Topic: Necessity: The Argument of Tyrants (Read 2699 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?

Don't you think it's just a tad disingenuous to pretend I've said something, and ask me to confirm what you KNOW I've never stated?


Yet another statement I've never made.

I do find it amusing that people will intentionally ascribe things never said in order to further their argument.


Already gave one that I agree with... here it is again: I'm in complete agreement with our forefathers, who stated: "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." I think that this is as good a definition of "freedom" as any other...


I've already pointed out that a secular definition of freedom involves power... I'm glad to see that you agree.


Education has for thousands of years not been provided by governments.

By your logic, humans haven't had freedom until fairly recent times.

If governments both allow and disallow slavery, then why is any argument being made contrary to that statement?

You could just as easily assert that governments stop murder... despite the fact that some of the largest mass murders in history have been accomplished through government.

These are simply logical fallacies...

Can you offer even *ONE* citable example of this?



If we were to total the number of people freed from slavery (by government), and then total up the total number of slaves who've existed in history (under a government), which number would be bigger?

And, I might point out, by many orders of magnitude ...

This would be a common debating tactic known as a 'strawman' argument.

I've never made such a claim.

I've been quite clear - Governments cannot give freedom, they can only restrict it.

That's it.





Nope... I reject the words you're trying to put in my mouth.


I suspect that a misunderstanding of what 'freedom' consists of, and it's ultimate source, is still being misunderstood.

Can you give *ONE* example where a government's actions results in giving "freedom?"

So you'e defined 'freedom' as a lack of slavery.

But there *HAS* been government through many centuries of slavery... indeed, thousands of years.

So your argument falls apart.

And, in fact, you claim that when there is no government, there is slavery... can you give even one example?

We been through this.  If there is no government, there is slavery.  That demonstrates that government is a necessary condition for freedom for a great many people.

As you cannot cite a definition of freedom, or demonstrate that government does not restrict freedom, perhaps you should reconsider your postulates.

I'm quite amused by secularism - because the only legitimate form of freedom for a secularist is the accumulation of power.

Ah some kind of religious thing.  God made us to be free?  Whatever floats your boat  

Ancient societies had government too. Indeed, the U.S. had government when slavery was legal.


Well, I'll make it clear again... Government cannot "give" freedom... it can only restrict it. I'm in complete agreement with our founding fathers, who recognized that freedom is inherent, and does not come from government.

unfortunately their necessity is good for them but not for society and they can get idea to make necessity about bitcoin users too.
therefore NSA is not friend of BTC users.

Again, if there is no government there is slavery.  When we look at ancient societies, we see that over 90% were slaves.  So for the vast majority of people, government creates freedom.

Anyway, since you do want a government, I don't really know what you are arguing for or against here.

How silly!

It's a FACT that government can only restrict freedom, not give it. I'm in complete agreement with our forefathers, who stated: "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." I think that this is as good a definition of "freedom" as any other...

But when you get people together, there have to be some way to resolve differences... the more people, the more involved this structure needs to be. That's "government". Recall, if you took any anthropological classes, the concepts of band, tribe, chiefdom's, and states.

Recognizing, as I do, that a government can only restrict freedom, not give it... doesn't mean that I'm anti-government, or that I'm an anarchist.

All I'm stating, and all I've stated... is that governments restrict freedom, not give it.

Again my question stands.  What do you want instead of government?

Never happened.

I strongly disagree with such a statement. I've stated REPEATEDLY that the only thing a government can do as it relates to freedom is to restrict it.

Perhaps you should read my comments again, and see what I'm responding to.


 

We clearly disagree on what "freedom" consist of...

I'm sort of puzzled here. You agreed with me when I pointed out there was no freedom without government since you can be taken as a slave by any gang that catches you.  Yet you keep talking about government restricting freedom.  Are you sad that the freedom to go forth and capture people as slaves has been taken from us by government?  Or is there something else you want?

I'm currently reading "The Only Living Witness" - it's about Ted Bundy, and the many (no one knows the true number) of women he raped and killed.

Every one of those women had government protection, legal protection, and protection by law enforcement.

Tell us about the freedom given to these women...

But perhaps our government is simply not good enough... perhaps somewhere else in the world there's a government who's actions *do* prevent the ultimate removal of freedom from their citizens.

If it exists, I don't know of it.

And I state again, the only thing that government is capable of doing when it comes to freedom is to restrict it.

Nope.

I'm guessing that your argument is going to be something like government laws & law enforcement prevent people from infringing on my freedom, thus giving me more freedom.

And, lest I be accused of creating a strawman, I'll continue the rest of this when you agree, or expand on that.

Then we agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties

That is real freedom and it can't exist without a government. 

But there are limits for what is legit or not for the government, or its armed branch, the police, to intervene or legislate about and the means to it. Without this notion we have governments even ruling on such a personal subject as masturbation.
The means of surveillance in the so called "preventive crime fight", are obnoxious as they intend to condemn people for something they didn't but probably think of. Someone can fantasize his entire life about rape someone, but as long as he never does it there should be no way to condemn him for "think about it".
In the end, and because obviously there can't be a totally free World, laws can only be designed for actions and actions that includes interaction with others, specially if those others are unwilling to participate. This is in fact not diminish freedom but rule over freedom collisions; the freedom to do a thing and the freedom to not want to do a thing.

I would argue that there is no such thing as absolute ("real") freedom, if you define it as "total absence of any interference in your life from other beings" - this is only possible on the desert island.


You argue that even if you are at risk of being killed or enslaved you are still free until it actually happens, but this is inconsistent with the idea that government restricts your freedoms - are you still free until the point they actually come and arrest you? Modern governments pass laws which are (essentially) promises to come and arrest you if you do certain things, but it wasn't always like that - under medieval (or fascist) governments they might come and arrest you if you offended them, or if it was to their political advantage. Were you still free right up to the point when they came and took you away? Surely the same applies on the island - if you know it would be to some-one's advantage to enslave you and have you work for free and there's nothing stopping them from doing so, are you free?

On the other hand if we're using dictionary definitions:


I would argue that definition 3 is the most powerful and general description of freedom. Surely definitions 1, 2, 4 are all special examples of that one, and it indicates a fundamental truth - that freedom is inextricably linked to power.

Using this definition, there definitely is no such thing as absolute freedom - even on the island you are restrained by your muscles and bones, by hunger, by your need to find shelter, by your finite intelligence. Only a god is absolutely free, but things like resources, technology, organisation and (yes) government each help make us more free.

I am aware that this is a different definition from the one you prefer, but I think it is the more important one. What good does lack of interference do you on a desert island?

I also agree entirely that the only direct thing governments can do is to restrict freedoms. However, they certainly are not the only thing that can restrict your freedoms, and if they restrict the person who would otherwise restrict your freedoms (by murdering or thieving) can they not be said to have the net effect increasing your freedom?

The necessity arguments have some weight if a society is faced with an existential threat, a war which threatens the extermination or subjugation of its people, etc. In WWII, European nations defending against German aggression, for example, could use the necessity arguments to implement whatever policies they could to try to defend themselves or to win the war. But the threat we now face, "terrorism" is such a tiny threat, the chance of being killed by terrorism so low... why would we take extreme measures against it? Why sacrifice liberty for security when we are secure anyway? Why respond to an unwanted pimple on your face by cutting off your head?

No, the response to the terrorist threat has been a pure power grab by governments and security apparatuses. The response is completely out of scale to the threat, and only further harms the population rather than protecting it.

Better stated and more accurately than I did. Thanks!

I believe Benjamin Franklin referred to individual freedom, not to be confused with State independence. Free men are well able to defend themselves.
Got the people scared out with terrorism, often hired by the "defender" itself, is a way to open the Pandora box. And after the first group of scared slaves other States hop in to take the profit of a scared mob. My country even has "terrorist laws" and "terrorist task forces", still we have no terrorism of any sort or any separatist movement, but they take the "terrorist scare crow" to spy on whatever they want for unknown purposes. It's an everything goes "for your security" kind of stinky "shaite"!

I'm sure he meant it in a broader context.

Any country that doesn't provide for the common defense is going to very quickly lose their freedom. But providing for the common defense normally entails at least a few years of greatly reduced freedom for the young men who are drafted.

I can't imagine that Benjamin Franklin didn't understand that.

In a broader context, I do agree with him. We see it today in our greatly expanding social services society.

The argument of tyrants is "SECURITY". It works best and allows them to run over any civilian freedom without much contest.
At some point however people will need some security against those who are pretending to be looking after its security. In the end it all sum up to the words of Benjamin Franklin: "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Your argument then implies that there is *NO* such thing as real freedom. Governments & law *BY DEFINITION* restrict freedom, so, in your argument, does a lack of government.

Fair point.  You see the noble savage that wanders naked on an island as being truly free.  I don't.  Noble savages wandering naked in the forests have been the raw material for the slave trade throughout history.  If there is no law to stop his being enslaved, the noble savage spends his time hiding and avoiding slavers.  To me, a life spent hiding from people who can take you away as a slave is not freedom.

I'll just leave this here for Hawker so he can explain how the external control of government equates to exemption from the external control of government.

This debate cannot go anywhere until a definition of "freedom" has been agreed to. You define it quite differently than I do.

That assumes you are alone or you are the most powerful person on the island.  If someone random person who is stronger than you can take you as a slave, you are not free.

Your rights and freedoms are identical to the limitations on other people's rights and freedoms - what if there are other people on the island? There's no government to take away your rights, but what good is your right to (e.g.) freedom of speech if the other people on the island are free to gag you? What good is your right to life if others are free to kill you?

If you're not the most powerful person on the island, you have no rights. That is unless the most powerful person on the island is willing to protect your rights. In modern times, governments are the most powerful people on the island, and they do provide rights, because the only rights that you can rely on are the rights that governments are willing to defend.

Sounds like a secular argument to me.

But FACTUALLY, when I can do whatever I want, that is freedom. It's not defined by government or law. It's RESTRICTED by government or law.

Let's imagine that I'm living on an otherwise deserted island in the middle of the Pacific... and I can do ANYTHING I WANT, anytime I want. The ONLY restrictions on my freedom would be an inability to go to the nonexistent Casino, for example. But you'd argue that I have no freedom, because there's no government or law.

I think that freedom is being re-defined.

Freedom only exists as a legal concept.  Laws are government creations.  Take away government and law and you don't have freedom.

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.

In what way does a government who's sole purpose is to control populations through coercion grant you any form of liberties or rights?

Being free is an illusion. You are only free if you are living alone on other planets.

The main point is that Tyrants use "Necessity" to increase their power.
I don't expect gov to "provide liberty", so we do not seem to be on the same page.

Does it not bother you that you contradict yourself?  If you believe in liberty and rights, you believe in government.  Yet you say that governments can't provide liberty.  Its a bit like saying you believe in seawater but don't believe in the sea.

Despite admitting that the National Security “vacuums up information about virtually every telephone call to, from, or within the United States,” William Pauley, a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, decreed last week that the NSA’s dragnet approach is constitutional because, well, he believes that it is necessary.

As William Pitt the Younger observed, “necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

The world is an inherently dangerous place. The idea that the government can protect us is patently absurd. All the government can do is to destroy our liberties while promoting the illusion of safety.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/glenn-jacobs/necessity-the-argument-of-tyrants/

President Dwight Eisenhower acknowledged this fact when he said that if you wanted real safety, go to prison. You get three meals and a bunk. Heck, you even get government health care. The only thing missing is freedom.

ps. BTC NEEDS a strong foundation watching out for our interests.