This is gonna get interesting! Militia takes over Ore. federal building after protest.

[Rob Roy]

You just described nations going to war. One party takes the 'posessions' of another party so they enlist a group of people to right the wrong of the posessions taken from them. You have justified that it is now morally permissible to do this based on the first injustice. You are now the leader of a group that has rules and is proceeding to go onto someone elses land. You have formed a government by default.

Welcome to the real world!! :]

Seriously, I want to buy what you are selling but I cant see the security.

Not quite. A nation state assumes control over every person in a given area with or without their consent and then inflicts themselves on all of the people within continuously. Which IS an act of initiated aggression or more correctly repeated and perpetual acts of aggression. A nation state assumes control over you even if you peacefully reject it.

An individual recovering what is his / hers is not assuming control over other people, only using defensive force to recover what belongs to them. After the item is recovered and they are restituted, any authority to act against anybody else can only arise as a DEFENSIVE action, which is how it differentiates from a nation state that uses offensive force as a regular mode of operation as part of its business model.

Thanks for playing along.

 

[NLXSK1]

Not quite. A nation state assumes control over every person in a given area with or without their consent and then inflicts themselves on all of the people within continuously. Which IS an act of initiated aggression or more correctly repeated and perpetual acts of aggression. A nation state assumes control over you even if you peacefully reject it.

An individual recovering what is his / hers is not assuming control over other people, only using defensive force to recover what belongs to them. After the item is recovered and they are restituted, any authority to act against anybody else can only arise as a DEFENSIVE action, which is how it differentiates from a nation state that uses offensive force as a regular mode of operation as part of its business model.

Thanks for playing along.

I disagree with your assertion that you can use defensive force to acquire something. You seem to be giving moral justification to a physical act when you want to. Also, it seems that vigilantism is how justice is performed in your society. If you think someone wronged you then you just acquire a posse of people to go make it right. You violate other peoples rights of trespass, association, possibly damage property in your quest for justice... This stuff gets messy fast!!

How does someone defend themselves against a posse of people who have decided incorrectly that they were wronged and have arrived to dispense justice?

 

[pnwmystery]

I'm not a big L, Libertarian, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

If you love the constitution so much do you love slavery and prohibition too?

Did you just happen to miss that entire portion of the Constitution where those were ratified/amended/struck down? And psh I'm just laughing at it really.

 

[ChesusRice]

I'm || close to putting you on ignore because that was the most boneheaded statement I've ever read that you've typed out. You don't think the US Constitution applies to you? Or does it only apply to you when you're in trouble from the law? Are you actually one of those "Natural Rights/Sovereign Man" nutjobs? Lol. FFS.

If you hate the US Constitution so much move to Somalia where there are no laws. Problem solved!

Seriously though, I'm not sure why there hasn't been a Libertarian movement to colonize Somalia lol.

Too many black people for Rob Roy.

 

[Rob Roy]

I disagree with your assertion that you can use defensive force to acquire something. You seem to be giving moral justification to a physical act when you want to. Also, it seems that vigilantism is how justice is performed in your society. If you think someone wronged you then you just acquire a posse of people to go make it right. You violate other peoples rights of trespass, association, possibly damage property in your quest for justice... This stuff gets messy fast!!

How does someone defend themselves against a posse of people who have decided incorrectly that they were wronged and have arrived to dispense justice?

Defensive force to RE-ACQUIRE something that is already yours is permissible. That assumes that the property in question was already owned by the person using defensive force and that the origin of ownership was thru justifiable means.

Also the rest of your questions are good ones. I've mentioned the possibility of starting a thread discussing how arbitration of disputes etc. in a society without a central coercive authority would work. I'm not there yet because I haven't decided if it's worth my time, given the make up of people on this forum. (I doubt it would stay on topic) . I do appreciate the way you have asked questions and conducted your inquiries though. Thanks.

I will say that the topic of arbitration of disputes in a society absent a central authority has been on my mind recently. One of my concerns is how to approach some of the commonly held misconceptions people have well enough to be able establish a basis for the discussion without alienating the same people. I will ponder this.

 

[Rob Roy]

Did you just happen to miss that entire portion of the Constitution where those were ratified/amended/struck down? And psh I'm just laughing at it really.

No, I didn't miss that.

Did you miss the part where I asked to see the signed agreement of the (individual) people ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Too many black people for Rob Roy.

On what basis do you make that asinine comment, Prohibitionist?

 

[NLXSK1]

Defensive force to RE-ACQUIRE something that is already yours is permissible. That assumes that the property in question was already owned by the person using defensive force and that the origin of ownership was thru justifiable means.

Also the rest of your questions are good ones. I've mentioned the possibility of starting a thread discussing how arbitration of disputes etc. in a society without a central coercive authority would work. I'm not there yet because I haven't decided if it's worth my time, given the make up of people on this forum. (I doubt it would stay on topic) . I do appreciate the way you have asked questions and conducted your inquiries though. Thanks.

I will say that the topic of arbitration of disputes in a society absent a central authority has been on my mind recently. One of my concerns is how to approach some of the commonly held misconceptions people have well enough to be able establish a basis for the discussion without alienating the same people. I will ponder this.

So the Palestinians are using Defensive force to RE-ACQUIRE Israel? It was theirs before it was not right? I have never heard of someone attacking someone else defensively... There are pro-active attacks where you attack first but that really isnt the same thing right?

 

[Rob Roy]

So the Palestinians are using Defensive force to RE-ACQUIRE Israel? It was theirs before it was not right? I have never heard of someone attacking someone else defensively... There are pro-active attacks where you attack first but that really isnt the same thing right?

The answer = An individual Panarchist society would have prevented the scale of the conflict, and most other wars throughout history for that matter.

The wrong solution = The involuntary Nation State. (creates a perpetual possibility of large scale conflict)


Yes, I am alluding to something that is rarely considered as a root cause, and is dismissed by most people living in the present paradigm.

Then again, hundreds of years from now, hopefully mankind will have progressed to the point where they recognize things which are regularly practiced today and considered "normal" were in fact akin to throwing virgins in volcanoes etc. One can hope. Peace.

 

[NLXSK1]

Rob Roy,

One of the things your society does not address is what if a person is wrong? You place ultimate power in the hands of the individual with no controlling body nor any method of moderation.

What if you intervene between bob & stan and it turns out that the situation was not what you believed it to be. What if bob's toaster got stolen by Ralph in the next town over and bob just think Stan stole his toaster because they look alike?

So, now we got Stan defending his property from Bob who has now trespassed, committed assault on Stan, and is attempting to steal Stan's toaster because he incorrectly assumes it to be his. Now he has gotten you to join in on attacking Stan to retrieve his (falsely) stolen property. You have now committed at least 3 crimes in your society due to the fact that you are not omniscient...

At the end of it all, two toasters have been stolen and Bob has been assaulted along with all the trespass. Now multiple crimes have been committed and there are several parties that have been injured (either by loss of property or physical assault)... There is no governing body that can resolve any of these issues because we cannot give power to a group that an individual does not possess.

You claim that a group of people cannot claim a right that the individual does not possess. You do however claim in this conversation that you can give up your rights under certain conditions. To create America the people gave up certain of their rights so that body's could be put in place to adjudicate people's disputes and to ensure that laws are uniformly followed.

Since then the government has seized much more control than was ever intended as forseen by the founders of the country. And they had a simple resolution to the issue. When the government no longer supports the people you take the country back from it and start a new government. I dont think we are close to that point yet but things are not getting better in America due to the government they are getting worse.

 

[ChesusRice]

Rob Roy,

One of the things your society does not address is what if a person is wrong? You place ultimate power in the hands of the individual with no controlling body nor any method of moderation.

What if you intervene between bob & stan and it turns out that the situation was not what you believed it to be. What if bob's toaster got stolen by Ralph in the next town over and bob just think Stan stole his toaster because they look alike?

So, now we got Stan defending his property from Bob who has now trespassed, committed assault on Stan, and is attempting to steal Stan's toaster because he incorrectly assumes it to be his. Now he has gotten you to join in on attacking Stan to retrieve his (falsely) stolen property. You have now committed at least 3 crimes in your society due to the fact that you are not omniscient...

At the end of it all, two toasters have been stolen and Bob has been assaulted along with all the trespass. Now multiple crimes have been committed and there are several parties that have been injured (either by loss of property or physical assault)... There is no governing body that can resolve any of these issues because we cannot give power to a group that an individual does not possess.

You claim that a group of people cannot claim a right that the individual does not possess. You do however claim in this conversation that you can give up your rights under certain conditions. To create America the people gave up certain of their rights so that body's could be put in place to adjudicate people's disputes and to ensure that laws are uniformly followed.

Since then the government has seized much more control than was ever intended as forseen by the founders of the country. And they had a simple resolution to the issue. When the government no longer supports the people you take the country back from it and start a new government. I dont think we are close to that point yet but things are not getting better in America due to the government they are getting worse.

A well thought out post.

 

[Uncle Ben]

On what basis do you make that asinine comment, Prohibitionist?

This guy lives in a vacuum. Guess he's never heard of the Castle Doctrine, a right-to-protect law in most states, which entitles a home owner to use deadly force to protect lives and property of not only his family but of his friends and neighbors. Just ask Joe Horn who using a shotgun blew away 2 thugs breaking into his Houston neighbor's house. He was acquitted of any charges.

And when a bunch of neo Black Panthers marched down the neighborhood's street, they were met by a bunch of defiant, mean patriotic bikers.

This call is pretty chilling.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Since then the government has seized much more control than was ever intended as forseen by the founders of the country. And they had a simple resolution to the issue. When the government no longer supports the people you take the country back from it and start a new government. I dont think we are close to that point yet but things are not getting better in America due to the government they are getting worse.

Well your example was quite a stretch but well taken.

Your last point is so true. Our freedoms are being eroded little by little by the conglomerate of control freaks called "the feds". Obamacare is a good example.

I hope with this election we can get a conservative in there who will take back America. Trump is NOT that man, don't care what his phony sales pitch is.

 

[Flaming Pie]

Rights of one man do not come from another man....if they did they would be in reality granted privileges.

Maybe you should take a breather from engaging me, the gang of other shitty debaters will save you a seat at their losers table. I thought you were different. Boo hoo. Lol.

Where do rights come from?

If they come from man, they can be infringed or simply taken away.

 

[Rob Roy]

Where do rights come from?

If they come from man, they can be infringed or simply taken away.

That is a good question. Some people answer it in different ways.

However the answer to that question isn't needed to understand why the protection of them is important.

Wherever rights come from, they don't come from government. For instance a right is something that still exists whether government forbids it by legislation or coincides with it by legislation.

If murder, slavery, theft etc. were legislatively made legal, (they have been) those acts would still be wrong.

If self ownership were made illegal, (it has been made illegal) it doesn't mean practicing self ownership is wrong.


Many people confuse a right with a government grant of privilege, they are not the same thing.

 

[NLXSK1]

That is a good question. Some people answer it in different ways.

However the answer to that question isn't needed to understand why the protection of them is important.

Wherever rights come from, they don't come from government. For instance a right is something that still exists whether government forbids it by legislation or coincides with it by legislation.

If murder, slavery, theft etc. were legislatively made legal, (they have been) those acts would still be wrong.

If self ownership were made illegal, (it has been made illegal) it doesn't mean practicing self ownership is wrong.


Many people confuse a right with a government grant of privilege, they are not the same thing.

I would say that rights actually do come from the government.

Just to make things a bit clearer lets step back from the human race. What rights does a monkey or chimpanzee have? What rights does a cow or dog have? What rights does a coyote have?

We know that god didnt give us our rights because god doesnt defend our rights for us.

What rights do you have outside of a society? Say you are out in a field surrounded by 3 hungry lions. What rights do you have?

The rights we have in America are actually rules that prevent the government from infringing upon certain things. The rest is free for government meddling. Therefore, we only have rights in America to protect us from government. If there was no government, what rights would you have?

 

[UncleBuck]

On what basis do you make that asinine comment, Prohibitionist?

the fact that you think it should be legal to deny service to people because their skin is black.

 

[UncleBuck]

Our freedoms are being eroded little by little...Obamacare is a good example.

funny, the millions of people who no longer have to worry about losing their houses if they get sick would probably say they feel more free.

oh, by the way, you are welcome for that free socialized medicine i am providing to you, ya old sack of racist shit.

 

[undercovergrow]

so the oregon rancher was shot nine times, including in the face. this would explain his hands being up in a surrender position and then "dancing and reaching around" in the video that the fbi produced. a stolen weapon was also found on the dead rancher.

could someone explain to me then why the fbi would even release the video--even without sound, now the nine bullet holes kind of says a lot? thanks.

 

[NLXSK1]

so the oregon rancher was shot nine times, including in the face. this would explain his hands being up in a surrender position and then "dancing and reaching around" in the video that the fbi produced. a stolen weapon was also found on the dead rancher.

could someone explain to me then why the fbi would even release the video--even without sound, now the nine bullet holes kind of says a lot? thanks.

I am not sure how many times he was shot would explain why he was reaching for something inside his jacket. I am sure the video has been examined by.... Well, everyone since it is public.