Under what individual authority does government exist?

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Rob, if we all chose to live without rules and governance, you would likely be dead.
Click to expand...
You assumed in the absence of a single monopolistic and coercive government that there would be some kind of chaotic situation.

You also assume that without a single monopolistic coercive government to use force to tell you what to do, that somebody else would come along and tell you what to do.

In the present with a single coercive authority as the model, what you fear happening is ALREADY happening. The only possibility for it not to happen is to allow competing models or an opt out.

Also I never said I am opposed to rules, shouldn't the first rule be that institutions and people that rely on coercion to exist are frowned on or disallowed?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
did you not just read what i wrote?
Click to expand...
The one where you said your mind was closed to questioning authority, despite your presenting ideas that people should question authority?

Yes, I read that and recommend you do one or the other, because presently it seems like you are trying to present two opposing ideas at once.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You assumed in the absence of a single monopolistic and coercive government that there would be some kind of chaotic situation.

You also assume that without a single monopolistic coercive government to use force to tell you what to do, that somebody else would come along and tell you what to do.
Click to expand...
yeah, somalia and somalian warlords totally show that that's not the case.

fucking retard.
 
NewtoMJ

NewtoMJ

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I am starting this thread to encourage a conversation about the meaning of consent.

Below is an excerpt from an editorial by Will Tippens. The full editorial is available at Strike the Root published 4/20.

Have at it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does it mean to "consent" to something? Thanks to the increasing, if often misplaced concern over sexual assault and rape, this important question is being posed now more than ever. One recent article went viral by aptly comparing sexual consent to offering someone a "cup of tea." According to this analogy, consent is as simple as offering someone a cup of tea; if they accept, they will drink the tea. If they decline or lose capacity to consent (lose consciousness), the tea party host cannot pour it down their throat. A simple yet effective analogy.

However, the topic of consent is an extremely important legal concept, as it is not only the key element in differenting between sex and rape, but the difference between all aggression and voluntary agreements. Without the concept of 'consent,' we cannot determine if someone is going on a date or being kidnapped, loaning $20 to a friend or having it stolen, or fighting in a boxing match or being assaulted by Mike Tyson.

But the elephant in the room that no one seems to mention is that this simple yet effective definition of consent raises a far more deeply reaching question: Is our relationship with government consensual?
Click to expand...
The relationship between an individual and the government is consenting, simply because there is no force impeding you from leaving the jurisdiction of that government.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
he's also ignoring that government only exists by consent of the governed.

does that mean he is a rape fetishist?
Click to expand...
Rob doesn't consider it rape, because when the young boys say "No! Stop! Don't", he yells back, "Stop forcefully coercing me into not having sex with you!", and according to him, that's against the law.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Well no, because you would be forcefully coercing the institutions to not be forcefully coercive. :fire:
Click to expand...
The problem with your statement is it doesn't consider the difference between defensive force or offensive force.

In a truly free market, if it existed, exchanges would be done on mutual and consensual basis. What happens now is the institutions you refer to are engaging in offensive force as part of their standard business model (their existence is based in it) .

So, when people resist OFFENSIVE force, (all people have a right to defend themselves and self determine), the force they are applying is an acceptable form of force, as it is defensive.

Your statement is absurd and has been refuted.
 
Last edited:
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
NewtoMJ said:
In extreme cases, sure. Or you can elect officials who shape the government in a way you feel is more to your tastes.
Click to expand...
Or do it the old fashion way and chop off their heads. Gee, you complain about the money in politics, then uphold it as a virtue.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
NewtoMJ said:
The relationship between an individual and the government is consenting, simply because there is no force impeding you from leaving the jurisdiction of that government.
Click to expand...
This is a false assumption you have made.

How did they acquire jurisdiction over you as an individual in the first place is a question you might want to consider.
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Rob doesn't consider it rape, because when the young boys say "No! Stop! Don't", he yells back, "Stop forcefully coercing me into not having sex with you!", and according to him, that's against the law.
Click to expand...
This is unnecessary. You seem to be able to carry on a conversation when you want to, without resorting to this kind of stuff. You're free to do what you like, but I'll ask you to consider not being such an asshole with your false allegations. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top