So, the state would be a monopoly that is maintained by coercion and therefore is immoral, which was my point.

Non-coercive monopolies are just successful businesses, their products/services are so good that nobody else has caught up yet. Alternatively, there is some other market inefficiency that might be causing it. However, these situations are always temporary.

There is competition with utilities, toll roads, etc.

4: My view is that since the dawn of civilization, people were under the rule of predatory organizations ("rulers"). They were made slaves. I think what happened was a bunch (US colonies) were able to get away from under their ruler's control (as technological progress allowed it). But apparently they formed their own rulers (congress/executive/judicial), albeit a bit less menacing. I would argue this has regressed some since then. So, my view is that US 'persons' are all slaves still. Maybe US state is less brutal then the other states, but that doesn't help much.

The 'consent of the governed' are empty words, propaganda to placate the masses. I observe something entirely different in reality.

What are you going to do at 18 if you disagree? Leave to go be someone else's slave? Voting is not the way to arrive at the truth. I don't even think that people at 18 have had enough time to correctly determine how to vote. Maybe 30?

The only true solution to the madness is the abolition of the state.

The pursuit for improvement is intentionally left up to the individual, as it must be both a voluntary and individual pursuit. (I wrote an entire book on this called The Pursuit of Purpose. You can find links in the Gulch Marketplace.)

"I guess the invocation of a creator is not such a big issue, just a minor imperfection."

On the contrary, Madison's writings on the matter indicate it was deliberate choice. The Founders left the matter vague to maximize the individual pursuit of religion and speech, but made it clear that they supported a framework of moral absolutes that humanity could investigate and adopt, but could not invent or circumvent.

You are welcome to believe (or not) in whatever course of action you wish. That's the great freedom America has historically espoused.

Personally, I can't logically arrive at a system of universal, individual rights without starting from a Creator. Every time I try to start from a position of atheism, I get stuck in the logical circle of might makes right...

Religion from my point of view is nothing more than what kind of future one wants to have after this life, associating what we do here as having direct relevance on what goes on there. From there, its a matter of what kind of existence one wants to have there and then determining whether or not that comports with reality.

"A monopoly cannot exist without it being maintained by violence or fraud. It is immoral, no matter how limited."

Monopolies can also exist for expediency. Take basic utilities and roads, for example. There's no question that such are monopolies yet they are also the most efficient way to accomplish the delivery of those services. There's nothing inherently immoral about a monopoly. A monopoly maintained by coercion or fraud is certainly immoral, but to argue that all such is to similarly invalidate patents, trademarks, etc. which are in and of themselves monopolies.

The problem with vigilante-ism is that they aren't authorized law enforcement officers, and I'm not talking about government as the source of their authority. Sheriffs are elected by the People and can temporarily deputize citizens as needed. These aren't vigilantes, however. Huge difference. The KKK were vigilantes and we saw how that went...

"My view is that laws should be universal, based on logic, and provable."

You are talking about universal moral laws and I don't disagree one bit. But human beings are anything but logical and provable. And some laws are simply arbitrary - such as which side of the road to drive on! I'm a perfectionist and I recognize the impulse to have every single thing neat and tidy, but the reality is that all that flies out the window the second you have to apply it to people.

"I think the issue is that you guys view laws as ephemeral and spontaneous."

You would be in error. You conflate moral absolutes with the laws of men. It would be nice if all laws were based on universal moral absolutes, but the human element frustrates this. We're not a society of gods.

"Obviously having multiple enforcers and legislators in your situation would create conflicts. However, in a system of mathematically derived laws this problem doesn't exist."

It simply doesn't work to have multiple authorities over the same thing. They are competing jurisdictions and the only result is confusion. It is why the Founders separated the duties of the federal government from the duties of each State: each had a separate jurisdiction.

Illegal immigration is precisely a problem originating in authority and jurisdiction. Either the United States has jurisdiction over them and calls them citizens or some other nation has jurisdiction and they are invaders. But both can't maintain simultaneous jurisdiction. If you don't believe me, try explaining how it would work in your hypothesis.

"The Federal Reserve is coercive. They are in cahoots with the state to bypass the Constitution (flawed as it may be) to steal the wealth of the people. Also, if I am not wrong they are a monopoly."

We are in 100% agreement. And they should be audited, their fraud exposed, and shut down for good.

I wouldn't say existence of god is a universal law. Some hindu would disagree.

My view on religion is that it is an informational virus. It seeks to replicate from brain to brain (via language) and undergoes natural selection. Religion is a form of life, an example of spontaneous abiogenesis. I guess the Christian variety was pretty successful in infecting the 'Founders,' so, they used it in their writings. If there is a creator, I'm willing to bet it is far different from what is accepted on faith in Christianity.

I guess the invocation of a creator is not such a big issue, just a minor imperfection.

"You can't have meaningful laws without enforcement" - agree

"a monopoly on enforcement of such laws makes sense" - disagree

A monopoly cannot exist without it being maintained by violence or fraud. It is immoral, no matter how limited.

I have no problem with a vigilante. They would be a volunteer law enforcement. I can't see them doing that for long because it would be costly, but I guess if they want to waste their time and money, sure. The problem might be if they are not professionals and don't know what they are doing. If they do something wrong, they will get into trouble pretty quickly.

My view is that laws should be universal, based on logic, and provable. There is no problem with multiple court systems, assuming they are not making mistakes. If they are making mistakes, then too bad for them, they will get into trouble pretty quickly.

I think the issue is that you guys view laws as ephemeral and spontaneous. That is the problem right there. Obviously having multiple enforcers and legislators in your situation would create conflicts. However, in a system of mathematically derived laws this problem doesn't exist.

The Federal Reserve is coercive. They are in cahoots with the state to bypass the Constitution (flawed as it may be) to steal the wealth of the people. Also, if I am not wrong they are a monopoly.

To allow any form of monopoly on anything is a grave mistake.

Despite the fact that every single one of the Founders was a deist, meaning that they believed in God (and most of them the Christian God), this is more a statement of universal law than anything else. Note that they don't try to describe the Creator, they just state this to set forth that Man is not his own God and can not arbitrarily make up "laws."

2. Equality is of station or opportunity, not of temperament or ability and especially not outcome. See Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

3. Again, the Founders believed heavily in individual rights which are inherent in mankind. The use of a Creator was to cut off the notion that rights derived from Government rather than the other way around.

4. The Founders were the first ones to recognize that governance begins with the assent of the People. It was a novel concept. But once the People assent to institute government and establish meaningful social constructs governing trade, communication, etc., they have spoken. We've had discussions on this forum about having everyone who turns 18 and wants to vote agree to the terms of the Constitution in order to do so as an explicit assent rather than the implicit assent assumed today as a birthright effect.

5. The Founders specifically stated that their desire for self-rule necessitated an explanation of their reasoning and a defense for their actions and they listed seventeen specific and egregious offenses perpetrated by the King offensive to even their nominal membership as citizens of Great Britain.

6. It's an interesting idea, but wholly impractical. We already have an incredibly tyrannical "private" entity called the Federal Reserve, yet can we swap that out? No. What you're really talking about is absolution of debt on a whim.


"You can't just make up a law by vote of the majority of any kind."

People have bad ideas all the time! Ideally, the laws enacted by men - especially moral laws - should have solid purchase in universal, natural law. I think we agree there. But the people who typically desire power are precisely the ones who think they can "transcend" these natural laws. They seek to be if not immune at least inoculated from their natural enforcement because of their own arrogance. We'll never have a society which completely adheres to natural law until we are able to control ourselves to such a degree that formal government is a sideline.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

You can't have meaningful laws without enforcement. And a monopoly on enforcement of such laws makes sense as it consolidates the enforcement mechanism into a single body and discourages vigilante-ism. Same thing with the courts. You start running into all kinds of issues if you have multiple court systems all with the same jurisdiction.

It's one thing to advocate for limits on State power. It's quite another to come up with a working substitute for basic functions like law making, adjudication, and enforcement. Those are fundamental functions that really are part of "government." Making them private does what exactly? See the Federal Reserve...

I am not against laws. I am against laws made up by something that is not logic and reason, such as the Congress. If you want to create a law, you have to prove (with a formal proof) that it is based on the most basic assumed-universal laws, such as the golden rule. A law is not something that is transient. It is always true and universal, even if it wasn't know before being made known.

My position is that you should be able to hire companies to enforce laws. These companies would ensure that everything is done lawfully and in a professional manner. Courts/judges might provide additional check that everything was done correctly. Proofs would be available for anyone to check for themselves.

There should not be a forced monopoly of law enforcement.

If there would be groups of people who sought to escape states/predation, they would only be able to do it in secret. It would be pretty hard with all the satellite technology, etc. They would likely be quickly taken over by predators from outside, or, after a few hundred years, from within, unless if there was a mechanism for preventing this kind of behavior.

I guess these days it can only be done by leaving Earth.

I do like some of those words from the US declaration of independence... except that stuff seems to be a bit problematic.

1. There doesn't appear to be a "creator."
2. People actually come out quite unequal due to genetic and environmental factor. So, the 'self-evident' part is a bit of a stretch. Although, i guess maybe they meant 'equal in rights', probably meaning nobody has the right to rule over others, which I would agree with.
3. I deny profusely the idea that somebody grants me rights. I have rights because of logic and reason: I am my own sovereign being. Nobody has the right to tell me what to do. I am nobody's slave.
4. You guys don't have the right to institute a state to 'govern' anyone, even if you allow them to have representation. You guys are a bunch of nasty statists. I would consider you to be on the same level as the Nazis.
5. I believe abolishing a government would be considered by US law an insurrection and not legal, so, it seems there is a logical inconsistency with all that abolition talk. A lot of empty words...
6. There is nothing wrong with peacefully swapping out societal management organizations, especially when they are financially nonviable. In fact, I would argue that should be done pretty often. By peaceful, I mean we should be allowed to stop paying them and start paying someone else to provide the same services.

I agree to be controlled by logic and reason only. You can't just make up a law by vote of the majority of any kind. If you want to create a law, you have to prove (with a formal proof) that it is based on the most basic assumed-universal laws, such as the golden rule.

Do you think that Ayn Rand's Galts Gulch could exist in this world?

It did have a courthouse. Could your anarchy exist without laws and some entity to enforce them?

Does your definition of anarchy "as lack of rulers" imply no rules as well?

Anything that perpetrates violence is evil, except maybe violence for self-defense.

Your question is somewhat illogical. I would consider anarchy to be an absence of states, so, it would have to be anarchy by definition. I guess it depends on how you define the words in question.

I would define a state as an organization that imposes its rule by force and/or trickery/fraud on population in some geographical location.

I would define anarchy as lack of rulers.

I think that the only "rulers" that should exist is logic and reason. So, ignoring your 'besides anarchy' requirement, I would replace state rule with logic and reason.

What would you replace the state with? Besides anarchy.

I don't believe that a state is necessarily evil, per se but it should be severely limited to its proper functions.

And who votes _for "the power seeking traitors"? Those who want the government to rob their neighbors in order to give to them. Those who want their competitors chained. Those who want their neighbors restrained from working to their best ability,Etc....A new philosophy is needed. Those who oppose statism have to try to convert the country (primarily the young minds) to Objectivism. It won't be easy, and it won't be quick. But still I think it is _possible. (Sorry, I didn't intend for all that to be in italics. I have trouble working with computers.)

The message is crystal clear.

I almost shipped funds to his bank about 15 years ago or so. Decided to do it on my own. Another lesson. A conservative institution probably isn't secure anymore. And...there you have it...

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That WHENEVER any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Q

Peter and his father are as gullible as all you guys are. I just don't understand how nobody sees this. The state is a parasite. So long as you the masses, even free market loving ones, support the existence of the state, there will not be a place to hide from predation like this.

with a MIRV

👍 DC is beyond reform. They came for us in 1913.
Voting is manipulated and will not solve anything.
The con-gress is nearly filled with power seeking traitors.
Be prepared for the certain collapse and the war that the elite have planned to save themselves.
NIFO.