That's utter nonsense. I would assume (perhaps wrongly, but I'll go with it anywise) that you would agree that "oppression" can generally be defined along the lines of "burdensome, unjustly harsh, or tyrannical", and that in the context of our discussion, it basically has the idea of preventing a person from exercising their liberties in an unhindered fashion, no? Further, we all can agree that our liberties extend to, but do not end with, our freedom to life, liberty, and property (which is what Jefferson wanted to put in before opting for the broader "pursuit of happiness"), right?
Well now, however much we may not like paying taxes and whatnot, and justly preceive much of what the government does to be beyond the scope of what is proper, there are acts which individuals perpetrate against other individuals, on a day to day basis, which are far more egregious and acute violations of each others' liberties.
The government never violates the property rights of the vast majority of Americans, yet we burgle, rob, and larcenate each other to the tune of hundreds of thousands of incidents each year. The government doesn't physically harm or kill the vast majority of Americans, yet we murder, assault, and batter each other thousands of times a year. A person is far more likely to be kidnapped by a fellow citizen than by a rogue government agent. And so forth. While it is fashionable to pin the "gubmint" up as a catchall boogeyman, the fact remains that in the course of our lifetimes, you and I are much more likely to suffer the acute effects of having our rights trampled on other individual citizens than we are to suffer the same from the government.
As the classical liberal poliphilos pointed out, this is why government was instituted as a necessary evil in the first place - to provide a means by which the liberties of each citizen could be secured from the depradations of other individuals.
You know it is. I told you in my posts 8: "Objective law. When a person thinks they have been harmed they can take the suspect to court and do their best to convince an impartial jury that they have been harmed and to what extent so that you may gain restitution for your loss."8. I said it again in post 17 which you responded to.
All this being said, then, I fail to see why you still have your knickers in a knot about anything I've argued.
Again, as plain as the nose on your face. That's an awful lot of words you used there to state the glaringly obvious. Sheesh!!
Yes, it DOES seem obvious, except that you didn't seem to show that you got it previously.
It's not meaningless. It's the root of the Libertarian platform. BTW, I'm not a Libertarian. Anyhow, it's true that better than 95% of the populace lives by that. It's the 3,000 laws and regulations created each year by republicans and democrats that for the most part initiate force, thereat of force and fraud against persons and their property. And the populace continues voting for the lesser of evils knowing that it still always begets evil.
Well, your statement was meaningless because it didn't have anything to do with what I had actually written before. I am saying that it is "meaningless" from a "contextual" standpoint. Get it?
I never said you were a Libertarian. I have made statements, instead, about "libertarians", i.e. the "small-l" political philosophy.
Yes it occurred to me. It's not because of the laws nearly as much as it is respect for their neighbor. That is, better than 95% of the populating lives by a sort of golden rule: do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
That's where you're wrong. I do not believe that mankind is by nature "good". Instead, I believe that, by nature, mankind has a tendency to want to violate the rights of others, if he thinks it will be to his own benefit, if he has the opportunity and the means to do so. In this respect, I am right in line with the mainstream of classical republicanism and liberalism, from Machiavelli through Hobbes to Locke and Smith. This libertarian notion that man is by nature good and inclined to respect the rights of others out of the goodness of his own heart is nonsense from proto-socialists like Voltaire, and is unsupported by the actual evidence of a history full of human activity. Indeed, if people really were as inclined to follow the Golden Rule as you believe them to be, then we wouldn't have a problem from government, for it (being made up of people like you and me) would be as benevolent as the average man is supposed to be. We all know that government, however, tends NOT to be benevolent, and this is because power corrupts the human heart, using the material ALREADY THERE IN THE HEART. Government merely provides an easier way to exercise that corruption more broadly.
On the other hand, about 9 percent of the populace does recreational drugs despite that there are laws against it. And about 40% of the populace has at least once used an illicit drug, again despite the laws against it. Laws cannot force morality into people -- the 95% do it based on their own objective reasoning. Initiating force against a person is immoral, ingesting a drug isn't.
I never argued the opposite. This is just more of your projecting a straw man upon me because I said naughty things about libertarianism. Actually, I do not support the drug war, even though I personally find drug use to be immoral. I find the drug war to be excessively intrusive upon our property rights, and our privacy rights per the res privata.
All the contracts I've had with clients have designated arbitration as a means to their resolution. Correct me if I'm in error, but I assume you think private contracts should be protected so long as they don't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any person or their property? Absolutely I do. But ultimately, it's not MY view on the matter that you have to worry about - it's the view of both the parties to the contract. Private arbitration is fine on paper, but unenforceable in an absolute sense if one party decides to shaft the other.
TQC: Your neighbour who won't restrain his own behaviour is as oppressive as a government that won't restrain itself. 4
Zon: No person could possibly be as oppressive as government. Your hyperbole which you began with in your 4 post. 21
That's utter nonsense.
Pardon me for a moment while I LMAO!!
I would assume (perhaps wrongly, but I'll go with it anywise) that you would agree that "oppression" can generally be defined along the lines of "burdensome, unjustly harsh, or tyrannical", and that in the context of our discussion, it basically has the idea of preventing a person from exercising their liberties in an unhindered fashion, no?
How many nuclear warheads does the United States government own? The government could detonate them all in strategic locations and that is easily much more oppression than any citizen could oppress people. Alcohol prohibition oppressed people. There's no way one person could do that. The federal government has taken via of threat of force, trillions of dollars from US citizens. There's no way one person could do that.
there are acts which individuals perpetrate against other individuals, on a day to day basis, which are far more egregious and acute violations of each others' liberties.
Pardon me for a moment while I LMAO!! Okay, see my first paragraph above. I note that you have changed your context from one person to individuals (more than one person).
The government doesn't physically harm or kill the vast majority of Americans, yet we murder, assault, and batter each other thousands of times a year.
You continue with your new context of using many people. You also got this "we" thing going. You may murder, assault and batter people but I sure don't Probably you were just stuck on collectivist mode. Your communitarian stripe is showing through. Certainly not an individual person mode.
All this being said, then, I fail to see why you still have your knickers in a knot about anything I've argued.
Not my problem, I just like exposing dishonesty. Thanks for contributing.
Zon: Again, as plain as the nose on your face. That's an awful lot of words you used there to state the glaringly obvious. Sheesh!! 21
Yes, it DOES seem obvious, except that you didn't seem to show that you got it previously.
Here's what I wrote in post 17: "It means a civil court deciding if you suffered a loss and what amount of restitution you are due. Criminal court is a different issue -- I bring it up only to acknowledge it. The zoning laws your neighbor broke are what was supposed to restrain him." Who besides government operates courts and makes zoning laws? I don't know how to comprehend that as anything but government courts and government zoning laws. Yet, as you just wrote: "you didn't seem to show that you got it previously". How do you think I meant that (my words in this paragraph in italics from my 17 post)?
That's where you're wrong. I do not believe that mankind is by nature "good".
That's where you are glaringly wrong. If man was by nature bad he would have annihilated the species long ago. Certainly religious leaders and government leaders have done their part toward proving you right. But they still failed. Meanwhile, men and women researching science and doing business have seen to it that they benefit themselves while benefiting others as they create and produce tradable values. So if it were not for murder being illegal you would murder people? Now I see where this came from: "yet we murder, assault, and batter each other thousands of times a year." You think and feel you need an external authority to guide you through life? That you are ill equipped to be the highest authority in your life -- you must have government authority to guide you? If not, why is it that you think other people need the external authority of government to guide them but you don't? Do you think so highly of yourself that perhaps you are made of finer clay than the rest of the populace?
This libertarian notion that man is by nature good and inclined to respect the rights of others out of the goodness of his own heart is nonsense from proto-socialists like Voltaire, and is unsupported by the actual evidence of a history full of human activity.
You do like your labels. The evidence of history shows that religious leaders and government leaders (bogus external authorities) have whipped people into a frenzy to go murderous crusades and wars. And there's the twentieth century where bogus external authorities killed over a hundred million innocents. Yet you still champion the need for those leaders to create laws to guide you.
Indeed, if people really were as inclined to follow the Golden Rule as you believe them to be, then we wouldn't have a problem from government, for it (being made up of people like you and me) would be as benevolent as the average man is supposed to be.
That is a problem. It's a product of dogma and propaganda manipulating via mysticism in people. It's a quagmire and topic of discussion for another day. In short, the problem is the disease of mysticism that afflicts virtually every person. A disease that can be cured.
I never argued the opposite.
I know that and I never implied that you did. I used it as an example to refute your argument. Which it did successfully. Which is why you further obfuscate with this: "This is just more of your projecting a straw man upon me because I said naughty things about libertarianism."
Actually, I do not support the drug war, even though I personally find drug use to be immoral. I find the drug war to be excessively intrusive upon our property rights, and our privacy rights per the res privata.
I could care less. That has nothing to do with the point I made. I do see how it could be useful to your obfuscation.
I assume you think private contracts should be protected so long as they don't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any person or their property?
Absolutely I do.
I'll remember that. You do of course know that protecting private contracts is an important part of the Libertarian platform and libertarian philosophy, don't you?
But ultimately, it's not MY view on the matter that you have to worry about - it's the view of both the parties to the contract.
My concern is that government will prohibit certain acts or objects. Thereby not protecting private contracts that do not initiate force.