Socratic method for figuring out the logical fallacies of government.

[FirstAscent]

Voluntarily deciding to live in a certain nation, and thus pay its taxes. You are free to leave.

Not without relinquishing all of your property. Actually, you aren't even free to leave. The central banks control the entire first world. If you want to utilize your right to associate with other human beings, you have to submit to a government and the monopoly on wealth. That is not freedom. You merely have the illusion of choice from a poor selection of purportedly sovereign nations. If you try to start one that meets your desires, you will only be conquered by the oligopoly.  

As I said in my prior post, if you want to associate with other human beings, but without government, you are only under the illusion that you are in situations where you are not coerced or forced to make concessions. Society, groups, people, entities, with or without government will always require compromise and concessions (coercion, if you will) to function.

[1714152579]

1714152579

[1714152579]

1714152579

[1714152579]

1714152579

[1714152579]

1714152579

[1714152579]

1714152579

[FredericBastiat]

Banks are free market institutions.  You want to abolish them.

They aren't free market institutions if they carry the mark of "legal tender" currency. I'm not opposed to anybody producing currencies based on whatever they want (i.e. hard money such as gold and silver, or paper money like fiat currencies we have today). Good money will almost always drive out bad money. The problem is when you use the force of law to prop up one over the other. It distorts the ability of the free market to respond in a timely and efficient way.

Nuclear weapons are state weapons.  You want to encourage them.

I wouldn't encourage anybody to use weapons of any kind unless it was in the process of self defense. It would seem obvious to me that if you were going to use a nuclear weapon you'd better be careful of the fallout as that collateral damage you would have to pay for should innocents get hurt. Reciprocity comes to mind.

People form governments to address their problems.  You want them to stop.

Of course they form governments. An individual can join a society, a collective if you will, to protect themselves from the seedier more dangerous individuals they might encounter. The only distinction one has to make here is that the joining and leaving of this "institution" should be unconstrained and of a contractual nature. Admittedly, there is the issue of the free rider problem, but I've heard of some interesting work-arounds for that.

Have I missed something here?  Your positions are contradictory.

The positions I've read, thus far, aren't contradictory, just different from what you believe. At the most, they may be incomplete descriptions/solutions, but who has the time to give a multi-page dissertation every time you claim a contradiction occurs?

[FirstAscent]

People as a whole do not form governments.

Are you sure about this?

[Hawker]

Frederic are really telling me that suicide bombers should have nuclear weapons?  I thought your idea that people should die rather than have safe food was extreme but you have definitely gone a lot further here.

[FredericBastiat]

Frederic are really telling me that suicide bombers should have nuclear weapons?  I thought your idea that people should die rather than have safe food was extreme but you have definitely gone a lot further here.

Nope. I never included anywhere in my response that suicide bombers should have nuclear bombs. If they are suicide bombers, then they should be in prison, no? If they're in prison, I'm pretty sure they're not going to have any kind of weapon. Duh!

EDIT: I forgot. The same goes for food preparers who have injured a customer due to food poisoning. You either sue or imprison the proprietor depending on the evidence produced. Wait for it...wait for it... Duh!

[Anonymous]

I am my own government. I am the chief. Good luck convincing me otherwise and it will take force to make me swear allegiance to anything above myself. What happens when everybody has my mentality?

[Hawker]

I am my own government. I am the chief. Good luck convincing me otherwise and it will take force to make me swear allegiance to anything above myself. What happens when everybody has my mentality?

You are already paying taxes so stop kidding yourself about being a chief.  You are a free man in a free country so feel free to try to convince people that they shouldn't have a government.  But be aware that to actually stop them, you will need to resort to force.

Its funny how many libertarian ideas come down to who has the biggest gun.

[FirstAscent]

I am my own government. I am the chief. Good luck convincing me otherwise and it will take force to make me swear allegiance to anything above myself. What happens when everybody has my mentality?

In spirit I'm sure. But in reality, I'm guessing you pay taxes, use roads, fire and police services, and benefit in many other ways.

[Hawker]

Frederic are really telling me that suicide bombers should have nuclear weapons?  I thought your idea that people should die rather than have safe food was extreme but you have definitely gone a lot further here.

Nope. I never included anywhere in my response that suicide bombers should have nuclear bombs. If they are suicide bombers, then they should be in prison, no? If they're in prison, I'm pretty sure they're not going to have any kind of weapon. Duh!

EDIT: I forgot. The same goes for food preparers who have injured a customer due to food poisoning. You either sue or imprison the proprietor depending on the evidence produced. Wait for it...wait for it... Duh!

We are done with food safety.  Your position is that it is preferable for people to die than to lose the freedom to sell tainted food.  If you have changed you position so that selling tainted food can be prevented before people die, welcome to the real world.

On nukes, is it your position that their possession can be limited or is the right to own your own nuke is too precious for government to be allowed to take it away?

[FredericBastiat]

We are done with food safety.  Your position is that it is preferable for people to die than to lose the freedom to sell tainted food.  If you have changed you position so that selling tainted food can be prevented before people die, welcome to the real world.

On nukes, is it your position that their possession can be limited or is the right to own your own nuke is too precious for government to be allowed to take it away?

I would greatly appreciate it, that if "we" meaning "you" are done with the food safety issue, to please refrain from misquoting or misrepresenting me. I never implied that just "anybody" has the freedom to sell tainted food (at least not without proper disclosure). It is nearly impossible to prevent everybody from accidentally or intentionally selling tainted food. You'll have to give up on that possibility. I don't like your world and I don't feel very welcomed, hence my argument for suggesting it change, preferably for the better.

I think it's very difficult for anybody to produce a functioning nuclear weapon, so I'm not worried about it too much. However, considering the type of weapon and the edge case you're implying, I would like to think that measuring the potential threat to life would be an interesting topic, and the first place to start forming a theory. The theory is one of imminent threat -an interesting concept in and of itself.

[Hawker]

We are done with food safety.  Your position is that it is preferable for people to die than to lose the freedom to sell tainted food.  If you have changed you position so that selling tainted food can be prevented before people die, welcome to the real world.

On nukes, is it your position that their possession can be limited or is the right to own your own nuke is too precious for government to be allowed to take it away?

I would greatly appreciate it, that if "we" meaning "you" are done with the food safety issue, to please refrain from misquoting or misrepresenting me. I never implied that just "anybody" has the freedom to sell tainted food (at least not without proper disclosure). It is nearly impossible to prevent everybody from accidentally or intentionally selling tainted food. You'll have to give up on that possibility. I don't like your world and I don't feel very welcomed, hence my argument for suggesting it change, preferably for the better.

I think it's very difficult for anybody to produce a functioning nuclear weapon, so I'm not worried about it too much. However, considering the type of weapon and the edge case you're implying, I would like to think that measuring the potential threat to life would be an interesting topic, and the first place to start forming a theory. The theory is one of imminent threat -an interesting concept in and of itself.

Our positions on food safety are clear; I believe that society has a duty to intervene before food is sold to make sure its safe and you believe the victim's estate should have a right to sue for poisoning damages after the sale has taken place.  If you have changed to agreeing that intervention before the sale takes place is OK, say so.  Otherwise we are done.  What else is there to say?

Its not difficult to make a nuclear bomb at all.  The designs are freely available on the web and its the difficulty of getting the radioactive material that prevents proliferation.  If there were no legal restrictions, Osama bin Ladin could have bought one all those years ago and not messed about hijacking planes.

I asked you a simply question and I think you know your answer but want to avoid saying it.  Please, do you believe that restriction on access to nuclear weapons is acceptable?

[Anonymous]

On the food safety argument:

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system that allows food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other review agencies.

None of us have been against the regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

[FredericBastiat]

Our positions on food safety are clear; I believe that society has a duty to intervene before food is sold to make sure its safe and you believe the victim's estate should have a right to sue for poisoning damages after the sale has taken place.  If you have changed to agreeing that intervention before the sale takes place is OK, say so.  Otherwise we are done.  What else is there to say?

I believe you have no right to intervene betwixt me and my clientele unless you know for a certainty, or you have reasonable cause to believe I'm about to bring harm. If you think that there is such a threat: first, inform the potential victim, second, get a search warrant, third, bring charges if any are worthy, and finally prosecute if you think the issue is grave enough. Until then, stay out of my kitchen and my life.

Its not difficult to make a nuclear bomb at all.  The designs are freely available on the web and its the difficulty of getting the radioactive material that prevents proliferation.  If there were no legal restrictions, Osama bin Ladin could have bought one all those years ago and not messed about hijacking planes.

I asked you a simply question and I think you know your answer but want to avoid saying it.  Please, do you believe that restriction on access to nuclear weapons is acceptable?

A bomb isn't a bomb without the explosive materials. It's like an automobile without the gas. Sheesh. I'll never give a carte blanche answer unless the question is an obvious one. Using, or threatening use of nuclear weapons is not a simple question.

[Hawker]

On the food safety argument:

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing.  My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

[Hawker]

Our positions on food safety are clear; I believe that society has a duty to intervene before food is sold to make sure its safe and you believe the victim's estate should have a right to sue for poisoning damages after the sale has taken place.  If you have changed to agreeing that intervention before the sale takes place is OK, say so.  Otherwise we are done.  What else is there to say?

I believe you have no right to intervene betwixt me and my clientele unless you know for a certainty, or you have reasonable cause to believe I'm about to bring harm. If you think that there is such a threat: first, inform the potential victim, second, get a search warrant, third, bring charges if any are worthy, and finally prosecute if you think the issue is grave enough. Until then, stay out of my kitchen and my life.

[quote
Its not difficult to make a nuclear bomb at all.  The designs are freely available on the web and its the difficulty of getting the radioactive material that prevents proliferation.  If there were no legal restrictions, Osama bin Ladin could have bought one all those years ago and not messed about hijacking planes.

I asked you a simply question and I think you know your answer but want to avoid saying it.  Please, do you believe that restriction on access to nuclear weapons is acceptable?


A bomb isn't a bomb without the explosive materials. It's like an automobile without the gas. Sheesh. I'll never give a carte blanche answer unless the question is an obvious one. Using, or threatening use of nuclear weapons is not a simple question.

So do you believe that restrictions on access to the explosive material needed to make a nuclear bomb are OK?  

[Anonymous]

In addition, organizations of suicidal intent will not prosper for very long in a international world full of self-reliant protection. Mutually-assured destruction will occur in almost every instance leaving only for the inevitable destruction of any perpetrators cause. Suicidal entities in any case will find always themselves extinct.

[Anonymous]

Our positions on food safety are clear; I believe that society has a duty to intervene before food is sold to make sure its safe and you believe the victim's estate should have a right to sue for poisoning damages after the sale has taken place.  If you have changed to agreeing that intervention before the sale takes place is OK, say so.  Otherwise we are done.  What else is there to say?

I believe you have no right to intervene betwixt me and my clientele unless you know for a certainty, or you have reasonable cause to believe I'm about to bring harm. If you think that there is such a threat: first, inform the potential victim, second, get a search warrant, third, bring charges if any are worthy, and finally prosecute if you think the issue is grave enough. Until then, stay out of my kitchen and my life.

[quote
Its not difficult to make a nuclear bomb at all.  The designs are freely available on the web and its the difficulty of getting the radioactive material that prevents proliferation.  If there were no legal restrictions, Osama bin Ladin could have bought one all those years ago and not messed about hijacking planes.

I asked you a simply question and I think you know your answer but want to avoid saying it.  Please, do you believe that restriction on access to nuclear weapons is acceptable?


A bomb isn't a bomb without the explosive materials. It's like an automobile without the gas. Sheesh. I'll never give a carte blanche answer unless the question is an obvious one. Using, or threatening use of nuclear weapons is not a simple question.

So do you believe that restrictions on access to the explosive material needed to make a nuclear bomb are OK?  

I don't because it only creates a monopoly on determined outlaws and superpowers to create explosive weapons. Restrictions only harm the weak and prevent them from protecting themselves.

[Anonymous]

On the food safety argument:

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing.  My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

I believe people should be able to buy whatever food they desire no matter the level of the supply-chain it is inspected. The fact is general consumer desire will dictate that stores have safe food and that it will be inspected beforehand by voluntary consent.

In other cases, I don't believe people should be "protected" from their own decisions. For instance, if one chooses to drink raw milk while being at higher-risk of bacterial contamination, it is ones right to submit to said risk.

[Hawker]

In addition, organizations of suicidal intent will not prosper for very long in a international world full of self-reliant protection. Mutually-assured destruction will occur in almost every instance leaving only for the inevitable destruction of any perpetrators cause. Suicidal entities in any case will find always themselves extinct.

So eventually al Qaida would run out of volunteers to take nuclear weapon on "martyrdom operations" sooner or later.  At the moment the seem to be able to organise at least 1 a week.  So in 1 year, with 52 nukes, that would be 52 American cities levelled.

Isn't freedom wonderful for the former inhabitants of those metropolises?

BTW, I grew up in Ireland when people bombed shops and pubs for fun and for tit-for-tat.  I think you woefully underestimate the cruelty that fanatics will inflict on helpless victims.

[Hawker]

Our positions on food safety are clear; I believe that society has a duty to intervene before food is sold to make sure its safe and you believe the victim's estate should have a right to sue for poisoning damages after the sale has taken place.  If you have changed to agreeing that intervention before the sale takes place is OK, say so.  Otherwise we are done.  What else is there to say?

I believe you have no right to intervene betwixt me and my clientele unless you know for a certainty, or you have reasonable cause to believe I'm about to bring harm. If you think that there is such a threat: first, inform the potential victim, second, get a search warrant, third, bring charges if any are worthy, and finally prosecute if you think the issue is grave enough. Until then, stay out of my kitchen and my life.

[quote
Its not difficult to make a nuclear bomb at all.  The designs are freely available on the web and its the difficulty of getting the radioactive material that prevents proliferation.  If there were no legal restrictions, Osama bin Ladin could have bought one all those years ago and not messed about hijacking planes.

I asked you a simply question and I think you know your answer but want to avoid saying it.  Please, do you believe that restriction on access to nuclear weapons is acceptable?


A bomb isn't a bomb without the explosive materials. It's like an automobile without the gas. Sheesh. I'll never give a carte blanche answer unless the question is an obvious one. Using, or threatening use of nuclear weapons is not a simple question.

So do you believe that restrictions on access to the explosive material needed to make a nuclear bomb are OK?  

I don't because it only creates a monopoly on determined outlaws and superpowers to create explosive weapons. Restrictions only harm the weak and prevent them from protecting themselves.

OK you believe suicide bombers should have a right to buy nukes.  Lets not talk about it any more.  You position is clear and there's no real point in asking you to consider the impact on potential vcitoms as the bomber's human rights are way more important.