The 'Voluntarism can't provide Essential Services' Argument

[Reikoku]

And what's the Declaration of Independence?  A holy document penned by god himself?  It was a document written to establish a new state and approved/signed off on by the US congress of the time, and you're the resident state-hater... but you'll quote it because it happens to fit your worldview.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I am merely providing evidence that the State doesn't live up to it's own justification for existence. .  

No, what you're doing is arbitrarilly using a document created by the state to justify actions against the state because you don't like other state created documents.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

You most certainly can have your cake and eat it too. As it happens, A am doing exactly that right now. (Chocolate peanutbutter!mmmm.) What you are trying to say is that you can't eat your cake and have it too, Brainiac.

There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State. You seem to think  it's a one way street. Whether I like other state documents is irrelevant. It's obvious that the Constitution effectively does little if anything to restrain the growth, size and scope of the federal government. The American republic was a noble experiment that failed. Limited government was not achieved.

Give any person or group infinite power and tell them to restrain themselves, and the same is likely to happen. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[AyeYo]

And what's the Declaration of Independence?  A holy document penned by god himself?  It was a document written to establish a new state and approved/signed off on by the US congress of the time, and you're the resident state-hater... but you'll quote it because it happens to fit your worldview.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I am merely providing evidence that the State doesn't live up to it's own justification for existence. .  

No, what you're doing is arbitrarilly using a document created by the state to justify actions against the state because you don't like other state created documents.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

You most certainly can have your cake and eat it too. As it happens, A am doing exactly that right now. (Chocolate peanutbutter!mmmm.) What you are trying to say is that you can't eat your cake and have it too, Brainiac.

There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State. You seem to think  it's a one way street. Whether I like other state documents is irrelevant. It's obvious that the Constitution effectively does little if anything to restrain the growth, size and scope of the federal government. The American republic was a noble experiment that failed. Limited government was not achieved.

Give any person or group infinite power and tell them to restrain themselves, and the same is likely to happen. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That doesn't address the point.  Reread and respond to the point.

[MoonShadow]

There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State.

...if you live in illogical land, which you obviously do, being a libertarian and all.


It's like saying Christianity is wrong and then quoting the Bible to prove your point.   

You do realize that the founders were ideologically far closer to libertarians than anything other politcal ideology that can be found in the United States today, right?

[myrkul]

There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State.

...if you live in illogical land, which you obviously do, being a libertarian and all.


It's like saying Christianity is wrong and then quoting the Bible to prove your point.   

Like this?:

Christianity condones Baby-killing!
Psalms 137:9

Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
   and dashes them against the rock!

[MoonShadow]

There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State.

...if you live in illogical land, which you obviously do, being a libertarian and all.


It's like saying Christianity is wrong and then quoting the Bible to prove your point.   

Like this?:

Christianity condones Baby-killing!
Psalms 137:9

Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
   and dashes them against the rock!

Out of context much?

"O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
   blessed shall he be who repays you
   with what you have done to us!
9Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
   and dashes them against the rock!"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+137&version=ESV

[AyeYo]

There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State.

...if you live in illogical land, which you obviously do, being a libertarian and all.


It's like saying Christianity is wrong and then quoting the Bible to prove your point.   

You do realize that the founders were ideologically far closer to libertarians than anything other politcal ideology that can be found in the United States today, right?

Says who?

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -Thomas Jefferson

"All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it." - Benjamin Franklin

"Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers." - John Jay

"It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the greater, not the perfect, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment." - James Madison

"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." - Thomas Paine

"Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power." - James Madison

"Personal property is the effect of Society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist, the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation therefore of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes, on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came. This is putting the matter on a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine the case minutely, it will be found, that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labour that produced it; the consequence of which is, that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence. It is perhaps impossible to proportion exactly the price of labour to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily, he would not save it against old age nor be much the better for it in the interim. Make then Society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund, for it is no reason that because he might not make a good use of it for himself that another shall take it." - Thomas Paine


Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.  

[myrkul]

Out of context much?

Bible thumpers have been using out-of-context quotes for centuries to rationalize all manner of things. What makes that any different?

But we stray from the topic.

I believe this was where we left off:

No, what you're doing is arbitrarilly using a document created by the state to justify actions against the state because you don't like other state created documents.

Ever actually read the declaration?

It wasn't created by 'the state', it was written by a bunch of traitors to the crown.

[AyeYo]

Out of context much?

Bible thumpers have been using out-of-context quotes for centuries to rationalize all manner of things. What makes that any different?

But we stray from the topic.

I believe this was where we left off:

No, what you're doing is arbitrarilly using a document created by the state to justify actions against the state because you don't like other state created documents.

Ever actually read the declaration?

It wasn't created by 'the state', it was written by a bunch of traitors to the crown.

Which, at the time, were the state.  It was then ratified by the congress of the time, which was the state.

Quick review for the historically challenged (via wiki):

The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were now independent states, and thus no longer a part of the British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration is a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The birthday of the United States of America—Independence Day—is celebrated on July 4, the day the wording of the Declaration was approved by Congress.

[myrkul]

Which, at the time, were the state.  It was then ratified by the congress of the time, which was the state.

At the time it was written, the colonies were still subject to royal rule. Had their plot been discovered by the Crown's agents, they would have been hanged. The document itself lists a long 'Chain of abuses' which I could (and have, on another forum) find modern parallels to. I think using that document to chastise the government it helped to found is perfectly fitting.

[AyeYo]

Which, at the time, were the state.  It was then ratified by the congress of the time, which was the state.

At the time it was written, the colonies were still subject to royal rule. Had their plot been discovered by the Crown's agents, they would have been hanged. The document itself lists a long 'Chain of abuses' which I could (and have, on another forum) find modern parallels to. I think using that document to chastise the government it helped to found is perfectly fitting.

What you think and what is logically consistent are two different things in this case.

[MoonShadow]

Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.  

Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do?  Really?  I could have done better than that on your behalf.

I don't think that you want a founding father quote war.  You would be buried in counter quotes and this thread would just devolve into irrelevency.  They weren't gods, and they weren't ideologically perfect, either.  I didn't claim any such thing.  I said that they were closer to libs than anything else that can be found in modern politics, and I think that even you know this to be true.  I could crush what you posted with the single text of the 'give me liberty or give me death' speech.

[MoonShadow]

Which, at the time, were the state.  It was then ratified by the congress of the time, which was the state.

At the time it was written, the colonies were still subject to royal rule. Had their plot been discovered by the Crown's agents, they would have been hanged. The document itself lists a long 'Chain of abuses' which I could (and have, on another forum) find modern parallels to. I think using that document to chastise the government it helped to found is perfectly fitting.

What you think and what is logically consistent are two different things in this case.

You keep saying that, but I don't think that you know what that means.

If we were to bother with the logical consistency argument, you might die from the cognative dissonance.

[AyeYo]

Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.  

Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do?  Really?  I could have done better than that on your behalf.

Put them in context.

[MoonShadow]

Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.  

Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do?  Really?  I could have done better than that on your behalf.

Put them in context.

I have better things to do with my lifespan.

[AyeYo]

Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.  

Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do?  Really?  I could have done better than that on your behalf.

Put them in context.

I have better things to do with my lifespan.

Nice cop out. 

[MoonShadow]

Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.  

Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do?  Really?  I could have done better than that on your behalf.

Put them in context.

I have better things to do with my lifespan.

Nice cop out. 

I've already established that you are only here because you enjoy arguing with libs, and imagine yourself to be the smartest person in the forum.  Hell, you're probably the smartest person in the room even when you're outside.  But the reality is that you just don't have anything better to do with your life, and thus your time has reached it's own true market value.  Most of the rest of us value our time more than to feed the troll.

[AyeYo]

Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.  

Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do?  Really?  I could have done better than that on your behalf.

Put them in context.

I have better things to do with my lifespan.

Nice cop out. 

I've already established that you are only here because you enjoy arguing with libs, and imagine yourself to be the smartest person in the forum.  Hell, you're probably the smartest person in the room even when you're outside.  But the reality is that you just don't have anything better to do with your life, and thus your time has reached it's own true market value.  Most of the rest of us value our time more than to feed the troll.

Nice cop out. 

[billyjoeallen]

Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.  

Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do?  Really?  I could have done better than that on your behalf.

Put them in context.

I have better things to do with my lifespan.

Nice cop out. 

I've already established that you are only here because you enjoy arguing with libs, and imagine yourself to be the smartest person in the forum.  Hell, you're probably the smartest person in the room even when you're outside.  But the reality is that you just don't have anything better to do with your life, and thus your time has reached it's own true market value.  Most of the rest of us value our time more than to feed the troll.

+1.

[Mageant]

I'm not saying I support government, but if you don't want the "services" of a government then who enforces property rights?

In an anarcho-capitalist society if somebody claims an unused building or piece of land to be "theirs" why should I respect that?

[myrkul]

I'm not saying I support government, but if you don't want the "services" of a government then who enforces property rights?

In an anarcho-capitalist society if somebody claims an unused building or piece of land to be "theirs" why should I respect that?

You need to quantify 'unused'

If you mean completely unused, State of Nature, without even a fence around it, then it's up for grabs. nobody's claimed it.

 A parkland-type area, moderately improved, paths, fences, etc, has been 'homesteaded', and signs would likely inform you that the owner wants to keep this area as close to nature as possible. A responsible owner would hire guards, or at least run periodic checks, to evict squatters. The Market would develop a standard for how long it takes for a property to be 'abandoned'.

 A run-down building would be in a similar situation. Standards would be developed to determine how long a building has to stay unused and unguarded, before it can safely be considered abandoned, and disputes would be handled, like in most situations, via mediation/arbitration.