Responsible Governance and the Use of Force by AnthonyT

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Responsible Governance and the Use of Force

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 08:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 594
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:13 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

In this thread: http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46367&m=817776#817776

Law Enforcement that inflicts compulsion upon the citizenry by use of force, seizure, or confinement was deemed violent. Laws written with Law Enforcement in mind are thus typically endorsements of violence to achieve an end.

(Please refer back to that thread to further debate this foundation.)

Here I invite you to discuss what role violence should have in responsible governance. Is violence good and necessary? Is it possible to do without violence in governance? Is It proper to make a law against Jaywalking when such a law may ultimately lead to violence against the jaywalker?

What thought should we give to the laws we make, and how far should we be prepared to tolerate behavior before we become willing to kill to prevent it?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 23, 2010 5:18 PM

CANTTAKESKY

I like Frem's motto: "Don't make a law unless you are willing to kill for it."

I think where life and property are damaged, destroyed, or confiscated, there is a good argument for violence.

The idea of private property, as we know it, is violent in and of itself. As we see it now, private property means, "You may not take what is rightfully mine. If you do, violence will ensue." I am not saying we should do away with private property.

I don't have a problem with a society with minimal violence/legislation, as long as the society agrees that 1) violence is not ideal, 2) violence should be minimized, 3) we should work continuously towards a violence-free/ legislation-free society.

When humans are ready, that is the kind of government we will have.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 4:57 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Incidentally, Anthony, any thoughts on the idea of "voluntary governance"?

http://www.libertarianstandard.com/articles/michael-mcconkey/voluntary
-governance/

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:29 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

It seems to describe a 'nation' with no universally recognized government, and is thus more anarchist than libertarian. Alternatively it might be seen as a myriad of patchwork libertarian states comprising individual small towns or even small neighborhoods.

Functionally dysfunctional to my mind, but I might theoretically enjoy living in one nonetheless. It is simply that, like anarchism as I understand it, I cannot wrap my brain around the possibility that such a thing could exist outside the smallest scale.

I also would not consider such a thing to be safe enough for my comfort. (And I am prepared to endure a great reduction in safety based on my own principles.)

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:43 AM

FREMDFIRMA

You kinda nail the problem sideways there, Anthony, that in order to have a functional society like that you'd have to have people who were both able to "wrap thier mind around" how it works, and be comfortable with such a thing - and most of em are NOT, not even other Anarchists because you ask most of em, they've not only NOT thought it through, they take for granted things you would *have* to figure out an alternative way to do, as if these things magically happen without input...

Of course, deliberate and intentional conditioning is also a great part of that, cause it does happen, and overcoming that instant emotional-trigger reaction when even the WORD is mentioned is gonna be long in the coming.

But that's ok, most detractors act like, or at least argue like, you could flip a switch and have that happen overnight - which'd be an epic disaster anyways, for damn obvious reasons, you can't get THERE from HERE, not really.

But what we *can* do is exactly what you have expressed, repeatedly, which I have expressed, repeatedly, although in more words and less coherently.

Start removing the 'deadweight' laws, codes, regs, cutting the positions that enforce them, yadda yadda - hell, that'll take years and years all of itself, you cut and pare till folk start saying "Hey! we need that!", then you debate on what we can and should discard, versus what absolutely needs to be kept, and find consensus, etc...

And when you get someone or someones who intend to spike or wreck the process entire by digging in their heels and sabotaging everything (kinda like our party-of-no bullshit goin on) then you get nasty about it - because such folk will always, always resort to force to try to get their way, usually in a pack, from behind, in the dark - this is their very nature, and you bait them to it, and then you *DO* something about it.

I'll leave the exact what to folk with better morals than me however, cause my solution really isn't a lot better than what we got now, and that's just years of bitter prejudice talkin instead of wisdom - and I KNOW this.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:58 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Start removing the 'deadweight' laws, codes, regs, cutting the positions that enforce them, yadda yadda - hell, that'll take years and years all of itself, you cut and pare till folk start saying "Hey! we need that!", then you debate on what we can and should discard, versus what absolutely needs to be kept, and find consensus, etc...

I thought that was what we were going to do on this thread.

Well, in the Fantasy President thread, I said some of it. But here's what I would get rid of.

1. All but 2% of excise taxes.
2. IRS, CIA, TSA, Homeland Security
3. All foreign military engagements (wars)
4. Border patrol and USCIS would be greatly reduced
5. Military greatly reduced.
6. Corporate welfare

That should be good for starters.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE