Replies

"As I said, "freedom" never includes the right to initiate force against someone else. You don't need to specifically mention such an exclusion, except perhaps in grammar school, when teaching the kiddies about freedom."

Your words mean other than you wish them to mean. "Human Liberty" in the political sphere is a term loaded with both ideas about lack of constraints (freedom) and ideas about moral good.

You think it is good for people to have the freedom to kill themselves and bake bread and trade hogs and so on. You think it is bad for people to have the freedom to kill other people and break into their homes. I agree. However, these are moral judgments. You can't just swipe them under how you use the term 'freedom' and be done with it. It is wrong when these are swept under the rug in grammar school, it is worse when adults don't realize there has been a sweeping under the rug.

"True--but that's equally true today."

My whole point was that it is relevant today - thus the comment about "twin gods of pain elimination and stopping evolution".

I basically agree with the rest, about police and security companies. They do lots of bad. The only way that will stop, is for people to know about it, and to pressure government to change for the better, or wait for government to collapse.

"In other words, it's OK with you that they have the authority to take your property, tax your money, and arrest or shoot you, because you feel trustful that they won't use those powers in ways that you object to (very much). It's touching that you have this level of trust. If I don't share it, am I allowed to opt out? If I can opt out, then I wish you the best of luck with this "government" thing of yours. If I can't, then you are approving the use of force against me."

NO NO NO that is not what I mean, is this a farce? It is because I recognize that the word 'government' has a meaning other than that I wish it to have for the moment! You have to qualify the word to get it to mean 'governing of humans over humans' (oppression of some humans by others)! You have to qualify it further to mean 'governing of humans over humans through through some means other than the punishing of rights infringers' (unjustifiable oppression).

I think we agree more than we would know for the sake of term usage.

I think a lot of the places where I had guessed in you something very nefarious it was over term usage issues and nothing worse. I'm sorry about the weird fight club post, if it was off mark - for confusion over terms, I had judged you for a death-wish anarchist, I know many such folks IRL, they are all obsessed with Fight Club, and I really have a strong problem with their beliefs. I have a HUGE problem with their beliefs. If you are not of this sort, and now I'm really thinking you are not, I'm sorry for even the suggestion that you might be. I was led to it by your use of terms.

I'm just going to stop here because I agree with your sentiments in the above quote paragraph, and will in fact bold it for emphasis. It is not good to trust a government that can break into your home and steal your children, etc.. It is not good to have a government which can break into your home and steal your children, etc. We mainly seem to be using terms totally differently from each other. It doesn't seem to be useful.

It is because I recognize that the word 'government' has a meaning other than that I wish it to have for the moment! You have to qualify the word to get it to mean 'governing of humans over humans' (oppression of some humans by others)! You have to qualify it further to mean 'governing of humans over humans through through some means other than the punishing of rights infringers' (unjustifiable oppression).

In other words, you can come up with examples of "government" which don't involve any humans ruling over any other humans? Please do! I look forward to this enlightening--nay, amazing--discovery.

You're being slightly sneaky, though. The police do not just have power to punish rights infringers. They have extra powers: for example, if they think there's a "rights infringer" hiding in my basement, they can break into my house, whether I want them to or not--and, if I resist, they can shoot me. They will not be punished for my death, even if no rights infringer ever turns up in my basement.

The "power to punish wrong-doers" inherently includes the power to do all sorts of things to innocent bystanders. It is inherent in what police are, that they must infringe some rights, in the name of catching rights-infringers. You think that's OK. I don't.