An Honest and Accurate libertarian Discussion Thread

How did Thom Hartmann explain how it is morally legitimate to steal from and assault peaceful people?

 

If they want to lie in the streets and die, I'm not god so what right do I have to stop them. And if you want to rob me to do it, then you should be dead in the streets first. But then cowards want others to do it for them.

 

1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

Proper question here is "have the courage to do themselves". Morality has nothing to do with it.

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

Quick answer is no. However, it appears that in most government structures the elite will grant themselves that "right". However, once again morality has nothing to do with it.

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

Evidently some think that mans higher courts can do so e.g abortion.

4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

In a perfect world, or a moral one.

5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?

It is called "civil disobedience".

 

Choosing to not trade with someone isn't coercion.

 

No, you are not "god", however, you are allegedly a human being with a conscience that is to show concern for your "brother". And I wish that people would get rid of the false notion that paying taxes is theft. If you want to quit paying taxes just go out in the woods, and forget the civil contract that all members of a civil society agree to.

Now tell me, have you ever served in the military? Or were you a coward like Trump, Bush, Clinton, and most others, and expected others to die for your security? And contrary to the ideology of Spooner, one consents to taxation as their part in preserving, and building, society. You may not agree with the ways in which it is spent just as I would disagree with the ways in which you would wish it to be spent. However, as long as you stay in the society, and participate in its benefits, then you pay.

 

John Locke, a superb legal mind of his time considering he was not only a statist but a loyal subject of the king. A man that had to write "Social Contract Theory " in order not to invalidate that which you are so horribly trying to discuss, "Second Treatise of Government". Chapter 5, "Of Property" explains the how what when, why and how much is the legitimate ownership of property. In fact he could of just as easily have titled this chapter, "Money".

Locke did not use "consume" against "ownership", he distinctly called it "property". The magic word you keep passing up is "labor", the whole theme of the chapter.

 

I have to ask, why do you alleged "anarchists" such as Spooner, remain in a society you obviously disagree with so heartily? However, it seems the only disagreement Spooner had was with taxes, or the taking of his own funds even though he benefited from that taking as you do. When it came to other topics, such as intellectual rights, he wrote:

"In order to understand the law of nature in regard to intellectual property, it is necessary to understand the principles of that law in regard to property in general. We shall then see that the right of property in ideas, is at least as strong as—and in many cases identical with—the right of property in material things."

So, as one expects the government to protect ones physical property rights Spooner expected that same protection for intellectual properties which would include his writings, and ideas. And who would pay for that?

Lysander Spooner, The Law of Intellectual Property; or An Essay on the Right of Authors and Inventors to a Perpetual Property in their Ideas [1855]

 

Morality has everything to do with it. Morality or ethics is the ability to judge right from wrong, not right from left, two wings of the same bird, which is an oxymoron. Without morality, there are no rights, just subjective guesses.

And nothing to do with courage, again a subjective judgement because the "courage" of a coward is the bully.

"Civil disobedience" is the justified act of one not recognizing another as an authority. The moral culpability of an order taker is the object of discussion when one is in conflict between "authority" and "conscience".

While I appreciate your comments, you really didn't answer the questions. The questions themselves are very simple to answer:

1) No.
2) No.
3) No.
4) Yes.
5) No.

If one feels the need to justify their position by adding an explanation, then they suffer from a mental disease called "Moral Relativism".

 

To not trade with someone is a freedom of choice. But to stop trading with someone because they will not do as you "command" is coercion. It is likened the bully that demands you play ball his way or he will take his ball and go home. You are trying to make a subjective judgement by taking matters out of context.

Your grocer is acting no differently than the bully with the ball but with possibility a more severe consequence. From your scenario where the grocer can effect many vendors to the level Mr. Smith is forced to move to survive, it is coercion, an objective, not subjective conclusion.

You say you support liberty but then when one man stands on his right not to support something you want supported, you switch to an "authoritarian" stance and invoke coercion because Mr. Smith won't volunteer. So bounce around all you want, it doesn't change the facts. To proclaim liberty one must first allow others to be free.

 

Yes I have a conscience but it doesn't extend to the conscience of another. I have no concern for another when they have no concern for themselves. While they are not my brother, I would would leave my actual brother in the same manner.

Taxes are theft, period, no false motion about it. It is nothing more than a den of leeches that steal from the people in order to support themselves without having to earn anything and do things whether the people from whom the money is stolen agrees or not.

A false notion is believing anything other than taxation is theft at the highest caliber. Theft on such a grand scale they can afford to hire all these order takers to kill, maim or kidnap all that think otherwise. But the sad part is all those that think this is a moral act.

I did, that is where I first discovered the fallacy of the act. I have more respect for those that refuse to accept than I do for the morally culpable individual that I used to be. Fighting for freedom, are you kidding me? I was drafted, trained and sent to a foreign nation to kill little brown people that had never done anything to me and could never be a threat to this country. It had nothing to do with those people, it was a political act designed to force others into obeying this countries dictates.

Actually Spooner was dead on and I would rather die with Spooner than live the way you deem. You are saying that my disagreement with you is immaterial but your disagreement with me should be commanded by force. I am not in your society, never have been, never will be. I reject your benefits, they are vile and evil. I don't pay, haven't paid in more than a few decades and if the choice would be to live as a slave, your method, or die, I choose death.

Your solution to everything is violence, violence to force your will upon others. My solution is peace and freedom. I don't need force as your method will topple of it's own evil and within my lifetime. It will not be pretty but it will be welcomed.

 

Alleged is a subjective quality to which you are trying to imply that there is no objective answer. You would be mistaken many times over. Spooner was a man not necessarily unique to his times but he was a man of free spirit. However, what makes you think Spooner or myself remain within a society so at odds with life? Society is for the cowards in life, those afraid to live on their own. Those that believe in the concept of slavery to such a degree their fear extends to a strong hate of those that are free. But, it is plainly obvious that you have never read Spooner.

Benefits, those are normally the words used by those with the claim against another's property. That want another's property to be stolen for the "common good" of all those incapable of doing on their own. They are the one's that have the most to fear out of a libertarian or anarchist philosophy.

Again, you speak with no comprehension of what you are saying. Spooner, like myself, totally rejected government so why would he want it's protection? The essay to which you refer was a discussion on the common law right of property and why the common law provided a lawful remedy to sue. It had nothing to do with government as courts belong to the people or more specifically the parties of a suit before a jury of their peers.

Perhaps you should have read what you are trying to use as justification for your misguided conclusion as it have considerable merit in law, even more so than Locke and Blackstone.

 

It's all about the banking industry of the world. For when nations go to war, the banks fund both sides. All nations involved go into debt with the banks. Banks love war, they help start them.

 

Rome and Greece were not Constitutional Republics but "elite" republics, or "proto-republics," aristocracies with representative elements in their nascence (part of the time when they weren't tyranny or dictatorships). Plato's "Republic" is of course -not- a republic, nor did Greece and Rome have a government founded on Enlightenment pragmatism and secular humanism. Generally unresponsive to what I posted also. Are you really trying to stick on that the U.S. Constitutional Republic was not a new experiment based on developments in Enlightenment thought?

 

Didn't need to go much further. The "nation" didn't exist until the Constitution was ratified. Fact, not opinion. Prior, the land mass was an agglomeration of colonies, some organized into colonial states, controlled by various European powers, not a "nation."

Your statement on slavery is absurd and unfounded. As a matter of fact and not opinion, slavery is a worldwide institution practiced historically far more heavily in Africa and the East than in Europe throughout history. Moreover, no idea of what point you are trying to make with a comment on slavery where none is warranted in a thread on classical liberalism?

 

And without government there could be no war nor central banks.

 

You might have read Bills Book or been exposed to a huge fan of freedom.

Bill's book. Bill by the way flew fighter helicopters in the Army in Vietnam. A super smart man. Following is his book. I have my copy. Bill, the author used a fake name, Jackney Sneeb. He explains it in the first part of his book.



Let's get the crowd to meet Larken Rose. Larken is also brought up in Bill's book. I have debated both men. Had a lot of fun at the time.

 

You are on the internet chatting in this forum. So obviously you are NOT living outside the society you claim to despise. That sir, makes you a hypocrite, and a liar, along with the coward you accuse others of. If your house catches fire, or a robber breaks in, who are you going to call for help?

Perhaps you need to grow that independent mind you think you have rather then the slave attitude you have towards something you obviously do not understand that is a fantasy.

 

Are you saying tribes never had war? Anarchists never fought with one another?

 

That's your tail, I prefer to hang mine over the edge of the bowl before I spew forth. But it is interesting that you seem to like to go to great depths to define things to meet your view of the world. Sort of like Marketing 101, if you can't prevail in the category, then invent a new category.

But in real history, 450 BCE Rome had the 12 Tables, actually the first republic with a written constitution. Those inglorious fatherless wealthy elitist that wrote the constitution were a very well educated bunch, mind you not indoctrinated idiots of today. They were well versed on the various "forms" of government even to the extent of understanding that even starting where they did, we would end up where we are.

From the way you seem to judge things, yes.

 

Prior to the Declaration of Independence this "nation", I prefer land, was thirteen land grands by the same King, all under his control. Each of these grants where at the time called colonies under the control of a provincial governor appointed by the king.

That would be by your interpretation and as you should be able to "see", I don't put any faith on your interpretation so I have provided the definition. What part of slavery do you have a problem understanding? To most I would say but with you I'm starting to doubt, that total ownership of another would be readily agreed as slavery. But to what degree does the ownership need to be reduced before one is not a slave?

Under your continual declaration, government is required to dictate to others what they should be doing and if they don't agree then they will be forced.

One of the most dangerous prospects in this world is trying to get a slave to understand they are slaves when they believe they have been indoctrinated into believing they are free.

 

Not aware of this book up till now, sounds interesting, may have to add to my list. Unfortunately, it's a very long list and from looking at the reviews, it adds nothing new to what I already know, just a different perspective in the same channel.

Larken Rose, a unique individual. I started off in the same manner, fighting the IRS. He went to jail, I won. I have challenged him on a few matters which he continually just shrugs off and refuses to address. But I do like his message and all the work he has put forth in the delivery of that message.

However, if you want to put forth his work, here are the two top choices from my perspective in the order I would recommend viewing:

 

As that you are trying to imply something in a legal sense, then let's understand the legal definition. Society is by mutual consent except for the slaves that have no clue how they consented, but consented they did. One falsely believing they must be a member of some society are but easy prey. Now I reject both definitions and society in general regardless of what you try to imply (I was going to say think...).

But to think living out in the boonies and having fiber right up to the side of my house, all without having to join any society. But then I do have partial ownership in the company that did it, by my consent.

Slaves accept that which is imposed upon them. Free men freely contract for that which is desired and reject all that isn't. Same for that fire department that I contract with, nothing to do with any society just a contractual obligation to show up if called and make sure the woods do not catch on fire and threaten my neighbors as I am quite certain they will not arrive in time to do much for me. My benefit of the contract is that if my neighbor's house is on fire, they can prevent the spread to the woods, not much hope for his house being put out.

As to your parting words, I would need to believe you know what you are spouting and I don't. What I do believe is that the indoctrination system has been very successful in your direction.

 

Are you saying tribes were not a form of government? It takes a "society" to war another "society". Of course individuals fight ONE another, but not anarchist. I really do not expect you to understand that but it does amuse me.

 

Here you go too.

 

Rarely if ever can one encounter a poster who has fully grasped freedom, what it is vs what it is not, what was intended by our founders vs what we now have, etc.

They think anarchy is bad. But they practice it themselves almost full time 24/7, yet they claim it is bad.