Voluntaryism

[Chris]

Two principles of Voluntaryism. Vs Statism. Not all may agree.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=53&v=5kza3otq0jc

[Private Pickle]

Kinda a slanted video ya think? I get both sides of the argument...

[Chris]

Kinda a slanted video ya think? I get both sides of the argument...

How so?

[Private Pickle]

How so?

Well for example; and we were just having a discussion on this, tacit consent while assumed by the state isn't defined by the state and as such no conflict of interest exists.

[Calypso Jones]

I hate this topic. It's a crock. It doesn't work, it's never worked and will never work. Libertarian...is that a democrat in denial?

[Chris]

Well for example; and we were just having a discussion on this, tacit consent while assumed by the state isn't defined by the state and as such no conflict of interest exists.

Are you talking social contract theory? That assumes a tacit agreement to a social contract that empowers the state. In a way that is what the Constitution represents. It is assumed and defined by a few not even representative at the time of ratification. But that's the way the state works. There is no foundation to it other than we the people do not walk away from it.

http://i.snag.gy/cPFja.jpg

The video is slanted toward voluntaryism and against statism.

[Private Pickle]

Are you talking social contract theory? That assumes a tacit agreement to a social contract that empowers the state. In a way that is what the Constitution represents. It is assumed and defined by a few not even representative at the time of ratification. But that's the way the state works. There is no foundation to it other than we the people do not walk away from it.

http://i.snag.gy/cPFja.jpg

The video is slanted toward voluntaryism and against statism.

It empowers the State yes however; the Constitution limits that power. While the Constitution was written by the few they were in fact representatives of the people of those States.

12320

The image is slanted toward "statism"...

[AeonPax]

`
VISTA

(http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps/americorps-vista)[/URL][URL="http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps/americorps-vista"] (http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps/americorps-vista)

[Chris]

I hate this topic. It's a crock. It doesn't work, it's never worked and will never work. Libertarian...is that a democrat in denial?

How so? The crock part.

You do know don't you that the state has existed but a small fraction of man's existence. And there are many areas still today that work without the state. What do you have against liberty?

Read up on the history of libertarianism. It's classical liberalism. When FDR and the Progressive hijacked the term liberal, the classical liberals settled on libertarians. A few years later the New Conservatives formed--a fusion was attempted as Buckley is libertarian, but Kirk misunderstood and resisted.

[Chris]

`
VISTA

(http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps/americorps-vista)[/URL][URL="http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps/americorps-vista"] (http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps/americorps-vista)


A voluntary program run the the state.

[Chris]

It empowers the State yes however; the Constitution limits that power. While the Constitution was written by the few they were in fact representatives of the people of those States.

12320

The image is slanted toward "statism"...


The Constitution is supposed to limit the state, the government, but it doesn't.

I would argue the Article of Confederation more closely represented the people at the time, and what they fought for.

[Private Pickle]

A voluntary program run the the state.

Tacit consent would apply in that case as well.

[Ethereal]

I hate this topic. It's a crock. It doesn't work, it's never worked and will never work. Libertarian...is that a democrat in denial?

Republicans have much more in common with Democrats than libertarians do.

[Private Pickle]

The Constitution is supposed to limit the state, the government, but it doesn't.

I would argue the Article of Confederation more closely represented the people at the time, and what they fought for.

It doesn't? I'd argue we don't respect it and it gets worn out a lot. I'd also argue that as society changes so will our interpretation of the Constitution. But it certainly limits the power of the state.

[Chris]

It doesn't? I'd argue we don't respect it and it gets worn out a lot. I'd also argue that as society changes so will our interpretation of the Constitution. But it certainly limits the power of the state.

OK, we don't respect it--true of many, just look at argument about rights. But most of all those in power don't respect it, they've sold us out to the highest bidders. Thus the need to walk away from it, them.


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.

[Chris]

Tacit consent would apply in that case as well.

Volunteers to such a program would do so explicitly, probably sign a contract.

[Private Pickle]

OK, we don't respect it--true of many, just look at argument about rights. But most of all those in power don't respect it, they've sold us out to the highest bidders. Thus the need to walk away from it, them.

Right now I feel relatively safe and happy...

[Private Pickle]

Volunteers to such a program would do so explicitly, probably sign a contract.

The volunteers would give their overt consent. The same as any elected official...

And the people that didn't volunteer would give their tacit consent....the same as any citizen...

[Chris]

The volunteers would give their overt consent. The same as any elected official...

And the people that didn't volunteer would give their tacit consent....the same as any citizen...


I haven't consented to anyone. Have you?

[Calypso Jones]

Republicans have much more in common with Democrats than libertarians do.

republicans are indistinguishable from democrats but libertarians are suffering from transient global amnesia...or something.

[Chris]

Right now I feel relatively safe and happy...

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Ben Franklin

[Private Pickle]

I haven't consented to anyone. Have you?

We both have. Yes.

[Private Pickle]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Ben Franklin

"Beer is proof God wanted Man to be happy."

~Ben Franklin

[Chris]

republicans are indistinguishable from democrats but libertarians are suffering from transient global amnesia...or something.

Just can't quite put your finger on it, can you. Come back when you can.

[Chris]

We both have. Yes.

No, I haven't.

[Private Pickle]

No, I haven't.

Yup. Ya have.

[Calypso Jones]

The volunteers would give their overt consent. The same as any elected official...

And the people that didn't volunteer would give their tacit consent....the same as any citizen...

well there you go. what's the big deal. It's the same old same old.

[Chris]

well there you go. what's the big deal. It's the same old same old.

We were talking about VISTA program actually.

[Private Pickle]

well there you go. what's the big deal. It's the same old same old.

Personally I like vetting the people who intend to make the "rulez".

[Chris]

Yup. Ya have.

Tacit means understood or implied without being stated. It doesn't mean without knowledge. So, no, I have not consented to this fiction of the social contract.

[magicmike]

I hate this topic. It's a crock. It doesn't work, it's never worked and will never work. Libertarian...is that a democrat in denial?

No. A Libertarian is a coward in republitarian clothing.

[Private Pickle]

Tacit means understood or implied without being stated. It doesn't mean without knowledge. So, no, I have not consented to this fiction of the social contract.

By continuing to drive the roads, pay your taxes, send your kids to public schools, engage in the economy you are giving your tacit consent.

[magicmike]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Ben Franklin


It's funny how you republitarians like to use quotes from the founding Fathers literally instead of in context. It's like you think we lesser, non-republitarians are too dumb to know. How dishonest!

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said

Franklin was actually, in context, stating a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending view.

[Chris]

It's funny how you republitarians like to use quotes from the founding Fathers literally instead of in context. It's like you think we lesser, non-republitarians are too dumb to know. How dishonest!

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said

Franklin was actually, in context, stating a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending view.


First off, mike, I'm not a rep--whatever idiotic portmanteau you made up. You know that. Saying such is dishonest on your part.

Second, I used the quote as I understand it. Nothing at all dishonest about that. But there's something dishonest accusing another of that without good reason.

Third, the opinion you provide is a convoluted piece of nonsense.

So much for your worthless, off-topic flame bait.

[Chris]

By continuing to drive the roads, pay your taxes, send your kids to public schools, engage in the economy you are giving your tacit consent.

Do I have a choice? No. I am forced, and not doing so would mean incarceration or worse. That's not consent.

[Chris]

No. A Libertarian is a coward in republitarian clothing.

Mike, do you have any clue what the topic is? Are you capable?

[Private Pickle]

Do I have a choice? No. I am forced, and not doing so would mean incarceration or worse. That's not consent.

You can leave or attempt to do so and at that point you don't consent...

[Chris]

You can leave or attempt to do so and at that point you don't consent...

That's not a choice, it's a command. So you agree then with the video that the state is an entity of farce and just the opposite of voluntary.

[Chris]

Well we seen a defense of the state. Let's look at voluntaryism:

Two Principles of Voluntaryism

1 Self-ownership: we own our bodies, ou actions and the effects of those action. thus by original appropriation or voluntary exchange

2 Non-aggression: free from coercive aggression by others, where coercion is the explicit application or threat to harm to a person's property

[magicmike]

First off, mike, I'm not a rep--whatever idiotic portmanteau you made up. You know that. Saying such is dishonest on your part.

Second, I used the quote as I understand it. Nothing at all dishonest about that. But there's something dishonest accusing another of that without good reason.

Third, the opinion you provide is a convoluted piece of nonsense.

So much for your worthless, off-topic flame bait.

You claim to not be a Libertarian, Republican, tea party or anything else. So what are you?

[magicmike]

Third, the opinion you provide is a convoluted piece of nonsense.

So much for your worthless, off-topic flame bait.


Mike, do you have any clue what the topic is? Are you capable?

Lol. Talk about dishonest flame baiting.

[Chris]

Lol. Talk about dishonest flame baiting.

I did. Do you want more?

Did you read Franklin's letter, Mike, or did you just find an opinion you think agrees with yours? I doubt you even read your link.

[magicmike]

I did. Do you want more?

Did you read Franklin's letter, Mike, or did you just find an opinion you think agrees with yours? I doubt you even read your link.

I've had this discussion a hundred times. Yes, I know the letter. I know every letter you republitarians put out as so-called proof the Founding Fathers wanted this country to be a Libertarian paradise of federal government lite.

But it didn't end up that way. Wipe the tears and move on. Stomp your feet all you want. Misquote Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, de Tocqueville, whoever all you want. We will never have a Libertarian president, government or substantive congressional representation.

[Chris]

I've had this discussion a hundred times. Yes, I know the letter. I know every letter you republitarians put out as so-called proof the Founding Fathers wanted this country to be a Libertarian paradise of federal government lite.

But it didn't end up that way. Wipe the tears and move on. Stomp your feet all you want. Misquote Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, de Tocqueville, whoever all you want. We will never have a Libertarian president, government or substantive congressional representation.


You obviously have not read the letter nor your link given your silly trash talk.

[magicmike]

Lol. Is this how the Kewl Kids discuss things in their special section?

[Chris]

Lol. Is this how the Kewl Kids discuss things in their special section?

Poor, Mike, tries to trash another thread and falls flat on his face and now lashes out at others for his failure.

[Ethereal]

republicans are indistinguishable from democrats but libertarians are suffering from transient global amnesia...or something.

Or, more likely, they believe in liberty.

[Ethereal]

No. A Libertarian is a coward in republitarian clothing.

How so?

[Ethereal]

You can leave or attempt to do so and at that point you don't consent...

So inaction on someone's part is enough by itself to infer consent, even when someone is expressly stating they do not consent?

[Ethereal]

I've had this discussion a hundred times. Yes, I know the letter. I know every letter you republitarians put out as so-called proof the Founding Fathers wanted this country to be a Libertarian paradise of federal government lite.

But it didn't end up that way. Wipe the tears and move on. Stomp your feet all you want. Misquote Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, de Tocqueville, whoever all you want. We will never have a Libertarian president, government or substantive congressional representation.

Misquote them? How about we just look at their actual policies? No income taxes, no FIAT money, no federal drug laws, no myriad of federal departments to interfere in the lives of the citizenry. Seems pretty minimalist to me.

[Chris]

You have to wonder why people get all up in arms over self-ownership and non-aggression. I could understand being dead set against slavery and aggression. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

[magicmike]

Misquote them? How about we just look at their actual policies? No income taxes, no FIAT money, no federal drug laws, no myriad of federal departments to interfere in the lives of the citizenry. Seems pretty minimalist to me.

Which founding fathers were opposed to federal drug laws?

[Chris]

Which founding fathers were opposed to federal drug laws?

Which were for?

[Ethereal]

Which founding fathers were opposed to federal drug laws?

You mean the federal drug laws that didn't exist at the time?

[Private Pickle]

That's not a choice, it's a command. So you agree then with the video that the state is an entity of farce and just the opposite of voluntary.

Sure it's a choice and no.

[Private Pickle]

So inaction on someone's part is enough by itself to infer consent, even when someone is expressly stating they do not consent?

If you consider benefiting from the infrastructure inaction but yes. Saying you don't consent doesn't matter if you continue to live here. Your consent is given by your actions.

[Chris]

Sure it's a choice and no.

You're like kilgram redefining terms to suit your argument. There is no free choice as it is now. Perhaps that's how you prefer it, but should your preference be forced on others?

[Private Pickle]

You're like kilgram redefining terms to suit your argument. There is no free choice as it is now. Perhaps that's how you prefer it, but should your preference be forced on others?

If you choose inaction you're still choosing. Please don't go off the rails on me. I'm not talking my preference I'm simply telling you that by living here you consent by default. That's the reality.

[Chris]

If you choose inaction you're still choosing. Please don't go off the rails on me. I'm not talking my preference I'm simply telling you that by living here you consent by default. That's the reality.

No, you're saying the state decides, dictates, and you're OK with that. When the state decides to drop bombs on some foreign city next time, remember, you consented. When the state decides to raise your taxes, just rememeber, you consented.

[Chris]

Which founding fathers were opposed to federal drug laws?

Duh. Let's recall, Mike, you were the one raised the nonsensical point.

[Private Pickle]

No, you're saying the state decides, dictates, and you're OK with that. When the state decides to drop bombs on some foreign city next time, remember, you consented. When the state decides to raise your taxes, just rememeber, you consented.

OK. Just remember you are consenting too.

[Chris]

OK. Just remember you are consenting too.

I'm not.

Is a slave consenting when given "choice" work or whip? Is a robbery victim given choice money or your life? These are false choices.

[Private Pickle]

I'm not.

Is a slave consenting when given "choice" work or whip? Is a robbery victim given choice money or your life? These are false choices.

A citizen isn't a slave or a criminal. Try to stay on topic. There is only one way in the eyes of the state where you do not consent and that is by leaving the country. Sorry. I hate to burst your bubble on this one but I am simply stating reality.

[Chris]

A citizen isn't a slave or a criminal. Try to stay on topic. There is only one way in the eyes of the state where you do not consent and that is by leaving the country. Sorry. I hate to burst your bubble on this one but I am simply stating reality.

All those are examples where following your logic they would have to be called choices and consenting. Obviously your logic leads to absurdities. Hate to burst your bubble. Where did the American colonists go?

[Private Pickle]

All those are examples where following your logic they would have to be called choices and consenting. Obviously your logic leads to absurdities. Hate to burst your bubble. Where did the American colonists go?

The logic changes given the circumstances Chris. Logic states you wouldn't normally slam on your breaks either but if a child runs out in front of your car you slam on the breaks. These are disengrnious analogies.

[Chris]

The logic changes given the circumstances Chris. Logic states you wouldn't normally slam on your breaks either but if a child runs out in front of your car you slam on the breaks. These are disengrnious analogies.

Logic doesn't change situationally. Logic is logic. The analogies show your contention absurd. Who decided the choice is love it or leave it? You? People don't generally leave, they change the system, sometime gradually, sometimes evolutionarily, sometimes revolutionarily, sometimes radically.

[Private Pickle]

Logic doesn't change situationally. Logic is logic. The analogies show your contention absurd. Who decided the choice is love it or leave it? You? People don't generally leave, they change the system, sometime gradually, sometimes evolutionarily, sometimes revolutionarily, sometimes radically.

We can agree to disagree.

[decedent]

Voluntaryism works because selfishness doesn't exist, so everyone chips in to help those in need. It's a beautiful system. We don't need a commie system to force selfish people to chip in equally.

[Chris]

Voluntaryism works because selfishness doesn't exist, so everyone chips in to help those in need. It's a beautiful system. We don't need a commie system to force selfish people to chip in equally.

That's volunteerism.