Replies

Fair questions.

First, since I have an absolute right to self-defense, if you attack me or otherwise seek my harm, I am well within my rights to use deadly force to repel you. If I capture you instead, I would be within my rights to demand restitution from you for your evil deeds. Thus, I CAN consent to a system of courts and justice to do this on my behalf. Restitution should be the goal, to make the victim whole. If this is not possible, due to the nature of the crime, then imprisonment or death are options. If there is no victim to whom restitution can be made (due to, perhaps, the consensual nature of the act), then no CRIME has been committed and there is no need for government involvement.

And if a society cannot attract enough people to VOLUNTEER to defend it in its hour of need, then it deserves to go into the dustbin of history. Drafting people into an army is no more or less than government slavery. We ended the draft in this country in the ‘70s. Since then we have had NO problem attracting and keeping good men and women in the services.

The “eminent domain” clause in the Constitution is, in my opinion, one of the few things they got WRONG. There is NO legitimate authority for government to take private property by force. If the need for something isn’t sufficiently apparent that someone would voluntarily sell or contribute property for it, then it should NOT be done. How many times have citizens just up and DONATED property to governments for specific purposes? And, of course, how many times has government turned around and done everything BUT what it was donated for? (I speak now of the West LA VA Medical Center and how it is using property donated to be used strictly for and by VETERANS.)

We may cede authority to government, but we NEVER, EVER GIVE IT UP. You may rent out a room in your house to someone, but you do NOT give up title to it, do you?

In our society, we have a Constitution which lays out the limits ON GOVERNMENT. We may well be subject to legitimate laws passed, but only to LEGITIMATE ones. Each law passed MUST conform to the limits of governmental authority, as set forth in the Constitution which grants that government the right to exist. We, the People, retain full control over our government. Whether we exercise that control through the Ballot Box or the Soap Box or the Jury Box or the Ammo Box is entirely up to those we hire to do our bidding.

And, no, ceding authority to government to do things, as I have pointed out above, does NOT EVER grant them authority to do things which we cannot do ourselves. In the area of raising money, there are options which would NOT violate this principle. However, things like property taxes or income taxes are NOT among them. Sales taxes or tariffs on imports would be more or less OK, as would having protection or whatever clause were needed in homeowners and other insurance policies that would fund LEGITIMATE government activities.

I believe that successfully rebuts your points adequately.

And some good answers. I'll give you the first one (self-defense), I'll take issue with two of them, and you skipped one ("Can I take your money by force and spend it on the defense of our nation?")...

There is NO legitimate authority for government to take private property by force.

To give individuals a superior right to land would be foolish. How can a person be permitted to hold a nation hostage by posessing, for instance, complete ownership of a harbor? or river access? or a mountain pass? The very existence of nations has from time to time throughout history been determined by control of geographic features such as these.

Can the police commandeer a vehicle in an emergency? Do you also have a problem with Amendment III?

I'll grant you that this power has been and continues to be abused. But abuses do not negate principles.

Drafting people into an army is no more or less than government slavery.

But I didn't mention drafting people when I asked, "Can I order you to march into a battle you don’t want to fight?" The point I was trying to zero in on is that just as a soldier is a member of a body, so is the citizen of a nation. It's possible for individual liberty to not only conflict with but to endanger the interests of the body. A body of soldiers must act in coordination, and each soldier must subordinate his own interests and sacrifice for a greater purpose than his own, or he puts every other soldier at risk.

Now that's an extreme and dramatic illustration, but it's not an exception. Throughout history societies have, to one degree or another, compelled their member to conform to standards seen as being in the interest of the society. Ours is no different, nor should it be. Though our circumstances permit unprecedented individual freedom (since the risk of nonconformity is unprecedentedly low), not even America can survive total disregard for our society. (Even now we see the effects of loss of cohesion: disputes over language, the laws of foreign religions and customs, etc.)

But more to the point, once a soldier has joined himself to an army, he has ceded the authority to decide when, where and how to fight. And once a person has joined himself to a society, he has signed the social compact and in so doing ceded some of his individual freedom. Not all, but some.

It's possible for this to be abused as well. But again, abuses do not negate principles. (America tends, IMO, to err on the side of permitting too much deviance, leading to, in Sen. Moynihan's phrase, defining deviancy down.)

Once more, here's the question you missed: Can I take your money by force and spend it on the defense of our nation?