non aggression principle & politics

[Undertoad]

The majority doesn't see the government's actions as force, and so they don't accept your premise.

The majority will always have the bigger guns, so whether it was right or wrong, the net result is you are dead. As a dead person your rights are no longer a concern.

The current government has something very important: the consent of the governed. The vast, vast majority does not always agree with government, that's clear; but they agree to be governed in this way. They don't agree with the government, but they agree with the system of government.

We know that the government does not have your consent to govern you in this way. But they will govern you in this way. You will have to find a compromise between your rights and how the government you find to be governed by, allows you to live. May I suggest moving out of California, as a good first start.

You say that the only valid government is one that doesn't initate force. But you can't find a government on earth that operates that way. This is not a coincidence. Human nature itself, abhoring disorder, defines force differently than you do. The only answer, in the long term, is education and evangelism, because we see through history that education has a transformative effect on people (and their ability to make choices based on abstract things like "freedom").

[Ero]

The situation in the Netherlands is pretty much the same as the one in America. We have a president called Jan-Peter Balkenende at the moment who is, with the coöperation of most of the ministers who are appointed to run the country (his cabinet as we call it in Dutch), de-liberalising and "re-organising" the Netherlands in very drastic ways. Most of the population doesn't like the road our country is taking but they ARE letting it happen.

The unrest here is growing and political scandals have become day-to-day material. My parents are pretty left-wing and they are awed at the fact that there haven't been any major protests yet while the majority of the population is not happy with the situation at hand.

The cabinet we have now is a stubborn one and even a few scandals haven't been able to make it fall. And I certainly don't agree with most of their policies but as you said, Undertoad, there is not much a person can do solo and most of the people will never have the guts to stand up and really come out for their opinion. People tend to be like a flock of cattle. So it's just a long wait for the next election, hoping that the remaining time of the current government won't drag the country down into a real troublesome situation.

Face it... There is not and will never be a Utopian government.

Welcome, Ero! Its always great to hear from a member of the international community. I'm sorry that things sound as bad in the Netherlands as they are here.

I honestly believe that the US no longer has the "consent of the governed." We have the consent of corporate and multi-national business, as well as the consent of Halliburten. Unless you have a few million, AT LEAST, to buy yourself some representative government, you are not represented by anyone.

The US two party system has a death grip on the electoral process. The Libertarians may howl, the Greens may scream, and the common man may wish someone else ran for office, but it ain't gonna happen.

Dem or Rep, by time you are running for national office, you have become a person without a soul long ago. Campaigns are big business and big business knows this and contributes accordingly.

Everyone here can sit and philosophize about what constitutes a good government, and argue about the value of my silver ideal versus your brass act of government theft. Its not going to make one iota of difference. The government allows free speech up to a point, because this keeps us busy arguing with one another while Rome burns and the Senate sends out for pork flambe' catered by Halliburten to the tune of a $150.00 per blackened chop.

You want to go out and have a revolution by force to change this?

Good luck, my friend. Your registered gun has just been confiscated and you have been declared a threat under the National Security Act and can plan on spending the next 20 years in jail without benefit of the writ of habeas corpus.

We'll think of you sometimes, but not often.

[Ero]

I haven't mentioned a revolution by force and i'm certainly not planning one. However I must admit my thoughts dwindle sometimes...

But I know, whenever you are in a position with which you do not agree but your leaders, the ones with the power, do; You could either bide your time or speak up. I'm trying to make that second choice as much as I can but without getting into too much trouble.

Originally Posted by Ero

I haven't mentioned a revolution by force and i'm certainly not planning one. However I must admit my thoughts dwindle sometimes...

I didn't think that you were, but reading back over my reply I can see how it must have been confusing. I was responding to another poster who had posted earlier in the thread advocating overthrowing the government by force.

Good luck with your own efforts to make a difference in the governing of your country.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The majority doesn't see the government's actions as force, and so they don't accept your premise.

Ask most people on tax day if they want to pay taxes, or if they pay them because they are forced to do it. Ask them what happens to them if they don't pay the taxes.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The majority will always have the bigger guns, so whether it was right or wrong, the net result is you are dead. As a dead person your rights are no longer a concern.

They will have more guns, but that doesn't matter. Only 5% of the people in the Colonies actually fought against the British, and they won. I know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of American soldiers would NOT fire on other Americans, even if they were taking the government back. In fact many would help out in returning the government to the Constitutional Republic we started with.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The current government has something very important: the consent of the governed. The vast, vast majority does not always agree with government, that's clear; but they agree to be governed in this way. They don't agree with the government, but they agree with the system of government.

Saying it has the consent of the governed is debatable. I can't consent to steal my neighbors car. I have no right to offer such consent. So the "consent" you're talking about is false. The government doesn't so much have consent as it has apathy, and ignorance thanks to government funded schools.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We know that the government does not have your consent to govern you in this way. But they will govern you in this way. You will have to find a compromise between your rights and how the government you find to be governed by, allows you to live. May I suggest moving out of California, as a good first start.

I already live in California. I'm on the Executive Committee of the statewide Libertarian Party.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You say that the only valid government is one that doesn't initate force. But you can't find a government on earth that operates that way.

Actually I said a valid government only initiates force for the defense of rights, and the common defense of the nation from outsiders and pretty much nothing else. It doesn't use force to tell people how to live thier lives, it only uses it to defend them when a crime has been committed against them.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This is not a coincidence. Human nature itself, abhoring disorder, defines force differently than you do. The only answer, in the long term, is education and evangelism, because we see through history that education has a transformative effect on people (and their ability to make choices based on abstract things like "freedom").

Libertarians don't believe in a utopian government. We just want one that allows us to live the way we want as long as our actions don't PHYSICALLY harm or endanger non-consenting others or their property or violate their equal rights.

This is not utopian. It's a form of government we actually had in America.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Radar

Ask most people on tax day if they want to pay taxes, or if they pay them because they are forced to do it. Ask them what happens to them if they don't pay the taxes.

Yes, but where will you be asking them? On line while they are waiting to mail their taxes, that's where.

They don't like it, but they accept it, and they do not act to change it. Their apathy is a signal of acceptance. For the things that bother them, they work within the system and nearly unanimously believe that is the best approach.

Saying it has the consent of the governed is debatable. I can't consent to steal my neighbors car. I have no right to offer such consent. So the "consent" you're talking about is false. The government doesn't so much have consent as it has apathy, and ignorance thanks to government funded schools.

It has the consent of the governed. It doesn't require any particular person's consent. It doesn't require your consent at all. It requires a large majority agreeing that the elected government is actually the valid government. That the police's job is to police them, that the courts determine how the law is applied, that elections are how we determine who's in charge.

There are a few people in New Orleans tonight who believe that the police do not police them. These people are called "looters". The vast majority expects that the police do police them. In fact they *demand* it and are incredulous when it is not present. This is consent of the governed in action.

This is not utopian. It's a form of government we actually had in America.

Or at least that you like to think existed; blacks, women, and non-landowners might take some offense with the idea that force was correctly applied or not applied, in 1800s US. Unfortunately you will have to deal with modern citizens... the ones who actually elect the current government.

[Undertoad]

Sad to see this not continue.

[Troubleshooter]

Sad but predictable.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It has the consent of the governed. It doesn't require any particular person's consent. It doesn't require your consent at all. It requires a large majority agreeing that the elected government is actually the valid government. That the police's job is to police them, that the courts determine how the law is applied, that elections are how we determine who's in charge.

It does not have the consent of the governed. I've discussed in another thread that the income tax amendment is blatantly unconstitutional and was fraudulently ratified without the consent of the governed. Saying that people consent to it because they do it out of fear of government retaliation is like saying a person being robbed at the point of a gun consented to give you his money. He was coerced under the threat of violence to comply. If this threat were removed, nobody would pay.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

There are a few people in New Orleans tonight who believe that the police do not police them. These people are called "looters". The vast majority expects that the police do police them. In fact they *demand* it and are incredulous when it is not present. This is consent of the governed in action.

This is a nice strawman you've setup, but completely irrelevant. The valid role of government includes protecting people from others and from each other when it comes to crime. This does not need to be funded by income taxes. 100% of the valid functions (Constitutional) of government can be funded without raising any taxes and without collecting a penny of income tax. We'd have firefighters, policemen, judges, courts, a military, etc. without a penny of income tax if we got rid of the unconstitutional parts of government.

[Undertoad]

People vary on whether they personally want to pay taxes, but they want taxes to be paid. But that, too, is practically off-topic. The point is, they recognize the government's ability to tax. They believe that the government is legitimate, even if the particular tax amount they don't want to pay is legitimate. They may complain about the tax, but their answer is to request lower taxes from their legitimate government, and/or to change the government through elections.

If their neighbor does not pay taxes, they want the government to go use guns on him. When the government does, the people say it was justice. If that threat were removed, the people would find another means to threaten their neighbor into paying the tax.

Nine wo/men in black robes determine whether something is unconstitutional, not you. The Constitution invests that power in the court system. The people believe in the legitimacy of the court system. If the courts found the amendment to be unconstitutional, the people would demand another amendment be drawn up and passed immediately. One day after the social security checks bounced, there would either be a constitutional convention or martial law or both. Neither option would be very pretty, or very libertarian, to you or anybody else.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Nine wo/men in black robes determine whether something is unconstitutional, not you.

Here is the fatal flaw in your logic. The Supreme Court IS NOT the sole arbiter of the U.S. Constitution. In fact ALL citizens determine whether or not something is or is not Constitutional. There is absolutely no requirement for judical review for something to be unconstitutional. The first supreme court said this in the Marbury vs. Madison case.

The Constitution invests very limited powers in a very limited scope to all branches of the U.S. government. The Supreme Court routinely violates those limits and rules against the U.S. Constitution (making the court ruling itself unconstitutional in its face and thus null and void) by allowing unconstitutional laws to pass if they deem them to be in the "interests" of the U.S. government, even though the USSC is not granted such discretionary powers by the Constitution.

The fact that people pay taxes under duress is absolutely NOT offering consent and does NOT mean they see legitimacy in the process. That's a baseless claim.

[Undertoad]

How do the citizens determine whether something is unconstitutional? How do they express that?

Leave tax out of it then. Just ask people if The government is Their government.

[Radar]

Each and every person has a RIGHT to petition the government for a redress of grievances. If the government does not address this petition, we have the RIGHT to cut off ALL TAXES. The founders said so themselves.

Government has the authority to tax, but not the right to tax our incomes. Even if 99.999% of America voted to grant the government such authority, it would NOT have this authority legitimately. I don't have the right to steal from another person to pay for the things that I want, therefore, I can't grant this power to government. Nor can 350 million people.

No matter how many people "consent" to income taxes, (and most don't) the fact remains that unless it is voluntary, it is theft. It's armed robbery to be percise. The government demands money to pay for programs I don't want and if I don't pay, men with guns show up at my house. That's theft.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Radar

Each and every person has a RIGHT to petition the government for a redress of grievances. If the government does not address this petition, we have the RIGHT to cut off ALL TAXES. The founders said so themselves.

Didn't some recent decision just say that the government doesn't have to respond to such a petition?

I've been a little overwhelmed with the whole Katrina thing, and it's been too busy at work for me to pay attention to what I usually might on the news.