FREEDOM FORUM: Discussion

Make a Comment

Comments in Response

Comment by Darren Wolfe
Entered on:

Great article, Larkin. One of your best!

I think some people, perhaps without realizing,  it fall back on an ends justifies means rationale for govt. "Taxes may be bad", they'll acknowledge, "but if we didn't have govt X horrible thing would happen." 

Comment by Die Daily
Entered on:

I never saw any comments that argued that we should pass rights we ourselves don't already OWN along to gummint delegates, so I guess you must be referring to some verbal feedback you've had. Everything you argue in this third, excellent article can be true. I was just hoping to have a few questions answered, and still am:

1. What can't I pass the rights I DO own, over to others, such as hiring a sheriff or any other thug for money to guard my chickens? (And, couldn't this make my community more efficient? Surely that's not Statism in your eyes, right? Wouldn't it be nice if there were experts on construction around to make sure we don't constantly collapse buildings on one another?

2. Why is there necessarily an irreconcilable conflict between voluntarism and organization or delegation to a central body (impeachable)? Isn't Statism a mistaken, radical position while pure Anarchism might be the opposite mistaken, radical position? I myself have not arrived at any "final" position on this difficult matter, so please understand that I'm just asking.

3. Isn't every rocket we've sent into space the result of a massive hierarchical effort complete with rules, regulations, leaders, followers, armed security guards and so forth? How are you going to make something that can take us up there without these organizational structures? Individuals within these structures are constantly having to do things a little differently than they would like to have done, aren't they? (Agreed: the only "force" used against them is "you're fired", so this is not an argument for totalitarianism in any sense. I'm with you 100% on that. But what about my limited "state" just to get the job done better? Must this be evil and misguided, or could it be smarter?

4. What mechanism stops a wholly anarchistic area from being overrun by a neighbor with a "state", or by thugs and cartels within the area itself? Might that be "Law"? Anthropology and history show that this is invariably the way things have gone. Don't we need an active and organizing principle in place to counter act this ever-looming threat, since it just crops up every single time so far? Might my tentative "limited state" solution a "middle ground" or "grey" or "optimized" solution?

Maybe I misread your words and you do in fact only object to specific abuses of States (inventing powers no individuals have) and otherwise see their usefulness and true value already. I know I have ZERO problem with your reasoning about governments using ANY non-delegated power that the people personally already owned and were therefore within their rights to delegate. Consider that pure anarchism might be just perfect for within small communities (I think it is) but is entirely inadequate for large populations. Voluntarism, yes, that's a must. But as I ask above, how the heck does pure anarchism not invariably lead to pure involuntarism at the hands of invaders (with States) or lawless gangs (internal tumor states).

Comment by Mike Chavez
Entered on:

Allright, So you say government this and government that and I tend to agree with your frustrations...

You actually answer your own observation:- " "Government" is the entity imagined to have the right (not just the ability) to rule others. Trouble is, no one can have such a right, because no one can delegate such a right."-  when you made your observation about the righteous use of defensive force. 

In American Civics, your would be assailants must convince a Grand Jury to indict and a Petit Jury to convict. 

If the People were educated, they would not allow the state or federal gubment to harm us, by not authorizing the use of this defensive force.  I think this a brilliant way to organize the only power a community posseses outside the powers of the individual AKA Defensive Force.

However

I think that people don't understand the fundamentals of America and we are living under tyranny of the highest order- and I'm dumbfounded what to do about it. 

American Civics is not a fairy tale Larkin.  It's just rarely excercised.  Too seldom to make a difference. 

The moment you find a solution, I'm in.

Comment by Mike Chavez
Entered on:

Also...

I'm not convinced that the actions of Congress and Assemblies are completely legal or the Executive and Judicial Branches are completely legal in their application of the laws written.

I am getting more and more certain that Congress has very limited authority within the 50 states, limited to art1 sect 8 of the constitution and further limited by the restrictive clauses found in art1 section 9 and the Bill of Rights. 

I think that they can only write these outrageous laws for the possesions that they are only limited by the restrictive clauses but are applying them to the people of the fifty states.

I also understand that most criminals are not guilty of damaging other people, and this is another area that I think all the branches of gubment are guilty of participating together in. 

 

Comment by Mama Liberty
Entered on:

I'm rather late to this discussion. I could not find any links to the previous articles. Can you post them? Thanks!

Comment by Larken Rose
Entered on:

 

DD, Of course you can delegate some right you have to someone else, and the result can be as huge and complicated as people want to VOLUNTARILY make it. If everyone on the planet voluntarily agrees to let one group handle a particular service, that's fine with me. But that is NOT "government." It has no right to rule, no power to enact and enforce "laws," and so on. So far, in describing what you call a limited state, I haven't seen anything that makes it a state at all. Cooperation, organization, and planning do NOT make something a "government." The supposed RIGHT TO RULE is what makes it "authority." As for space travel, I'm not sure how quickly it would have happened without "government" involvement. And I don't much care, as it has nothing to do with the principle. I hope you're not implying an argument such as, "Something cool happened, so it was okay that people were robbed of billions of dollars to pay for it." Even if it accomplishes something useful, and even if it somehow benefits the victim, you STILL have no right to force someone to fund something they don't want to fund. For the one who asked, the other articles in this series can be found here: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Writer-Bio-Page.htm?EditNo=240
Comment by Die Daily
Entered on:

Ok, Larken, much appreciate your clearing up my misunderstanding. I kind of do think of it as a legitimate, or voluntary "state", but this might be a purely semantic thing...it kinda seems we're not far from the same page. BUT, what I was hoping to drive at, is that I think Mike Chavez is describing a voluntary "state" in his civics. Sure, you are dead right about the horrible government we have and have had for a long time now. But I've rarely heard an argument so powerful and succinct as the one where he dispatched with the moral argument issue of "what if my personal morals support murder?" by simply replying "no problem, all you have to do is convince 1 out of 12 of a jury of your peers". Wow. That got my attention. I think his arguments in favor of a limited "government" [with actual authority] can not be so trivially dismissed. He may be correct in describing them as "self-government". I'm not completely sure yet...studying that...could seriously use some help in the form of arguments from both sides.

Comment by Die Daily
Entered on:

Mama Liberty, click the author's name on this story to see all his previous stories, most recent at the top...but here they are if you prefer:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/072041-2010-07-16-stating-the-bleeding-obvious-part-2.htm

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/071973-2010-07-15-stating-the-bleeding-obvious-part-1.htm

Comment by Mama Liberty
Entered on:

Thank you. This series of articles will be featured at my website and the links entered into the archives there. www.thepriceofliberty.org

Make a Comment