Where in the 10 commandments of the cold, dumb, and deaf universe does it say “finders keepers losers weepers?”
Where do I find that the one can claim possession of matter he had no hand in creating, to the exclusion of all others?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And how does a private court work?
You pay a monthly fee to one, and then turn it on me?
I then point out that I’m not in contract with your private court, therefore, it has no jurisdiction over me. Unless you’re saying that I’m somehow involuntarily bound to its judgements and sentences. But that kind of defeats the purpose…
In fact, maybe I have another…provider. And my provider tells yours to buzz off. So their company security forces go to war. Including whatever additional private armies our wealth affords us. Of course, one of us might not be able to afford either.[/quote]
My court could make a decision, then yours could make a decision if you decide mine’s worth challenging. Your court would probably just increase your fees even if just accept the guilty verdict, since jailing you would be awful costly. If yours finds you not guilty, then the courts could attempt to come to an agreement. Of course the possibility that they could go to war would always exist, but since they are funded voluntarily, it would probably be difficult to gather the funds for much of a war effort, since most people would just stop paying them and find a cheaper defense or arbitration agency.
Would it be perfect? Surely not. It will still be run by humans.
Would it be better than what we have? I’d say so.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
My court could make a decision…[/quote]
And? I’m not under your court’s jurisdiction (I don’t have a contract with them). Are do you claim I would involuntarily be under their jurisdiction?
They wouldn’t have a decision to make. I’m under their jurisdiction, not your company’s. They could tell yours to buzz off. Of course I might decide not to hire any court. Then I’m not under the jurisdiction of any court! Unless we’re back to involuntary obligation…But now with a multitude of armed courts demanding you submit to their judgement. Claiming you have a involuntary obligation.
[quote] Your court would probably just increase your fees even if just accept the guilty verdict, since jailing you would be awful costly. If yours finds you not guilty, then the courts could attempt to come to an agreement. Of course the possibility that they could go to war would always exist, but since they are funded voluntarily, it would probably be difficult to gather the funds for much of a war effort, since most people would just stop paying them and find a cheaper defense or arbitration agency.[quote]
So outright, high class armies and courts for the higher classed. Judgement solely by wealth.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
When a group of 10 children is turned loose in a toyroom, who “owns” each toy? The first child to take possession of it. [/quote]
To take possession of it, exclusively for himself, requires force. It is just as easily “theft.” The other children are just as correct to claim it wasn’t his to take “possession” of. That the community, the group, the state, has just as much claim to it as he.
[/quote]
DEFENSIVE FORCE is necessary to retain it. He picked it up and took control of it all by himself. It is not theft because he first controlled it-no different than someone picking a penny off the ground(maybe slightly different-the penny is just abandoned property, not never owned). The other children would be wrong because he now has control of something which formerly was uncontrolled. They can buy it back if they want it. If they try to take it, then he can defend it in whatever manner necessary.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
DEFENSIVE FORCE is necessary to retain it.[/quote]
The threat of aggression is necessary to even claim it in the first place.
Ten men dying of thirst are climbing a hill. One, who happens to have the most energy left, reaches the top first. Looking down he spots a lake. “All mine.” The others reach him. “In order to drink from it you must write here that you’ll…” Fill in the rest. “If you don’t, and attempt to drink, I will beat you to death with this stick.”
The other nine rightly points out that he did not put this body of water on the earth. They drink. Dirty commies.
And there is his crime. He has some how determined this gave him exclusive ownership. I’m sorry, what cosmic rule has he discovered? He made it up.
There is an assumption that the cosmos has determined stuff should be “owned.” Specifically, on an individual level.
Now, where was this doll found? On the ground. What is it made of of? Ultimately, from the riches of nature. What individual created those? Not him. Not any of us. The other children are just as “right” to say, “hey, thanks for finding that FOR THE USE OF THE GROUP.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
My court could make a decision…[/quote]
And? I’m not under your court’s jurisdiction (I don’t have a contract with them). Are do you claim I would involuntarily be under their jurisdiction?
They wouldn’t have a decision to make. I’m under their jurisdiction, not your company’s. They could tell yours to buzz off. Of course I might decide not to hire any court. Then I’m not under the jurisdiction of any court! Unless we’re back to involuntary obligation…But now with a multitude of armed courts demanding you submit to their judgement. Claiming you have a involuntary obligation.
[quote] Your court would probably just increase your fees even if just accept the guilty verdict, since jailing you would be awful costly. If yours finds you not guilty, then the courts could attempt to come to an agreement. Of course the possibility that they could go to war would always exist, but since they are funded voluntarily, it would probably be difficult to gather the funds for much of a war effort, since most people would just stop paying them and find a cheaper defense or arbitration agency.[quote]
So outright, high class armies and courts for the higher classed. Judgement solely by wealth.
[/quote]
This “jurisdiction” you speak of confuses me since these are private agencies. Your agency could tell mine to buzz off, but that would make anyone in your agency highly suspect. You folks would likely not be allowed access to many things(remember that everything is now private and people are allowed to make their own decisions regarding their property). You would absolutely be free not to hire a defense agency, too! You would likely still be looked at with suspicion, be highly limited travelwise. You would be allowed to defend yourself, of course, but people would probably not face much of a penalty for killing you…unless they invaded your property to do it, then their agency would probably see them as a high risk of using offensive force and raise their payments…perhaps to a level they could not afford unless they voluntarily committed themselves to a secure facility to have their payment greatly reduced.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
This “jurisdiction” you speak of confuses me since these are private agencies. Your agency could tell mine to buzz off, but that would make anyone in your agency highly suspect.[/quote]
Or it could make them a hell of an attractive agency…
So everywhere you go is private. And apparently most if not all private places will have facial recognition software. Doesn’t sound like much of an upgrade from the prying eyes of the state.
Theoretically we have a private company that could purchase all land around me, claim that I stole from one of their customers, and subsequently deny me travel off my property in order to starve me to death. Doesn’t sound any better to me.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Outstanding. Encapsulates my philosophy precisely.
Congratulations, D. You are a libertarian. [/quote]
I think you will find that the majority of the conservatives on this board would be considered Libertarian[/quote]
I think you will find that the majority of the conservatives on this board have no problem whatsoever with others initiating force on their behalf. [/quote]
When the hypothetical Commies/Chinese/zombies/Mexican drug lords/Canadians are coming for you one day, Varq my man, you will have no problem whatsoever with others initiating force on your behalf. That Scout of yours, as fine a weapon as it is, has it’s limitations.
[/quote]
Is the difference between defense and aggression hard for you to understand?[/quote]
“Defense” can be a relative term.
[/quote]
If they invade me, what I do is defense. What they do is aggression.
If I invade them, what I do is aggression. What they do is defense.
Seems pretty simple.
[/quote]
What would you call it if a Country had people living without Liberty and a country that had the means went in and defeated the Government that was holding those people down?
[/quote]
None of my business.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
My court could make a decision…[/quote]
And? I’m not under your court’s jurisdiction (I don’t have a contract with them). Are do you claim I would involuntarily be under their jurisdiction?
They wouldn’t have a decision to make. I’m under their jurisdiction, not your company’s. They could tell yours to buzz off. Of course I might decide not to hire any court. Then I’m not under the jurisdiction of any court! Unless we’re back to involuntary obligation…But now with a multitude of armed courts demanding you submit to their judgement. Claiming you have a involuntary obligation. [/quote]
Exactly. This is now Hobbes’s state of nature with a million armed courts.
So much idealism.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
The way I feel about it is, I think it’s everyone’s born right to Liberty. There could be many factors of why people might not be able to ask for help in this scenario. The “Liberator” comes in takes out the ruler that has oppressed the people, provides security for a while to make sure that the people have a chance to vote and establish a Government to their wishes and then leaves. If that country votes to go back to an oppressive government, then so be it. But, the “Liberator” gives the people a chance to have Liberty.
As I have just wrote that I do see the flaws in it. I do see how being the shot callers of a powerful nation of ‘free’ citizens would be a massively difficult job.
I can say that as much as don’t like how my Government does some things, I am happy and thankful to be born in America. And proud to be American[/quote]
I’m confused: first you mention that you believe everyone has a right to liberty, then you say, “If that country votes to go back to an oppressive government, then so be it.” Which is it? Does everyone have a right to liberty, or does only the majority? I would say that if someone wishes to work for someone else without being paid, then he has that right. If someone wishes to give another his property, then he has that right. If someone wishes to kill himself, then he has that right. However, if there are 100 people in a room, then neither 51 nor 99 of them have the right to kill the minority.
At what point does the liberator decide the liberated people are free?[/quote]
This is where it all falls apart because there isn’t new land and resources to go set up a new shop if you are born into something you don’t like.
In order for you to experience liberty in the broad sense, the things that need to be available aren’t there, or are inconsistent. You might have land if your parent’s didn’t get it swindled from them from say Boss Hogg. But Boss Hogg’s offspring have plenty of land and are living that dream.
Some democratic nations might vote to become some sort of collective and vice versa.
But what about their children, and their childrens children? We wouldn’t get anywhere if there were revolutions every time someone wanted to go from Braveheart to Lenin.
The concept of liberty is awesome, but it seems as the systems which claim to practice liberty get older, it’s laws more convoluted, and opportunity more limited. Sometimes out of the sheer lack of land and resources. Liberty as our forefathers pictured it has become illusory and idealistic.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Outstanding. Encapsulates my philosophy precisely.
Congratulations, D. You are a libertarian. [/quote]
I am on the boarder of Conservative/Libertarian, but I am leaning more and more Libertarian every day. I am Fiscally Conservative, and Socially Moderate. I am a Christian, but do not believe the Government should legislate Morals.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I am on the boarder of Conservative/Libertarian, but I am leaning more and more Libertarian every day. I am Fiscally Conservative, and Socially Moderate. I am a Christian, but do not believe the Government should legislate Morals.
[/quote]
The way I see it, this is the issue with conservatives today.
I don’t oppose fiscal conservatism, though certain concepts like the trickle-down theory of economics, at least in the way the Republicans like to practice it, behind it doesn’t make much sense to me.
I have absolutely no idea how conservatives can claim to be all for rights of people while simultaneously pushing for a fucking amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage.
The sooner conservatives can separate their economic and social ideology, the better for them. Virtually all of the young people I know oppose the Republican party SOLELY based on their social platforms.
A friend once described conservatives as people who agreed about one important thing–that at some point in the past, something went terribly wrong. After that, conservatives splinter into untold numbers of camps, since they disagree ferociously about the date of the catastrophe.
Most conservatives today agree that America has taken a terrible turn–that something went wrong at some point in the past. Most believe that America was well-founded by the Framers of the Constitution, but that something bad happened that corrupted the sound basis of the Founding. A few–generally unpopular–believe that Lincoln is to blame, that he introduced the beginnings of centralized State and the imperial Presidency. Many point to the catastrophe of the 1960s as the main source of current woes (a striking number of these constitute the neoconservative faction).
But, at least in the circles in which I travel, an increasing number have settled on the Progressive era at the turn of the 20th-century as the source of today’s troubles, and see President Obama as the direct inheritor of this philosophical and political movement that was born in the late-19th and early-20th centuries.
The dominant narrative about the rise of Progressivism, both in the halls of academe and its distillation in the popular media expressed by figures such as Glenn Beck, is that Progressivism was a virus that was incubated in a foreign (particularly German) laboratory and was transported to America by intellectual elites, often educated at German universities and influenced by thinkers such as Kant and Hegel (such intellectuals include the likes of Herbert Croly, Woodrow Wilson, and John Dewey). These Progressives despised the classical liberal philosophy of the Founding, and sought either an explicit rejection of the Constitution or an effective change by re-defining it as a ‘living’ document.
This is a plausible case–and, the fact is that major progressive figures turned often to German and other foreign sources in developing their intellectual critique of the classical liberal philosophy of the Founding. Thus, by attributing the rise of Progressivism to a foreign contagion, it can be comfortably maintained that the Founding was good and true and was corrupted by a fifth column.
However, what this argument overlooks is that the greatest analysis of American democracy–Democracy in America, published in two volumes in 1835 and 1840, a full half-century before the flowering of Progressivism–already perceived the seeds of Progressivism’s major tenets already embedded in the basic features and attributes of liberal democracy as established at the Founding. Of particular note, while the major figures of Progressivism would directly attack classical liberalism, Tocqueville discerned that Progressivism arose not in spite of the classical liberal tradition, but because of its main emphasis upon, and cultivation of, individualism.
Individualism is a distinctive phenomenon arising in liberal democracy, notes Tocqueville. The idea of the individual is at least as old as Christianity, but individualism is a new experience of self that arises with the passing of the experience of embeddedness in a familial, social, religious, generational, and cultural setting that is largely fixed and unchanging?the basic features of an aristocratic society.
The rise of liberal democracy, by contrast, is premised upon a view of the individual deriving from the social contract tradition, which conceives of human beings in their natural state as defined, above all, by the total absence of such constitutive bonds, inherited roles and given identities (a philosophy that Bertrand de Jouvenel said was developed by “childless men who forgot their childhood”). Instead, as Tocqueville describes, in a democracy, ‘the chain’ that once bound a peasant all the way to a king is ‘shattered,’ throwing each individual in their freedom and equality finally “into the solitude of their own own hearts.”
What Tocqueville recognized is the resulting paradox of this new experience of the self: that the unfettered individual culminates in the rise of the collective. For the first time, humans are not defined by their constitutive roles and memberships in groups, in places, in relationships. And, as a result, as individuals, for the first time they recognize their membership in something larger–humanity.
As Tocqueville writes in an important passage about the rise of religious ‘pantheism,’ the experience of individuality gives rise to an obsession with ‘unity,’ even at the cost of the individuality itself: “individuals are forgotten, and the species alone counts.” Liberated from all constitutive memberships, as individuals they experience their “species-being.” As Tocqueville recognizes, Locke’s individual is the midwife of Rousseau and Marx.
In the chapter that follows his discussion of ‘pantheism,’ Tocqueville logically and sequentially moves to the subject of ‘perfectibility.’ Once democratic man recognizes his membership in ‘humanity’ at large, he becomes devoted to the improvement of everyone?and no-one in particular. In a democratic age, shorn of all positions and status, a new and nearly universal passion for perfectibility comes to predominate–the improvement of society constantly in the name and belief in the ever-increasing democratic equality of all humanity. Only when the aristocratic order has been displaced, and the individual has been liberated from the old order, can “the human mind imagine the possibility of an ideal but always fugitive perfection.”
The liberation of humanity from all partial and mediating groups and memberships finally culminates in what Tocqueville famously calls ‘the tutelary State’–the rise of a new form of tyranny, ‘democratic despotism,’ particularly chilling because it comes about not through the imposition of force and violence, but at the invitation of an individuated and weak democratic citizenry. No longer able to turn to the old orders and organizations to which he might once have belonged, “he naturally turns his eyes toward the huge entity which alone stands above the universal level of abasement”-the State-amid his individuated weakness.
As Robert Nisbet recognized in his 1953 classic, The Quest for Community–deeply influenced by Tocqueville’s thought–the prevailing belief that the relevant debate is between individualism and collectivism represents a false dichotomy, that, in fact, the two are mutually reinforcing. "Individual versus State is as false an antithesis today as it ever was. The State grows on what it gives to the individual as it does on what it takes from competing social relationships–family, labor unions, profession, local community, and church.
And the individual cannot but find a kind of vicarious strength in what is granted in the State." (This was the entire point of the Obama campaign?s portrayal of “The Life of Julia,” whose life story has mysteriously disappeared from the internet. She is a person portrayed as utterly alone, and the only source of support is from the State. Thus, while she is proudly free, she is also weak and alone; her actual ‘autonomy’ was achieved as a gift of the State; and, as democratic citizens, we are obligated to provide her autonomy while assisting her in her isolation as a requirement of the fulfillment of democratic individuality and equality).
Tocqueville wrote of these dynamics in the early part of the 19th-century, half a century before the development of Progressive philosophy and politics. It is surely the case that Progressivism found inspiration in ‘foreign’ sources, and this has led many conservatives to conclude that Progressivism arose from a foreign ‘contagion’ that infected the healthy organism of the Constitutional republic erected by the Founders.
However, Tocqueville’s analysis presents a discomfiting fact–that the basic inclinations toward progressivism were there at the creation. As Nisbet recognized, “the real conflict in modern political history has not been, as is so often stated, between the State and individual, but between the State and social group.” Conservatives should eschew the ‘false antipathy’ in their assertion that salvation is to be found in individualism; rather, what is needed is a renewed defense of the institutions and memberships aside from, and distinctly placed, to that of the State–family, community, local markets, Church.
Not because these constitute ‘lifestyle choices,’ but because they are the true sources of human liberty–liberty through reforging the chains that democracy shatters in the pursuit of liberation in the name of individual autonomy, culminating with the rise of the modern, Progressive State to which we finally sacrifice our individuality.
What Is an American Conservative?
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I am on the boarder of Conservative/Libertarian, but I am leaning more and more Libertarian every day. I am Fiscally Conservative, and Socially Moderate. I am a Christian, but do not believe the Government should legislate Morals.
[/quote]
The way I see it, this is the issue with conservatives today.
I don’t oppose fiscal conservatism, though certain concepts like the trickle-down theory of economics, at least in the way the Republicans like to practice it, behind it doesn’t make much sense to me.
I have absolutely no idea how conservatives can claim to be all for rights of people while simultaneously pushing for a fucking amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage.
The sooner conservatives can separate their economic and social ideology, the better for them. Virtually all of the young people I know oppose the Republican party SOLELY based on their social platforms.[/quote]
If Republicans would STFU about the social issues, or at least take a more neutral position on them; boot out the crazies talking about “rape being God’s will”; and work on providing a friendlier business environment; I think Republicans could clean house.
I wanted to highlight this passage.
However, Tocqueville’s analysis presents a discomfiting fact–that the basic inclinations toward progressivism were there at the creation. As Nisbet recognized, “the real conflict in modern political history has not been, as is so often stated, between the State and individual, [u]but between the State and social group.” Conservatives should eschew the ‘false antipathy’ in their assertion that salvation is to be found in individualism; rather, what is needed is a renewed defense of the institutions and memberships aside from, and distinctly placed, to that of the State–family, community, local markets, Church. [/u]