uh, i think that part isn't too crazy (other than the hyperbolic language). certainly not as off the deep end as a lot of stuff he thinks! i mean, i and lots of other people agree with the overall sentiment of what you just quoted (though certainly not to as extreme of a degree).

6/1/2008 1:52:43 PM

I guess the " " hinges on whether or not the word "criminals" was hyperbole.

The idea that once a democratically-elected government moves beyond defense and transportation it becomes criminal is... errm, interesting.

6/1/2008 3:47:43 PM

It becomes criminal long before it "moves beyond defense and transportation"

Would it be criminal for you, personally, to hold a gun to my head and demand that I protect you, or provide money to pay for your protection?

Then why do you think it is legitimate for you, by voting, to depute someone to do the exact same thing to me in your name?

If people want to get together and pool their resources for their common defense, that's fine. If they want to call that "Government", that's fine too. I have no problem with that. Where it crosses the line and becomes naked criminality is when you start forcing people to participate in your little protection racket who don't want to participate, who are competent to bargain for their own protection, and who think paying for "protection" should get them more than just not having their figurative kneecaps broken by their supposed protectors, because that's really the only kind of protection the government (so-called) provides.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation whatsoever to protect anybody or their property. If you want protection, you contract with a private firm. That's why private security outnumber pigs by two or three to one.

Most of the crime that you and I need protection from is the result of generations of bad government policy. Government systematically punishes, through progressive taxation, those people who engage in honest, productive enterprise. Meanwhile, broken families, laziness, short-sightedness, irresponsibility, indulgence and a sense of entitlement are all subsidized by a vast system of government handouts. It is the permanent, dependent underclass thus created, that threatens the safety and property of productive citizens, not other productive citizens.

Government has, over the years, also attempted to progressively disarm peaceful, productive citizens making it harder for them to access the tools to defend themselves from private criminals and making the cost of crime lower for those engaged in it.

The only reason we need the kind of protection that governments (so-called) claim they exist to provide is because of those self-same governments. Yet despite all the posturing, the protection money you pay mostly just keeps you out of federal prison for tax evasion.

6/1/2008 4:07:47 PM

Hay guise lets go play Bioshock.

6/1/2008 4:56:27 PM

Jesus.

Quote :

"Would it be criminal for you, personally, to hold a gun to my head and demand that I protect you, or provide money to pay for your protection? Then why do you think it is legitimate for you, by voting, to depute someone to do the exact same thing to me in your name?"

By choosing to live here, you're implicitly giving the government consent to govern you. Social contract and what-not. If you think the gov't is breaking its end of the bargain, you have a number of options available to you; reaping the benefits of a criminal government isn't one of them.

I'm curious-- does a non-"criminal" government exist in the world today?



[and just to clarify, the above isn't a "love it or leave it" statement. It's more of a "accept its basic legitimacy or leave it" statement]

[Edited on June 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM. Reason : +]

6/1/2008 5:13:34 PM

Bollocks, that's pure superstition. I've never seen any "social contract." You're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that.

Your argument is identical in form and content to "By choosing to live down by the waterfront, you're implicitly giving the mafia consent to extort from you."

Quote :

"I'm curious-- does a non-"criminal" government exist in the world today?"

I'm not aware that one has ever existed.

Still, I'm basically optimistic. The principles of justice are as true, and as unchanging as any other natural principles that govern our existence. As objective truth, our understanding of them will continue to be refined so long as man retains the capacity to reason. Like any science, the science of justice must be continually built up upon past accomplishments. It's been scarcely a century since the last arguments for the legitimacy of state government were conclusively shredded. I'd expect it to take a lot longer for that understanding to gain widespread currency. How long did people fight against monarchies, against established religion, against chattel slavery and a whole host of similar evils? We still haven't eradicated any of those completely, although they are all so marginalized by now as to be effectively non-issues in most places.

6/1/2008 5:39:50 PM

I'd try to fuck with Kimbo Slice before I'd fuck with Andrew Jackson....at least Kimbo would have mercy

6/1/2008 5:50:09 PM

they forgot to mention old ass teddy roosevelt calling woodrow wilson a pussy and trying to get him to come out side the white house so that teddy could whoop his ass for not entering WWI

6/1/2008 6:03:43 PM

Quote :

"The principles of justice are as true, and as unchanging as any other natural principles that govern our existence."

Yet your view of justice is wildly different from 99% of America's

6/1/2008 6:11:47 PM

I hope you're not arguing that majorities define what is just and unjust. They can no more do that than define what is true and false.

If you're simply trying to suggest that I'm a lone crackpot, then you needn't bother. If that's the case, my ideas would be easy to pick apart, and you'd be better served by doing that than by committing ad hominem or appeal to authority fallacies.

But fundamentally, my idea of justice isn't even different from most people's. The only remotely novel aspect of what I say is that I assert that justice is the same for all people, and isn't magically suspended if you have a lofty title or a fancy hat, or call yourself or your offenses by the right euphemisms.

[Edited on June 1, 2008 at 7:19 PM. Reason : than]

6/1/2008 7:15:52 PM

haha yeah if Teddy Roosevelt hadn't been on the list it would have been a worthless one.

6/2/2008 10:07:04 AM

I'm in no way, shape, fashion, or form a McCain supporter...


... but if he became president, do you think he would ever get put on such a list as this one? I'm read excerpts from his books. Seems like he's a pretty tough dude. And I heard he has a temper too.

6/2/2008 10:30:58 AM

Quote :

"So you're definitely not a fan of capitalism then?"

I'm definitely not. If you want an anarchist to pick on, leave Megaloman84 alone.

Quote :

"I'm curious-- does a non-"criminal" government exist in the world today?"

No such thing has ever existed.

6/2/2008 10:56:17 AM

Quote :

"But fundamentally, my idea of justice isn't even different from most people's."

Yes, it really is.

Most people would disagree that might = right.

And I'm sure that you'll now argue that that "government is the ultimate example of might = right," or something like that. But you'll be ignoring the fact that legitimate governments rule with the consent of the government. The kind of might that would develop in your fantasy world requires no consent at all.

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

6/2/2008 1:42:14 PM

look, another retard who attended a taxpayer supported university complaining about the illegitimacy of taxes.

6/2/2008 1:54:37 PM

Where have I ever said that might makes right?

If I believed that, I would never challenge a political system supported by the vast majority of the 300 million inhabitants of this part of North America. Clearly they're more mighty than I am, yet I still maintain that I'm right.

My entire attack on the USA's democratic form of government is that it rests entirely on the principle that you may do to your neighbor what you wish, so long as your gang is bigger than his gang. No government has ever been a more naked application of "might makes right" than this. It is the self-evident fallacy of this sort of "morality" that makes me wonder how you people can accept it so uncritically.

6/2/2008 1:56:24 PM

Quote :

"Where have I ever said that might makes right?"

You're an anarco-capitalist.


^^You'd think that he would try to avoid getting involved with criminal extortion rings.

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

6/2/2008 1:56:33 PM

Being a libertarian socialist reduces the cognitive dissidence involved in attending a public university and complaining about the state.

6/2/2008 2:00:06 PM

but does nothing to reduce the cognitive dissidence involved in being a libertarian socialist.

6/2/2008 2:03:49 PM

I've found surprisingly little cognitive dissidence in the theory. Putting into practice is the problem. At least libertarians have mountains of guns and an unheathly love of violence. Anarchists only have dumpstered vegan food.

6/2/2008 2:12:09 PM

No cognitive dissidence required, I get ripped off by the state, so I try to get back some of what's mine.

What next, should I stop driving on roads? Should I stop drinking tap water? By your logic, I should apparently retreat into the wilderness and completely disengage from the rest of humanity, since that would be the only way to avoid getting involved with criminal extortion rings.

That is, however, a retarded option.

Quote :

"You're an anarco-capitalist. "

Guilty as charged. Your simple assertion of an admitted and unrelated fact does not, however, an argument make.

6/2/2008 2:12:20 PM

Quote :

"That is, however, a retarded option."

It's certainly impractical. You could always form the anarcho-capitalist equivalent of a collective. Or do y'all not do that? Either way, you can't completely avoid the looters without becoming a primitivist and retreating to the wilderness.

6/2/2008 2:15:56 PM

Quote :

"At least libertarians have mountains of guns"

Which are worth jack-all for creating a libertarian society. Violence is never going to do anything but make our situation worse if the majority of people believe the state to be legitimate. War is, after all, the health of the state.

The guns are really only useful for protecting ourselves from private criminals and defending the libertarian society once it's mature. The actual revolution will have to be a non-violent ideological and moral one.

Quote :

"You could always form the anarcho-capitalist equivalent of a collective."

Haha, I've actually thought about founding a capitalist commune.

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 2:22 PM. Reason : ']

6/2/2008 2:22:08 PM

By attending a taxpayer supported university you have helped contribute to this "theft" After all, the amount of money the taxpayers paid to subsidize your education is far more than the state has taxed from you.

Be a man of your principals and attend a private college/university. Only then can you end the cycle of perpetual theft.

6/2/2008 2:29:43 PM

Quote :

"The guns are really only useful for protecting ourselves from private criminals and defending the libertarian society once it's mature."

If you shoot one of my comrades for stealing a CD, I'm going to be pissed. But guns are respectable by current social standards. Gender bending and dumpstered vegan food not so much.

Quote :

"The actual revolution will have to be a non-violent ideological and moral one."

Agreed. It's not an easy trick to pull. The state exists because violence works. Can propaganda beat propaganda combined with vast physical power?

6/2/2008 2:38:40 PM

Quote :

"The state exists"

That's where you're wrong. There's no such thing as "the State." It's a mere abstraction. Right now, on my desk are a paperback book, a stapler, a bottle of gun oil, my keys and a Texas Instruments calculator. I can choose to call these items, collectively, "Gerald." If that abstraction is useful to me, fine, but the fact remains that no such thing as Gerald exists, its just an idea in my head.

Likewise, it would be foolish to deny that there are buildings, pieces of paper with lunatic scribblings on them, lots of people, uniforms, guns and other real physical objects. These objects, taken together, are often called "government" or "the state" however, "the state" is still just an idea in people's heads. Get people to stop believing in the idea, and the whole thing become a non-issue rather quickly. Sure, there's still a lot of hyper-aggressive people running with guns that mean us harm, but at that point it becomes easy to suppress them as individual criminals, which is all they've ever really been.

Quote :

"because violence works."

If violence worked the statists would be able to deliver on what they promised. Instead they have to keep asking us to excuse more and more violent, criminal behavior so they can "fix" the problems caused by the last round of aggressive intrusions into society. Pointing this out is no trick at all, and people are finally starting to catch on.

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 4:01 PM. Reason : ']

6/2/2008 3:57:21 PM

Quote :

"But fundamentally, my idea of justice isn't even different from most people's."

Have you clearly stated your idea of justice and where it comes from yet? If so, please point me to it.

6/2/2008 4:05:35 PM

^^ Intellectually, I agree. In practice, when someone with a gun tells you the state exists, you start believing. As this started hundreds of years ago, most humans are conditioned to accept it. I remain optimistic, but breaking this conditioning hasn't proven easy.

6/2/2008 4:40:47 PM

Quote :

"Have you clearly stated your idea of justice and where it comes from yet? If so, please point me to it."

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=527324&page=1#11638194

Quote :

"My political philosophy derives from the standard libertarian non aggression principle. It is never justifiable to initiate the use of force, or some substitute for force (such as the threat of force, or fraud) against the person or property of another. Self defense, and the defense of others against aggression are the only justifiable uses for violence."

Quote :

"The principles of justice are natural principles implicit in the nature of man and of existence."

Several approaches can be taken to demonstrate the validity and necessity of objective, natural standards of justice, including the non-aggression principle.

Lysander Spooner uses a reducto ad absurdum approach.

http://lysanderspooner.org/NaturalLaw.htm

He poses the question, what if there are no natural principles of justice?

Quote :

" If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice. If it be not a natural principle, all that men have ever said or written about it, from time immemorial, has been said and written about that which had no existence. If it be not a natural principle, all the appeals for justice that have ever been heard, and all the struggles for justice that have ever been witnessed, have been appeals and struggles for a mere fantasy, a vagary of the imagination, and not for a reality. If justice be not a natural principle, then there is no such thing as injustice; and all the crimes of which the world has been the scene, have been no crimes at all; but only simple events, like the falling of the rain, or the setting of the sun; events of which the victims had no more reason to complain than they had to complain of the running of the streams, or the growth of vegetation. If justice be not a natural principle, governments (so-called) have no more right or reason to take cognizance of it, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance of it, than they have to take cognizance, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance, of any other nonentity; and all their professions of establishing justice, or of maintaining justice, or of rewarding justice, are simply the mere gibberish of fools, or the frauds of imposters. "

Han Herman Hoppe put forward the novel idea of argumentation ethics.

http://www.hanshoppe.com/sel-topics.php

He asks the question, what ethical principles are presupposed by the process of argumentation?

Quote :

"Thus it can be stated that whenever a person claims that some statement can be justified, he at least implicitly assumes the following norm to be justified: “Nobody has the right to uninvitedly aggress against the body of any other person and thus delimit or restrict anyone’s control over his own body.” This rule is implied in the concept of justification as argumentative justification. Justifying means justifying without having to rely on coercion."

In other words, the process of arguing a point, any point, implies the non-aggression principle, since argument presupposes that the parties can be convinced of the justification of some proposition. Justifying a proposition requires establishing its validity without resorting to violence. If resorting to the initiation of violence were legitimate, then there would be no reason to argue. One would need only to use initiatory violence to compel agreement, real or feigned, to one's views.

Randy Barnett uses an if ... then style of argument,

http://www.randybarnett.com/C4.htm

Quote :

"The liberal conception of justice is the respect of rights.[5] Some rights are natural in so far as the domains they define are prerequisites for the pursuit of happiness, peace, and prosperity in light of the nature of persons and the world in which they live."

If Happiness is preferable to misery, If prosperity is preferable to privation...

Given that

Voluntary transactions necessarily involve the creation of value for both parties, otherwise, they wouldn't occur.

Coercive, involuntary transactions necessarily involve the destruction of value for at least one party, or coercion wouldn't be required.

Then we should protect people's right to be free from coercion, because it leads to an increase in happiness and prosperity whereas failure to do so leads to an increase in misery and privation.

Why I am not a pacifist.

To hold the non-aggression principle, but to maintain that force may not be used to stop those who violate it, is to concede their right to violate the non-agression principle at will. Thus, pacifism negates the non-aggression principle and is incompatible with it. The non-aggression principle implies the legitimacy of the defensive use of force.

[Edited on June 3, 2008 at 5:56 AM. Reason : ']

6/3/2008 5:40:10 AM

Quote :

"that 5 most badass prez thread went from funny to 'good lord megaloman84'"

6/3/2008 8:54:33 AM

Uhh this thread went to shit.....I was enjoying page 1.

6/4/2008 2:20:42 AM