Is it time for a "Liberty Manifesto"?

[filc]

@PatriotforFreedom

And, since you used the example of a German “social contract” which supposedly made it legal and ethical to unjustly treat Jewish people, please cite the specific social contract to which you referred, and show how it was a legal contract.

What is legal and what is illegal is detirmined by the state. Therefore they were acting from within their power. Whether it was yet written down on paper or not is a whole other issue.

Lets take your standpoint, for the sake of argument lets state governments preform illegal acts. What power does the individual have over bringing justice against the state? What difference does it make if a government performs an illegal action if the individual does not have the power to prevent it? In fact historically it was the individual who relinguished their authority to the state which ultimately granted them those abusive powers to begin with.

Pointing out that the state is undergoign illegal activiites doesn’t stop then. It didn’t work for these people

Example a

Example b

Example c

I could go on but it’s not worth my time. Evidence is on my side of the injustices of governments. You could fill an entire football stadium of books written about these injustices.

@PatriotforFreedom

filc asks, “What if they were property owners and decided they would rather stay on the land that they worked for and earned?”

Then they may stay and comply with the laws of the land.

And what happens when the law asks them to participate in a service or activity they’d rather not participate in. For example, they’d rather not fund your navy due to personal beleifs.

@PatriotforFreedom

To the question, “Please explain how a hypothetical “society” without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?”, filc finally is bold enough to venture an answer, which is really a conclusion with no premises for supporting it: “It will not be consistent, but it will be effecient and probably more just. Errors or wrong doings will be isolated to individuals and perhaps a small group around those individuals.”

Your first statement that it would not be consistent proves that it could not be just, since principles of justice, such as Liberty, are ideas which do remain consistent in definition and so in regulation. “More just”? You have stated that but proved it not at all. Efficient? How can an inconsistency be efficient? Illogical.

?

I never said it would be just. Life’s not fair. Those you beleive life is capable of being fair are still in the 5th grade. My argument is that incorrections effect isolated groups of people, not entire populations. Here is a list of errors that will effect entire populations.

Government Errors

Example A

Example B

Example C

Example D

Example E

I could write a list the length of a book to continue but these are good for examples.

Individual Errors

These however are erros that effect a small isolated group of individuals

Example A

Example B

Example C

Example D

Lets compare the two lists.

Education

Lets take use education as our first example. If a nation makes an error in public education your net result is a nation full of idiots. If an individual makes such an error the result is a small group of un-educated individuals. Those individuals are free to seek education elsewhere. The Public education however often times leaves parents with little other options. It’s also in their best interest since they are already forcibly paying for that education via taxation. If they saught private education they would in effect be paying twice.

So it’s obvious that individuals voluntarily deciding what their education would be is far more effecient. Lets consider some topics often found in education, one strongly pushed in public education.

Calculus

Economics

Savings and Investing

Calculus is well understood to be taught in schools nation wide. There is however a very small demand or need for such a skill. The number of students who actually use calculus is extremely small. I’m not arguing that the skill is not useful or that calculus isn’t a great technology for man, I’m arguing that a vast majority of students with that skill will never use it. We forceably make all students learn this skill before entering the real world. Tax payers subsidize this activity and since there is no real competition we continue to pay for and support an ineffecient education system.

Savings. Investing and also Economics on the other hand are two topics which are extremely important to the well being of any person. Far more applicable then calculus. These topics however get pushed aside. Extremely important life long issues are left out of our education, while extremely specialized and obscured skills are pushed in. Not very effecient in my mind.

An individual who has the ability to choose his education can find those topics which he beleives best suites his needs. The public education however operates at error on a nation wide level. The eneficiency involved is immeasurable.

Murder and Theft

Lets compare murder.

When an individual murders he killes a small group of individuals around him. When a nation murders it’s genocide. I’d prefer basic murder to genocide, don’t know about you. I can always hunt down the murder, I can’t however fight a genocidal tyrrant with the support of a full navy.

When an individual steals he harms a single person or a small group of people. When government steals it’s called taxation which effects the entire populous.

The drug adict vs FDA

When a druggy becomes adicted he only harms himself, and whoever else he needs to harm in order to maintain his habbit. Consider the devistating consequences of the FDA however. They legalize chemical drugs with radical sideeffects. They legalize drugs known to cause cancer, but make natural drugs illegal. They dictate the medicine market and as a result are a BIG part of the reason why medecine costs so damn much in this country.

They legitimize ilegitimate illness’s.

The result is, the entire popultion is mis-lead as to what is healthy or unhealthy, what is safe or unsafe. People have placed their trust in this organization and we are feeling the consequenecs as a result. The druggy hurts himself and a small group around him. The FDA destroy’s an entire industry, effects the economy, and hurts anyone who takes bad drugs which have been prematurely legalized and approved by FDA. WORSE they create a premise for universal health care.

Who’s being ineffecient now? The druggy? Or the Gov?

healthcare and common goods

If you agree that socialism is in-effecient than you probably agree that universal healthcare will do more harm to individuals than good. The problem is, when this universal healthcare is forced on citizen’s they all suffer the consequences. In retrospect, a true free-trade system would offer cheap medecine for all. It’s funny how I beleive you would agree with me on many of these economic arguments, yet your still fouled up in this strong beleif that government is needed and is more effecient.

Business

If an individual produces a good business a large array of individuals benefit, perhaps the economy as a whole. If an individual produces a bad business he harms a very small isolated group of people and investors. (Assumign there are no government derrived bubbles)

If government produces a good business, well there is no way of knowing if government has or can produce a good business. Since there is no free market when dealing with the government there is no real baseline from which to measure from. There is nothing they can compare themselves to as they monopolize everything.

If however government produces a bad business, they perpetuate it’s existence with cheap justification and make tax payers pick up the tab due to it’s ineffeciency. Point in case. Governments than push this ineffeciency out for long periods of time never actually making an effort to improve the problem.

The Post office is but on example of an entire nation bailing out a terrible business model on a yearly basis.

My Point

In our Ancap society, the 5 examples I gave you would not have ever existed. The individual will still make their mistakes as they are predisposed to do so. Their radius of effect is isolated. Government on the other hands radius of effect is drastic.

@PatriotforFreedom

You have stated no proof for your belief that a person pays for mistakes but governments don’t. In fact, since governments are composed of persons, your position is illogical.

I have provided for you 5 examples above where people pay the tab on ineffeciencies of government. Now, despite all of these errors the government continue’s to grow. Explain to me why, with such blatent examples of their inability to competantly manage anything, they continues to grow??? In the ancap world businesses who operate with those ineffecienies would no longer exist. They would have adapted to change out of necessity or gone out of business.

It’s shocking to me that you beleive free trade to be a genuinly more effecient solution yet your asking me to prove it to you. Why do you claim you beleive in one case, then ask me to prove it to you on another? Do you really need me to prove to you the ineffeciency’s of government?

Finally, security.

Here are some ineffeciency’s of your navy you hold so dear. Example A has recently contributed to the devistation of our economy.

Example A

Example B

Example C

And for the record, WWII did NOT bring us out of the depression. It also came at a huge cost of lives and money to the american people.

@PatriotforFreedom

The justice would be efficient and consistent because the laws would be only encoded (written down for all to see, debate, and reach consensus) once, and they would be based on principles of divine rights for all human beings. When there were flaws in the laws, they could be addressed and changed. This is much more efficient than an “inconsistent” society because you do not have to continually debate and reinvent the law.

According to whom? and to who’s prespective. Yours? You argue for the constitution. What about all the slaves, was it justified that they were SOL back then?

Black folk are a minority, with your system the majority could agree to bring minority directed slavery back into existence. Point is you havn’t created something fair at all. You’ve only created something that a majority will be pleased with. Also, if you read up on public opinion you will learn that those public choice typically chooses the lowest common demoninator.

Watch this

I also strongly urge you to read Chapter 10 of The Road to Serfdom by FA Hayak. The chapter is titled “Why the worst get on Top”

This also may help.

@PatriotforFreedom

The justice would be efficient and consistent because the laws would be only encoded (written down for all to see, debate, and reach consensus) once, and they would be based on principles of divine rights for all human beings. When there were flaws in the laws, they could be addressed and changed. This is much more efficient than an “inconsistent” society because you do not have to continually debate and reinvent the law.

Today’s law, justice is not effecient, and it’s not just. Since justice is more or less a subjective term, the idea of what is justified is completly opinion base and opinions change on an individual basis. In other words, your entire system is based on your own opinions which isn’t fair at all.

If you truely beleived in “divine rights” your socialist commonwealth would not have the authority to kick off private land owners off of their land because they chose not to sign your crappy contract.

Your constitution also neglects differences of religous opinion. Thats not fair or just at all. Your whole premise is opinion based. I recommend reading the first few chapters of Human Action and understanding praxeology.

The following terms you mention are 100% subjective

Fair

Just

Effecient

So ‘divine rights’ end up being what you preceive is divine and what you personally preceive is right, and not what is truely ‘divine right’. If it could be possible that something was truely divinely right I doubt you would have to argue to defend the case.

You then take the roll of god, thinking you know whats best for all and decide whats just, fair, and right for everyone. If your a christian I’d think long and hard about adopting such a responsiblity. I’d hate to think of how you would answer to god when you died.

[nirgrahamUK]

we have a believer in the magic theory of government

like this one:

http://www.casttv.com/video/nk32tn/government-is-magic-video

http://janhelfeld.com/video/35/bill-richardson-on-goverment-and-rights.html

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@PatriotforFreedom

In reply to this question, Please explain how a hypothetical “society” without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?", Knight of BAAWA wrote: “I refer you to the fact that your question contains an implicit strawman, meaning it has no reason to be answered.”

Sir, since you have referred to something, unstated, which you believe I have implied, please state what you believe I implied, so we can see if it does not represent your position.

Here’s a thought: why don’t you explain how it is that you believe that anarchists believe that there would be efficient and consistent justice for all, i.e. there would never be any problems. Ever.

@PatriotforFreedom

To, “Of course, I recognize that in Anarchy, there are no rules”, BAWAA replies, “Yet another strawman.”

Ok, perhaps I’m guilty, but the definition of Anarchy at Wikipedia is “Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.”

And yet that doesn’t mean there are no rules. Only someone who thinks rules can only be laws would say otherwise. Yet that is not logically defensible.

@PatriotforFreedom

BAAWA writes, “Clearly, a government doesn’t render efficient and consistent justice for all. Since the only other option is anarchy, I fail to see how it could be any worse. It’s up to you to show that it would be better.”

My proposition is that a government by and of the people is better than Anarchy.

Then show it.

@PatriotforFreedom

Because Anarchy is lawless, I hold that a government would then be more efficient since it would be unnecessary to continually reinvent the rules under which honest and just law and order may be maintained.

Then show it. Your assertions mean absolutely nothing here. Show than anarchy means what you think it means. Hint: you won’t be able to, since it’s not.

@PatriotforFreedom

And it still remains your responsibility

No, it does not. Disabuse yourself of that idiotic notion. Here in the real world, we don’t answer questions which shift the burden of proof, contain strawmen, or have other fallacies.

@PatriotforFreedom

Next, BAAWA writes, “There’s simply no way to limit a government. Not possible. Once you realize the futility of your utopia, you’ll come around.”

You have not supplied any support for your first statement.

History and the nature of government. The nature of government is one of initiatory force upon the citizens which it claims to protect. Yet what protects us from the government? A piece of paper which the government, being a monopolist, can simply ignore? You expect me to believe that a monopolist would not abuse the monopoly position? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

@PatriotforFreedom

To the contrary, I refer you to a number of ways that governments have been limited via bills of rights reserved by the people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights

Yeah–how’s that working out? Has the fedgov been limited by it? Hell no!

@PatriotforFreedom

A utopia is defined as “a name for an ideal community or society”

Not really. It’s defined, literally, as “a place you can’t get to”. And you can’t get what you want to have.

@PatriotforFreedom

and I have not argued for such a utopia

Yes, you have. You have argued for limited government. This is an impossibility. So please–don’t lie.

@PatriotforFreedom

BAAWA states, “You’re saying that it is ok to initiate force. Prove it.”
Did you mean force without freedom of redress, and other options?

No. I meant initiate force. And even with “freedom of redress”, when you’re dealing with a monopolist you have very little chance of redress. For evidence, I suggest you look at all the cases where police have MURDERED innocent civilians and gotten away with it.

@PatriotforFreedom

Prove that force granted of and for the people and exercised under just principles is not ok.

What people? And prove that it is ok.

@PatriotforFreedom

BAWWA writes, “Honest and uncoerced? WTF? If you don’t pay your taxes, you go to jail/have your property confiscated.”
This is why I am not in support of the current system.

Ok. What tax system do you support? And please–do not give me your utopia about voluntary taxation. That’s laughable. There’s no such thing, just as there’s no such thing as a square circle.

@PatriotforFreedom

BAWWA writes, “..governments make legal for itself that which is illegal for the rest of the citizens. This is wholly abhorrent to all moral people.”

Agreed.

Then you’re an anarchist. Good.

And could I bother you to learn how to use the quoting option here? It’s not that difficult.

@PatriotforFreedom

BAWWA asks, “What about the minority? What right has the majority to impose that upon the minority? Show me where the majority gets this right.”"
This of course is at the core of your position in support of Anarchy. I submit that a system of law and order, and justice for all is better for all citizens than lack thereof, and that Anarchy, by definition can never provide such a system.

Unsupported assertion; rejected as such.

@PatriotforFreedom

BAWWA writes, “Strawman,” in reply to a statement I wrote where I assumed he believed that “unanimous assent should be required for all contracts.”
So, this means that you do not stand for unanimous assent?

You said “for all contracts”. Please do learn to read and comprehend that we’re talking about politics here.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@PatriotforFreedom

Sir, you fail to make clear that a person on his/her property is also within the borders of a country or state and so bound by the laws of that land as put forth and ratified in the Constitution for same.

Ok, then the jews were bound by the Nuremburg laws.

Look, bub: legal positivism leads to a host of problems with which you will find it impossible to deal. You will find yourself supporting Jim Crow (because it was the law) and the Nuremberg Laws (because they were the law). Should you not support them–you’re a hypocrite.

[Fluery]

@PatriotforFreedom

Fluery writes, Because it (the “social contract”), and the whole “love it or leave it” nonsense, ends up being a blank check for a systematic abuse of rights.

While I agree with you sir, that there is too much abuse of rights today, the impetus for a Liberty Manifesto, I cannot agree that a fair contract contains any license for abuse.

Would you say the Constitution is a fair contract? I thought contracts were supposed to be consented to by all parties involved, now, perhaps my memory is hazy, but I don’t recall agreeing to the Constitution.

[Laughing_Man]

@Fluery

Would you say the Constitution is a fair contract? I thought contracts were supposed to be consented to by all parties involved, now, perhaps my memory is hazy, but I don’t recall agreeing to the Constitution.

It is a ‘contract’ forced upon you by a band of criminals, thieves and murderers. They show little reluctance in destroying the lives of anyone and everyone who does not bow before them.

[nirgrahamUK]

not only didnt you agree tothe contract. its government policy to not keep up their end of the non-existant contracthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8-W8inFkqQ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8-W8inFkqQ#t=13m55s

at 13min55seconds.

what seperates citizens from non-citizens?

the supreme court says ‘member of the body politic, that owes allegiance in return for a duty of protection’

‘these are reciprical obligations’

i.e. contract.

citizen is contractual relationship, allegiance for protection.

we know if a citizen says i announce my allegiance, he is not entitled to protection.

but look at the other side. what if the other side doesnt live up to their obligation. i.e. the obligation to protect.

case: arizona.

jewellery store owner contracted with off duty officers to protect his story. they let him down and he lost 250k . he sued the off-duty officers. their lawyers tried to dismiss since the off-duty officers had no duty to protect. the store owner, appealled this, it went to the supreme court.

they said, storeowner is right. as sheriffs deputies on the job there is no duty to protect him or anyone but this was different they had private contractual obligation that had nothing to do with you sometimes being an officer, and therefore they had to pony up for the store owners loss.

wait a minute. the state is telling you you have no right to protection, it has no duty to protect you. well what could sustain our allegiance?

[liberty_student]

@nirgrahamUK

wait a minute. the state is telling you you have no right to protection, it has no duty to protect you. well what could sustain our allegiance?

Founding father worship and Constitutional mysticism. For some people, the Constitution is a like a bible, because democracy is literally the God that fails.

[Spideynw]

@PatriotforFreedom

You asked, “Now, you please explain to me how a government that does not have consent of the governed will ever be restrained?”

Easy. It won’t. That is why I am an advocate for a government by and for the people and so has their consent to govern, although greatly reduced and more restrained than we have today.

So, I ask you again: Please explain how a hypothetical “society” without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?

The courts would be neutral.

Now, the reason I asked my question, is I am wondering if we differ in opinion at all.

You say that you are an advocate of a government with consent of all those that are governed. The only government that could possibly have consent of the governed would be a government that does not force people to be a part of it. And if you are for this, than I do not think we have any disagreement. If you are not for this, than you are not for a government by and for the people.

[PatriotforFreedom]

Hello all -

There are a number of good questions raised, and I thank you for them, but since I am the lone proponent here for Liberty tied to a Constitutional form of government, it is difficult to marshall the time required to reply to the army of thinkers for Anarchy.

I have time today to reply briefly to some questions. You have also provided links which I will get to later

---

A couple of you wrote and asked about slavery (Juan and filc).

Slavery was an abomination and the very contradiction of the Bill of Rights. It has been corrected.

---

Juan wondered why I found Molinari’s argument for hiring competing bands of mercenaries as “security” for the fruits of labor, absurd.

If the way I’ve phrased it doesn’t suggest the answer, let me be clear: when a person or persons choose to hire mercenaries to represent their interests, the mercenaries are loyal only to the highest bidder, and the employer is only good insofar as his/her interests are honorable and just. So, it is far better, in my opinion, to swear a national navy, for example, to the just and honorable principles of God given Liberty, and so place their allegiance beyond the arbitrary needs or whims of one person or group of persons.

Juan also states, “there’s no reason why it can’t be found out who the actual owner is.” He states this regarding a proposed “anarchic system”, which I place in quotes to underscore the oxymoronic nature of the two words.

My question to Juan is this: In whose record, and under whose authority would the rightful ownership be determined?

---

Juan gave us a quote from Alice in Wonderland, and nirgrahamUK advanced the theory of a “Magic” government.

So, in terms of history, I ask both of them which form of government we now debate is more the stuff of fantasy, and why?

---

filc you wrote a long response – thanks. Due to time limits I must pick a couple of points in contention.

filc wrote, “Pointing out that the state is undergoing illegal activiites doesn’t stop them.”
Not only have we seen that it “stopped them” in both the French and American revolutions, but there are a number of famous court cases in the US where the state was stopped from the encroachment on the rights of free people. And the abomination of slavery has been addressed.

filc wrote, “Evidence is on my side of the injustices of governments.”
But that response and observation is not an argument against the efficiency and effectiveness of honorable governance – at best it is a valuable history lesson, again underscoring the need for checks and balances.

filc wrote, “I never said it would be just. Life’s not fair. Those you beleive life is capable of being fair are still in the 5th grade. My argument is that incorrections effect isolated groups of people, not entire populations.”

Then sir, if you would not bind persons to justice, as understood quite easily by fifth graders, there would be no need for Molinari’s bands of security mercenaries at all, because without justice, what would be their goal? Or maybe, lest I stray into territory of the straw men, you do in fact hold that in Anarchy a good goal would be justice. Who’s justice? Under what authority? And what, sir, would you propose if different individuals had opposing views of justice?

filc wrote, “Lets take use education as our first example. If a nation makes an error in public education your net result is a nation full of idiots.”

This of course depends on your definition of “education”, which by your argument seems to imply that it might be closer to the definition for indoctrination. Are you actually proposing that an “error” which would produce “idiots” would go undetected by all the free individuals in the education system? Please cite a real-world example where that is the case.

True education honors all viable theories and presents them in the form of honorable debate, as we are doing here, allowing the free citizens/students to make up their own minds. Propaganda and revisionist history have no place in education. Unfortunately, if your next step would be to point out the many examples of it in the schools today, I could only sadly agree. This is another point of common ground for us. But since you are able to find such mistakes, and free to address them, then your argument is not solid. The state, and any other lobbying interest must stay out of the education business and leave that to honorable teachers. But we are still free to expose and correct mistakes in education.

filc wrote, “When government steals it’s called taxation which effects the entire populous.”
We are not in agreement that this would be true if the people have entered into an uncoerced contract for services desired.

filc wrote, “The Post office is but on example of an entire nation bailing out a terrible business model on a yearly basis.”
Another point of common ground.

filc wrote, “If you truely beleived in “divine rights” your socialist commonwealth would not have the authority to kick off private land owners off of their land because they chose not to sign your crappy contract.”

Since I have not advanced a theory of av"socialist commonwealth", you have advanced yet another straw man. I believe you are referring to the legal notion of “eminent domain” which I agree is worthy of debate. But when a government takes land for the greater good, as in building a freeway, they do not kick people off their land without first giving them just compensation economically, and they do so for the good of the larger citizenry, not as a penalty for refusing to sign a contract. In fact, since no contract signing is required of our citizens, your argument has once again strayed into the realm of fantasy and illogic.

---

The Knight of BAWAA asked, “why don’t you explain how it is that you believe that anarchists believe that there would be efficient and consistent justice for all, i.e. there would never be any problems. Ever.”

First, recall that you proposed that my question, “how a hypothetical “society” without a government would render efficient and consistent justice for all?” contained an implicit straw man. Since a straw man is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position, your accusation is false – the only implicit position in my question was my own, not yours – that Anarchy could not produce as its goal, efficient and consistent justice for all.

You have now rendered, in your question for me, support for my position that Anarchy not only cannot produce efficient and consistent justice for all, but that it does not even have that as a goal. Of course I have never said that any system would result in no problems, “ever”, so you again use straw man logic when it suits your purpose.

But I do hold, and invite you to do your best to refute it, that a government under a constitution such as our own, will produce a society with more efficient and consistent justice for all, than would that of the anarchist school of thought. This is at the core of our argument and separates our two schools of thought, so I will be interested in your best work for a response. And please clear your mind a bit and realize that we agree – due to the imperfection of all humans, no government or system is capable of producing absolute liberty and justice for all. It is just that some are better at it and so come closer to the mark.

The Knight, then responds to my statement, “and I have not argued for such a utopia,” by proposing, “Yes, you have. You have argued for limited government. This is an impossibility. So please–don’t lie.”

In order to prove your assertion, Knight, you must first demonstrate historic or current examples of unlimited government, then show how I have argued for same. Please do not allow your failure to do so to cloud your thinking – an unclear mind is not helpful in education.

---

Fleury writes, “Would you say the Constitution is a fair contract? I thought contracts were supposed to be consented to by all parties involved, now, perhaps my memory is hazy, but I don’t recall agreeing to the Constitution.”

1. Yes, I agree that the Constitution was and is a fair contract in that all signers did so of their own free will and that it was then ratified by all states desiring to join the union.
2. Since you were not present at the time of signing, your second point is moot.
3. You are free to disagree with it at any time and then petition for grievances, sue the government in a court of law, or take your property with you to another location in search of an imaginary Anarchic utopia.

[PatriotforFreedom]

Spideynw has written: “Now, the reason I asked my question, is I am wondering if we differ in opinion at all.”
We do.

Spideynw continues, “You say that you are an advocate of a government with consent of all those that are governed. The only government that could possibly have consent of the governed would be a government that does not force people to be a part of it. And if you are for this, than I do not think we have any disagreement. If you are not for this, than you are not for a government by and for the people.”

Our government does not force any person to be a part of it. Any person is free to work for change within it, to petition it with grievances, or to sue it in a court of law. And all citizens are also free to renounce their citizenry and go elsewhere in search of an imaginary anarchic utopia.

[PatriotforFreedom]

The Knight, then responds to my statement, “and I have not argued for such a utopia,” by proposing, “Yes, you have. You have argued for limited government. This is an impossibility. So please–don’t lie.”

I wrote: “In order to prove your assertion, Knight, you must first demonstrate historic or current examples of unlimited government, then show how I have argued for same. Please do not allow your failure to do so to cloud your thinking – an unclear mind is not helpful in education.”

I made a mistake in that statement. I should have written: after you show us examples of unlimited government, you must then show, since there is no unlimited government in the US (nor can there be under its Constitution), how limited government is an impossibility.

It seems I am guilty of my own criticism of unclear thinking. I stand corrected.

[nirgrahamUK]

@PatriotforFreedom

And all citizens are also free to renounce their citizenry and go elsewhere in search of an imaginary anarchic utopia.

in other words. “if you dont like it leave it”. if you dont like the fact that i rob your house every thursday, leave it. if you dont like the fact that i rape your daughter, send her abroad. or maybe people have no authority to abuse innocents. what do you think?

[PatriotforFreedom]

PatriotforFreedom: And all citizens are also free to renounce their citizenry and go elsewhere in search of an imaginary anarchic utopia.

NirgrahamUK replies, “in other words. “if you dont like it leave it”. if you dont like the fact that i rob your house every thursday, leave it. if you dont like the fact that i rape your daughter, send her abroad. or maybe people have no authority to abuse innocents. what do you think?”

Wow, a lot of straw man thinkers in this forum. I of course did not say “like it or leave it,” but instead gave other examples of what honorable dissenters are free to do including, petition the government, sue it, or work for change within it.

The rest of your examples are unfortunately for you sir, further examples of a straw man argument. Let’s take these fallacious proposals one at a time so you can be clear in your thinking as to where I stand:

1. “if you dont like the fact that i rob your house every thursday, leave it.” Of course not. Simply exercise your rights under the law and with support of authorities (police) who are sworn to uphold that law.
2. “if you dont like the fact that i rape your daughter, send her abroad.” No sir, we would send you into the justice system and to jail.
3. “or maybe people have no authority to abuse innocents. what do you think?” I think they do not, as evidenced by our Constitution, and the code of law stated and litigated in our justice system.

No, nirgraham of the UK, if you do not like those options, plus those previous set out, you remain free to leave the country in search of an increasingly imaginary anarchic utopia. Or am I wrong on that point? Does one exist in the real world?

[nirgrahamUK]

you literally said if citizens dont like their governments they are free to stop being citizens and leave. there is no way this is not like it or leave it.

th fact that you mention otherways that citizens can ‘effect’ their government dodges the point, that the government have no right to have authority on them in the first place, at all, if i come to your house to rob you and you dont like it, join my criminal gang and change us from the inside, petition the don to leave you alone, write documents to me that have magic words on them that stop me from abusing you…

@PatriotforFreedom

“if you dont like the fact that i rob your house every thursday, leave it.” Of course not. Simply exercise your rights under the law and with support of authorities (police) who are sworn to uphold that law.

the police are criminals.

@PatriotforFreedom

“if you dont like the fact that i rape your daughter, send her abroad.” No sir, we would send you into the justice system and to jail.

the jailor will send himself to jail?

@PatriotforFreedom

I think they do not, as evidenced by our Constitution, and the code of law stated and litigated in our justice system.

you think they do, otherwise you would not grant outrageous authority to men who call themselves the state, against men who dont but live nearby.

@PatriotforFreedom

f you do not like those options, plus those previous set out, you remain free to leave the country in search of an increasingly imaginary anarchic utopia.

nice choice to end on “like it or leave it”. you oaf.

[luckylad33]

@PatriotforFreedom

Wow, a lot of straw man thinkers in this forum.

Not really. You are just misusing the term. I also like this…

@PatriotforFreedom

I of course did not say “like it or leave it,” but instead gave other examples of what honorable dissenters are free to do including, petition the government, sue it, or work for change within it.

@PatriotforFreedom

No, nirgraham of the UK, if you do not like those options, plus those previous set out, you remain free to leave the country in search of an increasingly imaginary anarchic utopia.

[PatriotforFreedom]

nirgrahamUK has responded, “you literally said if citizens dont like their governments they are free to stop being citizens and leave. there is no way this is not like it or leave it.”

I am hoping that they have good coffee in the UK, because then it may clear your mind from oaf-like thinking. Since there are other options afforded freely to citizens in the US, then the choice is not simply to stay or leave as your straw man illogic suggests.

nirgrahamUK wrote “the government have no right to have authority on them in the first place.”

Again, I find your oaf-like writings in need of clarity. The Government by its Constitution, which is a freely agreed upon contract, does have authority over the lawless in a society.

nirgrahamUK wrote “the police are criminals.”

You have not proven that – more coffee or tea is in order, hopefully laced with lots of Caffeine.

-------

PatriotforFreedom: “if you dont like the fact that i rape your daughter, send her abroad.” No sir, we would send you into the justice system and to jail.

nirgrahamUK: “the jailor will send himself to jail?”

Again your reply shows lack of clarity. The proposal is not that a jailor will send himself to jail, but that a perpetrator will be sent into the court system, and after receiving a fair trial would then be sent to jail if convicted. I will look forward to a clear thinking critique of this logic.

-----------

PatriotforFreedom: “if you do not like those options, plus those previous set out, you remain free to leave the country in search of an increasingly imaginary anarchic utopia.”

nirgrahamUK: “nice choice to end on “like it or leave it”. you oaf.”

Since there are other choices than leaving, as we have seen, we are left to ponder whether oafism is simply a projection of your current non-cafienated mind, or whether you are reduced to derogatory labels because all logical argument has failed you. And lest you think I am guilty of deroatory labeling – I intend you no insult. I am quite hopeful that you will demonstrate the ability to rise above oaf-like illogical straw man debate. After all, it does your cadre here no good when you cannot clearly form a good reply in a debate.

[PatriotforFreedom]

PatriotforFreedom: “Wow, a lot of straw man thinkers in this forum.”

**Eric: “**Not really. You are just misusing the term.”

You must first demonstrate how the term has been misused in order to see credible. And thank you for stating your approval of the following:

@PatriotforFreedom

I of course did not say “like it or leave it,” but instead gave other examples of what honorable dissenters are free to do including, petition the government, sue it, or work for change within it.

@PatriotforFreedom

No, nirgraham of the UK, if you do not like those options, plus those previous set out, you remain free to leave the country in search of an increasingly imaginary anarchic utopia.

[nirgrahamUK]

@PatriotforFreedom

Again, I find your oaf-like writings in need of clarity. The Government by its Constitution, which is a freely agreed upon contract, does have authority over the lawless in a society.

the constitution is not a contract, its a piece of paper. do you know what a contract is?

@PatriotforFreedom

You have not proven that – more coffee or tea is in order, hopefully laced with lots of Caffeine.

they have no right to arrest people or take their property, yet they do these things. ergo. criminal. they are paid by involuntary taxation. criminals.

@PatriotforFreedom

The proposal is not that a jailor will send himself to jail, but that a perpetrator will be sent into the court system, and after receiving a fair trial would then be sent to jail if convicted. I will look forward to a clear thinking critique of this logic.

your magical government is , a perpetrator. your magical government coerces innocents. perpetrator. will they send themselves to jail?

@PatriotforFreedom

Since there are other choices than leaving, as we have seen, we are left to ponder whether oafism is simply a projection of your current non-cafienated mind, or whether you are reduced to derogatory labels because all logical argument has failed you. And lest you think I am guilty of deroatory labeling – I intend you no insult. I am quite hopeful that you will demonstrate the ability to rise above oaf-like illogical straw man debate. After all, it does your cadre here no good when you cannot clearly form a good reply in a debate.

why can’t you grant the option to leave innocents alone.? why are you a petty tyrant?

if your government persecutes an innocent, the innocent can sue the government? is that like if i object to the mafia about their protection racket?

[luckylad33]

OK. Here is another example of you misusing the term “Straw Man”.

filc asks, “So in other words, you offer nothing better then what has already been done.”

@PatriotforFreedom

That fits the definition of a “*straw man”, since I specifically named two things which have not been done before.

There is no straw man. Since he said you offer nothing better than what has already been done.