America's "Toughest Sheriff" caught enforcing laws he made-up

[MaineShark]

Is a person a fascist if they want the limited fed gov promised by the Constitution ?

No.  Fascism is a specific sort of Statism, just like Baptism is a specific sort of Christianity.  If you believe in the Constitution, that makes you a Federalist.

No one who has ever known me would ever consider me a statist .... my good friends would laugh , my best friends might get pissed ..lol

If you believe in a State, then you are a Statist, no matter how small you might want that State to be.  Just like if you believe in some sort of god, then you are a theist, no matter what god you might happen to believe in.

...it too established boards for itself just as you guys first objected to in this discussion...

Where has anyone objected to any such thing?

Organization is necessary.

As long as organizations are established voluntarily, they are legitimate regardless of how lax or strict their rules may be (eg, the Amish, who were already mentioned, and who have many rules).

As people fled the area looters came in and robbed and stole anything and everything they could get their hands on.  That alone should show that the default setting of society is not peace and love and when people feel they can get away with something they will even if it means taking something from someone else.

Interesting.  Would the looters have done what they did, if the government had not first disarmed and oppressed the people living there?  Would the looters have even been there, if the government was not taking ~80-90% of what they earn, rendering them so poor that risking death to loot someplace is a step up?  If you worked half the hours you currently do, and had double your current standard of living, would you ever be tempted to loot?  Or would working for a living be less appealing than the risk of death to get something you could easily afford, anyway?

Joe

[CJS]

I apologize if my comments made you feel like you are not activist enough or grouped you with government supporters.  Your reply makes it clear that you are not such a supporter.

You comments did not bother me in the least , i was happy for your responses .. there are a couple of posters  here that seem downright hostile to new members as well as well established members who have differing opinions .. those people I try to ignore .. there is more than one type of violence and how funny it is to me to see hypocrites is full swing

Is a person a fascist if they want the limited fed gov promised by the Constitution ?

No.  Fascism is a specific sort of Statism, just like Baptism is a specific sort of Christianity.  If you believe in the Constitution, that makes you a Federalist.

No one who has ever known me would ever consider me a statist .... my good friends would laugh , my best friends might get pissed ..lol

If you believe in a State, then you are a Statist, no matter how small you might want that State to be.  Just like if you believe in some sort of god, then you are a theist, no matter what god you might happen to believe in.

Joe

This is a real surprise to hear . So you're saying that any one working with in the system is a statist ?

In my mind it was some one who looked to the state for all their answers and blindly agreed with government  .. hmm .. "dogma? "  Like people who call war protesters unpatriotic .. like that .

For the record .. i do not believe in the state .. I accept it's existence ...I  accept the fact they will win any fight I enter with them outside their rules ... not that I have won many playing by their rules either .

[MaineShark]

This is a real surprise to hear . So you're saying that any one working with in the system is a statist ?

No, Statism is a specific belief set.

Using the institutions built by Statists, against Statism is perfectly legitimate (albeit often pointless).  Doing so does not make one a Statist any more than my attendance at my wife's brother's wedding, held at a Catholic church, somehow makes me a Catholic.  I was willing to show up, but that doesn't make me a believer in that religion.

In my mind it was some one who looked to the state for all their answers and blindly agreed with government  .. hmm .. "dogma? "  Like people who call war protesters unpatriotic .. like that .

Nope.  Statism is a belief set.  Some are far more "fundamentalist" about it, as in the cases that you noted, but anyone who believes there should be any State, no matter how small, is a Statist.

It should be noted that there is a substantial disparity between "State" and "government."  Governments can be completely voluntary, as in the case of a private club where all individuals unanimously consent to the rules.  Heck, you can even consent to let someone else make rules, without consulting you.  As long as actual consent exists, the system is anarchic, no matter how much government it has.  A State is a specific sort of government that asserts some mythical right to make rules for those who don't consent, and has "a monopoly on the just initiation of force."  Since initiation of force is never just, there is no such entity as the State; it's a deity created by the followers of the religion called Statism.

For the record .. i do not believe in the state .. I accept it's existence ...I  accept the fact they will win any fight I enter with them outside their rules ... not that I have won many playing by their rules either .

The State doesn't exist.  There are only individuals.  Many individuals band together under certain belief structures, but they are still just individuals, doing their individual thing, and are each 100% morally responsible for the actions they take.

Joe

[CJS]

 Thanks Joe .. good stuff .

I always appreciate good back and forth and have got some today .. thanks all .

[KBCraig]

"MaineShark" for the new "Sheriff Joe".

[AntonLee]

I apologize if my comments made you feel like you are not activist enough or grouped you with government supporters.  Your reply makes it clear that you are not such a supporter.

You comments did not bother me in the least , i was happy for your responses .. there are a couple of posters  here that seem downright hostile to new members as well as well established members who have differing opinions .. those people I try to ignore .. there is more than one type of violence and how funny it is to me to see hypocrites is full swing

Is a person a fascist if they want the limited fed gov promised by the Constitution ?

No.  Fascism is a specific sort of Statism, just like Baptism is a specific sort of Christianity.  If you believe in the Constitution, that makes you a Federalist.

No one who has ever known me would ever consider me a statist .... my good friends would laugh , my best friends might get pissed ..lol

If you believe in a State, then you are a Statist, no matter how small you might want that State to be.  Just like if you believe in some sort of god, then you are a theist, no matter what god you might happen to believe in.

Joe

This is a real surprise to hear . So you're saying that any one working with in the system is a statist ?

In my mind it was some one who looked to the state for all their answers and blindly agreed with government  .. hmm .. "dogma? "  Like people who call war protesters unpatriotic .. like that .

For the record .. i do not believe in the state .. I accept it's existence ...I  accept the fact they will win any fight I enter with them outside their rules ... not that I have won many playing by their rules either .

support for their system costs money.  You can accept their existence, I am fully aware that there are lots of people who like the system that steals money.  That's not okay.  I fought them a few times lately and I've won because they decided they had better things to do than continue a "fight"  (hint I'm not fighting them, I'm acting free. . .big difference)

if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[CJS]

This is directed at Anton ... tell me any single statement I have made in this forum that say's I support the system ... show me a single instance where I agree with ruling at the end of a gun .

Please read what I post before you continue to denigrate me , ok ?  I don't know much about you ... the one thing I saw was a vid where you castigate Pres Lincoln .. and I was so happy to see some one who saw him for the criminal he was . But now I see that you enjoy calling people names and cursing them for having different opinions than you . Well I have paid my dues , I have bled , and been bruised , sat my ass in stir . don't be so damm quick to judge .

But how the hell you think I like the violence doled out by the fed and local gov's and that it  pleases me is just baffling to me and I really wish you would just cut that shit out . Just because I am not an anarchist does not mean I pro taxation , pro government at the end of a gun , pro what ever crap they do .

This place has an ignore button .. if you don't like what I post... use it , just please stop busting my chops for crap I am not guilty of .. thanks .

[thinkliberty]

This is directed at Anton ... tell me any single statement I have made in this forum that say's I support the system ... show me a single instance where I agree with ruling at the end of a gun .

Please read what I post before you continue to denigrate me , ok ?  I don't know much about you ... the one thing I saw was a vid where you castigate Pres Lincoln .. and I was so happy to see some one who saw him for the criminal he was . But now I see that you enjoy calling people names and cursing them for having different opinions than you . Well I have paid my dues , I have bled , and been bruised , sat my ass in stir . don't be so damm quick to judge .

But how the hell you think I like the violence doled out by the fed and local gov's and that it  pleases me is just baffling to me and I really wish you would just cut that shit out . Just because I am not an anarchist does not mean I pro taxation , pro government at the end of a gun , pro what ever crap they do .

This place has an ignore button .. if you don't like what I post... use it , just please stop busting my chops for crap I am not guilty of .. thanks .

Some of the things you have said makes it sound like you support government at the end of a gun...

you would not believe how many times I have had to explain to friends and some family that it's ok to want socialized medicine

Socialized medicine as in if you don't pay you go to jail, try to resist or escape and you will be killed? That is okay to want? Really!?

I hate the governing body here in Illinois . i hate that our police departments are now small military units and I hate that the gov just keeps getting stronger .. but I hold no delusions that my society would be functional in this part of the world with anarchy .

In other words you support the government at the end of a gun, because you fear anarchy. Government is a monopoly of violence they get to hurt who ever they want and jail anyone that tries to opt out. If you can opt out it's not a government, because there is no monopoly of force, it's a voluntary society, which is anarchy.

This particular issue is one that baffles me , with in the forums it seems  to me most want immigration law ignored or abolished , and at the same time most think think we should pay no taxes ... so what does the local government do when people who sneak into this country  start to bankrupt the services provided to the local community? Looks like a case of I want to have my cake and eat it to ...

No one wants your rancid cake, They choke it down because they were forced to buy it at the point of a gun.

If the FDA and AMA did not rig the system to keep medical treatment and medication extremely expensive, people could afford to buy their own, even the people you have deem to be "illegal" 

The services are bankrupt, because they are run by corrupt idiots.

[lildog]

Is a person a fascist if they want the limited fed gov promised by the Constitution ?

No.  Fascism is a specific sort of Statism, just like Baptism is a specific sort of Christianity.  If you believe in the Constitution, that makes you a Federalist.

No one who has ever known me would ever consider me a statist .... my good friends would laugh , my best friends might get pissed ..lol

If you believe in a State, then you are a Statist, no matter how small you might want that State to be.  Just like if you believe in some sort of god, then you are a theist, no matter what god you might happen to believe in.

Joe, I'd have to disagree with you that believing in the Constitution makes you a federalist.  If the Constitution were actually followed as written, the federal government would very limited in it's power and true control would be at a state level.  So I would argue that I'm more of a statist then a federalist.  Power should be kept at the lowest level possible.

Which brings up the questions Jacobus asks...
Applying this to government: do you advocate for government that performs acts you would find morally reprehensible if you had to perform them yourself?  What would you personally wish to see done to people who want to opt-out of government and refuse to pay taxes?

Again, this is why our Constitution is so important.  The government should not be allowed to do many of the things we currently let it get away with.  The federal government should be limited and function only at the lowest level needed to keep our society from killing each other.  If it were limited to the level the Constitution dictated you wouldn't need to be force to pay a percent of your pay every week.  We could instead tax you for what you actually use via fees or voluntary taxes.  If you wanted to opt out you simply avoid those items associated with the fees.

For instance, if you want to drive on a road then you must pay for that road.  While not 100% perfect the fairest way I know of and the most cost effective would be a gas tax (tolls have huge costs and 50% of the money collected actually goes toward running the toll both itself).  If you object you can either walk, ride bikes, or invent some alternate form of transportation.

The post office is another example of an option.  If you choose not to use it you don't have to and if you do you pay for what you use.

And if you believe as I do that power should be kept at as low a level as possible, if you choose to live in a state or town like MA or CT that wants to establish a lot of rules and limit personal liberty of those living there, you have that choice.  But if you choose to live in a live and let live state like NH (at least what NH tries to be) then you likewise have that choice.

...it too established boards for itself just as you guys first objected to in this discussion...

Where has anyone objected to any such thing?

Sorry, that was a typo on my part.  That should read borders, not boards.  By being a private group they can limit who comes in, just as we have rules for entering this country.

As people fled the area looters came in and robbed and stole anything and everything they could get their hands on.  That alone should show that the default setting of society is not peace and love and when people feel they can get away with something they will even if it means taking something from someone else.

Interesting.  Would the looters have done what they did, if the government had not first disarmed and oppressed the people living there?

Very good point and I agree with you.  However, it is out of the same fear of government that keeps people in check that exists with the fear of armed people being able to defend themselves.

The looters didn't stay in check then go nuts because they were good people suddenly turned bad.  They were always bad and kept in check by fear.  In an anarchical society, if these same evil people feel they can get away with something they will.  I fail to see any difference.  If you think simply having armed people will get people to step up and help one another I disagree.
Look at the murder of Kitty Genovese, people wouldn't even lift a finger to call the police much less step up and help.

Would the looters have even been there, if the government was not taking ~80-90% of what they earn, rendering them so poor that risking death to loot someplace is a step up?

Most of the looters were not of the 50% paying into the government... no, I'm convinced they are the ones who not only loot but also use the government to loot for them.  They are the ones living off the rest of us taking everything and anything they can get the government to take for them.

If you worked half the hours you currently do, and had double your current standard of living, would you ever be tempted to loot?  Or would working for a living be less appealing than the risk of death to get something you could easily afford, anyway?

I believe people should work for what they get in life (including health care) so I wouldn't be tempted to loot regardless.  As I said, I see the looters as those who are already using the government to loot for them.

[thinkliberty]

Joe, I'd have to disagree with you that believing in the Constitution makes you a federalist.  If the Constitution were actually followed as written, the federal government would

If you believe that there should be a federal government you are a federalist. It does not matter how big or small you want that federal government to be. If you believe in it you are a federalist.

Most of the looters were not of the 50% paying into the government... no, I'm convinced they are the ones who not only loot but also use the government to loot for them.  They are the ones living off the rest of us taking everything and anything they can get the government to take for them.

All of the looters were threatened with violence to pay the government, if they wanted to work for a living. Some of them decided to take the money from the beast to bleed it, instead of working to feed it.

Your government forced them to live off of you. They don't think working to have 30% to 50% of labor stolen by your government is a good deal and your government has decided to pay them not to work, so that is what they do.  I don't blame them.

At least the money is not being spent on killing or torturing people from Iraq and Afghanistan.

[MaineShark]

Joe, I'd have to disagree with you that believing in the Constitution makes you a federalist.  If the Constitution were actually followed as written, the federal government would very limited in it's power and true control would be at a state level.  So I would argue that I'm more of a statist then a federalist.  Power should be kept at the lowest level possible.

You're referring to the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution.  The Constitution is a Federalist document.

The post office is another example of an option.  If you choose not to use it you don't have to and if you do you pay for what you use.

Except it's a Federal crime to compete with the Post Office for regular mail delivery.  If competition were allowed, private companies would quickly out-compete the Federal juggernaut, and then where would the Statists be?

Sorry, that was a typo on my part.  That should read borders, not boards.  By being a private group they can limit who comes in, just as we have rules for entering this country.

"We" don't have any such rules.  Show me where I signed off on any rules.

The looters didn't stay in check then go nuts because they were good people suddenly turned bad.  They were always bad and kept in check by fear.  In an anarchical society, if these same evil people feel they can get away with something they will.  I fail to see any difference.  If you think simply having armed people will get people to step up and help one another I disagree.

If more than a minuscule fraction of humanity were inherently evil, the species would have died off, millennia ago.  Those who are inherently evil are a fraction of a percent (true, biological sociopaths).  The others you mention were all trained to be what they are by the State.  Without the State indoctrinating them into evil, they would not be.

Look at the murder of Kitty Genovese, people wouldn't even lift a finger to call the police much less step up and help.

Statists didn't lift a finger.  That's the system you want to support; one where folks ignore crimes like that, rather than taking personal responsibility for their safety and the safety of those around them.  Self-defense is a biological function, and it can no more be delegated effectively than any other such function.  Any society that tries ens up twisted and diseased to the root.

Most of the looters were not of the 50% paying into the government... no, I'm convinced they are the ones who not only loot but also use the government to loot for them.  They are the ones living off the rest of us taking everything and anything they can get the government to take for them.

Even those who don't pay income taxes pay most of what they get into taxes.  Sales taxes, "sin" taxes, takes on businesses (which are passed on to the consumer), taxes on telecommunications, taxation by inflation.  Everyone pays.

And, if the government were not taking so much of what I earn, I could easily help out someone who is in true need, without even feeling the pinch.  If the State is a bunch of armed robbers, as you just asserted, then it seems like one more argument against that institution.

I believe people should work for what they get in life (including health care) so I wouldn't be tempted to loot regardless.  As I said, I see the looters as those who are already using the government to loot for them.

You are a looter, though.  You loot from me to pay for the things you think should be "provided by the government."  By your own statements, you support the Constitution, so you want all those things the Constitution says the Feds should do.  And you loot me in order to pay for it.

If you want those things, then you should pay for them.  Because when you hire some thug to force me to do so, you are a looter.

Joe

[CJS]

you would not believe how many times I have had to explain to friends and some family that it's ok to want socialized medicine

Socialized medicine as in if you don't pay you go to jail, try to resist or escape and you will be killed? That is okay to want? Really!?

I am so sorry  , I guess I need to stop people from having opinions .. or making choices for themselves . I said it is ok for them to want it , but that they should start identifying themselves as socialists .. not that I wanted socialism shoved down my throat .. you are just showing your colors  , I get that .. if you don't agree they are wrong and deserve violent words thrust at them .. lol

I hate the governing body here in Illinois . i hate that our police departments are now small military units and I hate that the gov just keeps getting stronger .. but I hold no delusions that my society would be functional in this part of the world with anarchy .

In other words you support the government at the end of a gun, because you fear anarchy. Government is a monopoly of violence they get to hurt who ever they want and jail anyone that tries to opt out. If you can opt out it's not a government, because there is no monopoly of force, it's a voluntary society, which is anarchy.

I have said many times that in smaller , more interdependent communities anarchy would be a great way to exist , but no one can tell me it would work in the cities of Chicago , New York . Los Angelos ? I do not fear anarchy near as much as I fear communism or socialism .

As far as your mindset that the treat of force at the end of a gun will some how magically disappear in an anarchical state .. all I have to do is study history  .... I believe the end of the gun will get a lot more exposure .. and in most places the weak will be on the wrong side .


As far as my "rotten cake" ... answer my question .. does a local community  , that pools its resources .. have a right to say who gets to use them ? How is this not a reasonable question ?

I will put it in a volenterist context for you .

In an anarchical society , do people have the right to form co-ops and then only share amongst those who labored in said project ? How do they stop a group from coming say ... 50 miles away and saying we want to take advantage of what you have and say  we may or may not want to be productive members of your group . Tell me you won't be using the end of a gun to protect whats yours .

And again ... show me where i said I like government at the end of gun and the violence that goes with it , and not a sentace taken out of context that can be twisted

I am not here trolling .. if you can't see I am here seeking information and ideas than I feel sorry for you , that you mind is that closed . 

I appreciate those here willing to discuss , and not control and manipulate .. I have changed some important beliefs because of the people in this forum , made my mind up about moving to NH .. and I will not let any one bully me in cybeyland or in real life 

[lildog]

Most of the looters were not of the 50% paying into the government... no, I'm convinced they are the ones who not only loot but also use the government to loot for them.  They are the ones living off the rest of us taking everything and anything they can get the government to take for them.

All of the looters were threatened with violence to pay the government, if they wanted to work for a living. Some of them decided to take the money from the beast to bleed it, instead of working to feed it.

The beast has nothing to bleed, what they bleed is the labor of others.  So if you and others are taking government money you are quite frankly hypocrites.  You are willingly accepting stolen money taken by force from others against their will.

Your government forced them to live off of you.

No one was forced to do anything.  People have the choice to work and try to be independent or they can accept stolen goods that are offered to them.

If you knew I stole money from MainShark would you willingly accept it?

Government has fooled people into believing that money they hand out is "government" money so people do not realize it is first taken by force from others.  And politicians use this money to bribe people into giving them more and more power.

Anarchy would have this same flaw.  Leaders will rise up and promise things to people who help them.  And those who accept these "free" things will gladly line up their neighbors at gun point and march them into gas chambers.  Government vs anarchy wont matter... both will fail here.

They don't think working to have 30% to 50% of labor stolen by your government is a good deal and your government has decided to pay them not to work, so that is what they do.  I don't blame them.

So instead of being the shop keep who pays protection money, they figure its easier to simply collect the protection money from others since they get to keep their share and you don't blame them?  You think this is acceptable? You've just spend 2 pages in this thread telling me how wrong government is and now your saying the one part of it that actually is wrong is somehow acceptable... I don't even know what to say to that.

[AntonLee]

you don't have to live in an anarchist society.  I don't want to either, I want to live in a voluntary one.  It seems your fear is part of the reason I'm not free yet.  Some of the reason is my fear too.  My fear isn't really doing much to disturb your life.  Your fear tends to have really bad consequences for my freedom.

You should probably stop that.  It's not nice to make others pay so you can feel safe.

[thinkliberty]

As far as your mindset that the treat of force at the end of a gun will some how magically disappear in an anarchical state...

The end of YOUR gun ends with YOUR government.  I don't think the gun will magically disappear, but I will oppose it anytime it exists.

Please stop supporting violence. 

Please give peace a chance.

you[r] mind is that closed . 

You are right, It's closed. I won't support someone or some government that wants to use violence against peaceful people.