[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I have a hard time believing how it is that the govt vs. no govt debate still has any legs. Surely the only questions remaining are how much and of what type?[/quote]
It still has legs because governments are a contradiction.
How does government claim to hold us accountable to laws it doesn’t even follow?
How does government claim to protect liberty by taking it from us?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If certain services are not provided by a voluntary market then that is proof that they are not needed services.[/quote]
If you get drunk and crash into my house with your car, I need to recover from you for my damages. There is no service in the market that I can purchase to acquire this recovery from you.[/quote]
And if you are really worried about people driving into your house you should move out of the Asian neighborhood…I kid.
But really, how often does this happen?
Hopefully you would have insurance to protect your property as would many drivers driving on private roads.
In fact, in a free market those roads he drove on to get to your house would become infinitely more expensive for him to use because no one would want take the risk of getting sued.
In a free market insurance would be purchased because of market pressure; for example, not having insurance would naturally make driving on privately owned roads more expensive for the same reasons cited above.
Insurance will play a big role in a natural rights society.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I have a hard time believing how it is that the govt vs. no govt debate still has any legs. Surely the only questions remaining are how much and of what type?[/quote]
It still has legs because governments are a contradiction.
How does government claim to hold us accountable to laws it doesn’t even follow?
How does government claim to protect liberty by taking it from us?[/quote]
Government is a social contract. Not in the case of conquest or other such forced situations, but that is not what we’re discussing.
And we WILLINGLY give up certain ‘liberties’ which we would have in a state of nature in order that we may gain others that we could never enforce by ourselves. And those are enforced by government.
I see no contradiction…
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I have a hard time believing how it is that the govt vs. no govt debate still has any legs. Surely the only questions remaining are how much and of what type?[/quote]
It still has legs because governments are a contradiction.
How does government claim to hold us accountable to laws it doesn’t even follow?
How does government claim to protect liberty by taking it from us?[/quote]
Government is a social contract. Not in the case of conquest or other such forced situations, but that is not what we’re discussing.
And we WILLINGLY give up certain ‘liberties’ which we would have in a state of nature in order that we may gain others that we could never enforce by ourselves. And those are enforced by government.
I see no contradiction…
[/quote]
Oh, the old “social contract” argument, huh? That’s easy.
If such a contract actually existed there would be rights and guarantees and terms for when the contract becomes null and void - and for how long. There could be no “social contract” indefinitely and without terms.
What you describe is not a contract in the legal sense; it is slavery.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I have a hard time believing how it is that the govt vs. no govt debate still has any legs. Surely the only questions remaining are how much and of what type?[/quote]
It still has legs because governments are a contradiction.
How does government claim to hold us accountable to laws it doesn’t even follow?
How does government claim to protect liberty by taking it from us?[/quote]
Government is a social contract. Not in the case of conquest or other such forced situations, but that is not what we’re discussing.
And we WILLINGLY give up certain ‘liberties’ which we would have in a state of nature in order that we may gain others that we could never enforce by ourselves. And those are enforced by government.
I see no contradiction…
[/quote]
Oh, the old “social contract” argument, huh? That’s easy.
If such a contract actually existed there would be rights and guarantees and terms for when the contract becomes null and void - and for how long. There could be no “social contract” indefinitely and without terms.
What you describe is not a contract in the legal sense; it is slavery.[/quote]
You can void the contract any time you like. By leaving, for one. Can slaves leave? You have that right, do you not? You also have the right to resist. You are free to do what you want anywhere on the face of this rock. You just have to be willing to take the consequences of your actions. Or do you live in a world without consequences?
There is no rule in life that the world shapes itself to your desires.
It IS a contract. And you can exit it at any time. Or militate to have it altered or ended. As did the US when it renounced British rule. Or peacefully , politically. Get enough equal minded fellows on your side and you can do whatever you want.
So I see zero refutation of the social contract in anything you’ve posted so far.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
All needed services are voluntarily provided by the free market. I am a voluntary employee as is anyone making a wage in the free market.
If certain services are not provided by a voluntary market then that is proof that they are not needed services.
[/quote]
So we have never needed a draft?
And when I wrote volunteer I meant provide services for free. Again, we need a military. We pay soldiers a salary on top of providing food, shelter, clothing, medical care, etc. If people volunteered to serve, for no pay, then we would save money. If a jet engine company provided engines to the military at cost, we would save money. But that doesn’t happen because everyone wants to get paid. Therefore, one way or another, you pay.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I have a hard time believing how it is that the govt vs. no govt debate still has any legs. Surely the only questions remaining are how much and of what type?[/quote]
It still has legs because governments are a contradiction.
How does government claim to hold us accountable to laws it doesn’t even follow?
How does government claim to protect liberty by taking it from us?[/quote]
Government is a social contract. Not in the case of conquest or other such forced situations, but that is not what we’re discussing.
And we WILLINGLY give up certain ‘liberties’ which we would have in a state of nature in order that we may gain others that we could never enforce by ourselves. And those are enforced by government.
I see no contradiction…
[/quote]
Oh, the old “social contract” argument, huh? That’s easy.
If such a contract actually existed there would be rights and guarantees and terms for when the contract becomes null and void - and for how long. There could be no “social contract” indefinitely and without terms.
What you describe is not a contract in the legal sense; it is slavery.[/quote]
You can void the contract any time you like. By leaving, for one. Can slaves leave? You have that right, do you not? You also have the right to resist. You are free to do what you want anywhere on the face of this rock. You just have to be willing to take the consequences of your actions. Or do you live in a world without consequences?
There is no rule in life that the world shapes itself to your desires.
It IS a contract. And you can exit it at any time. Or militate to have it altered or ended. As did the US when it renounced British rule. Or peacefully , politically. Get enough equal minded fellows on your side and you can do whatever you want.
So I see zero refutation of the social contract in anything you’ve posted so far. [/quote]
There is no need to refute the social contract theory.
I am sorry but it is utter nonsense.
I could count the ways how this is in no way, shape or for a legitimate contract, and anyone asserting that I have implicitly consented to anything has just consented implicitly to send me his paycheck right now.
Cause I can make up stuff that benefits me too.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I have a hard time believing how it is that the govt vs. no govt debate still has any legs. Surely the only questions remaining are how much and of what type?[/quote]
It still has legs because governments are a contradiction.
How does government claim to hold us accountable to laws it doesn’t even follow?
How does government claim to protect liberty by taking it from us?[/quote]
Government is a social contract. Not in the case of conquest or other such forced situations, but that is not what we’re discussing.
And we WILLINGLY give up certain ‘liberties’ which we would have in a state of nature in order that we may gain others that we could never enforce by ourselves. And those are enforced by government.
I see no contradiction…
[/quote]
Oh, the old “social contract” argument, huh? That’s easy.
If such a contract actually existed there would be rights and guarantees and terms for when the contract becomes null and void - and for how long. There could be no “social contract” indefinitely and without terms.
What you describe is not a contract in the legal sense; it is slavery.[/quote]
You can void the contract any time you like. By leaving, for one. Can slaves leave? You have that right, do you not? You also have the right to resist. You are free to do what you want anywhere on the face of this rock. You just have to be willing to take the consequences of your actions. Or do you live in a world without consequences?
There is no rule in life that the world shapes itself to your desires.
It IS a contract. And you can exit it at any time. Or militate to have it altered or ended. As did the US when it renounced British rule. Or peacefully , politically. Get enough equal minded fellows on your side and you can do whatever you want.
So I see zero refutation of the social contract in anything you’ve posted so far. [/quote]
There is no need to refute the social contract theory.
I am sorry but it is utter nonsense.
I could count the ways how this is in no way, shape or for a legitimate contract, and anyone asserting that I have implicitly consented to anything has just consented implicitly to send me his paycheck right now.
Cause I can make up stuff that benefits me too. [/quote]
THe voluntarism etc etc defense. Uh huh.
I will be expecting forthwith that you lads renounce your citizenships, stop partaking of any legacy benefits provided by the societies you live in and make your way to some hinterland to live free or die. I suspect it will the latter. Since you have consented to nothing at all.
The yoke of the contract you are forced to bear must be unbearable, no?
Of course you can make up anything you desire…now go forth and enforce it and you’ll be a wealthy man.
Can you please show me this contract that I supposedly agreed to.
I am not moving. I am tearing the house down instead.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Do governments have any obligations or rights? If so what are they and to who benefits from these obligations and/or rights?
Are there any acts that governments never have the right to do?
Where does government’s right to exist at the expense of someone else come from?[/quote]
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
All needed services are voluntarily provided by the free market. I am a voluntary employee as is anyone making a wage in the free market.
If certain services are not provided by a voluntary market then that is proof that they are not needed services.
[/quote]
So we have never needed a draft?
And when I wrote volunteer I meant provide services for free. Again, we need a military. We pay soldiers a salary on top of providing food, shelter, clothing, medical care, etc. If people volunteered to serve, for no pay, then we would save money. If a jet engine company provided engines to the military at cost, we would save money. But that doesn’t happen because everyone wants to get paid. Therefore, one way or another, you pay. [/quote]
No, to volunteer means to not be forced to do something.
You cannot bastardize the meaning of language just to make an incorrect point.
Conscription is never necessary because if people need to defend themselves they will not have to be forced to do it. It will come naturally. The draft is essentially to protect the political elite and not for the purpose which they lie to us about - protecting freedom and liberty, blah, blah, blah…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Can you please show me this contract that I supposedly agreed to.
I am not moving. I am tearing the house down instead.[/quote]
Let’s see… when you are traveling in a foreign country and something untoward happens to to you, like let’s say you’re arrested ,rightfully or wrongfully, who or what would you call? Would you deal with it yourself or place a call to your embassy?
No fibbing now.
Edit: And while you’re at it, since you want to be all deconstructionist and stuff: show me these ‘rights’ you speak of. Where are they? How did you come by them? You show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Can you please show me this contract that I supposedly agreed to.
I am not moving. I am tearing the house down instead.[/quote]
Let’s see… when you are traveling in a foreign country and something untoward happens to to you, like let’s say you’re arrested ,rightfully or wrongfully, who or what would you call? Would you deal with it yourself or place a call to your embassy?
No fibbing now. [/quote]
Look, we cannot get anywhere by trying to prove an ought from an is.
You cannot monopolize the system of justice and then prove a point by showing that I am forced to use that monopolized system.
I would assume even in such a system I would have to trust to a privately hired lawyer because the system will be corrupt.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Can you please show me this contract that I supposedly agreed to.
I am not moving. I am tearing the house down instead.[/quote]
Let’s see… when you are traveling in a foreign country and something untoward happens to to you, like let’s say you’re arrested ,rightfully or wrongfully, who or what would you call? Would you deal with it yourself or place a call to your embassy?
No fibbing now. [/quote]
Look, we cannot get anywhere by trying to prove an ought from an is.
You cannot monopolize the system of justice and then prove a point by showing that I am forced to use that monopolized system.
I would assume even in such a system I would have to trust to a privately hired lawyer because the system will be corrupt.[/quote]
So you would call the embassy. You’re not ‘forced’ to do so, are you? Cherry picking the how and when one uses the contract is a bit disingenuous. Because the embassy WOULD help you. Without asking you if you support it ,etc. So what does that say to you?
Sorry for the late edit above, but here you go again:
And while you’re at it, since you want to be all deconstructionist and stuff: show me these ‘rights’ you speak of. Where are they? How did you come by them? You show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Can you please show me this contract that I supposedly agreed to.
I am not moving. I am tearing the house down instead.[/quote]
Let’s see… when you are traveling in a foreign country and something untoward happens to to you, like let’s say you’re arrested ,rightfully or wrongfully, who or what would you call? Would you deal with it yourself or place a call to your embassy?
No fibbing now. [/quote]
Look, we cannot get anywhere by trying to prove an ought from an is.
You cannot monopolize the system of justice and then prove a point by showing that I am forced to use that monopolized system.
I would assume even in such a system I would have to trust to a privately hired lawyer because the system will be corrupt.[/quote]
So you would call the embassy. You’re not ‘forced’ to do so, are you? Cherry picking the how and when one uses the contract is a bit disingenuous. Because the embassy WOULD help you. Without asking you if you support it ,etc. So what does that say to you?
Sorry for the late edit above, but here you go again:
And while you’re at it, since you want to be all deconstructionist and stuff: show me these ‘rights’ you speak of. Where are they? How did you come by them? You show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
[/quote]
Why would I call the embassy?
The fact that I would have to proves my point that governments are the problem.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Can you please show me this contract that I supposedly agreed to.
I am not moving. I am tearing the house down instead.[/quote]
Let’s see… when you are traveling in a foreign country and something untoward happens to to you, like let’s say you’re arrested ,rightfully or wrongfully, who or what would you call? Would you deal with it yourself or place a call to your embassy?
No fibbing now. [/quote]
Look, we cannot get anywhere by trying to prove an ought from an is.
You cannot monopolize the system of justice and then prove a point by showing that I am forced to use that monopolized system.
I would assume even in such a system I would have to trust to a privately hired lawyer because the system will be corrupt.[/quote]
So you would call the embassy. You’re not ‘forced’ to do so, are you? Cherry picking the how and when one uses the contract is a bit disingenuous. Because the embassy WOULD help you. Without asking you if you support it ,etc. So what does that say to you?
Sorry for the late edit above, but here you go again:
And while you’re at it, since you want to be all deconstructionist and stuff: show me these ‘rights’ you speak of. Where are they? How did you come by them? You show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
[/quote]
Why would I call the embassy?
The fact that I would have to proves my point that governments are the problem.[/quote]
Without them what is to stop a feudal warlord throwing you in a dungeon when you’re on a business/trading trip somewhere and you having no recourse or others willing to intervene for you?
You’re making my points for me and I don’t think you even see it.
But this is really going down the reductionism road, so please tell me about your ‘rights’…
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Without them what is to stop a feudal warlord throwing you in a dungeon when you’re on a business/trading trip somewhere and you having no recourse or others willing to intervene for you?
[/quote]
Tell me, what exactly is the difference between a “feudal warlord” and a modern day warlord?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Without them what is to stop a feudal warlord throwing you in a dungeon when you’re on a business/trading trip somewhere and you having no recourse or others willing to intervene for you?
[/quote]
Tell me, what exactly is the difference between a “feudal warlord” and a modern day warlord?[/quote]
Some semblance of accountability for a start. But nice try though.
I see they key questions remained unanswered…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But really, how often does this happen?[/quote]
Don’t get caught up in the example - for another example, let’s use an event where you run into my car, completely total my car and injure me.
Insurance would not solve this problem because no one is going to insure you for damages caused by someone else without an ability to go after reimbursement for the claims paid out caused by someone else’s actions. Insurers aren’t going to absorb the risk of those events without being able to offset those risks somehow, some way.
Imagine - an insurance company in the business of insuring you against the unexpected damage caused by someone else with no ability to be compensated for the loss of money to the insurance company. Sure - that business would last all of a day.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, to volunteer means to not be forced to do something.[/quote]
Ok, so you don’t recognize private property boundaries that you didn’t agree to?