Individualist or Collectivist?

[cyberdoo78]

You are individualist if you believe the following:

• Rights come from the people, not from the government.
• The government can do that which a single individual can do.
• People as individuals are more important then the group.
• The group has no right that allows it to override the individual.
• No law may be passed that would coerce the individual to comply.
• All of the people are equal under the law.
• The proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. It purpose is negative and defensive only.
  

You are a collectivist if you believe the following:

• While some rights belong to the people, all rights are granted by the government.
• The government can do what ever the people grant it the power to do.
• What is best for the greater good is more important then what is best for the individual.
• The majority of the people have the authority to rule what is best for the individual.
• Any law that benefits the greatest number of people should force the individual to comply.
• All people are equal under the law, with few exceptions.
• The proper role of the government is to provide for its people and to protect them from all things, including themselves. Its purpose is positive and offensive.

For more information regarding the topic of Individualists and Collectivists, please see:
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf

[CNHT]

Cool!

These folks (and others) will have a table at our presidential picnic on July 7, 2007

[cyberdoo78]

Yeah, I'm going to join the club or start one. Its pretty neat idea. I'd love to meet Ed, he is just such a kick ass kinda guy. I wish I had as much knowledge as he does.

[CNHT]

Yeah, I'm going to join the club or start one. Its pretty neat idea. I'd love to meet Ed, he is just such a kick ass kinda guy. I wish I had as much knowledge as he does.

Which Ed are you talking about? Our Ed at CNHT or some other Ed? 

[cyberdoo78]

G. Edward Griffin was the Ed I was referring to. I don't know if this is your Ed or not, I'm not NH, yet. 

I'd love to come down to each and every event as well but I don't have the funds. I'm not inclined to accept someone pay for me either. It would go against what I believe. If however someone wanted to exchange the cost of tickets(and housing, and/or food) for some other thing of equal value, I would not object. This should be be considered a solicitation, but is a statement of fact.

[CNHT]

G. Edward Griffin was the Ed I was referring to. I don't know if this is your Ed or not, I'm not NH, yet. 

I'd love to come down to each and every event as well but I don't have the funds. I'm not inclined to accept someone pay for me either. It would go against what I believe. If however someone wanted to exchange the cost of tickets(and housing, and/or food) for some other thing of equal value, I would not object. This should be be considered a solicitation, but is a statement of fact.

Ah OK yes, Griffin's group is mentioned in the above post. They will be there. Ed is our Chair...so I was confused. The picnic is only $15.00 so if you are within a day trip distance, that could be doable.

[eques]

Where is the "none of the above as defined" option? 

[cyberdoo78]

I carefully weighed the idea of a none of the above. I chose to not include it because everyone fits into one of the three choices.

You will notice that I specifically gave 7 points for each side, this was by plan not by accident. Basically its a logical decision. You carefully consider each statement for both sides. Add up the number of positive answers to each statement on each side. Which ever side that you have the most answers on, you are that side. This being the logic of: A < B = B or B > A = A. A can not be B.  B can not be A. If you are mostly A, then you are A. If you are mostly B, then you are B. You can not exist as both A and B.

Some of the ideas and concepts under both choice are mutually exclusive of each other, meaning they can't both be true.

Short answer, use the I don't know option, because if you can't figure it out, then you are truly confused and don't really know where you stand. No insult, just a matter of logic, how ever flawed.

[eques]

As you have defined "individualist" and "collectivist," I can vote for neither of them.  However, I won't submit a vote for "I don't know," because I very well know what my position is.

This is where you fail:

Some of the ideas and concepts under both choice are mutually exclusive of each other, meaning they can't both be true.

I won't go through it point by point, but I will point out your oversight on the last point.

To wit:

[Individualist:] The proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. It purpose is negative and defensive only.
...
[Collectivist:] The proper role of the government is to provide for its people and to protect them from all things, including themselves. Its purpose is positive and offensive.

You've provided a false dichotomy, and your incorrect assumption is that a proper role of government exists.  The provided options fail to recognize the following option:

There is no proper function of government.  Protection of lives, liberty, and property of individuals cannot be delegated except with the express consent of each individual.

Whether that is "individualist" or "collectivist" I won't bother arguing.  What I've provided is fairly close to my position, and since it does not fall within the three options given, I can vote for none of them.

I would characterize my position as "individualist," but I thank you for providing your understanding of the words so that I may judge my own positions accordingly.

Short answer, use the I don't know option, because if you can't figure it out, then you are truly confused and don't really know where you stand. No insult, just a matter of logic, how ever flawed.

Oh, and I'm not insulted, but I think you were being pretty damn insulting, not to mention instructing me to choose "none of the above" because I couldn't "figure it out."  You might want to brush up on those manners.  Are you, by any chance, an Objectivist? 

[cyberdoo78]

As you have defined "individualist" and "collectivist," I can vote for neither of them.  However, I won't submit a vote for "I don't know," because I very well know what my position is.

This is where you fail:

Some of the ideas and concepts under both choice are mutually exclusive of each other, meaning they can't both be true.

I won't go through it point by point, but I will point out your oversight on the last point.

To wit:

[Individualist:] The proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. It purpose is negative and defensive only.
...
[Collectivist:] The proper role of the government is to provide for its people and to protect them from all things, including themselves. Its purpose is positive and offensive.

Please note the use of the word I used, 'some'. Also to note is that collectivist and individuals do agree on some points, the thing that differs is how complete that point. That's why the both statements are not 'a negative' of each other.

You've provided a false dichotomy, and your incorrect assumption is that a proper role of government exists.  The provided options fail to recognize the following option:

There is no proper function of government.  Protection of lives, liberty, and property of individuals cannot be delegated except with the express consent of each individual.

Whether that is "individualist" or "collectivist" I won't bother arguing.  What I've provided is fairly close to my position, and since it does not fall within the three options given, I can vote for none of them.

I would characterize my position as "individualist," but I thank you for providing your understanding of the words so that I may judge my own positions accordingly.

As to the charge of "false dichotomy", it was not my intention to create a dichotomy. The statements were generated in such a way to overlap all possible eventualities. Thats why I did not state the A is A and B is B, because in doing so, would not allow for C, which could be part of A or it could be part of B, and could also be part of both at the same time. The differences in the two groups can be viewed as a line, with collectivism being on one side and individualism being on the other side, leaving a area of grey between the two points. It is quite possible to be both a collectivist and a individualist at the same time, however I will address this as a point to another comment of yours.

Short answer, use the I don't know option, because if you can't figure it out, then you are truly confused and don't really know where you stand. No insult, just a matter of logic, how ever flawed.

Oh, and I'm not insulted, but I think you were being pretty damn insulting, not to mention instructing me to choose "none of the above" because I couldn't "figure it out."  You might want to brush up on those manners.  Are you, by any chance, an Objectivist? 
[/quote]

With regards to an individual being both a collectivist and an individualist would indicate a state of 'confusion'. Being in a state of confusion is not a negative state to be in, it mearly is a state of being. You take insult where there is none. If one doesn't understand something, then logically one asks a question. By doing so, one is in a state of confusion. The fact you had to ask a question means you didn't understand it. You were confused or in another sense, you couldn't 'figure it out'. So I answered your question, and apparently have provided enough information for you to make a choice.

I did not provide for a 'non of the above' so, I couldn't instruct you to choose it. The remainder of your statement will be ignored as it is predicated on the assumption that I instructed you to do something that I could not have possibly done, with one exception.

You assume that there was an insult, yet you did not ask if it was an insult. You chose to be offended and then retaliated with a statement that could be misinterpreted as a insult, I refer to your opinion that I need to brush up on my manners, incidentally I do not view this as a insult, but a mear failure to communicate effectively. If it was true that I was being insulting, as I was not, then I would need to brush up on my manners. It was, however, not meant to be insulting as I stated previously in my previous post, and thusly I have no need to brush up on my manners. A thought comes to me though, that in suggesting that I need an improvement in my manners, perhaps it could also be said that you need improvement in your communication and/or analytical skills. That again is not an insult, but a observation.

With regards to your statements, 'There is no proper function of government.  Protection of lives, liberty, and property of individuals cannot be delegated except with the express consent of each individual.' I ask you for clarification.

There is indeed a proper function of government, it is defined in the Preamble of the Constitution. Government doesn't exist, its an abstract concept and as such can not have a 'real' function. It can have a fictional function, which is described.

A thought about consent that always bothers me. How can you really agree to something unless you have done it before? So if I say I consented to having sex, I am saying that I have had sex before and therefore can accept the results of having sex. That means most people don't actually consent to having sex, the first time, because they don't have the experience to actually judge if they want it or not and if they don't want it, then they can't accept the results that come from having sex.

If I were told that it is possible to conceive a child while having sex, that statement has no real meaning(it does have an abstract meaning) because I can't understand the concept of sex because I've never had it. I hope I have communicated my point here, I fear I haven't.

Without the ability to consent, then you have no ability to delegate authority. If you can't delegate authority, then what happens?

No, I am not a objectivist, or at the very least do not claim to be one. Perhaps being an individualist means accepting some of the objectivist's ideas, but not all of them, but then that would make not an objectivist. Anything which is not fully something is therefore must not be something. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it could also be a robotic duck, therefore it is not a duck, unless it is, which a robotic duck isn't.

[eques]

I apologize for the "insult" remarks... I'd blame it on the heat, but I did in fact write it, and I shouldn't have.

With regards to your statements, 'There is no proper function of government.  Protection of lives, liberty, and property of individuals cannot be delegated except with the express consent of each individual.' I ask you for clarification.

There is indeed a proper function of government, it is defined in the Preamble of the Constitution. Government doesn't exist, its an abstract concept and as such can not have a 'real' function. It can have a fictional function, which is described.

The option I have put forth is not covered by either position you have advanced.  Whether or not you agree with it is immaterial, especially considering that "I don't know" still isn't an appropriate option for me.

I wasn't intending to argue my point as such, only to point out that I wasn't merely having a difficult time figuring out where I fit in your universe.  It's pretty clear to me, so far, that I don't fit anywhere!

That said, I don't view the Constitution as some ideal document.  Lysander Spooner's "No Treason" pokes numerous holes in the Constitution's cited legitimacies.  Many flaws with the Constitution were pointed out during its ratification in The Antifederalist Papers.  At least some of the complaints have to do with the new Constitution abrogating states' rights (as opposed to truly individualistic concerns), and the formulation of the Judiciary in particular was an egregious advance of governmental power.

I wouldn't necessarily want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but I wouldn't want to wash any child in those muddy waters.

A thought about consent that always bothers me. How can you really agree to something unless you have done it before? So if I say I consented to having sex, I am saying that I have had sex before and therefore can accept the results of having sex. That means most people don't actually consent to having sex, the first time, because they don't have the experience to actually judge if they want it or not and if they don't want it, then they can't accept the results that come from having sex.

If I were told that it is possible to conceive a child while having sex, that statement has no real meaning(it does have an abstract meaning) because I can't understand the concept of sex because I've never had it. I hope I have communicated my point here, I fear I haven't.

Without the ability to consent, then you have no ability to delegate authority. If you can't delegate authority, then what happens?

"To consent" means simply "to permit" or "to agree."  Even the more archaic meaning isn't much different: "to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony."  Hence, to consent to sex means to agree to sex, unless you're using a different definition, in which case it would be helpful if you would share it.

So, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.  Are you trying to say that, without experience, I cannot possibly agree or disagree with an act?

I don't think that works for sex, as personal as it is.  It certainly fails to work for skydiving without a parachute, or experimenting with powerful, mind-altering drugs.  While it is true that I may never have the experience of those things if I never agree to them (and therefore I don't know what exactly I'm missing), I need not experience something in order to agree to it.  In all cases, I can and do form an opinion based on my observations and what others tell me about their experiences.

In that way, I can most certainly agree whether or not to delegate my authority to another party.  It so happens that I've been born into a world where the assumption is that I have, but I most certainly have not.

[cyberdoo78]

I will accept your apology, however I find it not needed, as I do not believe you did anything that requires an apology.

I do not disagree with your assertion that the US Constitution is indeed perfect. Using the logic that anything created by an imperfect being can not be perfect. I am in the process of reading the Anti-Federalist papers, interesting reading.

I think it is clear however the intention of the US Constitution was not to address an individuals rights, but to put restraint on the government of men to slow or stop their ability to commit evil. The US Constitution as originally written, applied to the States and the Federal Government itself. It was thought that if the power comes from the people, that the people retain any authority the Federal government does not have. Then in the spirit of the Document, the people would establish their own various governments that would apply to them, such as the creation of the State.

The collectivist has sought to bring the Federal government's powers over the people and has succeeded quite well.

Please remember that our form of government is indeed an experiment, one that continuously changes and we must change the documents that form our government from time to time to meet these new challenges. I do not believe that we ought to throw the whole thing out, but to change what we feel is broken and adjust it to see if that fixes it.

I would agree your definition of 'consent' to be more accurate then most people's and submit to you in light of your definition, my point. Do you not agree that to be able to agree to something, you must have all the facts required to make a decision? That to understand something fully and factually it must come through one of the 5 major? That a abstract thought, can not be fully comprehended unless experienced? I attack the concept that to agree to something you must understand it. To understand it fully means to experience it. We speak of death in an abstract way, because we can not experience it. The same can be said of anything, you can not understand something without experiencing it.

Using your definition, of consent, it would seem that one could consent, but not fully consent because one does not have all the facts.

This logic of mine, I admit even to myself is hard to explain and hard even to me to understand. Perhaps you can consent, I can not prove otherwise. Perhaps in time, I will figure it out but for now will agree that you can consent, or agree to something even without all the facts.

With regards to you believing you fit no where in my universe(I will accept for the moment that we do not share the same universe as I can not prove it, nor want to at the moment), I submit the following and ask you if you believe it is true and if it is a position that you hold, for if so, you are an individualist.

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
     I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
     I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
     I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
     I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
     I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
     I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.

[eques]

Well, I got to writing, and I've said a lot, boy howdy!  I hope you find something of interest. 

I will accept your apology, however I find it not needed, as I do not believe you did anything that requires an apology.

I do not disagree with your assertion that the US Constitution is indeed perfect. Using the logic that anything created by an imperfect being can not be perfect. I am in the process of reading the Anti-Federalist papers, interesting reading.

It's not just that I think the Constitution is merely "imperfect."  I think the concept of "perfection" is a red herring that throws us off the trail.  Insofar as we exist in a world in which "perfection" does not exist, I submit that it is invalid to apply "perfect" models outside of their intended scope.

A non-controversial example is that of acceleration due to the force of gravity.  On earth, that acceleration is approximately -9.8 m/s².  Velocity is derived as a function of time in seconds, acceleration, and initial velocity [v(t) = -9.8 m/s² * t + v₀], and position is derived by a quadratic equation based on time in seconds, acceleration, initial velocity, and initial position [s(t) = 1/2 * -9.8 m/s² * t² + v₀ * t + s₀].  However, if you do repeated experiments, including measuring time over falls of very long distances, or balls rolled down rough ramps, or even measuring time at the summits of mountains, you'll find that different values of acceleration are needed to make the model work.  That's because the model is illustrative in a very specific context and does not take into account wind resistance/friction, terminal velocity, or variations due to altitude or other phenomena.

So to restate my position clearly, it's not that the Constitution is merely imperfect.  It's that the Constitution is highly flawed and lends itself to the sorts of abuses we are seeing today.

I think it is clear however the intention of the US Constitution was not to address an individuals rights, but to put restraint on the government of men to slow or stop their ability to commit evil. The US Constitution as originally written, applied to the States and the Federal Government itself. It was thought that if the power comes from the people, that the people retain any authority the Federal government does not have. Then in the spirit of the Document, the people would establish their own various governments that would apply to them, such as the creation of the State.

I invite you to examine Article III a little closer.  Jim Davies has a thought-provoking write-up on the matter.

In short, it is not at all clear that the Constitution was written to limit federal powers, especially as it was an expansion of power from the Articles of Confederation which was, admittedly, only meant to be a war-time government.

The collectivist has sought to bring the Federal government's powers over the people and has succeeded quite well.

At this point, I won't disagree, but I feel that it was more the point than not from the start.

Please remember that our form of government is indeed an experiment, one that continuously changes and we must change the documents that form our government from time to time to meet these new challenges. I do not believe that we ought to throw the whole thing out, but to change what we feel is broken and adjust it to see if that fixes it.

I think that what is broken is the idea that we need rulers at all.

I would agree your definition of 'consent' to be more accurate then most people's and submit to you in light of your definition, my point. Do you not agree that to be able to agree to something, you must have all the facts required to make a decision? That to understand something fully and factually it must come through one of the 5 major? That a abstract thought, can not be fully comprehended unless experienced? I attack the concept that to agree to something you must understand it. To understand it fully means to experience it. We speak of death in an abstract way, because we can not experience it. The same can be said of anything, you can not understand something without experiencing it.

Using your definition, of consent, it would seem that one could consent, but not fully consent because one does not have all the facts.

I would add for further consideration that it is rarely possible to get all of the facts.  Also, many facts are highly contingent upon circumstances, such as the difference between a high schooler wishing to get high off of weed versus a cancer patient who finds relief from nausea by lighting up.

It seems that you think there is something more to "consent" based on what you're describing.  What does "fully consent" mean?  If I agree to something or disagree to something, isn't that it for the time being?  I may, perhaps, disagree for the time being, but that is still a "no."

Perhaps you're thinking of the uncertainty that exists within one's mind prior to an experience.  I'm not sure that such uncertainty invalidates consent, however.

To illustrate the "incomplete information" aspect a little more, our brains make use of incomplete information all of the time.  There's evidence that our brains are massively parallel pattern-matching engines.  It works great for identifying relatives, language, etc., but there are instances in which we see patterns that don't actually exist, such as correlations in data that are simply correlations as opposed to some sort of causation.

This logic of mine, I admit even to myself is hard to explain and hard even to me to understand. Perhaps you can consent, I can not prove otherwise. Perhaps in time, I will figure it out but for now will agree that you can consent, or agree to something even without all the facts.

With regards to you believing you fit no where in my universe(I will accept for the moment that we do not share the same universe as I can not prove it, nor want to at the moment), I submit the following and ask you if you believe it is true and if it is a position that you hold, for if so, you are an individualist.

Well, you put it to me, so I'll try to answer clearly.

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
     I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
     I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

Only individuals have rights.  Groups do not have rights.

The rights of the individual are emergent properties of one's status as a self-owner.  The state is an aberration and only exists to trample on the rights of the individual.

At this point, I should like to draw a distinction between state/government and governance.  There are a multitude of ways in which people voluntarily conduct themselves among each other.  They may form voluntary associations which have rules as a condition of membership.  This is governance.  They cross the line to "state" when their rules are no longer voluntary.

The Constitution, in particular, purports to set up a "state," not a system of voluntary governance.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
     I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

One of the greatest threats to freedom is for the individual to bow one's head and allow one's rights to be violated.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
     I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.

No disagreement here, except for the choice of the word "law."  Details following the next quote.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
     I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

I would draw a distinction between "law" and "legislation."  I read about it this morning but, of course, I can't quite remember where I read it.  "Law" is what happens without anybody needing to do anything special.  Non-controversially, there is a law of gravity.  There are similar laws that apply to human conduct.  These laws are really little more than observable facts, but they are useful in that one may take a law and make predictions.

Legislation, on the other hand, is an invention that exists apart from law.  "Good" legislation might be considered as something that recognizes a natural law towards a bad tendency of human nature, such as the propensity of drunk people to think they'll be good drivers.  (I'll take an aside here to mention that I don't necessarily agree with current drunk driving legislation as it really doesn't do much to mitigate the occurrence of drunk driving, merely to punish it when it happens.)

Hence, people are equal under "law" because they can be nothing else.  For people to be equal under "legislation" is another question altogether and is very difficult to put into place.  The reason is because "legislation" includes the rubric of enforcement officers who, try as they might, are very human and prone to making inequitable judgments based on their individual preferences.

PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
     I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.

The biggest problem with your formulation of the proper role of government is that there are no true checks on power.  If the current government cannot possibly be legitimate, according to Lysander Spooner's arguments, then how can any subsequent government possibly be legitimate?  How can a current government be legitimate for people not even born?

Even without that, the overriding principles of protecting lives, liberty, and property can often be shuffled aside with disturbing ease as we have seen numerous times with the current administration (not that other administrations are innocent--they most certainly are not).  All it takes is for those in power to say that such-and-such a measure is necessary to protect your lives, liberty, and property!  And so, with the whirl of a pen, true liberty is curtailed for those that hold themselves subservient to the government.

So, that is to say, it is currently observed that when you get enough people accustomed to the idea that they are not responsible for protecting their own lives, liberty, and property, they will blame everybody but themselves for the fact that their lives, liberty, and property are being stripped away.

I simply take your last statement to its logical extreme: "That government is best which governs not at all."

I take another aside at this point to note that your agency may well exist in a voluntary form... but then there is no need to define it formally as, if it is needed (and some services most certainly are), it will emerge out of necessity.  It is observable that the monopoly that the state currently enjoys over the services that it attempts to provide is only held in place by force.

Anarchy means "without rulers."  It does not mean "without rules."  The interaction between you and me follows a number of rules, but it does not need a ruler to administer them.  While this message board probably wouldn't be considered an "anarchy" as such, the administrators do not need to intervene when people are behaving themselves.

[cyberdoo78]

I do not disagree with your assertion that the US Constitution is indeed perfect.

Ooops, typo. I ment to say imperfect, but I think you figured it out.

When I mention the intention of the US Constitution is clear, I should have said, 'if you include the supporting documentation'. I point to the Federalist Papers and the various precursers to the US Constitution.

I agree that the US Constitution is in need of a bit of updating.

I would draw a distinction between "law" and "legislation."

Law is law, and legislation are rules. This is simply put, of course, its meaning is clear. I do not subscribe to the idea of there being anything other then out right law, such as the law of gravity as you indicated. Firm, unmoving, unambigious law, changeable by only 100% of the people.

The biggest problem with your formulation of the proper role of government is that there are no true checks on power.  If the current government cannot possibly be legitimate, according to Lysander Spooner's arguments, then how can any subsequent government possibly be legitimate?  How can a current government be legitimate for people not even born?

There is something in the realm of law that states, and I paraphrase here, 'that which is goes  unchallanged, is agreed'. If the people do not object to the 'rules' they are thereby accepting of the rules. If you have a problem with the rules, then change them(same goes for rulers). This is how you apply the rules to the unborn. If the unborn are born and realize there is a problem they can set about to fix it.

However, if we are to change the rules we must therefore establish a method by which they can be changed. A 'perfect' method would be to simply vote to accept the preposed change and if everyone can not agree, then it should not be accepted or changed. However this system would be unpractible(or maybe not), however that could be also to its avantage. If the rules aren't in the best interest of everyone, then they should not be created. If the changes are in the best interest of everyone, then they should not be changed, or at least until 100 percent of the people agree.

Even without that, the overriding principles of protecting lives, liberty, and property can often be shuffled aside with disturbing ease as we have seen numerous times with the current administration (not that other administrations are innocent--they most certainly are not).  All it takes is for those in power to say that such-and-such a measure is necessary to protect your lives, liberty, and property!  And so, with the whirl of a pen, true liberty is curtailed for those that hold themselves subservient to the government.

So, that is to say, it is currently observed that when you get enough people accustomed to the idea that they are not responsible for protecting their own lives, liberty, and property, they will blame everybody but themselves for the fact that their lives, liberty, and property are being stripped away.

I simply take your last statement to its logical extreme: "That government is best which governs not at all."

I take another aside at this point to note that your agency may well exist in a voluntary form... but then there is no need to define it formally as, if it is needed (and some services most certainly are), it will emerge out of necessity.  It is observable that the monopoly that the state currently enjoys over the services that it attempts to provide is only held in place by force.

I do not disagree with your analysis of our current situtation to which we find ourselves. From here we are faced with the decision to either create a new system, or to change our current system, attempting to fix what is broken.

How do you prepose we address the following issues, create a Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?

You say no, government.

It is the nature of man to do that which is in his best interest. I agree that for most men, this would be acceptible and lead to equality for all, however we would eventually find ourselves at a point where some problem would arise that the only solution to would be for some type of government, mutual agreement, or the like to be established. Perhaps this is not the case in fact, but based on history, it would appear so.

I will now devote some time to educate myself on the topic of anarchism and try to understand and answer the questions I find myself asking.

[Seraph]

Individualist. I would assume that anyone on a forum such as this would be.