Christianity and Libertarianism?
#41
(05-12-2014, 09:54 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Yes, the government can use police, courts, law and military to regulate society...otherwise we would have something akin to Somalia. The question is to what extent should the government use its force, that is up for debate. As for rights, rights are determined by the social contract. In this case, the US social contract is the US Constitution. The rights American citizens have are detailed in the Constitution. Interpretation are determined by the courts.

The US government was set up to DISALLOW using the US Military to enforce laws in the United States. Read about the Posse Comitatus Act. I imagine it's been shot to Hell by now (it was certainly broken at Waco).



Reply
#42
(05-12-2014, 10:53 PM)Melkite Wrote: Lol, virtually every person circumcised in the west was forced into it.  You are quite absurd to think otherwise.

:eyeroll:

Forced? by what law are you referring too?

Quote:No one has the choice of being born into a society, therefore there is no cultural contract that each person is obligated to abide by.  This isn't groupthink.  If someone thinks an aspect of their culture is unjust, more power to them to overturn it.  If you're not happy with other people choosing how to live for themselves, (eta: and would compel them to live the way you think they should) be prepared to fight.

As I said before, your parents take custody over you, you have no freedom until adulthood. Did you have a choice as a child to live somewhere else? No...you didn't. Your parents, your guardians made the choice for you.  Once again you didn't have the choice to be born, so you are also free to break that contract if your wish. Just don't blame me if you wind up in Hell.
Reply
#43
(05-13-2014, 02:27 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(05-12-2014, 09:54 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Well, are you coerced to live in your nation? No, you are not. You are free to leave at any time. So there is no coercion, you are part of a collective agreement...the agreement is if you break a rule, you suffer punishment. Coercion is a poor use of the term.

No, one has to have passports, be willing to be manhandled by TSA agents if leaving by plane, have whatever money Uncle Sam deigns to leave you after he gets "his" taxes, etc.  The bigger point is that there are few nations that are any better off. The police state is a pretty global phenomenon at this point. There's also the reality that most people love the countries they live in -- despite the government. There's more to one's homeland than what the politicians do. Most folks grew up where they live, their parents are buried there, they have friends and family there, etc. The "if you don't like it, leave it" is also very undemocratic (not that I'm a fan of democracy, but people who use that line typically are).

Nope. This is a distinction that seems too subtle for a lot of libertarians: the difference between having a choice and having to leave.

For example, let's say you live in a condominium, and are very fond of it. As long as you can move out, you have a choice. No matter how firmly you intend to stay. No matter how much you prefer your current condo. No matter how good or bad your current condo is for you, you still have a choice.

This is analogous to living in a nation. You choose which one to live in, and you can change. You may not be able to improve some things about it all by yourself, because it is not entirely yours.

You have at least 4 choices. 1) Tolerate the social contract, and perhaps try to amend it. 2) Leave it by emigrating. 3) Violate it. 4) Revolt.

Quote:All law is coercion. Even a law against braiding hair without being licensed by the State is only ultimately enforceable by violence. If a cop catches some girl braiding hair without a license, they cite her. She doesn't show up to Court, they can arrest her. If she continues to braid hair, they can arrest her. Arrest is force. Any law has the same force backing it up ultimately, whether it's braiding hair without a license, or murder.

You're getting a little looney here. You made an absurd jump from fine to execution. A fine is not violence, it does no bodily harm.
Reply
#44
(05-13-2014, 02:37 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(05-12-2014, 09:54 PM)austenbosten Wrote: The question is to what extent should the government use its force, that is up for debate. As for rights, rights are determined by the social contract. In this case, the US social contract is the US Constitution. The rights American citizens have are detailed in the Constitution. Interpretation are determined by the courts.


Even the Declaration of Independence says that rights are God-given, and not determined by social contract.

Also, you seem to be reading the Constitution backwards. While some rights are enumerated, it doesn't mean that no other rights exist. The 9th and 10th amendments:

Quote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 

I think enumerating some rights was a bad idea because it leads to folks thinking that if it isn't listed in the Bill of Rights, that right doesn't exist.

I never said no other rights exist, I said what is not explicitly said in the document, are worked out at the state and local level and their constitutionality is determined by the courts.

As for rights being God-given....that is according to the drafters of the social contract. The US Constitution does not bind any other nation to it. The US is free to dump the Constitution and replace it with another.
Reply
#45
(05-13-2014, 02:27 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(05-12-2014, 09:54 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Well, are you coerced to live in your nation? No, you are not. You are free to leave at any time. So there is no coercion, you are part of a collective agreement...the agreement is if you break a rule, you suffer punishment. Coercion is a poor use of the term.

No, one has to have passports, be willing to be manhandled by TSA agents if leaving by plane, have whatever money Uncle Sam deigns to leave you after he gets "his" taxes, etc.  The bigger point is that there are few nations that are any better off. The police state is a pretty global phenomenon at this point. There's also the reality that most people love the countries they live in -- despite the government. There's more to one's homeland than what the politicians do. Most folks grew up where they live, their parents are buried there, they have friends and family there, etc. The "if you don't like it, leave it" is also very undemocratic (not that I'm a fan of democracy, but people who use that line typically are).

All law is coercion. Even a law against braiding hair without being licensed by the State is only ultimately enforceable by violence. If a cop catches some girl braiding hair without a license, they cite her. She doesn't show up to Court, they can arrest her. If she continues to braid hair, they can arrest her. Arrest is force. Any law has the same force backing it up ultimately, whether it's braiding hair without a license, or murder.

Ultimately the "force" backing up virtually every single man-made law, is a gun in the hands of an agent of the State.
Reply
#46
(05-13-2014, 02:37 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(05-12-2014, 09:54 PM)austenbosten Wrote: The question is to what extent should the government use its force, that is up for debate. As for rights, rights are determined by the social contract. In this case, the US social contract is the US Constitution. The rights American citizens have are detailed in the Constitution. Interpretation are determined by the courts.


Even the Declaration of Independence says that rights are God-given, and not determined by social contract.

Also, you seem to be reading the Constitution backwards. While some rights are enumerated, it doesn't mean that no other rights exist. The 9th and 10th amendments:

Quote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 

I think enumerating some rights was a bad idea because it leads to folks thinking that if it isn't listed in the Bill of Rights, that right doesn't exist.

There are those who would contend that any "right" is only such by virtue of the willingness of someone claiming it to fight and perhaps die for it.
Reply
#47
(05-13-2014, 07:46 AM)austenbosten Wrote:
(05-12-2014, 10:53 PM)Melkite Wrote: Lol, virtually every person circumcised in the west was forced into it.  You are quite absurd to think otherwise.

:eyeroll:

Forced? by what law are you referring too?

Quote:No one has the choice of being born into a society, therefore there is no cultural contract that each person is obligated to abide by.  This isn't groupthink.  If someone thinks an aspect of their culture is unjust, more power to them to overturn it.  If you're not happy with other people choosing how to live for themselves, (eta: and would compel them to live the way you think they should) be prepared to fight.

As I said before, your parents take custody over you, you have no freedom until adulthood. Did you have a choice as a child to live somewhere else? No...you didn't. Your parents, your guardians made the choice for you.  Once again you didn't have the choice to be born, so you are also free to break that contract if your wish. Just don't blame me if you wind up in Hell.

I think i understand what you meant, you were speaking about the parents not being forced to circumcise their children? I meant the children are forced to be circumcised.  Yes, you're right that the parents are technically not forced to circumcise their sons, although in previous decades it was so common that the doctors often didn't even ask before they did it.  Today, though it is rarer now, some parents are still harrassed into circumcising if they are initially opposed to it.  But the point i was making is that no child chooses to be circumcised.  Therefore, every child is circumcised by force - permission of the parent does not change that.  A parent has no more authority to authorize the mutilation of their son's genitals than they do their daughter's.

Yes, parents have custody over their children.  That does not give them license to do whatever they want to their children.  You would have to be insane to think that kind of custody is what is allowed.  Contracts mus5 be signed by the participants.  I signed nothing.  I didn't agree to be given life (in fact, God never chose me or you or any of us, he merely passively allowed us to come into existance) or to be bound to any of the laws held therein.  If it is God's intent to punish me for eternity because i disagree with a contract someone forged my name into, then that God is inherently unjust.  I will not blame you if i go to hell; i'd rather be there than spend eternity with such a capricious and spiteful monster.
Reply
#48
(05-13-2014, 07:50 AM)austenbosten Wrote: Nope. This is a distinction that seems too subtle for a lot of libertarians: the difference between having a choice and having to leave.

There's nothing subtle at all about the differences in having a choice and having to leave.

Quote: For example, let's say you live in a condominium, and are very fond of it. As long as you can move out, you have a choice. No matter how firmly you intend to stay. No matter how much you prefer your current condo. No matter how good or bad your current condo is for you, you still have a choice.

This is analogous to living in a nation. You choose which one to live in, and you can change. You may not be able to improve some things about it all by yourself, because it is not entirely yours.

No, people very often don't have a choice but to stay where they're put condo-wise -- unless you include as having a "choice" walking out and leaving all of your possessions behind, maybe dragging your children into the streets with you or something. And the obvious difference between a condo (a private business) and the United States is that the latter is/are supposed to be responsive to the will of the people - by law. That's no longer how it works, in fact. So the "social contract" was broken on the government's side.

Quote: You have at least 4 choices. 1) Tolerate the social contract, and perhaps try to amend it. 2) Leave it by emigrating. 3) Violate it. 4) Revolt.

Except that when some folks "perhaps try to amend it," or violate it, they're told they should leave if they don't like it.

Vox Wrote:
Quote:All law is coercion. Even a law against braiding hair without being licensed by the State is only ultimately enforceable by violence. If a cop catches some girl braiding hair without a license, they cite her. She doesn't show up to Court, they can arrest her. If she continues to braid hair, they can arrest her. Arrest is force. Any law has the same force backing it up ultimately, whether it's braiding hair without a license, or murder.

You're getting a little looney here. You made an absurd jump from fine to execution. A fine is not violence, it does no bodily harm.

All law is ultimately enforced by violence. A fine is not violence in itself, obviously, and no one saying it is. But don't pay that fine and see what happens. Maybe you get told to show up in Court again. Don't show up and see what happens. You get bench-warranted. Then the cops can haul you in, using force as necessary. Resist them and find out how much force they can use. Or show up and tell the Judge you refuse to pay and watch the bailiff come toward you to throw you in jail, using force as necessary. If all you want to do is leave the Courtoom and go home to play video games, and you're as peaceful as possible in your just trying to leave, you will still get grabbed and your movements toward the door will be countered with movements to make you stop. That's how the law works.

Reply
#49
(05-13-2014, 04:58 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(05-13-2014, 07:50 AM)austenbosten Wrote: Nope. This is a distinction that seems too subtle for a lot of libertarians: the difference between having a choice and having to leave.

There's nothing subtle at all about the differences in having a choice and having to leave.

Uhh...leaving is a choice. A choice is a mental decision...to leave or stay, are two choices.

Quote:
Quote: For example, let's say you live in a condominium, and are very fond of it. As long as you can move out, you have a choice. No matter how firmly you intend to stay. No matter how much you prefer your current condo. No matter how good or bad your current condo is for you, you still have a choice.

This is analogous to living in a nation. You choose which one to live in, and you can change. You may not be able to improve some things about it all by yourself, because it is not entirely yours.

No, people very often don't have a choice but to stay where they're put condo-wise -- unless you include as having a "choice" walking out and leaving all of your possessions behind, maybe dragging your children into the streets with you or something. And the obvious difference between a condo (a private business) and the United States is that the latter is/are supposed to be responsive to the will of the people - by law. That's no longer how it works, in fact. So the "social contract" was broken on the government's side.[/quote]

Only according to Libertarians it no longer works. Sadly Libertarians never believe in the BS they preach. They preach all about liberty and freedom, but when people vote for a sodomite-loving, marxist-statist twice and re-elect the same inept and corrupt congressmen; then obviously democracy failed, and thus a change (revolution) must be made to fix it.

As for people not having a choice. Yes they do, even Jews had a choice to leave Nazi Germany (though the Nazis did not make that easy for any of them), but people make the choice to remain because the costs/risks/sacrifices to leave are too great than to remain. Still the choice is present.

Quote:
Quote: You have at least 4 choices. 1) Tolerate the social contract, and perhaps try to amend it. 2) Leave it by emigrating. 3) Violate it. 4) Revolt.

Except that when some folks "perhaps try to amend it," or violate it, they're told they should leave if they don't like it.

And you then go back to the first word of the first choice: Tolerate

Libertarians love their liberty, except when it disagrees with their ideal worldview. When you push unpopular ideas, expect the "love it, or leave it" line.

Vox Wrote:
Quote:You're getting a little looney here. You made an absurd jump from fine to execution. A fine is not violence, it does no bodily harm.

All law is ultimately enforced by violence. A fine is not violence in itself, obviously, and no one saying it is. But don't pay that fine and see what happens. Maybe you get told to show up in Court again. Don't show up and see what happens. You get bench-warranted. Then the cops can haul you in, using force as necessary. Resist them and find out how much force they can use. Or show up and tell the Judge you refuse to pay and watch the bailiff come toward you to throw you in jail, using force as necessary. If all you want to do is leave the Courtoom and go home to play video games, and you're as peaceful as possible in your just trying to leave, you will still get grabbed and your movements toward the door will be countered with movements to make you stop. That's how the law works.
[/quote]

Yes obviously the last step to enforce laws is violence, the problem is Libertarians want to then state, "see law enforcement bad, law bad, government bad, liberty liberty liberty!"
Reply
#50
(05-13-2014, 05:24 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(05-13-2014, 04:58 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(05-13-2014, 07:50 AM)austenbosten Wrote: Nope. This is a distinction that seems too subtle for a lot of libertarians: the difference between having a choice and having to leave.

There's nothing subtle at all about the differences in having a choice and having to leave.

Uhh...leaving is a choice. A choice is a mental decision...to leave or stay, are two choices.

Uhh, yes, and having to leave is not a choice. Hence there's no subtle difference between having a choice and having to leave. There's a world of difference between the two.

Quote:
Quote:No, people very often don't have a choice but to stay where they're put condo-wise -- unless you include as having a "choice" walking out and leaving all of your possessions behind, maybe dragging your children into the streets with you or something. And the obvious difference between a condo (a private business) and the United States is that the latter is/are supposed to be responsive to the will of the people - by law. That's no longer how it works, in fact. So the "social contract" was broken on the government's side.

Only according to Libertarians it no longer works. Sadly Libertarians never believe in the BS they preach. They preach all about liberty and freedom, but when people vote for a sodomite-loving, marxist-statist twice and re-elect the same inept and corrupt congressmen; then obviously democracy failed, and thus a change (revolution) must be made to fix it.

Well, I'm not a libertarian and am not here to defend them per se.

Quote: As for people not having a choice. Yes they do, even Jews had a choice to leave Nazi Germany (though the Nazis did not make that easy for any of them), but people make the choice to remain because the costs/risks/sacrifices to leave are too great than to remain. Still the choice is present.

No, not everyone has a choice about everything, and being in a given situation is not necessarily a matter of one's choosing to be in it. The mentally retarded kid isn't going to grow up and be able to choose to study Physics, for ex. Or, I guess you could say he could "choose" to, but he won't be successful and likely wouldn't be admitted into college. In which sense, I choose to be a millionaire and 25 years old, too.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote: You have at least 4 choices. 1) Tolerate the social contract, and perhaps try to amend it. 2) Leave it by emigrating. 3) Violate it. 4) Revolt.

Except that when some folks "perhaps try to amend it," or violate it, they're told they should leave if they don't like it.

And you then go back to the first word of the first choice: Tolerate

Libertarians love their liberty, except when it disagrees with their ideal worldview. When you push unpopular ideas, expect the "love it, or leave it" line.

We have no choice but to tolerate things we can't change, but that doesn't mean that pointing out what's wrong is a bad thing (or that it's a good thing to think we can't change things that we can change).

Again, I'm not here to defend libertarianism, but saying "love it or leave it" to a libertarian in a country which was pretty libertarian to begin with, and was designed to be pretty libertarian, is libertarianish according to its founders' vision and the unmolested Constitution which is being breached by the government, sort of makes no sense.

Quote:
Quote:All law is ultimately enforced by violence. A fine is not violence in itself, obviously, and no one saying it is. But don't pay that fine and see what happens. Maybe you get told to show up in Court again. Don't show up and see what happens. You get bench-warranted. Then the cops can haul you in, using force as necessary. Resist them and find out how much force they can use. Or show up and tell the Judge you refuse to pay and watch the bailiff come toward you to throw you in jail, using force as necessary. If all you want to do is leave the Courtoom and go home to play video games, and you're as peaceful as possible in your just trying to leave, you will still get grabbed and your movements toward the door will be countered with movements to make you stop. That's how the law works.

Yes obviously the last step to enforce laws is violence, the problem is Libertarians want to then state, "see law enforcement bad, law bad, government bad, liberty liberty liberty!"

No, the problem is that people want laws to govern every facet of our existence -- from the gallons of water our toilets hold to what kinds of light bulbs we use to whom private businesses have to serve, etc. The problem isn't the law in se to a libertarian (anarcho-libertarians aside); it's what kind of laws are made. Straight-up libertarians have no problems with Courts of law and law enforcement when it comes to murder, rape, robbery, enforcing contracts, fraud, etc. But they are likely to have problems with some girl braiding hair being thrown into jail for it, and being told they should shut up, tolerate, and "love it or leave it."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)