What's so special about the NAP?

[Hawker]

Ever notice the hardcore statists are usually Brits?

They seem to generally have a collectivist mindset. I know that's a generalization, but jesus, look throughout history.

What other nation has been as rapacious and violent at imposing their morality on everyone else? The British!

Imposing morality through FORCE is what statism is all about!  

Oh yeah, and they still have a queen who claims to be descended from the lost tribe of Judea. Kinda crazy? Yeah, they worship a queen...how's that for "hive-minded".

When you have a spare moment, google ad hominem; it will save you a ton of pointless typing.  

BTW, I am certainly not British.

[1713539540]

1713539540

[1713539540]

1713539540

[1713539540]

1713539540

[1713539540]

1713539540

[1713539540]

1713539540

[Hawker]

Your fellow American have inherited their citizenship rights, such as the right to vote for lawmakers who create social security and seat belt regulation.  You can't just take that right off them either.

But that "right" violates my property rights. Which do you prefer, a society where property rights are respected, or one where the individual's "right" to force other people to do things they don't want to is?

Your property rights and their voting rights both come from your constitution.  What you are saying is that there are areas where rights contradict one another?  Doesn't your constitution have provision for a court system to resolve those contradictions? 

Or are you saying you want a hard reset?  Abolish all property, debt and laws and start again ?

[myrkul]

Your fellow American have inherited their citizenship rights, such as the right to vote for lawmakers who create social security and seat belt regulation.  You can't just take that right off them either.

But that "right" violates my property rights. Which do you prefer, a society where property rights are respected, or one where the individual's "right" to force other people to do things they don't want to is?

Your property rights and their voting rights both come from your constitution.  What you are saying is that there are areas where rights contradict one another?  Doesn't your constitution have provision for a court system to resolve those contradictions? 

Or are you saying you want a hard reset?  Abolish all property, debt and laws and start again ?

I say again: The Constitution does not grant rights. At best, it enumerates. I am saying that property rights trumps all other rights, because it is from that right which all others flow. If you allow for property rights to be infringed by the opinions of other people, do you really even have property rights?

[Hawker]

Your fellow American have inherited their citizenship rights, such as the right to vote for lawmakers who create social security and seat belt regulation.  You can't just take that right off them either.

But that "right" violates my property rights. Which do you prefer, a society where property rights are respected, or one where the individual's "right" to force other people to do things they don't want to is?

Your property rights and their voting rights both come from your constitution.  What you are saying is that there are areas where rights contradict one another?  Doesn't your constitution have provision for a court system to resolve those contradictions? 

Or are you saying you want a hard reset?  Abolish all property, debt and laws and start again ?

I say again: The Constitution does not grant rights. At best, it enumerates. I am saying that property rights trumps all other rights, because it is from that right which all others flow. If you allow for property rights to be infringed by the opinions of other people, do you really even have property rights?

Are you about to start telling me that Jesus grants rights and our human laws are just implementations of his will?  Or that some higher natural law exists that we use as a template?

Please don't.  Property rights, the right to bear arms, right to free speech, they are all human creations in my opinion. And as such, its really a matter of preference which you feel is most important.

[myrkul]

Are you about to start telling me that Jesus grants rights and our human laws are just implementations of his will?  Or that some higher natural law exists that we use as a template?

  No.  You have property rights because you have ownership of your body. Pure and simple. Because you own your body, you own any products thereof. That includes the result of your labor. Which, naturally, includes your land, provided that you gained it through means not violating others' property rights. I could go on, but I think you can follow my reasoning from here.

[cryptoanarchist]

Ever notice the hardcore statists are usually Brits?

They seem to generally have a collectivist mindset. I know that's a generalization, but jesus, look throughout history.

What other nation has been as rapacious and violent at imposing their morality on everyone else? The British!

Imposing morality through FORCE is what statism is all about!  

Oh yeah, and they still have a queen who claims to be descended from the lost tribe of Judea. Kinda crazy? Yeah, they worship a queen...how's that for "hive-minded".

When you have a spare moment, google ad hominem; it will save you a ton of pointless typing.  

BTW, I am certainly not British.

Are you saying you're a "hardcore statist"?

[FirstAscent]

Are you about to start telling me that Jesus grants rights and our human laws are just implementations of his will?  Or that some higher natural law exists that we use as a template?

  No.  You have property rights because you have ownership of your body. Pure and simple. Because you own your body, you own any products thereof. That includes the result of your labor. Which, naturally, includes your land, provided that you gained it through means not violating others' property rights. I could go on, but I think you can follow my reasoning from here.

Not the part about the land. Any land you own is a more superficial ownership. There are limitations.

[FirstAscent]

Ever notice the hardcore statists are usually Brits?

They seem to generally have a collectivist mindset. I know that's a generalization, but jesus, look throughout history.

What other nation has been as rapacious and violent at imposing their morality on everyone else? The British!

Imposing morality through FORCE is what statism is all about!  

Oh yeah, and they still have a queen who claims to be descended from the lost tribe of Judea. Kinda crazy? Yeah, they worship a queen...how's that for "hive-minded".

When you have a spare moment, google ad hominem; it will save you a ton of pointless typing.  

BTW, I am certainly not British.

Are you saying you're a "hardcore statist"?

I never heard any claim from him regarding that label. I think he's a human who has opinions. Better opinions, rather than bad opinions are derived from knowledge.

[Hawker]

Are you about to start telling me that Jesus grants rights and our human laws are just implementations of his will?  Or that some higher natural law exists that we use as a template?

  No.  You have property rights because you have ownership of your body. Pure and simple. Because you own your body, you own any products thereof. That includes the result of your labor. Which, naturally, includes your land, provided that you gained it through means not violating others' property rights. I could go on, but I think you can follow my reasoning from here.

Sounds suspiciously like a natural law type thing.  Its as good a rationalisation for law as any but that's all it is.  I prefer most powerful gangster theory myself. As Friedman said in "The Machinery of Freedom", the state is "like a gang of bandits who, while occasionally robbing the villages in their territory, served to keep off other and more rapacious gangs."

Your "gang of bandits" have been sanctified by being called "founding fathers."  Your people have rights that derive from the constitution these "bandits" came up with.  Saying that there is a natural law that over-rides that is OK.  But you have to go all in.  All property, debt and laws have to be totally reset if you want to take away the citizenship rights.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Are you saying you're a "hardcore statist"?

I'm a hardcore realist.  If the state is the best way to deliver something, its great.  If Fedex is a better option, its great.  The important thing is that the delivery get made in the best way possible.

[myrkul]

Your "gang of bandits" have been sanctified by being called "founding fathers."  Your people have rights that derive from the constitution these "bandits" came up with.  Saying that there is a natural law that over-rides that is OK.  But you have to go all in.  All property, debt and laws have to be totally reset if you want to take away the citizenship rights.

By no means all property, and decidedly not all debt (though certainly a good chunk of it would go bye-bye), and only most laws would need to be reset. Any law which does not infringe upon another's property rights would remain respected, especially since the replacement, free market system is already partially in place. There are numerous agorist communities, at least two of which I know of in the US, and surely others elsewhere.

...snip...
Are you saying you're a "hardcore statist"?

I'm a hardcore realist.  If the state is the best way to deliver something, its great.  If Fedex is a better option, its great too.  The important thing is that the delivery get made in the best way possible.

How can you say this, then deny the reality of a better system when presented one?

[FirstAscent]

Your "gang of bandits" have been sanctified by being called "founding fathers."  Your people have rights that derive from the constitution these "bandits" came up with.  Saying that there is a natural law that over-rides that is OK.  But you have to go all in.  All property, debt and laws have to be totally reset if you want to take away the citizenship rights.

By no means all property, and decidedly not all debt (though certainly a good chunk of it would go bye-bye), and only most laws would need to be reset. Any law which does not infringe upon another's property rights would remain respected, especially since the replacement, free market system is already partially in place. There are numerous agorist communities, at least two of which I know of in the US, and surely others elsewhere.

...snip...
Are you saying you're a "hardcore statist"?

I'm a hardcore realist.  If the state is the best way to deliver something, its great.  If Fedex is a better option, its great too.  The important thing is that the delivery get made in the best way possible.

How can you say this, then deny the reality of a better system when presented one?

What better system has been presented?

[Hawker]

Your "gang of bandits" have been sanctified by being called "founding fathers."  Your people have rights that derive from the constitution these "bandits" came up with.  Saying that there is a natural law that over-rides that is OK.  But you have to go all in.  All property, debt and laws have to be totally reset if you want to take away the citizenship rights.

By no means all property, and decidedly not all debt (though certainly a good chunk of it would go bye-bye), and only most laws would need to be reset. Any law which does not infringe upon another's property rights would remain respected, especially since the replacement, free market system is already partially in place. There are numerous agorist communities, at least two of which I know of in the US, and surely others elsewhere.
...snip...

Well then you are being dishonest with yourself.  There is no "natural law" or "divine law" that we all can see.  Property rights and voting rights are human creations and one is as valid as the other.  

I'm doing end of day accounts and heading out.  If I summarise where I think we have got to:
1. People use laws to set a standard so that they don't have to use willpower themselves.  Social security, the NHS and seat belt laws are examples of this.
2. Evidence suggests that 50% of people actually need the laws; they don't save, buy insurance or wear seat belts otherwise.
3. They enthusiastically vote for politicians who create these laws.
4. Usually,the rights to do this is inherited in much the same way property is inherited.
5. If you are saying that these rights are not valid, then no rights are valid.

I am not saying you agree with all this but at least you understand one of the reasons why people vote the way they do.

My question to you is: what is the problem that you want to solve?  The system works - what reason do you have for wanting a reset ?

[myrkul]

I'm doing end of day accounts and heading out.  If I summarise where I think we have got to:
1. People use laws to set a standard so that they don't have to use willpower themselves.  Social security, the NHS and seat belt laws are examples of this.
2. Evidence suggests that 50% of people actually need the laws; they don't save, buy insurance or wear seat belts otherwise.
3. They enthusiastically vote for politicians who create these laws.
4. Usually,the rights to do this is inherited in much the same way property is inherited.
5. If you are saying that these rights are not valid, then no rights are valid.

I am not saying you agree with all this but at least you understand one of the reasons why people vote the way they do.

My question to you is: what is the problem that you want to solve?  The system works - what reason do you have for wanting a reset ?

The right for you to choose your leader is valid. The right for you to choose my leader is not. It really is that simple.

[niemivh]

I guess, my real question is, what is so wrong with the system of The Constitution?  Majority rule with individual rights protected.  What is so odorous about this system that we need to revert back to stone-age morality?

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

You are inventing rights that are in dispute.  They already have rights.  If you can take their rights as citizens off them, then no rights are sacred.  Why stop there?  Perhaps the right to property can be removed as well?  Or the right to be a free person?  Or the right to equal treatment?

Tell me what right gives them the ability to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, and I will gleefully become a proponent of democracy, and renounce this "silly anarchist view".

If you are proposing Democracy, as such, count me out.  Democracy is like I said before and like Hamilton warned us: it is the masses being made to slit their own throats by use of ideology and the molding of the public mind by those in power establishment (the Oligarchy).  I'd like to try and dampen that process, it is already rapidly destroying our society, evidenced by the various ideological lemmings that I'm surrounded by (Marxists, Communists, Leftists, Libertarians, Anarchists, etc).

[myrkul]

If you are proposing Democracy, as such, count me out.  Democracy is like I said before and like Hamilton warned us: it is the masses being made to slit their own throats by use of ideology and the molding of the public mind by those in power establishment (the Oligarchy).  I'd like to try and dampen that process, it is already rapidly destroying our society, evidenced by the various ideological lemmings that I'm surrounded by (Marxists, Communists, Leftists, Libertarians, Anarchists, etc).

Which brings us to an interesting point. Which system do you propose as better than both the current mess and market anarchy?

[niemivh]

Ever notice the hardcore statists are usually Brits?

They seem to generally have a collectivist mindset. I know that's a generalization, but jesus, look throughout history.

What other nation has been as rapacious and violent at imposing their morality on everyone else? The British!

Imposing morality through FORCE is what statism is all about!  

Oh yeah, and they still have a queen who claims to be descended from the lost tribe of Judea. Kinda crazy? Yeah, they worship a queen...how's that for "hive-minded".

Oh noes.  You just called an Irish guy a Brit.

*dives for cover*

 

[niemivh]

Are you about to start telling me that Jesus grants rights and our human laws are just implementations of his will?  Or that some higher natural law exists that we use as a template?

  No.  You have property rights because you have ownership of your body. Pure and simple. Because you own your body, you own any products thereof. That includes the result of your labor. Which, naturally, includes your land, provided that you gained it through means not violating others' property rights. I could go on, but I think you can follow my reasoning from here.

Doesn't sound like reasoning as much as a bunch of assertions that you believe to be true; but can't, or refuse to propose the deeper meaning or distinction of.

[niemivh]

Are you about to start telling me that Jesus grants rights and our human laws are just implementations of his will?  Or that some higher natural law exists that we use as a template?

  No.  You have property rights because you have ownership of your body. Pure and simple. Because you own your body, you own any products thereof. That includes the result of your labor. Which, naturally, includes your land, provided that you gained it through means not violating others' property rights. I could go on, but I think you can follow my reasoning from here.

Sounds suspiciously like a natural law type thing.  Its as good a rationalisation for law as any but that's all it is.  I prefer most powerful gangster theory myself. As Friedman said in "The Machinery of Freedom", the state is "like a gang of bandits who, while occasionally robbing the villages in their territory, served to keep off other and more rapacious gangs."

Your "gang of bandits" have been sanctified by being called "founding fathers."  Your people have rights that derive from the constitution these "bandits" came up with.  Saying that there is a natural law that over-rides that is OK.  But you have to go all in.  All property, debt and laws have to be totally reset if you want to take away the citizenship rights.

How cynical, yet ubiquitous.  Thank the heavens that is not the actual world we live in, but I guess it is something that even a Libertarian can understand.

[niemivh]

I'm doing end of day accounts and heading out.  If I summarise where I think we have got to:
1. People use laws to set a standard so that they don't have to use willpower themselves.  Social security, the NHS and seat belt laws are examples of this.
2. Evidence suggests that 50% of people actually need the laws; they don't save, buy insurance or wear seat belts otherwise.
3. They enthusiastically vote for politicians who create these laws.
4. Usually,the rights to do this is inherited in much the same way property is inherited.
5. If you are saying that these rights are not valid, then no rights are valid.

I am not saying you agree with all this but at least you understand one of the reasons why people vote the way they do.

My question to you is: what is the problem that you want to solve?  The system works - what reason do you have for wanting a reset ?

The right for you to choose your leader is valid. The right for you to choose my leader is not. It really is that simple.

Logical conclusion:  that no one can lead anything put the smallest of groups, if not single individuals - at that point would everyone be their own leader?