WoW! I got banned from FTL

[Caleb]

Errr, I have to concede Luke's point.  Without a strong central government, you couldn't have an empire.

Vee must haf a strong central reich, my fuhrer.

[J’raxis 270145]

Errr, I have to concede Luke's point.  Without a strong central government, you couldn't have an empire.

Vee must haf a strong central reich, my fuhrer.

I don't know about that. Weak governments seem to foster imperial growth. Strong governments stifle it. (The Nazis ended the German empire, remember?)

That's why we need no government.

[FTL_Ian]

Where the FUCK does this authority come from?

Fairy dust!

[dalebert]

Fairy dust!

That's right! Think happy thoughts, Luke, and you can fly!

[Caleb]

Errr, I have to concede Luke's point.  Without a strong central government, you couldn't have an empire.

Vee must haf a strong central reich, my fuhrer.

I don't know about that. Weak governments seem to foster imperial growth. Strong governments stifle it. (The Nazis ended the German empire, remember?)

That's why we need no government.

I'm struggling to think of a weak imperial power, and coming up empty.

But you missed my point. Everyone thinks they have the best system. Once you decide to do what you thinks "works best", you have abandoned all moral pretext. Which is, I believe, what everyone is trying to show Luke. He has no moral foundation at all for his beliefs. They are based on strong-arming people to enforce his own version of the way he thinks things ought to be.  But he'll whine and complain if someone does the same to him (takes his guns, perhaps.) Then suddenly he becomes interested in rights. When he's the aggressor, he isn't interested in morality, only when he's the victim. Pretty much the way of the world, unfortunately.

[Free libertarian]

 Luke, thanks for replying. You are taking quite a bit of flack so, if nothing else I give you credit for hanging in there while being assailed by all of us who are of a different opinion.
Obviously your point of view includes permitting government control over people more than many of us would allow if we had a magic wand.  You refer to "read any history book"...you might consider that a few history books are umm inaccurate or maybe some omit a few "minor" details .

You mention this is a great country...I think we have some good things, but let's not be blinded to the bad okay?  I think we're #1 in incarcerating people % wise anyhow, we do seem to have a rather imperialistic approach to the rest of the world (700 bases, 130 odd different countries) and we are regularly fed propaganda from any number of media outlets.  Our tax burden has risen immensely since the good old days and we are the only ones to ever use nuclear weapons, plus we need to get a license/permit for just about everything even to take a shit...I guess that leaves baseball and apple pie as the good things, uh maybe scratch baseball they're all a bunch of druggies and should be building fences instead of swatting balls over them  right? Oh yeah nachos are good too, but those were brought in by swarthy Mexican types to ward off the munchies and give them something to eat when Mitt Romney types give them a break from mowing the lawn and scrubbing the floors.

You mention we shouldn't incarcerate pot smokers, and should make them build the wall to keep the hordes of sombrero types where they belong....so what if a pot smoker slices his hand on some wire fence or you know just doesn't give a fuck and won't work very hard? Do we give them medical treatment or make them stand in the corner or something?  Do we then incarcerate them if they still refuse? What if a pot smoker has no arms or is in a wheel chair do they build your fence too?

...And since  "everybody knows" Mexicans are a bunch of reefer smokers, would it be such a good idea to put pot smoking middle class white kids down on the border building a fence, so close to all that weed?  
Wouldn't it be a better idea to have them build a fence along the northern border and keep the Canucks
up there with their hockey sticks and polar bears? Or don't you think we need a fence along the
Canadian border too?  Are the Canadians somehow "less dangerous"? Shouldn't we be keeping an eye on them too? I mean they could come down here and smear maple syrup all over our door handles or something and they have a funny accent, always saying, "eh" at the end of sentences and stuff like that.  Besides they copy our culture and they let people in Quebec speak french or english...they can't even make up their minds! Besides how did all of "our" oil get under their shale, the sneaky bastards must've stolen it from us while we were off protecting this hemisphere from the Viet Cong or Commies.  
and they were up there munching flapjacks letting us do all the tough work. Bastards!

 Oh yeah, so do you think George Washington's picture stays up or comes down? If he were alive today
he'd be building your fence down along the southern border for growing hemp right? Or should we keep your "history books" sanitized? Those weren't the history books you wanted me to read were they?

 Final questions... are we "more free" today or "less free" than we used to be?   How does making somebody work on a fence differ from incarcerating them ? Will the fence workers meals be paid for by tax payers ? Will they stay in the excess Katrina trailers and will they be guarded by guys named "Rodriquez" who joined the military in hopes of   gaining U.S. citizenship, uh you know the right way?  

[BaneOfTheBeast]

So what has to happen now instead is people have to make sure that all their children are educated in the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and people like that. Not to say that Hobbes and Locke are absolutely right, but I believe them to be the best political philosophers for children to start out with, because they help children to understand why government has to exist.

[Jan]

Luke:  Why don't you pick up a copy of Harry Browne's "Why Government Doesn't Work." 

I was a diehard Democrat for 30 years...even voted straight ticket Democrat I'm embarrassed to say.  Everyone on this forum probably has a book they've read that made the proverbial light bulb go on over their head.  For me it was "Why Government Doesn't Work." 

[srqrebel]

Luke, some of us are waiting with bated breath to hear your personal, honest, and direct response to the question, "Whence does 'the government' derive its presumed authority to govern?"

The question is not, "What would happen if the government did not have the ability to do what it does"... but rather, we seek your own clearly articulated conception of what is the actual determinant, and valid source, of authority... and how do you distinguish between valid authority vs. the fraudulent usurpation of authority?

[David]

Quote Luke<I remember my teacher saying that one of the hallmarks of a civilized society is a strong central government. And I remember her saying that one of the telltale signs that a society was an uncivilized society was that it had no strong central government. It is quite clear that my teacher was correct in this assertion, as if you look at all the countries where lawlessness reigns supreme, none of them have ever been very successful, and I would even go so far as to say they are a little bit uncivilized.>

Richard Maybury calls that the "Roman Disease".  The belief that there must be a strong central gov't to 'maintain civilization'. 
Most hellhole countries have long histories of strong central gov'ts.  Then the victims of that gov't fight back.  Then everyone calls that anarchy.  Well maybe the victims of gov't wouldn't fight back if they were not being mistreated by their gov't. 

[FTL_Ian]

Luke, some of us are waiting with bated breath to hear your personal, honest, and direct response to the question, "Whence does 'the government' derive its presumed authority to govern?"

Keep waiting.  This troll won't answer that.

[Luke S]

Ok, so let's assume that the government doesn't have the ability to do these things.

Yes, let's. That was my point. Doding the question Luke! You've established a DESIRE for government to have this authority. Now tell me where it comes from. Believing in Heaven doesn't cause it to exist. You can say we must believe in heaven; otherwise we will just die when we die. Guess what, Luke. Either it exists or it doesn't whether you believe in it or not.

This thing you have put your faith in, this government, doesn't exist. Where the FUCK does this authority come from? Quit dodging the question. You can continue to live in denial, in this fantasy land you have created, or you will have to one day face the cold hard reality. We have to face that reality and deal with it if we ever really want to live in a civilized society. What we have now isn't even remotely civilized. Practically every American thinks the government needs a major overhaul and has serious problems, but they won't ever fix it until they realize what the problem is. They've concocted this nanny state out of wishes and dreams and pink unicorns. They've tried to conjure something into existence that simply doesn't exist. Sure, there are people in uniforms, black robes, badges, politicians with fancy titles working in elaborate buildings, but they're all just acting out a play, perpetuating this lie. This moral superiority, this claim to special rights to rule over the child-like peons, that thing that needs to be at the heart of this elaborate play to make it mean something is nonexistent. That's why our government is nothing but an ultra-powerful mafia. They aren't morally pure; not even close. We've handed over our personal power to a massive crime ring and they're taking advantage of it. If you want us to live in a civilized society, you have to make that realization. Maybe years from now, when you've been struggling to "fix" this thing, you'll realize why you're wasting your time. It's rotten at the core and needs to be replaced entirely with something morally consistent.

Dalebert, I'm going to try to build bridges by starting off on what we agree on: your comment regarding the nanny state. You are absolutely 100% correct in your contempt for the nanny state. In my opinion, every last institution that is part of the nanny state needs to be abolished, and every law that relates to the nanny state also needs to be abolished.

As for your question about where government derives its authority to govern, I believe that government derives its authority from its ability to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property of its citizens, and in the case of the US, also from the Constitution that everybody agreed on when the original Confederation became a Constitutional Republic in 1788.

Luke, thanks for replying. You are taking quite a bit of flack so, if nothing else I give you credit for hanging in there while being assailed by all of us who are of a different opinion.
Obviously your point of view includes permitting government control over people more than many of us would allow if we had a magic wand.  You refer to "read any history book"...you might consider that a few history books are umm inaccurate or maybe some omit a few "minor" details .

Free Libertarian, I find these discussions intellectually stimulating even if I don't agree with all of you on every issue. I'll continue to stay on until I'm banned or asked to leave by the Kannings, or forced off by some other mechanism.

As for allowing more gov't control than all of you would, let me just say this: Whenever I have gotten into a political debate in the last 3 years when I finally decided on my political beliefs, my beliefs that the income tax shouldn't exist, Medicare shouldn't exist, Medicaid shouldn't exist, gov't welfare shouldn't exist, etc., usually shock people. We've had those things for so long that now most people can't fathom life without one or more of those things. And my belief that the 2nd Amendment confers upon the individual the right to own any gun, even a full automatic, and that all of the government's mumbo jumbo about "concealed weapons" is unconstitutional, usually shocks them too.
So I guess you could say I'm somewhere in between where most people are, and where you guys are.

I'm struggling to think of a weak imperial power, and coming up empty.

But you missed my point. Everyone thinks they have the best system. Once you decide to do what you thinks "works best", you have abandoned all moral pretext. Which is, I believe, what everyone is trying to show Luke. He has no moral foundation at all for his beliefs. They are based on strong-arming people to enforce his own version of the way he thinks things ought to be.  But he'll whine and complain if someone does the same to him (takes his guns, perhaps.) Then suddenly he becomes interested in rights. When he's the aggressor, he isn't interested in morality, only when he's the victim. Pretty much the way of the world, unfortunately.

No Caleb, I do have moral foundation. The reason why the socialists have been taking over is that most people nowadays unfortunately DON'T, and thus they want free handouts from the government at the expense of everyone else. If the government tried to send me free goodies at everyone else's expense, I'd send them back along with a message that whatever government official(s) was responsible for this arriving at my door has absolutely lost my vote. So don't tell me I have no moral foundation.

And secondly Caleb, my right not to have my guns taken away is enumerated in the Constitution. I can't say the same for this supposed "right to have marijuana". Oh, and before you say "Ninth Amendment" like that other guy did, the Ninth is not a free-for-all amendment that means that everything is legal. It means only that the fact that a certain right is not listed in the Constitution does not automatically mean that people do not have that right. Some of you erroneously believe that the Ninth means that you can declare yourself a right to smoke marijuana. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

If I were to say to you that you have no right to smoke marijuana simply because it's not listed in the Constitution, and you cited the Ninth, then you would be right.

But if I were to say to you that you have no right to smoke marijuana because it's not in the Constitution, and the federal and state governments have both found that it causes crime and have passed laws against it, and the courts have found that people don't have that right, and you cited the Ninth at that point, then I would be right, and you would be wrong.

See how it works?

[dalebert]

As for your question about where government derives its authority to govern, I believe that government derives its authority from its ability to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property of its citizens,

What do you mean by "ability"? This sounds like a might-makes-right argument. Are you claiming the authority comes from having lots of men with guns? If I build a death star and can hold the threat of destruction over the entire Earth, do I then become the legitimate authority? If I could destroy or seriously punish anyone who threatens your rights, so does my "ability" to protect you mean I can now decide what rights you, Luke, should have and what rules you must live by? Just trying to get you to think about these claims your making and help you to see why the claims seem so absurd to us.

and in the case of the US, also from the Constitution that everybody agreed on when the original Confederation became a Constitutional Republic in 1788.

Everybody? No, Luke. Please. Not by a long shot. The only explicit consent to the Constitution is a few wealthy slave-owners who signed it and even beyond that, what about the millions of people who weren't even born at the time to consent to it. You're throwing these terms around like the Confederation and the Constitutional Republic, but these are abstractions. Once again, we come back to this. If I suddenly claim authority over you the way the founding fathers claimed authority over everyone in the U.S., you would laugh at me. Well, unless I pulled a gun on you. Then you'd probably do as I said. That's what our government does. It's a criminal organization ruling via the constant threat of violence against dissent. There's no denying it Luke. You haven't given any evidence to the contrary.

[Free libertarian]

 Luke, thank you for replying well sort of anyway.  You still haven't told me if we should make wheel chair bound pot smokers build walls along the Mexican border or if George Washington's picture should be taken down from public schools, but I'll let you think on that for a day or two longer.  

Do you believe in a nanny state where the "authorities" decide what you will eat, drink and smoke?  Do you think it's a government function to protect people from themselves?  
 Alcohol was banned during prohibition, now it's legal, does that mean alcohol is now "good"?
Many religions and societies have taboos against murder, yet the U.S. government sanctions it (see collateral damage any recent war or conflict) and has legalized it, does that mean it's good to kill innocent people?

You seem to think the existence of a manmade law that permits something somehow makes it okay and if something is illegal it must automatically be bad. Why is that?

In a local newspaper today I read where some legislator in Louisiana wants to make wearing low pants illegal. Now trust me I f'n hate that stupid low pants, underwear showing "style" but other than gritting my teeth or rolling my eyes why should I or anyone have the right to tell a kid he has to wear his pants a certain way? Does government have the right to tell a person how to dress?  

Are you afraid to allow others the freedom to live their own life according to their ideas and not yours or an oppressive government?  

The Constitution and bill of rights are fun to read and argue about but, they're still manmade aren't they?
If the Constitution were amended to take away freedom of speech, would that mean the right no longer exists or that it was simply taken away under pain of penalty, incarceration or death?

Isn't there any voice inside you that tells you to leave others alone as long as they're not harming you?
Doesn't that voice mean more than a pack of laws put together by the same type of people who try to  rationalize and "legalize' murder? It does to me.    
 

 

[FTL_Ian]

As for your question about where government derives its authority to govern, I believe that government derives its authority from its ability to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property of its citizens, and in the case of the US, also from the Constitution that everybody agreed on when the original Confederation became a Constitutional Republic in 1788.

Okay, I take it back.  Luke is not a troll, he's just brainwashed.

Luke, I did not sign the constitution.  (Nor does it matter if some long lost relative did.)  I do not agree to this government and it's silly laws.  Therefore, I have no obligation to it.  While I will not obey the government people's dictates, I will live peacefully and not harm others or their property.

What would you like to see done to me?