Topic: Necessity: The Argument of Tyrants (Read 2719 times)

Can, but does NOT. According to longstanding US precedent, our government at every level effectively has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to defend you.

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981), Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982)

And simultaneously, in the face of all that, the government categorically infringes upon the right to self-defense of innocents, so we are then murdered, raped, and maimed with impunity while legally defenseless, and legally undefended by the government.

You have no rights or freedoms by birth, you're 100% dependent, without any chances whatsoever of survive on your own and humans bundle with a formatted HD. That's what makes us prevail over the other species, the ability to change our own OS.

Trees, land, gold, oil... doesn't belong to you or anybody by any god-given right, we simply take possession of it, stealing it out of the planet. Has nothing to do with tree-huging, is just a simple fact.

You're speaking of rights, not freedom. My point was a simple one... governments and law cannot give you what is inherently yours by birth. I realize that not everyone agrees with such a statement... but the founding fathers of America did, and I agree with them. It's a defensible opinion.


That's certainly an acceptable task of government and law. Your statement on the ending of my freedom where yours begins is so perfectly true it's a cliche.


I'll disagree. I don't see mankind as parasites... although I know that this is a common belief among those I refer to as 'tree-huggers'. No slander intended. I just don't agree, is all...

Governments can provide you means of defend yourself using government force, such as police or military, a "right" you don't have on its absence, where either you can defend yourself or you are a sitting duck to the next thug you come accross.
The role of the government must be to act as referee over freedom collision, your "freedom" must end where the others' freedom starts.

And we must not forget human nature, we are but a bunch of parasites in this planet that makes stealing (when it's not from humans we call it "harvest" and disguise it as "work") a way of life. Imagine this nature set loose... not a good sight.  
We didn't conquered this planet by being nice chumps.

Never made any other point...

Indeed, here was my very first post on the topic:

Governments can only restrict liberty, they can't 'give' it. What "right" can a government give that I don't already have in their absence?

I'm perfectly willing to concede that governments are necessary to any sort of advanced civilization, but I certainly don't make the mistake of believing that they can 'give' me freedom. They can only restrict it to one extent or another.

Did I change my argument at all? 

I've been crystal clear all along... indeed, I've repeated it several times... here it is again:

The government... and law... cannot give freedom. It can only restrict freedom.

I said that at the beginning, I've repeated it at least once before, and will be happy to re-post it once again when someone asks...

I've pointed out my definition of freedom... I've given my understanding, based on social anthropology, of what social groups have government... (recall bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and state?) and I've challenged a number of times for someone to explain why slavery and government have gone hand in hand for thousands of years - yet the argument is made that government stops slavery.

Freedom is inherent in humanity... it exists without any justification by any social group. It cannot be given, it can only be taken away. And while that may merely be an opinion, I'm happy to provide the evidence for it anytime...

I guess the point he was trying to make is that government can only restrict freedom so the prevention of slavery by government is an illusion.  But I take your point and will drop out.

Slavery and governments are independent things. Governments does NOT prevent slavery, slavery does NOT need governments to exist.
So IDK what are you guys going around here! 

Can we be clear here?  Your view there has never been freedom without a government and there has never been slavery without a government? 

I don't "redefine"... this is the sociological definition.

Only in bands are all people considered equal, and no-one is in any sort of leadership position.

But even should I completely disregard the historical definition of "government", and accept your apparent definition that it only applies to states... I repeat again what you keep ignoring... government and slavery have co-existed for thousands of years, and only in the most recent of times has that changed.

The weight of the evidence would then support the statement that governments are responsible for slavery, not your argument that governments are responsible for the abolishment of slavery.

So you have redefined government to cover all forms of society except wandering bands of nomads. 

lol

Well it seems we are in agreement.  There has never been a free society without government and there cannot be a free society without government. 

No, I'm being historical. In the traditional societal breakdowns of band, tribe, chiefdom, and state, only bands have no government.

You *STILL* haven't addressed the simple historical fact that slavery and government have gone hand in hand for thousands of years... and yet was non-existent when there was no government - as your inability to cite or point to any counter-examples.

If you make an argument, YOU have to support it. It's childish to think that people you debate are required to search out facts that support YOUR thesis.


Yep... tis true. Now, would you like to compare the numbers of slaves who were under government, against the number of slaves that were freed by government?

I suspect not...

Something you snipped without response:

Overwhelmingly, the truth is that slavery was a practice that existed under governments. It's only in fairly recent times that governments have chosen to eliminate slavery. But for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, slavery and government coexisted quite happily. Your statement makes no sense at all had it been made a mere 200 years ago. Which, when compared to the thousands of years of slavery, is a drop in the bucket.

The fact that you can't name any case of slavery without government merely shows the weakness of your claims.

My statement still stands...

Google "slavery in tribal societies."  You are being a little childish here - if you want to get information on the Internet, google works fine. 

You seem to be American.  My understanding is that your ancestors fought a war on this topic and as a result, slaves were given freedom.  I think you have to agree that for those liberated slaves, government created freedom.

The slaves are TAKEN by those who have government.

So too are the societies from which slaves were taken... although perhaps not at the state level, they do indeed have government... indeed, it was various African tribes themselves who often captured and sold slaves.

I say again, give an example, even one example, of a society without government that has slavery.


I've not forgotten non-cited and sourced claims... have you forgotten my challenge to give even a single example for your claim?

Of course, even should you be able to support your claim that slavery exists where governments do not [and you still haven't done this - all you need is a single historical example] - you have no refutation available to the simple historical truth that slavery has existed for thousands of years - during which functioning governments have existed.

Nor, as I point out, is a lack of slavery and freedom equivalent. I'll agree that a slave doesn't have freedom, but I disagree that not being a slave means you have freedom. (A simple and dramatic example, would be the 'citizens' of North Korea.)

In my first posts on this subject we discussed the noble savage as the raw material of the slave trade and that without a government, you can be taken as a slave by whoever happens to be stronger than you.

Now you say you can't remember this?  

Forgetting the previous posts in order to win an argument is beyond feeble.  

And yet, you can't provide even a SINGLE example for this claim. Why is that?


Overwhelmingly, the truth is that slavery was a practice that existed under governments. It's only in fairly recent times that governments have chosen to eliminate slavery. But for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, slavery and government coexisted quite happily. Your statement makes no sense at all had it been made a mere 200 years ago. Which, when compared to the thousands of years of slavery, is a drop in the bucket.

The fact that you can't name any case of slavery without government merely shows the weakness of your claims.


Okay, let's examine ONLY those cases where the government prevents slavery - cases that amount to a minuscule percentage of the whole. Even here in the United States slavery, while illegal, still exists. So too, does the government.

Seems like they haven't quite succeeded.

Nor, of course, is a lack of being in slavery the same as 'Freedom'. You apparently equate the two, but they aren't the same. What good is my lack of service as a slave worth, when I'm still not legally allowed to sell my labor for any price I so desire?

I say again, government and law can only restrict freedom, they cannot give it. I'm in full agreement with our forefathers, who stated that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You seem to be stuck on this.  Try to think of i tin the simplest possible terms.

If there is no government, there is slavery.

If there is government, there may or may not be slavery.

In the cases where governments prevent slavery, for those people who would otherwise be slaves, government creates freedom.

You asked for a definition, although I'd already provided it...

I provided it again.

Now you'd like to complain about what I consider a definition of freedom to be.

So you really aren't interested in what my definition is...


Nope... never said it was flawed... merely the secular definition.

Nor, of course, do I agree with it. But I've already noted that you don't recognize the same definition of the word as I do...


You make my point for me. As I stated, humans haven't had government sponsored education until fairly recent times.


If you aren't arguing that only government can provide education, then you undercut your own argument that the government provides freedom.

I say again, government and law cannot give you what you already have. They can only restrict your freedom.

I know it wasn't your argument, but someone claimed that freedom from slavery showed that government gave freedom, not noting that there's never been slavery without government.

I note for the record that no counter example has been provided.

Dig a bit on how and why public education was created.
It has nothing to do with what you said.

Education and the illusion of freedom. Never stops to amaze me!
Ever wonder why or how public schools and education were made for, their main purpose?