To Protect and to Serve II

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Let me break this down for you "impliedly"

Anything we do in the US is through the threat of violence to our person or property. Any contract we sign with government, be it license or a property tax, it can be implied that we're under duress while doing so. Because of the threat of violence implied by government through the criminal code. Because of the fact that the government has a monopoly of force in its given geographical area. That is what gives it the supposed "validity."

 

[RobsPics]

Let me break this down for you "impliedly"

Anything we do in the US is through the threat of violence to our person or property. Any contract we sign with government, be it license or a property tax, it can be implied that we're under duress while doing so. Because of the threat of violence implied by government through the criminal code. Because of the fact that the government has a monopoly of force in its given geographical area. That is what gives it the supposed "validity."

You would only be under duress if you were forced to agree. No one is forcing you to agree. You are 100% free to leave. The government is not threatening violence against you if you leave.

Just like no restaurant is forcing you to patronize it's establishment. You are free to leave. If you CHOOSE to patronize the restaurant, you impliedly agree to pay the restaurant. Similarly, if you CHOSE to live in the US, you impliedly agree to follow the rules of the US.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

You would only be under duress if you were forced to agree. No one is forcing you to agree. You are 100% free to leave. The government is not threatening violence against you if you leave.

Just like no restaurant is forcing you to patronize it's establishment. You are free to leave. If you CHOOSE to patronize the restaurant, you impliedly agree to pay the restaurant. Similarly, if you CHOSE to live in the US, you impliedly agree to follow the rules of the US.

No one is forcing me to get a drivers license, no one is forcing me to pay taxes? So misguided. The very notion is a threat of force.

Again, we're not free to leave.

 

[RobsPics]

No one is forcing me to get a drivers license.

Correct. No one forced you to drive a car on public roads. If you chose to drive a car on public roads, they you impliedly agreed to follow the rules of driving on public roads...whcih includes agree to obtain a drivers license.

, no one is forcing me to pay taxes?

Correct, no one is forcing you to work or otherwise obtain income (income tax). No one is forcing you to purchase goods (sales tax). No one is forcing you to own real property (property tax). Those are all things you voluntarily choose to do. And if you chose to do those acts, you impliedly agree to follow the laws pertaining to those acts.

Again, we're not free to leave.

Yes you are, the US government is not preventing you from leaving. Leaving is not the same as relinquishing citizenship.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Correct. No one forced you to drive a car on public roads. If you chose to drive a car on public roads, they you impliedly agreed to follow the rules of driving on public roads...whcih includes agree to obtain a drivers license.



Correct, no one is forcing you to work or otherwise obtain income (income tax). No one is forcing you to purchase goods (sales tax). No one is forcing you to own real property (property tax). Those are all things you voluntarily choose to do. And if you chose to do those acts, you impliedly agree to follow the laws pertaining to those acts.




Yes you are, the US government is not preventing you from leaving. Leaving is not the same as relinquishing citizenship.

I'm afraid we're at an empasse and I have better things to do than argue with a fool.

 

[RobsPics]

I'm afraid we're at an empasse and I have better things to do than argue with a fool.

You suggested that you were being forced to obtain a drivers license or pay taxes. I showed you why you aren't being forced. No reason for personal insults.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

You suggested that you were being forced to obtain a drivers license or pay taxes. I showed you why you aren't being forced. No reason for personal insults.

You are suggesting I cannot have a life without government. You are also implying they own everything. I'm sorry, that's very foolish and very servile.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I think/believe under this system with party affiliation as well as the oligarchy we've become voting becomes far less meaningful. I don't think you'll ever see me argue that point. And whether or not the one or two is meeting the "needs and wants" of a whole district is up to the voters as it should be. But unfortunately, the party affiliation determines whether or not a person will ascend to that position to help or not. And honestly, it's growing worse each and every election cycle.

But I also think all governments throughout time follow the same principles, whether it be the Tyranny Liberty Model:

https://adask.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/the-tyranny-liberty-cycle-of-government/

Or the Tytler Cycle:

The Tytler Cycle Revisited | Common Sense Government

Or maybe even a little bit of anarchy mixed in for good measure:

https://darkfort.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/56/

Big picture here, history is our guide and we're on the precipice of dark times regardless of the model you follow.



Governments do bring order, regardless of your thoughts on the matter, as they unify people under a common purpose and direction. Whether that's An-Cap or a Republic, all systems of government seek to gain order from chaos and implement laws. What level of laws is a matter of choice in the type of government.

GV, I'd like to offer this book to further our conversation. I think you'll like it. It's written by the same guy who wrote bostons gun bible. Cheers

Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government https://www.amazon.com/dp/1888766131/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_f-TcxbB3JN8WY

 

[RobsPics]

You are suggesting I cannot have a life without government.

No I am not. I am suggesting that you cannot live a life without the common goods and services provided by society. But the government never forced anyone to utilize any goods or services. If you voluntarily choose to utilize them, you impliedly agree to follow the laws about them.

You are also implying they own everything. I'm sorry, that's very foolish and very servile.

No I am not implying they own everything. I am explicitly claiming the gubmint regulates areas within its own borders. You don't have to own something in order to regulate it. Apartment renters don't own their apartments...but they still regulate who they invite as guests.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

GV, I'd like to offer this book to further our conversation. I think you'll like it. It's written by the same guy who wrote bostons gun bible. Cheers

Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government https://www.amazon.com/dp/1888766131/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_f-TcxbB3JN8WY

This is also a great book to read and consider the modern concept of prison and punishment.

Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison https://www.amazon.com/dp/0679752552/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_3gUcxbDXPF4CG

 

[volbeast33]

You are suggesting I cannot have a life without government. You are also implying they own everything. I'm sorry, that's very foolish and very servile.

i believe that there is a possible situation where a government wouldn't develop over time. I do believe we need rules and regulations to live peacefully with each other.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

i believe that there is a possible situation where a government wouldn't develop over time. I do believe we need rules and regulations to live peacefully with each other.

As you well know beast, I've never said I didn't want rules. Regulation can come from the market.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

No I am not. I am suggesting that you cannot live a life without the common goods and services provided by society. But the government never forced anyone to utilize any goods or services. If you voluntarily choose to utilize them, you impliedly agree to follow the laws about them.



No I am not implying they own everything. I am explicitly claiming the gubmint regulates areas within its own borders. You don't have to own something in order to regulate it. Apartment renters don't own their apartments...but they still regulate who they invite as guests.

I'm afraid you're very confused when it comes to property.

 

[RobsPics]

As you well know beast, I've never said I didn't want rules. Regulation can come from the market.

I'm afraid you're very confused when it comes to property.

How would the market regulate private property rights?

If all law enforcement were privatized, like many libertarians advocate for, there would be nothing to stop a wealthy person from capturing other people's private property. For example, if I was wealthy enough to assemble a private police force that could overwhelm your private police force so i could capture your private property, there would be nothing anyone could do about it. Is that an acceptable outcome to you?

 

[MercyPercy]

i believe that there is a possible situation where a government wouldn't develop over time. I do believe we need rules and regulations to live peacefully with each other.

The problem is that many of these rules and regulations do not promote peacefully living with eachother. They do the opposite. Our drug laws have facilitated the violent underground drug trade. When we make gambling illegal in some places, people resort to participating in shady games with bad dudes who might bust your kneecaps. When we make prostitution illegal, there's no rules or regulations protecting the prostitutes from being hurt and taken advantage of by scummy pimps. There's no health checks. Getting fined for a rolling stop at 2 AM isn't saving any lives and only promotes distrust with law enforcement.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

How would the market regulate private property rights?

If all law enforcement were privatized, like many libertarians advocate for, there would be nothing to stop a wealthy person from capturing other people's private property. For example, if I was wealthy enough to assemble a private police force that could overwhelm your private police force, there would be nothing anyone could do about it. Is that an acceptable outcome to you?

It's too long and drawn out to type. (Besides, it's sunday evening and I'm lazy, and I've started on the IPA's) For an in depth explanation watch this video.

The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary - YouTube

 

[RobsPics]

It's too long and drawn out to type. (Besides, it's sunday evening and I'm lazy, and I've started on the IPA's) For an in depth explanation watch this video.

The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary - YouTube

I've seen that video. It does't address the hypothetical I posted. If I assembled a larger private police force than yours, I could capture your private property, and you would have no recourse. Do you find that an acceptable outcome?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I've seen that video. It does't address the hypothetical I posted. If I assembled a larger private police force than yours, I could capture your private property, and you would have no recourse. Do you find that an acceptable outcome?

Then you haven't watched that video.

 

[RobsPics]

Then you haven't watched that video.

Yes I did. I think you are just trying to dodge the question of whether you find it an acceptable outcome. Because you could easily answer my question regardless of whether I watched the video.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Yes I did. I think you are just trying to dodge the question of whether you find it an acceptable outcome. Because you could easily answer my question regardless of whether I watched the video.

Oh god dude. It's in the video!

No protection agency would do that. They'd quickly go out of business.

 

[RobsPics]

Oh god dude. It's in the video!

I asked YOU if you find that outcome acceptable. I did not ask the author of that video. I asked YOU.

No protection agency would do that. They'd quickly go out of business.

That does not even make sense, because how would they go out of business if I paid them enough to be my exclusive police force?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I asked YOU if you find that outcome acceptable. I did not ask the author of that video. I asked YOU.




That does not even make sense, because how would they go out of business if I paid them enough to be my exclusive police force?

Then they'd have to exist on your money alone as income. No one else would do business with them in a voluntary society.

Besides, if they started a war, they'd quickly realize it's much cheaper to peacefully coexist.

 

[RobsPics]

Then they'd have to exist on your money alone as income. No one else would do business with them in a voluntary society.

If I was wealthy enough, they could exist on my money alone. And if I could assemble a larger force than you, I could capture your private property, and there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it/

Besides, if they started a war, they'd quickly realize it's much cheaper to peacefully coexist.

Not necessarily if my private police force started a war against yours, and wins. Because they could use it as a bargaining chip to increase their fee. So in fact, it would be financially prudent for them to start private wars.

 

[RobsPics]

Then they'd have to exist on your money alone as income. No one else would do business with them in a voluntary society.

And even if I could not hire my own exclusive police force, how do you know no one else in society would hire that private force? In fact, I would suspect that many land grabbers would hire a police force that specializes in capturing other people's land. What would stop them if that private police agency could overwhelm any agency you could employ?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

If I was wealthy enough, they could exist on my money alone. And if I could assemble a larger force than you, I could capture your private property, and there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it/





Not necessarily if my private police force started a war against yours, and wins. Because they could use it as a bargaining chip to increase their fee. So in fact, it would be financially prudent for them to start private wars.

How about we take it to this level. The stuff you're talking about is what happens here in thid country on a daily basis. Your guy trump uses eminent domain to get property he wants. So, now what? Where's the recourse?