This is why people agreed to form governments. According to Locke, governments do no exist until people create them.

4. Locke believed that in a state of nature, no one would have the right to govern (rule over) you, and you would not have the right to govern anyone else. According to Locke, the only way the people get the right to govern anyone else is when the people give their consent (approval/permission). If the people have not given their consent to create a government, the government is not lawful or legal. In other words, the power of a lawful government comes from the consent (permission) of the people.

Why do people agree to form a social contract?
Although people agree everyone has natural rights (life, liberty and property), they worry about how those rights will be protected. In a state of nature, people might feel free to do anything they want to do. However, their rights would not be protected and that would make them feel insecure.

For John Locke, the great problem was to find a way to protect each person’s natural rights so that everyone could enjoy them and live at peace with each other. He felt that the best way to solve this problem is for each person to agree with others and create a government that gives it the power to make and enforce laws. Locke called this kind of agreement a social contact.

As in all contracts, you must give up something to get something (compromise). In a social contract everyone promises to give up the right to do everything they want in exchange for security that can be provided by a government. Each person agrees to obey the limits placed on them by the laws of the government. Everyone gains the security of knowing that their rights to life, liberty, and property are protected.

According to Locke, the main purpose of government is to protect those natural rights that the individual cannot effectively protect in a state of nature.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Everyone gains the security of knowing that their rights to life, liberty, and property are protected. According to Locke, the main purpose of government is to protect those natural rights that the individual cannot effectively protect in a state of nature.

Protection of natural law rights is not exclusive to government. It’s moral for any person to do that, and so by extension, any organization can be delegated the right to do that.

It’s important to understand that the only thing government adds is an exemption from morality - the “right” to do things no individual has a right to do. And what do we call something that no individual has a right to do? We call it wrong, immoral. Remove this license to act immorally, and what’s left is not government.

You do not have to police people personally, but I phrase my questions from that perspective to make clear that if you don’t have a right to do something, government doesn’t either; they are just people, and all people have the same rights. We can have a full-time protection and investigation agency, but they cannot have rights that individuals don’t have; or they are - by definition - an immoral institution.

If a government was funded morally, it would have to be funded voluntarily; as individuals do not have the natural law right to coerce people into giving them money. If was to protect, it could only act in defense of rights, not act as an authority over people; as no individual is an authority over anyone else.

So it could not tax, not draft, not limit movement or benign behavior in public spaces, not make any law which differs from natural law. Would you still call this organization “government” when it does not govern? When it exists only as an extension of individual rights and makes no claim to authority?

Men are not angels, which is precisely why it’s insane to create a seat of immense power, then choose some from among the imperfect throng to sit upon it. All this does is magnify man’s immorality (see all of history). A free society at least keeps the playing field level. Show me Stalin, Hitler, Mao, without governmental authority, and I’ll show you three misguided loudmouths with more bullets in their chests than murders under their belts.

 

[ding]

Everyone gains the security of knowing that their rights to life, liberty, and property are protected. According to Locke, the main purpose of government is to protect those natural rights that the individual cannot effectively protect in a state of nature.

Protection of natural law rights is not exclusive to government. It’s moral for any person to do that, and so by extension, any organization can be delegated the right to do that.

It’s important to understand that the only thing government adds is an exemption from morality - the “right” to do things no individual has a right to do. And what do we call something that no individual has a right to do? We call it wrong, immoral. Remove this license to act immorally, and what’s left is not government.

You do not have to police people personally, but I phrase my questions from that perspective to make clear that if you don’t have a right to do something, government doesn’t either; they are just people, and all people have the same rights. We can have a full-time protection and investigation agency, but they cannot have rights that individuals don’t have; or they are - by definition - an immoral institution.

If a government was funded morally, it would have to be funded voluntarily; as individuals do not have the natural law right to coerce people into giving them money. If was to protect, it could only act in defense of rights, not act as an authority over people; as no individual is an authority over anyone else.

So it could not tax, not draft, not limit movement or benign behavior in public spaces, not make any law which differs from natural law. Would you still call this organization “government” when it does not govern? When it exists only as an extension of individual rights and makes no claim to authority?

Men are not angels, which is precisely why it’s insane to create a seat of immense power, then choose some from among the imperfect throng to sit upon it. All this does is magnify man’s immorality (see all of history). A free society at least keeps the playing field level. Show me Stalin, Hitler, Mao, without governmental authority, and I’ll show you three misguided loudmouths with more bullets in their chests than murders under their belts.

See post #217

 

[zaangalewa]

... Voters do not have the right (or the actual ability) to grant or delegate powers they do not have. ...

To say so means you are an antidemocratic extremist. In a democracy all state power emanates from the people (= the voters).

It’s sad that simply describing reality makes one an extremist.

Reality?

Please tell me in what other scenario you would accept people delegating rights they don’t have themselves.

Human beings have all rights - including the right to make everything wrong, which causes bad consequences, that's all.

Can I grant my brother the right to use your car?

You can. But I fear he will think "My brother is an idiot" - if not, then he is an idiot.

Can you grant me the right to fire people from your local Wal-Mart?

You can fire whomever you like to fire in the next Wal-Mart. But who cares about?

Can we all get together and choose a delegate to kidnap every Asian child in our city?

Sure you can do so.

We can play pretend and act like this is valid and moral, but it’s just not.

A person must first HAVE a right before they can validly delegate it to someone else.

What a nonsense. "Everything is allowed" is the first unwritten basic law. Then start restrictions. The people make this restrictions.

This is simple logic, and when it comes to delegating power to punish with violence, it becomes a question of morality as well.

All state power emanates from the people. They decide what are the laws in the USA. That's not a question of morality - otherwise abortion would not exist for example.