Free Russell Kanning!

[FTL_Ian]

There can be no "legitimate" government.  Initiation of force on innocent people is never "legitimate"! 

[Tom P]

There can be no "legitimate" government.  Initiation of force on innocent people is never "legitimate"! 

I've thought long and hard about that exact idea.  I believe there can be a legitimate government.  They exist today in many different forms.

A landlord/tenant arrangement, for example, is a form of government.  It is by mutual consent.  When you sign your lease, you also agree to follow the laws or rules of the lease.  You also agree that if you break those rules you can be subject to fees and possible eviction.

When I go to work for someone there is an implied contract that in exchange for whatever compensation I agree to do a set amount of work and I agree to follow their rules.  In essence, when I am at work I am governed by the laws of my employer.  If I break them I could lose the privilege of working there.

With that idea in mind, I quote from the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

In short, if I do not consent, I cannot be governed.  I did not see ANYTHING in there about majority consent or democratic majority.  A just government can only govern by individual consent.  Of course there are many people who disagree with that with no facts to back it up and they have no problems forcing their delusions on other people to maintain their beliefs.

I am all for government under these conditions.  I am completely against one government having a monopoly of force on everyone just because it is the will of a small group of people calling themselves judges, congress, police or whatever.

[FTL_Ian]

I don't think "government" is an appropriate word to describe mutual, consenting relationships.

To govern means to control, and rule.

[Tom P]

I don't think "government" is an appropriate word to describe mutual, consenting relationships.

To govern means to control, and rule.

I somewhat agree.  That doesn't necessarily mean that a just government could have control over you absolutely.  If the agreement states that if you violate another's natural rights then you become subject to enforcement actions to the extent of making the other person whole again.

I think that you would be hard pressed to find someone to disagree with that.  In a completely voluntary society I can see that being an integral part of an insurance contract.

[FrankChodorov]

A landlord/tenant arrangement, for example, is a form of government.  It is by mutual consent.  When you sign your lease, you also agree to follow the laws or rules of the lease.  You also agree that if you break those rules you can be subject to fees and possible eviction.

a landlord/tenant agreement is only mutual consent between a tenant and specific landowners...

but because all land is legally occupied and one has to occupy space inorder to exist saying we have freedom because a tenant "mutually consents" to the conditions of a lease is like saying a prisoner has freedom because the warden let's him pick which cell to occupy.

many towns in NH are still run by town meeting where you do not delegate your authority it is direct, face to face, deliberative democracy with majority rule and constitutional guaranteed rights.

a pure anarchy with individual sovereignty can only occur where there is freely homesteadable land and no public infrastructure and jurisdiction to speak of including courts, police, and prisons.

we have to imagine a situation inwhich these conditions which don't exist today in NH could exist...

what are they?

[Tom P]

A landlord/tenant arrangement, for example, is a form of government.  It is by mutual consent.  When you sign your lease, you also agree to follow the laws or rules of the lease.  You also agree that if you break those rules you can be subject to fees and possible eviction.

a landlord/tenant agreement is only mutual consent between a tenant and specific landowners...

but because all land is legally occupied and one has to occupy space inorder to exist saying we have freedom because a tenant "mutually consents" to the conditions of a lease is like saying a prisoner has freedom because the warden let's him pick which cell to occupy.

many towns in NH are still run by town meeting where you do not delegate your authority it is direct, face to face, deliberative democracy with majority rule and constitutional guaranteed rights.

a pure anarchy with individual sovereignty can only occur where there is freely homesteadable land and no public infrastructure and jurisdiction to speak of including courts, police, and prisons.

we have to imagine a situation inwhich these conditions which don't exist today in NH could exist...

what are they?

Your writings remind me of past correspondence with lawyers.  Are you a lawyer?

You seem to very partial to groups and communities.  I would remind you that groups and communities have no rights. Only individuals have rights.

I would also add that the constitution doesn?t guarantee us rights, it tells the people that operate as government what they can and cannot do.  If the constitution guaranteed us rights, we would not have the mess we have today.

To answer your question, I would say the conditions where a voluntary society could exist under today?s circumstances would be quite simple.

An amendment to either the Federal or State constitution that would read something like:  The rights of the people to be free from coercive force shall not be infringed unless by voluntary consent.  The people may contract with any other person or group of people to protect their natural rights.

However this is echoed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, so it may be redundant.

[FTL_Ian]

Tom,  "Frank" is a troll.  It's best you just set him to "ignore", so he'll go away.

[Tom P]

Tom,  "Frank" is a troll.  It's best you just set him to "ignore", so he'll go away.

I had a feeling.  I find myself smiting him on a daily basis...  Man, I got to get back to work!  These forums are addictive!

[FrankChodorov]

Are you a lawyer?

play one on TV

Only individuals have rights.

me too.

The rights of the people to be free from coercive force shall not be infringed unless by voluntary consent.  The people may contract with any other person or group of people to protect their natural rights.

except how does that protect the individual from the situation that I described?

if all land is legally occupied and one has to occupy land inorder to exist where can I go to excercise my absolute right of self-ownership?

[tracysaboe]

Tom and Ian. You're having more of a semantic debate then anything.

There's poltical governence (which is what Ian's exclusively refering too) Where as Tom is including both economic governence and political governence in his definition.

These distinictions are Misesian btw.

Tracy