I'm done making excuses for the State

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually, it isn't. "The state", like institutionalized slavery, is an idea. It's a pattern of interactions, not a beast that must be "destroyed".

The constitution, on the other hand, must constantly be defended from agents of the state (or people who act in the name of the concept of the state), who want to act outside of it while also interpreting it's meaning.

To "destroy" the state, it needs to be de-legitimized in the minds of people who believe it to be just.

To uphold the constitution, against the state, it must be legitimized... to the state.


I think it was pretty obvious I was summarizing to point out that both sides require the same thing. The US was founded on constitutionalism and it's a part of the national culture and we're still seeing blatant disregard. Are you implying that constitutionalism can exist without people to defend it?

Incorrect. Constitutionalism didn't exist for more than a decade after the "official" beginning of the United States.

 

[Occam's Banana]

What's so bad about institutionalizing violence if people are violent anyway?

I will never understand how anyone can think (because people are evil, blood-thirsty savages) that putting one group of evil, blood-thirsty savages in charge of all the other evil, blood-thirsty savages will do anything but magnify & amplify evil, blood-thirsty savagery.

Who's to say that the institution doesn't prevent more violence than it creates?

Maybe the residents/occupants of Dresden, Nagasaki & Hiroshima, Aushwitz and the "Gulag Archipelago" are to say. If they could. To name just a few millions.

What makes you think the people in control of the institution are so much worse than others?

History does, for one thing - to wit, the massive misery, suffering, death & destruction for which those people "in control of the institution" have demonstrably been responsible.
Peaceful, productive people tend not to seek power over others. They're too busy doing other usefully non-violent things &/or haven't the interest or temperament.
Sociopaths & parasites, on the other hand, have no such compunctions. The institution of a monopoly on the use of force is catnip to such people.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

How do you figure? Note that I believe in absolute morality. You, it seems, do not.

SoL, in my experience, does believe in absolute morality-and that a bunch of people in costumes calling themselves Agents of The State are not above said morality.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I will never understand how anyone can think (because people are evil, blood-thirsty savages) that putting one group of evil, blood-thirsty savages in charge of all the other evil, blood-thirsty savages will do anything but magnify & amplify evil, blood-thirsty savagery.



Maybe the residents/occupants of Dresden, Nagasaki & Hiroshima, Aushwitz and the "Gulag Archipelago" are to say. If they could. To name just a few millions.


History does, for one thing - to wit, the massive misery, suffering, death & destruction for which those people "in control of the institution" have demonstrably been responsible.
Peaceful, productive people tend not to seek power over others. They're too busy doing other usefully non-violent things &/or haven't the interest or temperament.
Sociopaths & parasites, on the other hand, have no such compunctions. The institution of a monopoly on the use of force is catnip to such people.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again." IOU a +rep

 

[Seraphim]

I will never understand how anyone can think (because people are evil, blood-thirsty savages) that putting one group of evil, blood-thirsty savages in charge of all the other evil, blood-thirsty savages will do anything but magnify & amplify evil, blood-thirsty savagery.



Maybe the residents/occupants of Dresden, Nagasaki & Hiroshima, Aushwitz and the "Gulag Archipelago" are to say. If they could. To name just a few millions.


History does, for one thing - to wit, the massive misery, suffering, death & destruction for which those people "in control of the institution" have demonstrably been responsible.
Peaceful, productive people tend not to seek power over others. They're too busy doing other usefully non-violent things &/or haven't the interest or temperament.
Sociopaths & parasites, on the other hand, have no such compunctions. The institution of a monopoly on the use of force is catnip to such people.

The bolded is so dead on. Nice man.

I find that it follow that same logic as AN EYE FOR AN EYE MAKES THE WHOLE WORLD BLIND.

You can`t cure aggression with aggression.

You can, however, stop A LOT of aggression with empowered DEFENCE. I doubt you`ll try to punch me if you know I`ll fight back and KNOW HOW TO. Me punching you BEFORE you punch me however...solves nothing...it makes it worse!!!

Good post.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

No, it doesn't. The person who does the violence believes his sovereignty is valid and the other person's is not. You first say that, because people are sovereign, that is the way it morally ought to be. I can think of a million things that are that ought not to be that way.

He can think whatever he wants. What his actions say about his philosophy is that he does not hold that he is a sovereign. Note this is the philosophy subforum.

Then, you go and say that, all of a sudden, you go and say that invalidating one person's sovereignty automatically applies to everyone else. Why should this morally be true?

I said that if a person violates someone else's sovereignty, that violator tacitly invalidates his own. Not sure where you're getting that it automatically applies to everyone else.

That's an interesting theory, but there is no reason to say this means we should invalidate all governments, rather than subject all governments to the rule of law.

You mean like the "rule of law" the American government is subject to? How's that workin out?

My point is that you cannot claim one thing is moral and another is not just because you believe it to be so unless that morality comes from an absolute source. Otherwise, all morality is arbitrary, and there is no reason to condemn anyone else if their moral beliefs don't match yours. This is one of the most obvious philosophical truths, and yet people are willingly ignorant of it and claim they are morally superior, even though they don't believe in absolute morality other than their own. In fact, if you follow that belief, you are imposing your own moral beliefs on others, and if you act violently to defend your property through violence, then you are guilty of aggressing against someone based on arbitrary moral standards and imposing your will on them.

My belief opposition to the state is grounded in my belief in God.

What was that if not insulting my intelligence? There is nothing inherently wrong with institutionalizing violence. It's just that you respond to your own knee jerk reactions and don't listen to other people's points of view.

It was an expression of frustration, not an attack on your intelligence... You're a little sensitive to that, it seems.


You've spent most of this thread arguing with strawmen, so you'll have to excuse me if I find the rest of that paragraph a tad ironic...

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Yeah, that's what everyone says when they're trying to get out of a debate.

Lol

 

[noneedtoaggress]

No, that video actually says that government is the source of law, the ultimate arbitrator. The Constitution is based on the idea that the law does not come from men, but from God, and even government is subject to that law.

You're claiming that the video is antithetical to natural rights (rights come from God/Nature/Creator) when it's not. You mixed up a lot of concepts in that post. The constitution is based on natural rights, but it also violates them.

Your view is dangerous because it treats people as the ultimate arbitrators of morality. You just take a few that you happen to agree with most people on and call it "morally correct" while condemning all other moral views.

This is what you're doing with the constitution though. You're saying "I got a bunch of my buddies and we think it's OK to steal from tax you under the threat of violence to fund our government".

If law is truly arbitrary...

What? Who made this assertion?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Except you advocate that "your opinion" is imposed on others through force.

You, too, advocate that your opinion is imposed on others by force. You arbitrarily decide that your idea of morality allows you to act violently against others who attempt to steal your property and that your idea of morality is better than theirs. You then decide that your arbitrary decision gives you the right to kill or maim a person who would have killed or maimed you.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Then why is that American history shows that the more heavily armed the GENERAL POPULACE (law abiding citizens/non aggressors) is, the LESS violence there is? That defines competing violence.

Even the so called Wild West was MUCH less violent than America is today.

US history is a prime example that competing "enforcement" leads to more peace.

Nothing is perfect, of course, we cannot eradicate violence...but I think the history of your own country shows that competing enforecement (the citizens!!) works best!!

Peace

Competing arms is not competing violence. The wild west also had a lot less people.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Incorrect. Constitutionalism didn't exist for more than a decade after the "official" beginning of the United States.

Touché. But either way it's been a significant part of the "heritage" of American national culture, which is what I was getting at.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You, too, advocate that your opinion is imposed on others by force. You arbitrarily decide that your idea of morality allows you to act violently against others who attempt to steal your property and that your idea of morality is better than theirs. You then decide that your arbitrary decision gives you the right to kill or maim a person who would have killed or maimed you.

Self defense is not an arbitrary concept, as I've shown. Besides I've not claimed that I have the right to enact violence against aggressors...

At no point have the advocates of statelessness remotely suggested that our philosophy be imposed on society as you do.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][...] Okay. So, it was all Wilson's fault. Before WW I, America was a shining city on a hill. Wilson really set us on the wrong course.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But wait. I think Lincoln is really the culprit here. For one, if the South had been allowed to secede, as was its right, or had won, World War I would not have turned out the way it did. So: no Lincoln, no War Between the States, no WWI, no WWII. (While we're at it, let's blame all the white slaveholders. They set in motion a chain of events that led to the War Between the States, just so they could have cheaper cotton.)
[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Okay, but before 1861, America was it. It was as close to minarchy as the world has seen (never mind ancient Ireland). Thank God for our liberty-minded forefathers, Jefferson, Madison and crew.[/FONT]

​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Hold on a second there. As Chantal Saucier has pointed out in these pages, the growth of the American Empire might be dated to Jefferson's unconstitutional expansion of empire with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Had the unconstitutional Louisiana Purchase not taken place, we might have avoided the War Between the States, WWI, WWII, et seq. Maybe I should take down the prints of Jefferson paintings on my office wall, oui?

On second thought, I think the trouble started a little bit further back. The Constitution as ratified in 1789 was fine as it was. Boy, what a great achievement. But the Bill of Rights was added in 1791. If this had not been done, then the so-called "incorporation doctrine" — whereby the Fourteenth Amendment was held to "incorporate" most of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states — probably would never have been invented. Thus, the erosion of federalism caused by this federal seizure of power might never have happened, and there would be stronger structural limits on federal action in place today.

Who am I kidding. The real trouble really started two years earlier. The Framers in 1789 had already agreed to add a Bill of Rights, as the price for ratification. I think I need to push it back a couple more years, just to be safe — since the real problem is that the federal convention called in 1787 merely to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation exceeded its mandate by proposing a new Constitution. Which led, naturally, to the Bill of Rights, the War Between the States, WWI, WWII, and the erosion of federalism and hegemony of the central state. As Hoppe (Democracy, the God that Failed, p. 272) notes, the Americans "not only did not let the inherited royal institutions of colonies and colonial governments wither away into oblivion; they reconstituted them within the old political borders in the form of independent states, each equipped with its own coercive (unilateral) taxing and legislative powers. While this would have been bad enough, the new Americans made matters worse by adopting the American Constitution and replacing a loose confederation of independent states with the central (federal) government of the United States." We would have been much better off under the old Articles of Confederation. We were just fine, until then. Yes, that was America's golden age: from 1776 to 1787.

Except ... the transformation of the Union from confederation to federation, and ultimately to centralized, dominant state, was nothing but a natural result of the utopian idealism of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Why these guys thought they could cut the ties to the traditional, monarchical, constitutional order and set up a new political order imbued with the spirit of democracy in its stead, but limit its growth with mere paper documents and platitudes is beyond me. After all, it had never been done before. What was Jefferson thinking?[/FONT][...]
​

Wow, what a lot of verbal diahrrea. Do you realize that, by following your logic, we should never exist, since our existence is what caused all this? If we had never existed, none of this would happen, therefore we are morally obligated to kill ourselves. Great going, champ. You've figured it out.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Wow, what a lot of verbal diahrrea. Do you realize that, by following your logic, we should never exist, since our existence is what caused all this? If we had never existed, none of this would happen, therefore we are morally obligated to kill ourselves. Great going, champ. You've figured it out.

Do you consider yourself the US government?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I will never understand how anyone can think (because people are evil, blood-thirsty savages) that putting one group of evil, blood-thirsty savages in charge of all the other evil, blood-thirsty savages will do anything but magnify & amplify evil, blood-thirsty savagery.

Because the rule of law makes each of those groups of evil, blood-thirsty savages a check on the other. It's when a nation ignores the rule of law (anarchy) that the real evil, blood-thirsty savagery begins. Tyrants adopt anarchy by pronouncing themselves above the law.

Maybe the residents/occupants of Dresden, Nagasaki & Hiroshima, Aushwitz and the "Gulag Archipelago" are to say. If they could. To name just a few millions.

They do not speak for all states, only theirs. Theirs followed a rule of anarchy for the ruling class. If anarchy is allowed to exist, then this will continue. There will still be monopolies of violence in charge. However, the rule of law helps check against that.

History does, for one thing - to wit, the massive misery, suffering, death & destruction for which those people "in control of the institution" have demonstrably been responsible.
Peaceful, productive people tend not to seek power over others. They're too busy doing other usefully non-violent things &/or haven't the interest or temperament.
Sociopaths & parasites, on the other hand, have no such compunctions. The institution of a monopoly on the use of force is catnip to such people.

See my second response. Monopolies on violence will always exist. The rule of law is the only respite. Of course humans will never be perfect, but that doesn't mean they will be any less evil or any more perfect under anarchy. In fact, anarchy is what has allowed a lot of state violence. Only when the state recognizes that the law exists above and beyond the state is there truly a society that does not exist in a state of anarchy.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

He can think whatever he wants. What his actions say about his philosophy is that he does not hold that he is a sovereign. Note this is the philosophy subforum.

His actions don't say anything about what he believes unless you first give your impression of it. He can believe in his own sovereignty and not others. It does not logically follow that, because he believes your sovereignty is not valid, that his is not valid, either. Don't you see how arbitrary it is for you to say that your view is morally upright and nobody else's is?

I said that if a person violates someone else's sovereignty, that violator tacitly invalidates his own. Not sure where you're getting that it automatically applies to everyone else.

Can you explain how he tacitly invalidates his own? You are suggesting that, since he believes YOUR sovereignty is valid, that he also believes HIS sovereignty is invalid. That is a non-sequitur. It does not logically follow that, because he does not respect yours, he does not respect his. It also does not logically follow that, because he does not respect yours, he invalidates his own.

You mean like the "rule of law" the American government is subject to? How's that workin out?

Much better than anarchy ever will. Hence, the reason no anarchical society has ever existed.

My belief opposition to the state is grounded in my belief in God.

Then why didn't you say so? We could have bypassed that whole lecture on arbitrary morality if you had specified that your morality comes from an absolute source, God. However, God also recognized that there are legitimate forms of violence.

It was an expression of frustration, not an attack on your intelligence... You're a little sensitive to that, it seems.

I still hold that it was an implicit attack on my intelligence. So what if I am sensitive to it? I don't think it's a valid way to debate.

You've spent most of this thread arguing with strawmen, so you'll have to excuse me if I find the rest of that paragraph a tad ironic...

Whatever...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Do you consider yourself the US government?

Indeed, I do. We all are. My logic in my last post is sound, regardless.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Lol

and by "Lol", you mean "touche".

 

[Conza88]

Wow, what a lot of verbal diahrrea. Do you realize that, by following your logic, we should never exist, since our existence is what caused all this? If we had never existed, none of this would happen, therefore we are morally obligated to kill ourselves. Great going, champ. You've figured it out.

Ad hominem + Non sequitur.

Difference between nation and nation state. Methodological individualism, check it out bro.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Is Limited Government an Oxymoron?



@4:20

Interviewer: ...Where are you on limited government or anarchy?

Tom Woods: Well, Dennis, you know, for years I was one of these people, "we gotta return to what the founding fathers thought, we gotta get back to the tenth amendment, we gotta return to the constitution!" and you know, as the years go on and you observe this government, and how utterly removed it is from the government we were intended to have. After awhile you start wondering... maybe I am chasing a unicorn? maybe there is no such thing. Maybe, if you say, this institution has a monopoly on the power to tax and a monopoly on the power to initiate violence, but it will simply restrain itself to a few itemized tasks, I mean, it seems to me to be unrealistic.

Moreover, I think there's a moral question here. If we're going to believe that there's certain moral principles everybody has to observe, why are those moral principles abandoned when you apply them to government? So, for example, you and I can't steal, but the government can steal and call it taxation. You and I can't kidnap people, the government can kidnap people and call it military conscription. And it just goes on and on and on. If we believe in absolute standards of morality, the government always fails...

I would recommend going to google and reading the essay by Rothbard called "anatomy of the state". You'll never look at the world the same again.