*snipped*
I used to think like you did, before I actually challenged myself on the actual nature of individual rights, and the monopoly of force that the government is. I came to the realization that if you don't violate the rights of the individual, society as a whole benefits. But if you use the monopoly of violence if the state to "protect" society from the individual, all of society actually loses.
The government does not have a "monopoly of force" as you suggest. We are or can be armed if we so choose. We do not have the military marching in our streets, no checkpoints.
You mention the "individual" several times in this passage. Individuals come in several varieties, good and bad. I would like to use the violence of the state to protect us from the bad "individuals". This is a case where society wins, not loses.
When do "individual" rights begin to interfere with the rights of another "individual"? Obviously the legislature in MA thinks it is when an "individual" fails to properly secure a gun he is not in control of. However, your "individual" right to defend yourself is not diminished by that law. It IS diminished by the RIDICULOUS wording of the law that gives PC's the power to determine the "suitableness" when granting a license and some other issues that need changing.
Government is nothing more than a group of a few individuals that happen to have the guns. Government, just like the firearm, holds no mystical powers. One is nothing more than a tool, and the other is nothing more than a group of individuals that maintain a monopoly on the initiation of force.
As I said before, the government is not the only one that has guns. The FBI estimate there are 200 million privately owned guns in the US. I think we have them outgunned. We certainly have them outnumbered. They definitely do not have a monopoly on the initation of force or we would not be allowed to defend ourselves no matter what. I agree that MA is a pain with the lack of a Castle Doctrine law on the books.
You also conveniently left out that "government" is the people that are ELECTED to office, not those who took office by force.
Without government, we would all still be individually liable for our actions and natural laws or "common law" would still exist. We just wouldn't have a small group that steals and then tells us that "theft is wrong".
And some people tend to be more "liable" for their actions that others, the ones that aren't we call criminals. As for "natural laws", do we all have our own set of "natural laws"? What if mine don't agree with yours? Example, I go to sleep at sundown, so NATURALLY, you need to turn your stereo off at sundown. Do I get to shoot you if you don't? Or is that defined by "common law" set down by what government? since you do not recognize any government made by man, as you state below?
"Without government" Hmmm, even American Indians had forms of government. Tribal leaders, councils, met with other tribes to make treaties, etc. You might be missing a strand in your DNA somewhere????
By "stealing" I am going to assume (which may be a mistake) that you mean taxes or other fees the government collects from individuals. If so, evidently you own a horse or walk everywhere. If you do and are not paying any taxes, then STAY OFF THE ROADS the rest of us paid for, since we paid for them as INDIVIDUALS, you have no INDIVIDUAL right to use them, FREELOADER. Or do you have some weird idea that you should only pay as much tax as you can afford ala the communist idea of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."
The idea of the state is so ingrained in our society that I liken it to the religious communes and their religion. No individual could even see beyond their own nose to challenge the legitimacy of it, as it was what they always knew, and they did not know what they didn't know.
Yup, you are pretty much right about this, we have had governments since the earliest days of man, even before the Egyptians. I wonder why that it is? Could it be that we all get along better that way? The American Indians sure got along better with their form of government. The Aztecs and Mayans too, even the Anastazi and Pueblo. The Chinese had government 6000 years ago. I am thinking you are missing a whole gene, not just a strand of DNA.
But if they challenged EVERY last concept and "rule" down to first principles, they would find that 99% of it couldn't survive logic and a scientific analysis.
Not your logic anyhow, since your logic consists of "individual rights" and those rights are an individual being able to do whatever he wants as long as it harms no one else. Sort of like one of those communes in the 60's, which don't exist anymore, cause they didn't work either.
But here is the rub, I think one of my "rights" is to not have you walking across my property (go with this, cause in your world, there would be no property, cause there would be no government office to file my deed at, I would just have to declare it verbally or something), but since you feel that just walking across my property does me or my property no harm, you should be able to do it. But I still don't like it, cause I do not like you (I know you actually want to make eyes at my daughter). So, do I get to shoot you, or what? IT IS MY INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO NOT HAVE YOU WALK ACROSS MY PROPERTY.
I'm sure folks see me as blasphemous, but I put no faith in a church made by man nor a government made by man. The only ruler I have is myself and my first principles, and that is also how I raise my children.
You should have been born in the 1800's, seriously, you would have been happy out there in the Rockies with Jim Bridger, trapping and hunting, living off the land, fighting indians who were annoyed that you were violating THEIR individual rights, who by the way had LAWS that controlled their societies, go figure.
My First Principles: 1st figure out what planet you are on, 2nd, figure out what country, 3rd get copy of rule book, 4th follow rules, 5th read rule book again if unhappy and figure out how to change rules without winding up in jail or executed.
If we were to all do this, the world would be a much better and polite place, rules by intellectual honesty and not bad dogma or doctrine.
I think I am going to break out in a chorus of Kumbaya any minute now, anyone want to join hands? Honestly, ALL of us never seem to want to do what is right.
Please read through the many threads here and open yourself to the ideas that may challenge what you think you know so very well. You may find that you discover a whole new level of interaction with your neighbor than you ever knew.
Please read a bit more history, and you will find that this government was formed the way it was for a lot of really good reasons.
ETA: Guns are force multiplier, nothing more. If I wish to use force against a deer or an assailant, I am limited by my physical ability to produce force. Now if I have a tool, such as a bow, or spear, sword, or a gun, my level of force is not as limited. This is a very efficient tool in achieving this work. But at no time does this tool have any more ability to kill, than the will of the user.
[/quote]
My comments:
It never ceases to amaze me! Someone comes along, gets annoyed because at this moment in time a few of their rights are being trampled on a bit (prohibition did a lot of trampling for 13 years, but it finally got fixed, yes, our system actually works) but they whine, cry, claim the government is worthless, ad nauseam. But the fact is, if you compared their brain power to that of Jefferson/ Franklin/Madison/Washington or Adams, it would be similar to a BB rolling down an 8 line highway.
We have a system of government that allows it to get messed up, but then it can be corrected.
We have some very powerful tools at our disposal, the first one is the 1st ammendment. Any of these malcontents been putting it to good use?
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
