Mexicans fly their flag above the United States' flag

[Caleb]

Fortunately most of us grew up to realize that everyone has rights; including the right to have our own countries.

Jane, let me explain to you what a government is:  A government is an institution that exists to use violence against people to coerce them into doing things they don't want to do.  By definition, you do not have a right to infringe on others in such a manner.  So yes, Jane, you have the right to have your own country, as long as your country doesn't infringe on my rights!  Including my right to welcome immigrants or hire them if I so choose.

[CNHT]

I have a feeling that you're so close to this, Jane, because I've seen you write about government encroachment on our lives with such vitality (one example that comes to mind is the funding of education).
And just so I don't have you at a disadvantage, my name is James. 

Well I just don't happen to think that 'one world' with no goverment is a viable thing and that it's rather a naive utopian dream.

As I said above, if you can't whip *this* gov't into shape to do the minimum it was set up to do, I doubt you are going to get thousands of diverse cultures of people, all speaking different languages, all having different beliefs, to co-exist without allowing them their preferences on how to be governed, or how much, or at all.

Do you really expect Islamics for example to stop using their bible to justify killing of non Islamics because WE think that's wrong?

We cannot 'force' peace. If you try you would therefore be guilty of force or violence ourselves. I'm sure you would agree that no matter how much money we infuse into Iraq with new buildings, modern plumbing, new technology, new businesses, shared profits from their oil, and an election process other than voting for one dictator, it's not going to work if they don't want it.

It's a catch-22 therefore. We wish for peace for those people not to live under a dictatorship, and we tried to help them, but they can only help themselves...no matter what we do.

So if you truly want peace and freedom for everyone you have to let diversity play itself out.

Why did you this morning choose brown shoes over black for example? (Not that I claim to know what shoes you have on but assuming you have more than one pair?)

Everyone has choices and preferences and the 'one-world fits all' doesn't fit the bill for me.

And that description of 'one world' kinda makes me laugh because it's exactly what they are teaching in the schools today that you would abhor.

As I said, it's like what Hitler envisioned - total purity.

The world's a mess. Always was and always will be. Which is why I vote for diversity any day. You never know when you will want to leave one country (or one state?) for another that might be doing things better, right?

[CNHT]

Fortunately most of us grew up to realize that everyone has rights; including the right to have our own countries.

Jane, let me explain to you what a government is:  A government is an institution that exists to use violence against people to coerce them into doing things they don't want to do.

That may only be YOUR definition. A government was set up to do what the organizers wanted. If others have corrupted that, then it's up to each one of us to set it straight.

By definition, you do not have a right to infringe on others in such a manner.  So yes, Jane, you have the right to have your own country, as long as your country doesn't infringe on my rights!  Including my right to welcome immigrants or hire them if I so choose.

  <-- No one is infringing on your right to welcome or hire immigrants. We have 20,000 here in NH with no problems. All welcome, and most working.

Likewise, those immigrants I  assume, by your standards, would NOT have the right to organize themselves to steal from you any more than I would have the right to steal from you.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

If you don't choose to be 'coerced' by the government in this country, and don't want to try to reverse the fact that we have gotten away from the 'original intent', the why even stay in this country? Why not go somewhere else you view as more 'utopian'?

All I hear you do is complain.

This again is just a redux of the 60s. And you can see where THAT got us.

[Caleb]

If you don't choose to be 'coerced' by the government in this country, and don't want to try to reverse the fact that we have gotten away from the 'original intent', the why even stay in this country? Why not go somewhere else you view as more 'utopian'?

America ... Fix it or Fuck it!  [credit ... Lloyd Danforth]  I've seen people much higher on the food chain than you, Jane, try to fix it. (*cough* Thomas Jefferson)  And they failed.  Miserably.  I'm not going to waste my time trying to patch up the Titanic.  I'm working to destroy the federal union nonviolently.  By the time I die, I hope the US has faded into history so that posterity will not be bothered by its stench.

[CNHT]

If you don't choose to be 'coerced' by the government in this country, and don't want to try to reverse the fact that we have gotten away from the 'original intent', the why even stay in this country? Why not go somewhere else you view as more 'utopian'?

America ... Fix it or Fuck it!  [credit ... Lloyd Danforth]  I've seen people much higher on the food chain than you, Jane, try to fix it. (*cough* Thomas Jefferson)  And they failed.  Miserably.  I'm not going to waste my time trying to patch up the Titanic.  I'm working to destroy the federal union nonviolently.  By the time I die, I hope the US has faded into history so that posterity will not be bothered by its stench.

Ah so you came to NH to destroy the federal government. Glad to know that. So very intelligent an answer...   but then what did I expect.

[Caleb]

Likewise, those immigrants I  assume, by your standards, would NOT have the right to organize themselves to steal from you any more than I would have the right to steal from you.

Exactly!  No person or group of persons (including groups of persons who call themselves "government") have the right to initiate force against another person or group.  So, while you have no right to stop a person from China from coming here (nor do you have the right to lay conditions on his coming here, or to require that he obtain your permission) neither does he have the right to steal your property. 

That having been said, if he squats on "public property" (which is, in reality property that government thugs stole from others, I will look the other way.  It's hard for me to get real worked up when bad things happen to thugs.

Ah so you came to NH to destroy the federal government. Glad to know that. So very intelligent an answer...   but then what did I expect.

Yeah, I'm kind of a simpleton.  I have this whacked out idea that no one should order me around or steal my money.

Where would you suggest I should try to destroy the federal government?  NH seems as good a place as any.  Here there are some people who get it.

[CNHT]

Exactly!  No person or group of persons (including groups of persons who call themselves "government") have the right to initiate force against another person or group.  So, while you have no right to stop a person from China from coming here (nor do you have the right to lay conditions on his coming here, or to require that he obtain your permission) neither does he have the right to steal your property. 

You use the tactics of the left; co-opt the discussion to include things that were not in there to begin with.
This started with the notion that racist groups organizing to attack and drive innocent people off their land with violence should not be sanctioned but it is being applauded.  I hope I can assume you don't sanction that idea.

When they advertise this fact it is distressing, whether it is legal to fly a flag about it or not.
It is legal to fly a flag advertising the KKK, but since it is a symbol of violence and racism, who would want to do it? And who would likewise sanction others doing it? Not I.

That having been said, if he squats on "public property" (which is, in reality property that government thugs stole from others, I will look the other way.  It's hard for me to get real worked up when bad things happen to thugs.

This is a whole other argument. See above. I never specified public property.

Where would you suggest I should try to destroy the federal government?  NH seems as good a place as any.  Here there are some people who get it.

I have no idea, only that it can be done from anywhere, not just NH. And I was under the impression that FSPers came to NH to improve it not destroy it.
If destroying NH and/or the USA is nirvana to you and your only mission, that's nice.  I just don't choose to waste my time dealing with utopians until they put themselves and their efforts into reality.

[eques]

Well I just don't happen to think that 'one world' with no goverment is a viable thing and that it's rather a naive utopian dream.

I don't pretend that it'll be some sort of paradise, nor do I think that it'll necessarily be stable if it ever were to come to pass (indeed, it would require a vigilance on the part of each individual).  But it will never happen unless people begin to understand the importance of individual sovereignty, and that sort of thing takes a one-by-one approach--and a lot of time.  The governments of the world are way ahead of the seekers of true freedom in terms of indoctrinating their "citizens."

As I said above, if you can't whip *this* gov't into shape to do the minimum it was set up to do, I doubt you are going to get thousands of diverse cultures of people, all speaking different languages, all having different beliefs, to co-exist without allowing them their preferences on how to be governed, or how much, or at all.

Are there many people who are truly satisfied with the way they are being governed now, if they are even aware of it?  For example, if somebody knew that they would not face reprisal in any way, would they pay taxes?  Would they fill out forms requiring (by law) all kinds of personal information?  Would they submit their children to the intellectual wasteland known as "our public schools?"  (Indeed, this last one is "allowed" by the state, but I understand that it's still a pain in the ass a lot of the time... not that the benefits aren't worth it, just that it's a royal pain.)

However, as I said before, it would take time and a willingness to engage in one-on-one conversation.  I won't be able to speak to somebody in China, but if I talk to somebody who might speak to somebody in China, that may work just as well.

Do you really expect Islamics for example to stop using their bible to justify killing of non Islamics because WE think that's wrong?

Of course not.  They aren't stopping now, so I doubt they'd stop in any other scenario.

With that being said, if they were to truly understand the principles of sovereign individualism, they would realize that killing non-Islamics is wrong.  (And it is wrong because it violates the principle of individual sovereignty!)  They would most probably begin to understand, as mainstream Christianity has, that not every single word in the bible is to be followed, especially if it is a violation of rights.

There are many, many Christians who can back up the idea that not following the bible to the letter does not reduce one's spirituality.

We cannot 'force' peace. If you try you would therefore be guilty of force or violence ourselves. I'm sure you would agree that no matter how much money we infuse into Iraq with new buildings, modern plumbing, new technology, new businesses, shared profits from their oil, and an election process other than voting for one dictator, it's not going to work if they don't want it.

It's a catch-22 therefore. We wish for peace for those people not to live under a dictatorship, and we tried to help them, but they can only help themselves...no matter what we do.

Honestly, I'm not sure if I agree with your assessment (if I'm reading you correctly) that the United States government is currently occupying Iraq in order to bring freedom to its people.  I do agree that it's not going to work if they don't want it, and it is not possible to force peace.  It is possible, however, to stop an aggressor.  One merely has to stand up to him.

People rarely ever do, which is how we all got into this situation in the first place.

So if you truly want peace and freedom for everyone you have to let diversity play itself out.

The thing is, any government necessarily stands against diversity.  Any government stands against peace and freedom.  Even the minarchist ideal of the founding of the United States is a violation of individual sovereignty, a crime against diversity, and an offense to peace and freedom.

Why did you this morning choose brown shoes over black for example? (Not that I claim to know what shoes you have on but assuming you have more than one pair?)

Everyone has choices and preferences and the 'one-world fits all' doesn't fit the bill for me.

I would like you to point out where I said anything like "one world fits all."  Or, for the sake of argument, where anything I said would naturally lead to the above.

And that description of 'one world' kinda makes me laugh because it's exactly what they are teaching in the schools today that you would abhor.

I described two kinds of "one world": one in which there is a one-world government, and one in which there is not.

Where in those articles you posted in response to Caleb do they promise that individuals will have unfettered freedom to be individuals?  Where is the description of a non-government world?  Where do they say anything about teaching students that they have the ultimate fundamental right of individual sovereignty?

If the current public school system does not have as its core curriculum the individual right of self-ownership or sovereignty (and I know it doesn't), it cannot possibly describe a world in which individuals are free to trade, assemble/disassemble, to do whatever they want provided they do not violate another's individual sovereignty.  If that is what they are promising, then they are being deceitful (and probably are deceived themselves).

No individual sovereign would stand to be called a "global citizen."  What is a citizen but a subjugate of some government?  Or perhaps they think that there will be a direct democracy of all the world's citizens, which is simply a tyranny of the masses writ large.

No individual sovereign would stand to have her rights violated because anywhere from 50.1% to 99.9% of the population said that it had to be that way.  If an individual did suffer a violation of her sovereignty, she would be entitled to compensation from the offender.  This would likely be enforced with social pressure (an example of how this might work which has been posted before: Private Courts in India).

I submit that the burden is currently on you to show how my description of a world without government even begins to resemble anything that is taught in the One World classrooms.

Even if you do not think that it will ever happen, it's a goal that I consider important enough to work toward.  I hope that, one day, the evidence will be overwhelmingly in favor of my position. 

As I said, it's like what Hitler envisioned - total purity.

I hardly think I'm advocating purity, except in the case of a purity of reason.  My one maxim is this: that you can live your life as you like as long as you do not violate somebody else's right of self-ownership.  Beyond that, there are no limits.  How exactly is that an advocation of purity?

The world's a mess. Always was and always will be. Which is why I vote for diversity any day. You never know when you will want to leave one country (or one state?) for another that might be doing things better, right?

All I really know right now is that I don't have a choice if I want to remain unmolested by government.

And if it's diversity you want, how can you be against the ultimate diversity of every individual governing his own affairs and nobody else's?

(Or maybe you're not, but don't see how it could happen.  That's a different story, but then the question is, how could you not want that world?)

[CNHT]

I don't pretend that it'll be some sort of paradise, nor do I think that it'll necessarily be stable if it ever were to come to pass (indeed, it would require a vigilance on the part of each individual).  But it will never happen unless people begin to understand the importance of individual sovereignty, and that sort of thing takes a one-by-one approach--and a lot of time.  The governments of the world are way ahead of the seekers of true freedom in terms of indoctrinating their "citizens."

Way ahead. The UN would never leave it alone.

Are there many people who are truly satisfied with the way they are being governed now, if they are even aware of it?

Probably not
Trouble is, while you and I might follow the principles of non-violent, responsible, self-government, there will always be other who don't...hence that is how laws come into being in an attempt to protect the responsible from the irresponsible.

It is possible, however, to stop an aggressor.  One merely has to stand up to him.

Exactly....not just one, but all...for example if everyone were not paying their taxes then the Brown's would not be standing out as 'scofflaws'.

The thing is, any government necessarily stands against diversity.  Any government stands against peace and freedom.

Well I think you'd have to let the inviduals decide for themselves on that...if that is what they want, who are we to stand in their way?

Everyone has choices and preferences and the 'one-world fits all' doesn't fit the bill for me.

I would like you to point out where I said anything like "one world fits all."  Or, for the sake of argument, where anything I said would naturally lead to the above.

Did not say you did, just said it did not suit me and I was not sure what others meant by it when they claim the same.

Where in those articles you posted in response to Caleb do they promise that individuals will have unfettered freedom to be individuals? 

That is the point -- they pretend it but it won't be.

Where is the description of a non-government world?  Where do they say anything about teaching students that they have the ultimate fundamental right of individual sovereignty?

It's all over the UN literature while at the same time, I think the UN has more rules and laws for everyone than the individual countries do for themselves! It's sickening! They never actually 'preach' one-worldism, it's always 'everyone has a right to blah blah blah'. Then tney use force to ensure those rights. It's deceptive. It's Orwellian.

If the current public school system does not have as its core curriculum the individual right of self-ownership or sovereignty (and I know it doesn't), it cannot possibly describe a world in which individuals are free to trade, assemble/disassemble, to do whatever they want provided they do not violate another's individual sovereignty.  If that is what they are promising, then they are being deceitful (and probably are deceived themselves).

NOW you're catching on.

No individual sovereign would stand to be called a "global citizen."  What is a citizen but a subjugate of some government?  Or perhaps they think that there will be a direct democracy of all the world's citizens, which is simply a tyranny of the masses writ large.

Again, give that man a cigar. It's a big lie. THE big lie.

I submit that the burden is currently on you to show how my description of a world without government even begins to resemble anything that is taught in the One World classrooms.

In name only. In truth it's the exact opposite. But who knew?  See 'deceit' part above.

[Quantrill]

A government is an institution that exists to use violence against people to coerce them into doing things they don't want to do.

In a way, I kind of like this quote.  Governments large and small use violence or the threat of violence to coerce people into doing things.  That is part of the role of government.  Protect the rights, property (and subsequently borders) of the people, using force when necessary.  A government is there to serve the people, not enslave them.  That is where our disagreements seem to lie.  I want the government to serve us as it's supposed to, not go away entirely.  

But the problem with using the aforementioned definition of a government is Ted Bundy used this line of thinking to justify his "crimes" (according to this line of thinking crimes do not exist).  If someone wants to rape another person then according to this logic there should be no government stepping in to intervene.  The potential rapist wants to do something and shouldn't be prevented from bringing his thoughts to fruition because the government would be coercing him into doing something he doesn't want to do.

I often wonder about the purpose of philosophy.  So many questions that seem to have no logical answer.  I don't want an oppressive government, but if we abolish it then gangs will rule (not much difference here I know).  I think our best hope is to have an entity (in this case a government) that will leave people alone save for protecting those people from others who would do them harm.  Bringing the topic at least partially back to the initial post this would also include protecting the peoples' property...

[CNHT]

A government is an institution that exists to use violence against people to coerce them into doing things they don't want to do.

In a way, I kind of like this quote.  Governments large and small use violence or the threat of violence to coerce people into doing things.  That is part of the role of government.  Protect the rights, property (and subsequently borders) of the people, using force when necessary.  A government is there to serve the people, not enslave them.  That is where our disagreements seem to lie.  I want the government to serve us as it's supposed to, not go away entirely.  

But the problem with using the aforementioned definition of a government is Ted Bundy used this line of thinking to justify his "crimes" (according to this line of thinking crimes do not exist).  If someone wants to rape another person then according to this logic there should be no government stepping in to intervene.  The potential rapist wants to do something and shouldn't be prevented from bringing his thoughts to fruition because the government would be coercing him into doing something he doesn't want to do.

I often wonder about the purpose of philosophy.  So many questions that seem to have no logical answer.  I don't want an oppressive government, but if we abolish it then gangs will rule (not much difference here I know).  I think our best hope is to have an entity (in this case a government) that will leave people alone save for protecting those people from others who would do them harm.  Bringing the topic at least partially back to the initial post this would also include protecting the peoples' property...

Thanks for making sense.

There is always going to be government so long as there is more than one person on earth. If you lived alone on a deserted island, and one more person showed up, by nature, there would automatically be 'government', whether spoken or unspoken, official or unofficial.

[eques]

There will always be people who will not leave the rest of us well enough alone.

The problem is that legislation really doesn't do anything to protect anybody.  A law against theft doesn't stop a thief from stealing.  A law against murder doesn't stop a psycho from killing.  On a lighter note, a speed limit doesn't stop the average Joe from speeding. 

Laws are also necessarily anti-diversity.  They're "one size fits all" constructs.  One may move to another municipality, but one may not pick and choose which laws to follow.

Regarding governments in general: if Joe and Susie and Jake decide that they want to form a government among themselves, fine.  The fact that I don't agree with it doesn't mean that they *can't* do it.  However, the instant they gang up on me to tell me I have to follow their rules, that's not fine.

As for standing up to an aggressor, obviously there needs to be more than one person against an army.  Ed Brown is standing up to *the* aggressor... I hope he emerges alive (and victorious??), though my heart sinks when I consider the unlikelihood of that outcome.

Okay, so my "utopia" of individual sovereigns resembles the "one world" in name only.  So what?  What's left now is to educate and resist (and educate... and resist... etc.  )!!!

[eques]

A government is an institution that exists to use violence against people to coerce them into doing things they don't want to do.

In a way, I kind of like this quote.  Governments large and small use violence or the threat of violence to coerce people into doing things.  That is part of the role of government.  Protect the rights, property (and subsequently borders) of the people, using force when necessary.  A government is there to serve the people, not enslave them.  That is where our disagreements seem to lie.  I want the government to serve us as it's supposed to, not go away entirely. 

But the problem with using the aforementioned definition of a government is Ted Bundy used this line of thinking to justify his "crimes" (according to this line of thinking crimes do not exist).  If someone wants to rape another person then according to this logic there should be no government stepping in to intervene.  The potential rapist wants to do something and shouldn't be prevented from bringing his thoughts to fruition because the government would be coercing him into doing something he doesn't want to do.

I often wonder about the purpose of philosophy.  So many questions that seem to have no logical answer.  I don't want an oppressive government, but if we abolish it then gangs will rule (not much difference here I know).  I think our best hope is to have an entity (in this case a government) that will leave people alone save for protecting those people from others who would do them harm.  Bringing the topic at least partially back to the initial post this would also include protecting the peoples' property...

Thanks for making sense.

There is always going to be government so long as there is more than one person on earth. If you lived alone on a deserted island, and one more person showed up, by nature, there would automatically be 'government', whether spoken or unspoken, official or unofficial.

Regarding Ted Bundy, his "understanding" of his rights is totally at odds with respecting the rights of those women.

And there is (and should be) a distinction between "government" and "state."  A "government" is, as you said, what exists in the interaction between people.  Most "government" in this sense isn't an externally-enforced hierarchy of rules, but an emergent set of laws, much like the various laws of nature.  In that sense, there's no real "violation" of a law, though some laws are more rigid than others.

A state, however, enforces rules.  As is oft quoted, "rules are made to be broken."  Rules sometimes (often? frequently?) run counter to "law," which is what occurs when natural government takes place.  When these rules run counter to law, you get some very unnatural results!

Hence, when you mince words, what I'm fighting against isn't "government," but the "state."  However, the "state" presently calls itself "the government."  I suppose that it's a force of habit, but when I use the word "government" as in "those dingbats in Washington, DC/Concord/on the town council," the meaning that springs to mind is that of the "state," not natural government.

[Caleb]

Governments are much, much, more dangerous than gangs because the mass of the people do not respect the legitimacy of gangs.

[joeyforpresident]

eques, I still - to this day - laugh uncontrollably at your quote of the South Park immigrants episode.

Oh my gosh...fun times fun times. I've been walking around campus repeating it.

Fun stuff.