Pages:
Author

Topic: The 'Voluntarism can't provide Essential Services' Argument - page 3. (Read 10625 times)

full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
Out of context much?

Bible thumpers have been using out-of-context quotes for centuries to rationalize all manner of things. What makes that any different?

But we stray from the topic.

I believe this was where we left off:

No, what you're doing is arbitrarilly using a document created by the state to justify actions against the state because you don't like other state created documents.

Ever actually read the declaration?

It wasn't created by 'the state', it was written by a bunch of traitors to the crown.


Which, at the time, were the state.  It was then ratified by the congress of the time, which was the state.

Quick review for the historically challenged (via wiki):

Quote
The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were now independent states, and thus no longer a part of the British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration is a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The birthday of the United States of America—Independence Day—is celebrated on July 4, the day the wording of the Declaration was approved by Congress.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Out of context much?

Bible thumpers have been using out-of-context quotes for centuries to rationalize all manner of things. What makes that any different?

But we stray from the topic.

I believe this was where we left off:

No, what you're doing is arbitrarilly using a document created by the state to justify actions against the state because you don't like other state created documents.

Ever actually read the declaration?

It wasn't created by 'the state', it was written by a bunch of traitors to the crown.

full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State.

...if you live in illogical land, which you obviously do, being a libertarian and all.


It's like saying Christianity is wrong and then quoting the Bible to prove your point.   Roll Eyes

You do realize that the founders were ideologically far closer to libertarians than anything other politcal ideology that can be found in the United States today, right?

Says who?

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -Thomas Jefferson

"All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it." - Benjamin Franklin

"Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers." - John Jay

"It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the greater, not the perfect, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment." - James Madison

"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." - Thomas Paine

"Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power." - James Madison

"Personal property is the effect of Society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist, the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation therefore of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes, on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came. This is putting the matter on a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine the case minutely, it will be found, that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labour that produced it; the consequence of which is, that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence. It is perhaps impossible to proportion exactly the price of labour to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily, he would not save it against old age nor be much the better for it in the interim. Make then Society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund, for it is no reason that because he might not make a good use of it for himself that another shall take it." - Thomas Paine


Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.  Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State.

...if you live in illogical land, which you obviously do, being a libertarian and all.


It's like saying Christianity is wrong and then quoting the Bible to prove your point.   Roll Eyes

Like this?:

Christianity condones Baby-killing!
Psalms 137:9
Quote
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
   and dashes them against the rock!


Out of context much?

"O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
   blessed shall he be who repays you
   with what you have done to us!
9Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
   and dashes them against the rock!"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+137&version=ESV

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State.

...if you live in illogical land, which you obviously do, being a libertarian and all.


It's like saying Christianity is wrong and then quoting the Bible to prove your point.   Roll Eyes

Like this?:

Christianity condones Baby-killing!
Psalms 137:9
Quote
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
   and dashes them against the rock!
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State.

...if you live in illogical land, which you obviously do, being a libertarian and all.


It's like saying Christianity is wrong and then quoting the Bible to prove your point.   Roll Eyes

You do realize that the founders were ideologically far closer to libertarians than anything other politcal ideology that can be found in the United States today, right?
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103

And what's the Declaration of Independence?  A holy document penned by god himself?  It was a document written to establish a new state and approved/signed off on by the US congress of the time, and you're the resident state-hater... but you'll quote it because it happens to fit your worldview.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I am merely providing evidence that the State doesn't live up to it's own justification for existence. .  

No, what you're doing is arbitrarilly using a document created by the state to justify actions against the state because you don't like other state created documents.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

You most certainly can have your cake and eat it too. As it happens, A am doing exactly that right now. (Chocolate peanutbutter!mmmm.) What you are trying to say is that you can't eat your cake and have it too, Brainiac.

There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State. You seem to think  it's a one way street. Whether I like other state documents is irrelevant. It's obvious that the Constitution effectively does little if anything to restrain the growth, size and scope of the federal government. The American republic was a noble experiment that failed. Limited government was not achieved.

Give any person or group infinite power and tell them to restrain themselves, and the same is likely to happen. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


That doesn't address the point.  Reread and respond to the point.
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
firstbits: 1kwc1p

And what's the Declaration of Independence?  A holy document penned by god himself?  It was a document written to establish a new state and approved/signed off on by the US congress of the time, and you're the resident state-hater... but you'll quote it because it happens to fit your worldview.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I am merely providing evidence that the State doesn't live up to it's own justification for existence. .  

No, what you're doing is arbitrarilly using a document created by the state to justify actions against the state because you don't like other state created documents.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

You most certainly can have your cake and eat it too. As it happens, A am doing exactly that right now. (Chocolate peanutbutter!mmmm.) What you are trying to say is that you can't eat your cake and have it too, Brainiac.

There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State. You seem to think  it's a one way street. Whether I like other state documents is irrelevant. It's obvious that the Constitution effectively does little if anything to restrain the growth, size and scope of the federal government. The American republic was a noble experiment that failed. Limited government was not achieved.

Give any person or group infinite power and tell them to restrain themselves, and the same is likely to happen. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State.

...if you live in illogical land, which you obviously do, being a libertarian and all.


It's like saying Christianity is wrong and then quoting the Bible to prove your point.   Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
 I accept the rationale of the Founders for their rebellion against the State. I apply that same rationale for my oposition to the State they created. 

I am a citizen as Webster defines it:

1
: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman

I don't have to prove my citizenship. The burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise.

Do you even know what the term "Rule of Law" means?

from Wikipedia:
The rule of law is a legal maxim that provides that no person is above the law, that no one can be punished by the state except for a breach of the law, and that no one can be convicted of breaching the law except in the manner set forth by the law itself. The rule of law stands in contrast to the idea that the leader is above the law, a feature of Roman law, Nazi law, and certain other legal systems.

An agent of the state can't break the law in order to enforce it. An agent of the State whether king or cop can't steal any more than I can as a private citizen.  This is true, even if he calls the theft "taxation."

I think I ate too much cake.

legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women

And what's the Declaration of Independence?  A holy document penned by god himself?  It was a document written to establish a new state and approved/signed off on by the US congress of the time, and you're the resident state-hater... but you'll quote it because it happens to fit your worldview.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I am merely providing evidence that the State doesn't live up to it's own justification for existence. .  

No, what you're doing is arbitrarilly using a document created by the state to justify actions against the state because you don't like other state created documents.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

You most certainly can have your cake and eat it too. As it happens, A am doing exactly that right now. (Chocolate peanutbutter!mmmm.) What you are trying to say is that you can't eat your cake and have it too, Brainiac.

There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State. You seem to think  it's a one way street. Whether I like other state documents is irrelevant. It's obvious that the Constitution effectively does little if anything to restrain the growth, size and scope of the federal government. The American republic was a noble experiment that failed. Limited government was not achieved.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
No, what you're doing is arbitrarilly using a document created by the state to justify actions against the state because you don't like other state created documents.

Ever actually read the declaration?

It wasn't created by 'the state', it was written by a bunch of traitors to the crown.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103

And what's the Declaration of Independence?  A holy document penned by god himself?  It was a document written to establish a new state and approved/signed off on by the US congress of the time, and you're the resident state-hater... but you'll quote it because it happens to fit your worldview.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I am merely providing evidence that the State doesn't live up to it's own justification for existence. .  

No, what you're doing is arbitrarilly using a document created by the state to justify actions against the state because you don't like other state created documents.

I guess the irony of that escapes you.


You prefaced that by saying this is "your country", a statement for which you have no proof or legal backing... aside from the state created document that says you have a right to live here if you abide by the rest of the state created documents which outline the obligations of the state and obligations of its citizens... and we've come full circle.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women

And what's the Declaration of Independence?  A holy document penned by god himself?  It was a document written to establish a new state and approved/signed off on by the US congress of the time, and you're the resident state-hater... but you'll quote it because it happens to fit your worldview.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I am merely providing evidence that the State doesn't live up to it's own justification for existence. The government claims that it exists to secure natural rights and that it derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed. This obviously means that it has no such justification if it fails to secure those rights or if it doesn't enjoy the consent of the governed. It wasn't written by God. It was written by Statists who unintentionally provided us with the reasoning to oppose them.

Society created the State and the Market.  Neither can be restrained effectively, but the State will eventually kill itself.  
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103

The fact that you're from Greece and you're mad makes more sense.  I understand what you're saying.  Really, it's not the social services that you're railing against, it's the waste and inefficiency with which they're executed - on this we agree.


However, to say you aren't benefiting is foolish.  Would you want to be surrounded by a nation of uneduated people, impoverished old beggers, and have law enforcement personnel to control crime?  Of course not.  Your government has obviously been foolish and wasteful with its implementation of these programs, but the issue is the waste, not the programs themselves.  Crying out that you want to abolish the programs because they're poorly managed is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Add to it the fact that in my life I have never seen efficiency in these areas. Maybe you're right, but nothing seems to work here for the last 30 years or so, I can't talk about earlier as I was too young.

And about the "living-in-fear" nation : I'm afraid what you're describing is coming anyway, pretty soon, at least in my greater neighborhood.

All the best.  






All the best to you as well.  What happens in Greece will certainly affect us all.  That type of waste and inefficiency is the perfect example of why democracies need educated, actively participating citizens in order to function.  If you don't like something, you can change it.  Unfortunately, people are too busy with their daily trivial activities to be concerned with the functioning of the government... until everything is collasping around them and now suddenly they're ready to take action.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103

The LAW once said it was perfectly legal to own people. was that right? of course not. It's hilarious that Statists seem to think that the "LAW" is somehow a magical permission slip to do immoral things on one hand while banning consensual behavior on the other.  



But yet you'll cite the constitution like it's the world of god.  Make up your mind.  You're talking about how unjust the law is in one breath and citing the Declaration of Independence in the next.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too, but yet that's why libertarianism is trying to do.

It pains me to have to explain this, so I'll use small words, Genius: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are separate documents. I haven't cited the Constitution, nor will I except to point out its flaws. It's your beloved "social contract" and it's worthless- a promise by the powers that be not to mistreat us unless they really really want to. It's selectively enforced and arbitrarily interpreted to mean anything they want it to mean.


And what's the Declaration of Independence?  A holy document penned by god himself?  It was a document written to establish a new state and approved/signed off on by the US congress of the time, and you're the resident state-hater... but you'll quote it because it happens to fit your worldview.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
sr. member
Activity: 313
Merit: 251
Third score

The fact that you're from Greece and you're mad makes more sense.  I understand what you're saying.  Really, it's not the social services that you're railing against, it's the waste and inefficiency with which they're executed - on this we agree.


However, to say you aren't benefiting is foolish.  Would you want to be surrounded by a nation of uneduated people, impoverished old beggers, and have law enforcement personnel to control crime?  Of course not.  Your government has obviously been foolish and wasteful with its implementation of these programs, but the issue is the waste, not the programs themselves.  Crying out that you want to abolish the programs because they're poorly managed is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Add to it the fact that in my life I have never seen efficiency in these areas. Maybe you're right, but nothing seems to work here for the last 30 years or so, I can't talk about earlier as I was too young.

And about the "living-in-fear" nation : I'm afraid what you're describing is coming anyway, pretty soon, at least in my greater neighborhood.

All the best.  



legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women

The LAW once said it was perfectly legal to own people. was that right? of course not. It's hilarious that Statists seem to think that the "LAW" is somehow a magical permission slip to do immoral things on one hand while banning consensual behavior on the other.  



But yet you'll cite the constitution like it's the world of god.  Make up your mind.  You're talking about how unjust the law is in one breath and citing the Declaration of Independence in the next.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too, but yet that's why libertarianism is trying to do.

It pains me to have to explain this, so I'll use small words, Genius: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are separate documents. I haven't cited the Constitution, nor will I except to point out its flaws. It's your beloved "social contract" and it's worthless- a promise by the powers that be not to mistreat us unless they really really want to. It's selectively enforced and arbitrarily interpreted to mean anything they want it to mean.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103



But you benefit from those services whether you think you want them or not, so your society will continue to force you to pay for them, because your ignorance of their benefits to you does not preclude you from benefiting.

See how simple that is?


The day you (and the rest of the libertarians) realize that you are NOT islands unto yourselves, no matter how hard you try, the world will suddenly start making more sense.

I thought I made i point that I am NOT BENEFITTING in any way, neither do my fellow citizens. In fact, my own life and my fellow citizens' life is made worse by the day because of these. If I told you that I am from Greece, would it make any more sense?

I mentioned in my post that it might be different in your country. I pointed out what type of services I DO NOT want. I understand it is not obvious to the reader that I am not proposing a complete banishment of these. I wouldn't have any objections if the services were better, or at least closer to my personal standards. Maybe in your country they are, in which case, I would consider you a lucky person.

I don't know what a "Libertarian" is and what classifies me as one (I don't seem to understand the term). I'm just laying plain facts and common sense.

And I do at least believe that all these needed services would be much better off in the hands of local government instead of central govenrment (better, fairer, and by god - cheaper).

In any case Ayeyo, thank you for making me think again about what I wrote before.

The fact that you're from Greece and you're mad makes more sense.  I understand what you're saying.  Really, it's not the social services that you're railing against, it's the waste and inefficiency with which they're executed - on this we agree.


However, to say you aren't benefiting is foolish.  Would you want to be surrounded by a nation of uneduated people, impoverished old beggers, and have law enforcement personnel to control crime?  Of course not.  Your government has obviously been foolish and wasteful with its implementation of these programs, but the issue is the waste, not the programs themselves.  Crying out that you want to abolish the programs because they're poorly managed is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
sr. member
Activity: 313
Merit: 251
Third score



But you benefit from those services whether you think you want them or not, so your society will continue to force you to pay for them, because your ignorance of their benefits to you does not preclude you from benefiting.

See how simple that is?


The day you (and the rest of the libertarians) realize that you are NOT islands unto yourselves, no matter how hard you try, the world will suddenly start making more sense.

I thought I made i point that I am NOT BENEFITTING in any way, neither do my fellow citizens. In fact, my own life and my fellow citizens' life is made worse by the day because of these. If I told you that I am from Greece, would it make any more sense?

I mentioned in my post that it might be different in your country. I pointed out what type of services I DO NOT want. I understand it is not obvious to the reader that I am not proposing a complete banishment of these. I wouldn't have any objections if the services were better, or at least closer to my personal standards. Maybe in your country they are, in which case, I would consider you a lucky person.

I don't know what a "Libertarian" is and what classifies me as one (I don't seem to understand the term). I'm just laying plain facts and common sense.

And I do at least believe that all these needed services would be much better off in the hands of local government instead of central govenrment (better, fairer, and by god - cheaper).

In any case Ayeyo, thank you for making me think again about what I wrote before.
Pages:
Jump to: