Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: illinoissmith
Why do you think so?

Because the coming of Messiah is very near. The rest of our conversation is predicated on the assumption that Messiah hasn't come yet, and will be moot when he does.

To me this is suspicious because I wonder if you have a paranoia about structure.

On the contrary, I keep saying plain as day that you keep insisting on the need for "structure", where that value-neutral term almost certainly means that there must exist a hierarchy of the sort usually called "government".

If you believe that taxation is not theft, then you are part of the problem: you believe that some theft is morally legitimate. IF humans ever achieve true civilization, if will not involve any adult human initiating force on any other adult human for any reason whatsoever.

I can't tell if you're really understanding this, because most humans can't imagine a world without "government", and you seem to have the same difficulty. Such people are usually easy to spot: explain to them how society works without government, and they ask, "So who's in charge?" Nothing you say will convince them that there isn't really a government at work somewhere in the picture. After all, having a government is synonymous with "civilization"....

I am, in fact, not on your property and thus not, in fact, infringing on your rights, and thus not, in fact, someone you are justified in shooting at.

Obviously I won't shoot you for telling me that I must obey the government. If I had a death wish, I would shoot the government emissary who tries to infringe on my rights, not you. But to the extent that you condone his crimes, you are indeed part of the problem. You're essentially an unindicted co-conspirator.

No, the concept of "rulership" is the concept of, do we support, somehow or another, anything systematic, in any way, or not?

No; you're experiencing the difficulty that I described above. Namely, you can't really accept the concept that "rulership" itself is not necessary. If I'm not infringing on your rights, then the ruler has nothing to do. If I am, you will defend yourself, and again the ruler has nothing to do. No ruler is actually necessary.

In fact I'm a minarchist, rather than an anarchist, for one reason. Humans aren't capable of accepting that rulership is itself not necessary. Therefore, if all governments magically vanished tomorrow, a critical mass of people would immediately start creating them. They'd start with warlords, and work their way up to congresses in no time. The folks (like me) who say, "Hey, you've just been freed from slavery--why do you want back IN?" will be suppressed quickly.

Yes, I believe there must be "government".

Exactly. Too many people make the same mistake. Believing in government means you believe the government can tax me, whether I like it or not. I assume you'll make the silly excuse that I'm "benefitting from government services" that I never asked for and, given a choice, wouldn't pay for. In other words, you believe that one special gang of thugs should be blessed with the authority to take my stuff, imprison my person, and even, potentially, take my life. You are part of the problem.

Government, as a broad principle, creates patterns by way of standards.

Your flowery language seems to help you dodge the hard reality. "Government" is a bunch of people who can take our stuff, whether we like it or not, and can use whatever level of force against our persons that they deem necessary for their own ends. When the Mafia does it, it's organized crime. When a man in a dark suit does it, you believe he's entitled.

If you think something magical will happen and then no dude will ever steal my car...

Of course people will try. However, you will shoot them. Problem solved. Crime will exist, but it will be much rarer than it is today.

living beings are opportunistic

Exactly! They can comprehend the simple equation: "Trade benefits us both. Stealing will get my @ss shot. Hmmm.... Lemme think about this one..."

What about family?

I believe that family is necessary for society to function. That is one of the reasons that I don't believe humans will ever finally achieve civilization. You can see it in college: thousands of kids leave "daddy" every year, and immediately begin a terrifying clamor for a new "daddy". That's why every human being is, at some point in his life, a socialist. I was, until I was about 12. Most people are until their late twenties, when they've had to pay a few tax bills. Well-raised kids graduate from socialism by age 5 or so. But every last one of us is born socialist. That's why there seems to be such an inexhausitble supply of them.

Victims are sometimes their own victimizers, so I'm not sure that any society can virtually eliminate victimizers.

Civilization doesn't eliminate every negative aspect of humanity. If a man victimizes himself, then both parties are consenting to the transaction. There's not much that "society" can do about it. Nor should we try! Your reasoning is precisely that of the folks who would ban smoking, or fatty foods... as soon as you decide that someone should force me to do X, for my own good, you're demonstrating that you've only recently swung down from the tree branches and started walking upright.

186 posted on 02/10/2006 4:31:50 AM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies ]


To: Shalom Israel

I am so with you on this. Nice logic. When the Kingdom comes, the need for men to rule over one another will cease. Here's the idea couched in religious/social authority, but applicable nonetheless:

Matthew 23
Religious Fashion Shows

1Now Jesus turned to address his disciples, along with the crowd that had gathered with them. 2"The religion scholars and Pharisees are competent teachers in God's Law. 3You won't go wrong in following their teachings on Moses. But be careful about following them. They talk a good line, but they don't live it. They don't take it into their hearts and live it out in their behavior. It's all spit-and-polish veneer.

4"Instead of giving you God's Law as food and drink by which you can banquet on God, they package it in bundles of rules, loading you down like pack animals. They seem to take pleasure in watching you stagger under these loads, and wouldn't think of lifting a finger to help. 5Their lives are perpetual fashion shows, embroidered prayer shawls one day and flowery prayers the next. 6They love to sit at the head table at church dinners, basking in the most prominent positions, 7preening in the radiance of public flattery, receiving honorary degrees, and getting called "Doctor' and "Reverend.'

8"Don't let people do that to you, put you on a pedestal like that. You all have a single Teacher, and you are all classmates. 9Don't set people up as experts over your life, letting them tell you what to do. Save that authority for God; let him tell you what to do. No one else should carry the title of "Father'; you have only one Father, and he's in heaven. 10And don't let people maneuver you into taking charge of them. There is only one Life-Leader for you and them--Christ.

11"Do you want to stand out? Then step down. Be a servant.


187 posted on 02/10/2006 4:41:27 AM PST by ovrtaxt (Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back. -Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies ]

To: Shalom Israel
"Because the coming of Messiah is very near."

My understanding is that the book from which this comes both says that (1) the Messiah will come back in the generation that lived at the time of the crucification, and (2) no one knows when the Messiah will come back.

This is one of the reasons I don't take as hard fact all the material in that book.

"On the contrary, I keep saying plain as day that you keep insisting on the need for "structure", where that value-neutral term almost certainly means that there must exist a hierarchy of the sort usually called "government"."

Discussed previously. All structure requires government. Not all government is oppressive. Humans governing other humans (even by punishing them for rights infringement) is oppressive. Not all oppression is bad - in fact, oppression of rights-infringers is ultimately good. Think about your words for a moment. They mean differently than what you wish them to mean.

"If you believe that taxation is not theft,"

Taxation is theft. Service fees are not, as long as you can decline the service.

"IF humans ever achieve true civilization, if will not involve any adult human initiating force on any other adult human for any reason whatsoever."

It will involve adult humans reacting to initiation of force with punishment. That induces structure, and is thus a type of government.

"But to the extent that you condone his crimes, you are indeed part of the problem. You're essentially an unindicted co-conspirator."

If I'm not actually doing something to help the government, and if I'm not actually in a position where the government can rely on me to do something in a pinch, I'm not a co-conspirator. The only reason to say so, unless you are absolutely clear that you won't physically injure me or my property either way, and unless you keep it absolutely clear in all your communications that you are not classifying me with people against whom you consider force justified, is to scare me and other people into joining your side.

"No; you're experiencing the difficulty that I described above. Namely, you can't really accept the concept that "rulership" itself is not necessary."

Incorrect. Rulership is necessary for anything other than random movement of particles. Don't confound this with rulership of humans over other humans.

"'Government, as a broad principle, creates patterns by way of standards.

Your flowery language seems to help you dodge the hard reality. "Government" is a bunch of people who can take our stuff, whether we like it or not, and can use whatever level of force against our persons that they deem necessary for their own ends. When the Mafia does it, it's organized crime. When a man in a dark suit does it, you believe he's entitled."

It is not flowery, it is technical. "Government" is not the problem. It is not even what you seem to be saying the problem is, though your use of words does not make that clear. Forcible human government of other humans, using a means other than punishment for rights infringement, is what you have a problem with. That's fine, but you are advocating a form of unwritten constitutionalism. That's fine, but there is still government involved. Think technically.

"Of course people will try. However, you will shoot them. Problem solved. Crime will exist, but it will be much rarer than it is today."

This is government. Humans punishing other humans for rights infringement, and only for rights infringement, is still government, because 'government' is a broad term. You have to qualify the term 'government' with a term like 'unjust' or something to get it to mean what you seem to want it to mean.

"Exactly! They can comprehend the simple equation: "Trade benefits us both. Stealing will get my @ss shot. Hmmm.... Lemme think about this one..."

Yes, of course. This is a kind of government. It is a type of unwritten constitutionalism. People, on the whole, voluntarily act according to rules, because it is in their benefit, and they can understand this, with some education. Those rules still exist, even if unwritten.

"'Victims are sometimes their own victimizers, so I'm not sure that any society can virtually eliminate victimizers.'

Civilization doesn't eliminate every negative aspect of humanity. If a man victimizes himself, then both parties are consenting to the transaction. There's not much that "society" can do about it. Nor should we try! Your reasoning is precisely that of the folks who would ban smoking, or fatty foods... as soon as you decide that someone should force me to do X, for my own good, you're demonstrating that you've only recently swung down from the tree branches and started walking upright."

This was my point. My point was that tyrants are what I'm interested in getting rid of, and I was unclear as to why you used the word 'victimizers' instead of 'tyrants'. I found it suspicious, and noted it for that reason. I said "not so sure" because for all I know, when individuals have much more power over their own lives, it might drastically reduce their willingness to self-victimize. Who knows. But at any rate, of course that is the individual's own business - you just get a gigantic mess if you start giving his neighbors power to interfere with his right to self-victimization.
198 posted on 02/12/2006 10:54:26 PM PST by illinoissmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson