Some people, contrary to your ardent, fanatical beliefs that NO GOVERNMENT IS LEGITIMATE, believe that government and liberty are not contradictory. You have no evidence that anyone here "despises the idea of liberty." And what you claim as your moral authority for zero government is dubious at best.

You believe in privatized force. I don't.

>>>>Some people, contrary to your ardent, fanatical beliefs that NO GOVERNMENT IS LEGITIMATE,<<<<

As opposed to your fanatical anti=liberty statist beliefs??

>>>> believe that government and liberty are not contradictory.<<<<

I am aware that you have this irrational opinion but you have yet to back it up, explain how they are not.

>>> You have no evidence that anyone here "despises the idea of liberty."<<<<

Nearly every time you post one of your anti-liberty schemes I explain in great detail why it is anti-liberty, anti-family, anti-life, anti-individual, anti-parent, etc., etc. Your posts are the evidence. Anyone can read them and read my responses.

>>>> And what you claim as your moral authority for zero government is dubious at best.<<<<

The law of God as opposed to edicts of men? Since you do not share my faith I don't expect you to share my worldview and moral authority. I know what MINE is, I want to know by what moral authority YOU presume to rule over others...even by proxy.

>>>>You believe in privatized force. I don't.<<<<

I am well aware that you do not believe the individual has any right to defend himself or his property, that he HAS no property even in himself that is free from state claim. That is why I would not live in YOUR state community.

Then don't live in my state community. Am I stopping you? What keeps you from withdrawing into a private realm ruled by your own personal beliefs in God? Oh, I know. You're afraid for your family.



Your explanations are inadequate by any measure. My posts are not anti-, anti-, anti- anything except in your mind. Yes, anyone can read them and see that you are wrong. Anyone can read them and see how little regard you have for children and their human rights. Parents are their autocrat masters, in your opinion, which no one has any right to interfere with.



First of all, I never said that anywhere. But what a sad way to look at humans, as objects, as commodities, their blood to be sold along with their kidneys. Yet you do not include women in the self-ownership category. No, women are supposed to sacrifice their own lives to bring a fetus to birth, according to you.



Humans are invested with the capacity to reason, with knowing principles of justice. You can claim that the law of God is your moral authority, but for every person on earth, there is a different understanding of what God is and what God's law is. I would rather follow the highest ethics of men than any edicts of men or whatever you believe the edicts of God might be. You have no evidence for your beliefs. They are beliefs and that is all they are. They are not a sound basis for governance or jurisprudence, however much you may believe that governments countravene in the rule of God.

The laws of the land should apply equally to atheists and agnostics as anyone else. Belief in God is not a prerequisite for governance. Unless, that is, you believe that theocratic rule is to be made the law of the land.

I've had quite enough of reading your claims that I am anti-liberty. To you, any laws except privatized ones are anti-liberty. I hope you get your wish and get to live in your nightmare of an anarcho-capitalist world. Surely that is where you want to be and where you belong. I would never try to stop you.

Further, I have posted over and over and over again that I do not think the current form of government, based on corporate rule, is legitimate. As much as you complain, you do nothing to change this state of affairs, claiming that citizenship is for the dumbed down. Your preferred method of improving things for the better seems to be complaining on how unjust the world is. That and perhaps prayer.

Good luck with privatizing the world.

>>>>>>Then don't live in my state community. Am I stopping you?<<<<

No alternative. The state won’t allow it.

>>>>>
What keeps you from withdrawing into a private realm ruled by your own personal beliefs in God? Oh, I know. You're afraid for your family. <<<<

Yeah, I have this cowardly desire to live and for my children to live.

>>>>>Quote:
Nearly every time you post one of your anti-liberty schemes I explain in great detail why it is anti-liberty, anti-family, anti-life, anti-individual, anti-parent, etc., etc. Your posts are the evidence. Anyone can read them and read my responses.XXXXXX
Your explanations are inadequate by any measure.<<<

No, they aren’t, and certainly not by MY measure, or any libertarian measure.

>>>>> My posts are not anti-, anti-, anti- anything except in your mind. Yes, anyone can read them and see that you are wrong. Anyone can read them and see how little regard you have for children and their human rights. Parents are their autocrat masters, in your opinion, which no one has any right to interfere with.<<<<<

And YOUR authority to interfere with them comes from……..what???

>>>>>>Quote:
I am well aware that you do not believe the individual has any right to defend himself or his property, that he HAS no property even in himself that is free from state claim.XXXXXXFirst of all, I never said that anywhere.<<<<<

You say that every time you claim the state has the right to steal from people, that only the state has any right to use “force”, that the state has the right to define for all how to parent, how to associate, etc.

>>>> But what a sad way to look at humans, as objects, as commodities, their blood to be sold along with their kidneys.<<<<

It is the individuals right, the logical extension of property rights. I would gladly sell a kidney for some good cause. Who elses business is it?

>>>>Yet you do not include women in the self-ownership category.<<<

Oh?? You have no basis for posting this.

>>>> No, women are supposed to sacrifice their own lives to bring a fetus to birth, according to you. <<<
No, I posted that it is their choice but that morally they have no right to kill an unborn child to save themselves any more trhan they would have a right to kill a born human to save themselves. Having a legal right does not mean it is morally right.>

Quote:
The law of God as opposed to edicts of men? I would definitely support the right of the woman to choose.

>>>>>Since you do not share my faith I don't expect you to share my worldview and moral authority. I know what MINE is, I want to know by what moral authority YOU presume to rule over others...even by proxy.XXXXXXX
Humans are invested with the capacity to reason, with knowing principles of justice.<<<<

Where do you get your “principles of justice”? Theft is not just, nor is state forced association, economic enslavement, dumbing down or debased currency. What is your authority?

>>>>> You can claim that the law of God is your moral authority, but for every person on earth, there is a different understanding of what God is and what God's law is.<<<<

EXACTLY!

>>>>I would rather follow the highest ethics of men than any edicts of men or whatever you believe the edicts of God might be.<<<

And you have that right! But so do I!

>>>>>You have no evidence for your beliefs. They are beliefs and that is all they are.<<<

I see evidence all around me, I see the predictions of Austrian economists that have come true, I have seen the dysfunction and evil that has arisen the further we stray from the righteous path. You do not so I fully support YOU living however you want. I simply reject your claim that ALL have to live according to your statism.

>>>> They are not a sound basis for governance or jurisprudence,<<<<

Since “governance” and “jurisprudence” as dispensed by the state is pretty much neither and protesting and making our voices heard has done nothing but further legitimize and empower the ruling elites, it is obviously a failed model from the standpoint of the ruled (but a rousing success from the standpoint of the ruling elites).

>>>however much you may believe that governments countravene in the rule of God.<<<

Which they do with regularity.

>>>>The laws of the land should apply equally to atheists and agnostics as anyone else.<<<

No human has the right to rule any other human without his/her consent.

>>>>Belief in God is not a prerequisite for governance. Unless, that is, you believe that theocratic rule is to be made the law of the land.<<<

That is, of course, IF you believe that there is one law for one big land. In which case tyranny of the traditionally religious by pagan state worshippers shall be the case OR tyranny of state worshippers by the traditionally religious. Since the traditionally religious have been FAR more tolerant than the state worshipping, PC, consensus shapers I’d opt for the former…at least their murderous urges are limited by the constraints of Gods law. There are no such constraints or criticisms in state worship. Might makes right, ends justify means, eggs must be broken to make perfect omelettes.

>>>>I've had quite enough of reading your claims that I am anti-liberty. To you, any laws except privatized ones are anti-liberty. I hope you get your wish and get to live in your nightmare of an anarcho-capitalist world. Surely that is where you want to be and where you belong. I would never try to stop you.<<<<

Good. Then we agree…except that depiction of anarcho-capitalism.

>>>>>Further, I have posted over and over and over again that I do not think the current form of government, based on corporate rule, is legitimate. As much as you complain, you do nothing to change this state of affairs, claiming that citizenship is for the dumbed down.<<<<

Yet you insist that “we” all have to reform it, improve it, make it work when it’s very premise is tyrannical.

>>>> Your preferred method of improving things for the better seems to be complaining on how unjust the world is. That and perhaps prayer.<<<

That is because my ideas and your ideas of what is “better” are radically different.

>>>>Good luck with privatizing the world.<<<

Thanks!

Louise,
Gee did you expect to get away with that? I don't think I ever commented on the Military Commissions Act and it is only possible that I have commented on the Patriot Act. However you have raised a good issue from the standpoint of a Classical Liberal.
When the Founders wrote the Constitution they did not intend for it to be a suicide pact. Therefore they left the President much more slack while he was defending the country than you collectivist liberals a re generally willing to admit.
You will also notice both of those bills were pasted with heavy bi-partisan support which indicates to me that the two bills also had heavy collectivist liberal support.
Additionally when you collectivist liberals start fighting over anything surrounding the presidency I always wonder if you are coming from principal, I don't know that you have any, or from a simple desire to have a competing bunch of collectivist liberal chucked out of office so you can be the boss.
As an example of my confusion notice all the policies of the Bush administration that were complained about loudly that are not greeted with yawns when Obama does them.
All of which leaves me wishing I could hear the opinions of Clarence Thomas, or Anthony Scalia, etal. Goodness knows the collectivist liberals purporting to express an opinion on principal tells us only which way the wind is blowing.
Ron

I did not write that as a defense of people you are calling collectivist liberals. I wrote it because I believe the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act are both in violation of the Constitution.

I am also against expanded unitary executive powers that grew stronger under Bush and that now Obama is also invoking.

BTW, I think you mean principle.

I hope in the above remark you were not referring to me.

Louise,
" I believe the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act are both in violation of the Constitution."
I've often heard that said the Patriot Act was unconstitutional. However the Constitution gives the President much more power during wartime. Many believe the enhanced power to tap the communications of enemy combatants who are calling into the US is well within those enhanced powers. On the other hand I have never heard the MSM claim that any American's rights have been violated.
Am I on the right page with the military commissions act? If we capture a enemy combatant tell me what law he has broken that he should be subject to our civilian courts? Tell me what proves a civilian justice to be more moral and ethical than our military officers? Tell me what teaches a civiian justice more about battlefield conditions than what a military officer knows. If you subject a enemy combatant to a civilian court are you not denying him the right to be tried by his peers - other military men?
Ron

>>>>In the US we live under a system of anarchy <<<

LOL!

>>>>with only those laws that we accepted by contract<<<

Where's this "contract" "we" accepted"?? Produce it.

>>>> with all power remaining in the hands of the people.<<<<

Which is why the workers are being taxed out of 9 months of procuction a year...."we" are so "powerful". Right! Posted like a check receiver, not a check PAYER.

>>>>110 years ago with the presidency of T. Roosevelt you collectiviest liberals began accumulating enough power to attempt to corrupt the system.<<<<

"The systemic corruption" began when Washington attacked his own people with the Whiskey Rebellion at mercantilist Hamiltons urging.

>>>> That is why we are in this mess.<<<<

We are in this mess because generations of dumbing down and brainwashing of children into believing that mythology you posted at the beginning.

JS,
Thank you for answering. I suppose if I can give factual and logical answers you will be honor bound to drop your non-factual statements.

"Where's this "contract" "we" accepted"?? Produce it.'
Sure nothing could be simpler. I assume you have seen the Constitution of the United States of America? Right or wrong?
The Constitution is not a law passed by a ruling legislature. There was none at that moment considering that agreement.
The Constitution was not handed down by a court or a king.
The Constitution is a contract agreed upon by a free people. It is nothing else.

"Which is why the workers are being taxed out of 9 months of procuction a year...."we" are so "powerful". Right! Posted like a check receiver, not a check PAYER."
Have you read John Taylor Gatto's Underground History? If you have and have listened to the historian Stephen Davies, Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (available on Youtube.com under that title) you will know there was a huge sea change in our government beginning sometime after 1870 and hitting its high water mark around 1940. If you then read the introduction to Andrew Carnegie's, Gospel of Wealth you will get a general description of how and by whom that came about. If you then read the Federalist Papers you will come to realize that the power to rule has never passed from "We the People."
Whether or not you choose to acknowledge our contract the fact remains that the rest of us have formed a contract and are living under it more or less peaceably. We have our problems. We will settle those ourselves. The point is that we have the contract, we have the power and we are in the process of taking our country back.
Ron

>>>>>Well, if Jeff Tucker as spoken, that's it? The final word?<<<<

LOL! Perhaps if I had written in the subject line:
"JEFFREY TUCKER on "The THird Way".... you would have been suitably impressed. The point is noy Jeffrey Tucker, the point is the ideas he expresses (although I find Tucker a very intelligent and consistent thinker).

Now, do you have any comment on what he has written? Any refutation of what he has expressed? Do you think what he has written is untrue? Why?

>>>>So, according to you, the only force of law permissible is that employed to keep people out of covenant communities and the rest of your privatized world?<<<<

Force of law? What do you mean? Are you saying that if people form a mutually agreed upon contracted community on their own private property others who do not agree to abide by their rules and values should be allowed to trespass and force the community to associate withn them?

>>>>>Interesting. There should be no government or enforceable public laws. The only laws that should be enforced are those initiated by private entities and security forces. What a world.<<<<<

YOU certainly would be able to contract and live in a state type community where you have drug laws, taxation, a DEA, a Sept of "Education", an EPA, etc., etc. Everyone wins instead of SOME people forcing other people to live in what THEIR version of what society should be. A much more harmonious arrangement and with less bickering and contention.

I have no comments to make on Tucker's article.

The point I was making was that you view force by government as illegitimate, but you seem to have no such compunction about privatized force.

Tell us in how many other instances besides "covenant communities" you would view use of force as legitimate? How much force? How much force and private security companies would be needed to protect your privatized world?

Would you have privatized jails to keep law and order or would you just shoot people on sight?

>>>>The point I was making was that you view force by government as illegitimate, but you seem to have no such compunction about privatized force.<<<<<

???Huh? Only in self defense or defense of private property.

>>>>>Tell us in how many other instances besides "covenant communities" you would view use of force as legitimate?<<<<<<

Self defense or defense of private property. The same rights that used to be lawful in this country....unless you lived in a community that contracted to relinquish these rights for some reason.

>>>>> How much force? How much force and private security companies would be needed to protect your privatized world?<<<<<

As much as necessary. Probably far less than is used against people for no reason now by the state.

>>>>Would you have privatized jails to keep law and order or would you just shoot people on sight?<<<<

Not my community. I'd throw them out with a warning to not ever return unless they were able to provide restitution for whatever they did to the wronged party. And I certainly would never shoot anyone I couldn't see.

The point is, you are invoking the third way, violence and coercion, but privatized violence.

The same violence you claim is wrong, murderous, thieving, etc., when used by the state.

This makes no sense to me, none whatsoever. Further, I'd rather have a court system and a Constitution in place and rely on PRINCIPLES of justice than on privatized violence set up by privatized forces to oversee a privatized world.

You have no reliable way of predicting that.

>>>>The point is, you are invoking the third way, violence and coercion, but privatized violence.
The same violence you claim is wrong, murderous, thieving, etc., when used by the state.<<<<

Self defense is not a "Third way". It is a legitimate right. What good is a property right without a right to defend your property or person??

>>>>This makes no sense to me, none whatsoever.<<<<

As your position makes no sense to me.

>>>> Further, I'd rather have a court system and a Constitution in place and rely on PRINCIPLES of justice than on privatized violence set up by privatized forces to oversee a privatized world.<<<

And YOU are welcome to them.

>>>>>Quote:
As much as necessary. Probably far less than is used against people for no reason now by the state.XXXX
You have no reliable way of predicting that.<<<<

Look just on youtube at the many many instances of recorded state violence against the innocent, not to mention the wars being waged all over the place. Subtract state sized wars, that leaves the "violence" of self defense and property defense. Their would be the occ aggressor but he/she would be limited by resistance to his/her illegitimate force. Look at the difficulty superstates like the US and USSR have had occupying foreign countries with far smaller armies and supplies.

JS,
I'm just curious but are you aware that the Roman Catholic people invented modern capitalism and that scholars from the Roman Church developed the first, and todate the best, theoretical underpinnings for capitalism. Adam Smith and Ayn Rand are johny come latelies.
Ron