I have been watching this site for a little while now, prob. about 4 months or so and have communicated about a couple things. In general, I agree with (not all) core ideals of the group. What do I view the groups core ideals as? Non-violence to solve issues. Freedom from oppression from government. A kind of thinking where there is a "community on purpose, with a purpose".
I also noticed that in general, the group resides on the frindges of "normal" (used loosely) society. Which is fine and plenty of people do it and live
fullfilled lives. I do have some questions and I dont intend them AT ALL to be hurtful or demeaning so please dont take them that way, they're only
questions to understand more, the group. Who talks about this at least 1 or 2 times in a normal conversation, in most conversations in a day?
Girlfriends/wives? If so, are they all about it too? If they arent how do you make it survive? What kind of jobs/businesses do you guys have/own? Do you
believe in marrage in general (2 seperate types, recognized by state, recognized by God). Do you believe in a creator? Are you and your family willing to
be caged for your actions if need be? Anyone go to school? My basic questions are along the lines of what you consider fruitful lives, How many are really happy in general with the quality of their lives? Do you give up happiness for the cause?
Anyway, im done with the 3rd degree. My name is Zac Holzapfel. Im 29 and in school for accounting and live in florida. I have a wife, live simply and for the most part we are very happy. I love hockey and played it for 10 years and hopeing to start it up again in a few months. I work at whole foods as a meat cutter. I also believe in living with a purpose and living independent from need from others. I do however have a pell grant and thank you very much for my education lol! I believe in school vouchers and a system of federal government that impedes the progress of citizens as little as possible as well as an efficient regulatory system for corporations and businesses based on consumer rights. My thinking behind this is there are 2 types of people in the world…real and ficticious. Ficticious are groups of people and the individual (real) should have as much power as the group.
I know many believe in a state with no forcable (physical) laws and have many different ideas in attaining this (though most unrealistic in todays society). I look forward to listening , agreeing and debating with you all and in the future visiting your beautiful town.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
I have been watching this site for a little while now, prob. about 4 months or so and have communicated about a couple things. In general, I agree with (not all) core ideals of the group. What do I view the groups core ideals as? Non-violence to solve issues. Freedom from oppression from government. A kind of thinking where there is a "community on purpose, with a purpose".
I also noticed that in general, the group resides on the frindges of "normal" (used loosely) society. Which is fine and plenty of people do it and live
fullfilled lives. I do have some questions and I dont intend them AT ALL to be hurtful or demeaning so please dont take them that way, they're only
questions to understand more, the group. Who talks about this at least 1 or 2 times in a normal conversation, in most conversations in a day?
[/quote]
I don't talk about political philosophy nearly that much.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
Girlfriends/wives? If so, are they all about it too?
[/quote]
Wife, and yes. Well, I don't know about "all about it", but we both believe in non-aggression, and are pro-freedom.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
What kind of jobs/businesses do you guys have/own?
[/quote]
I'm an engineer.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
Do you believe in marrage in general (2 seperate types, recognized by state, recognized by God).
[/quote]
I believe in marriage, recognized by God, but I don't think the state should have anything to do with it.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
Do you believe in a creator?
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
Are you and your family willing to be caged for your actions if need be?
[/quote]
At the moment, no. If my wife agreed, and we found the right cause, I might at some point.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
Anyone go to school?
[/quote]
Yes, I have a BS in mathematics and computer science, and am finishing my masters in physics.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
My basic questions are along the lines of what you consider fruitful lives, How many are really happy in general with the quality of their lives?
[/quote]
I am very happy with the quality of my life, although I am looking forward to finishing school, quitting my job, finding one in NH, and moving (back) there.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
Do you give up happiness for the cause?
[/quote]
Absolutely not – in fact, I don't think it's possible to be truly happy without standing up for principles. Having a muddled mind, or abandoning principle for the sake of convenience, or wealth, is not a way to fulfillment. People, by their nature, need purpose in their lives – and having a big house with a nice car doesn't really count.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
Anyway, im done with the 3rd degree. My name is Zac Holzapfel. Im 29 and in school for accounting and live in florida. I have a wife, live simply and for the most part we are very happy. I love hockey and played it for 10 years and hopeing to start it up again in a few months. I work at whole foods as a meat cutter. I also believe in living with a purpose and living independent from need from others. I do however have a pell grant and thank you very much for my education lol! I believe in school vouchers and a system of federal government that impedes the progress of citizens as little as possible as well as an efficient regulatory system for corporations and businesses based on consumer rights. My thinking behind this is there are 2 types of people in the world…real and ficticious. Ficticious are groups of people and the individual (real) should have as much power as the group.
I know many believe in a state with no forcable (physical) laws and have many different ideas in attaining this (though most unrealistic in todays society). I look forward to listening , agreeing and debating with you all and in the future visiting your beautiful town.
[/quote]
Awesome, and welcome 
To clarify my view, I have no problem with "law" necessarily, if the law prohibits committing harm against people. Murderers, and thieves, for example, should be stopped, forcefully, and they should be forced to make restitution to their victims.
It's victimless laws, and other aggressive violence (like taxation) that I oppose.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
My name is Zac Holzapfel. Im 29 and in school for accounting and live in florida. I have a wife, live simply and for the most part we are very happy. I love hockey and played it for 10 years and hopeing to start it up again in a few months. I work at whole foods as a meat cutter. I also believe in living with a purpose and living independent from need from others. I do however have a pell grant and thank you very much for my education lol!
[/quote]
Welcome!
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
Who talks about this at least 1 or 2 times in a normal conversation, in most conversations in a day?
[/quote]
I do. Often. Usually with like-minded people, debating tactics and details and specifics; sometimes with strangers, asking questions, leading them to understand the gun in the room.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
Girlfriends/wives? If so, are they all about it too? If they arent how do you make it survive?
[/quote]
I have 2 girlfriends. They are both very liberty oriented and really get the ideas. Liberty/voluntaryism/individualism are really important to me, so I wouldn't be in an intimate or close relationship with someone that doesn't hold at least similar beliefs in these areas. For example, I don't really talk to my family members any more.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
What kind of jobs/businesses do you guys have/own?
[/quote]
I don't work any more. I was fired when jailed for activism, and I am living off of my savings now because I refuse to get a job where my money will be stolen (in the form of taxes).
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
Do you believe in marrage in general (2 seperate types, recognized by state, recognized by God). Do you believe in a creator?
[/quote]
I believe marriage exists. I see there being 2 reasons for marriage: religion or State benefits. I surely could be wrong, but it seems to me that any other reason (e.g., love, wanting to have kids, having a lifelong commitment) doesn't necessitate a marriage, but merely a personal agreement or commitment.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
Are you and your family willing to be caged for your actions if need be?
[/quote]
Yes. Have been. Will be again, I'm sure.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
Anyone go to school?
[/quote]
I quit college after 2 years.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
How many are really happy in general with the quality of their lives?
[/quote]
I've never been happier in my life than in the 1.5 years I have lived in NH (I moved here as part of the FSP). Sure I've had some frustrations and depressions and fear (cops, judges, jails, respectively 
), but overall it's been fantastic being near so many like-minded people.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
Do you give up happiness for the cause?
[/quote]
No.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
I believe in school vouchers and a system of federal government that impedes the progress of citizens as little as possible as well as an efficient regulatory system for corporations and businesses based on consumer rights.
[/quote]
I'll be interested to hear you explain how school vouchers and/or a federal government that does anything and/or a regulatory system allow people to be free.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=2347.msg27034#msg27034 date=1264187570]
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
I'll be interested to hear you explain how school vouchers[/quote]
My view of how school vouchers has to do with taxes and a change also in those laws. First, a few things on taxes (local) which directly effects education (only 2 percent is funded by federal government through taxpayers which constitute from 40-50% citizens). Local taxes for education are paid by property taxes, no matter where you are, a home you purchased or a rented home, you are paying this tax. IF (the important word in this statement) we are forced to pay taxes for the betterment of our local community education, parents should be able to choose schools attended by their children and those children who grow up and want to go to college, that tax revenue that would be used for them would then go to the college of their desire (in or out of state).
This would create competition between schools, remove teacher tenure by default and provide the student with a better learning environment, (whether that student learns anything is his or her choice). To me thats the definition betweengettin schooin or an education.
[quote author=Mike Barskey link=topic=2347.msg27041#msg27041 date=1264190351]
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
Id like to see your view on a federal government that does anything and/or a regulatory system allow people to be free.
[/quote]
The key word in that statement is allow, in which i disagree. We ARE free and individuals, companies, corporations and governments attempt to impede our freedom to benefit their own interests (special interests being the motivating force for most groups/individuals).
Also, what is your definition of free? Some say, in a situation where there is no government to speak of or at all (like Haiti), then you are free. Are you free when you live in fear and have to forceably protect your self, 2 girlfriends and property? In this situation, this is what you would be "forced" to do. Who is forcing you at this point? The unknown threat. not a person or a group which you can see and hear. Which is worse, a threat you can see and hear or one you cant even understand?
If the definition is not as literal and broad, if you mean freedom to do as you chose within the bounds of law of force against force. Meaning if you harm or attempt to harm, force can be used legally against you. Otherwise, nonviolent, victemless crimes would not be crimes anymore. smoking pot may be victemles to you but not to the parent to the kid who imitates you. Ponzi schemes may be victemless, but not to the many people Burny Madeoff scammed out of their money. The Madeoff reference is a physical one (because you trade physical hours of your life for money, no matter what you do.) and the pot one is a metaphysical one because the kid may not be physically hurt but heads down a life of getting high all the time, may not be addictive physically but it is habitual.
how do you suppose I get you to not influence my kid to smoke "the pot"? if you han out somewhere i know my kid always goes like a football field for practice, all i can do is teach him/her, try and change your life (by all this i dont mean that u smoke, just an example), or to lynch you. Given a long enouh time line and level of influence on my child, the last option is more likely. OR we can get a law chaned and include that in an ordinance so noone can smoke weed publically as a form of public drunkeness. This means I dont have to try and change your life because ur not my problem and you will get caged by someone authorised to use force if needed as punishment for breaking those laws. What right does a pot smoker have to smoke in front of my kid?Children dont have the specific reasoning that grownups have, thus are easily influenced. This is why advertising is not allowed and parents bitch about advertising in schools. Is is really victemless?
The real problem with government, local and federal, is that the talented people, those with ideas of freedom, dont run.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27027#msg27027 date=1264181468]
My view of how school vouchers has to do with taxes and a change also in those laws. First, a few things on taxes (local) which directly effects education (only 2 percent is funded by federal government through taxpayers which constitute from 40-50% citizens). Local taxes for education are paid by property taxes, no matter where you are, a home you purchased or a rented home, you are paying this tax. IF (the important word in this statement) we are forced to pay taxes for the betterment of our local community education, parents should be able to choose schools attended by their children and those children who grow up and want to go to college, that tax revenue that would be used for them would then go to the college of their desire (in or out of state).
This would create competition between schools, remove teacher tenure by default and provide the student with a better learning environment, (whether that student learns anything is his or her choice). To me thats the definition betweengettin schooin or an education.
[/quote]
I certainly support vouchers as an improvement over what we have now.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27045#msg27045 date=1264196965]
The key word in that statement is allow, in which i disagree. We ARE free and individuals, companies, corporations and governments attempt to impede our freedom to benefit their own interests (special interests being the motivating force for most groups/individuals).
Also, what is your definition of free? Some say, in a situation where there is no government to speak of or at all (like Haiti), then you are free. Are you free when you live in fear and have to forceably protect your self, 2 girlfriends and property? In this situation, this is what you would be "forced" to do. Who is forcing you at this point? The unknown threat. not a person or a group which you can see and hear. Which is worse, a threat you can see and hear or one you cant even understand?
[/quote]
To be free is to be able to live your life and manage your finances as you choose, as long as you don't harm others. It is the absence of aggressive violence.
Complete freedom, in the strictest sense, is probably practically impossible. There will always be the random thief or other criminal who will attempt to violate our personal and property rights.
The fact that some aggressive violence is probably inevitable, however, does not mean it should be endorsed – just as we all oppose murder 100%, but recognize that it will probably never be completely eliminated.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27045#msg27045 date=1264196965]
If the definition is not as literal and broad, if you mean freedom to do as you chose within the bounds of law of force against force. Meaning if you harm or attempt to harm, force can be used legally against you.
[/quote]
Yes, the only justifiable use of violence is in defense against the aggressive violence of another.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27045#msg27045 date=1264196965]
Otherwise, nonviolent, victemless crimes would not be crimes anymore. smoking pot may be victemles to you but not to the parent to the kid who imitates you.
[/quote]
The kid who imitated you made that choice, and the responsibility for their action is the kid's (and to an extent, the parent's). You have a right to jump off a cliff, if you want, and the right to smoke cigarettes, drink, eat trans-fats, and go two-wheeling.
I have no right to threaten violence against you to prevent you from doing things I find inadvisable. You are a free individual, and I don't own you, or your body. Others can imitate you, or not – that is their choice.
The fact that someone has a kid they want to protect does not give them the right to threaten violence in order to control the example of others, and try to forcefully shape society into something they approve of.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27045#msg27045 date=1264196965]
Ponzi schemes may be victemless, but not to the many people Burny Madeoff scammed out of their money.
[/quote]
Ponzi schemes are not victimless – Madoff committed fraud, and violated his contractual obligations. Obtaining money from others under intentionally fraudulent pretense is theft. He should be forced to pay restitution to his victims.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27045#msg27045 date=1264196965]
The Madeoff reference is a physical one (because you trade physical hours of your life for money, no matter what you do.) and the pot one is a metaphysical one because the kid may not be physically hurt but heads down a life of getting high all the time, may not be addictive physically but it is habitual.
[/quote]
All actions have consequences. The fact that I do not approve of your actions, does not give me the right to forcibly prevent you. The only justifiable use of force is to defend against the force of another person.
If a man breaks into my house, and starts to pull a gun on my wife, I have a right to shoot him.
If I see a man eating trans-fats, I do not have a right to shoot, kidnap, harass, or fine him, simply because I'm worried my kid may imitate him. By eating trans-fats, he was not violating my property rights, or using force against me. I don't have the right not to see anything I disapprove of. Perhaps I should have a conversation with my kid, instead.
I think these moral rules are fairly self-evident, especially examined on an individual basis.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27045#msg27045 date=1264196965]
how do you suppose I get you to not influence my kid to smoke "the pot"? if you han out somewhere i know my kid always goes like a football field for practice, all i can do is teach him/her, try and change your life (by all this i dont mean that u smoke, just an example), or to lynch you.
[/quote]
How about asking the owner of the football field to prohibit it? Assuming it's privately owned, he or she has the right to prohibit pot smoking on his/her property. If the owner refuses, use a different football field.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27045#msg27045 date=1264196965]
Given a long enouh time line and level of influence on my child, the last option is more likely. OR we can get a law chaned and include that in an ordinance so noone can smoke weed publically as a form of public drunkeness.
[/quote]
Yes, it's much easier for a person to just threaten violence against everyone in order to get them to do what's convenient for them. Unfortunately, it's also immoral. The others have rights too, and those rights are not at the whim of the majority.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27045#msg27045 date=1264196965]
This means I dont have to try and change your life because ur not my problem and you will get caged by someone authorised to use force if needed as punishment for breaking those laws.
[/quote]
Translation: They'll get kidnapped by a thug me and the rest of the majority hired, which we use to enforce our arbitrary will on the minority.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27045#msg27045 date=1264196965]
What right does a pot smoker have to smoke in front of my kid?
[/quote]
A pot smoker has the right to smoke pot on his property, or the property of someone who permits him.
I think the real solution to the problem is private property rights.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27045#msg27045 date=1264196965]
Children dont have the specific reasoning that grownups have, thus are easily influenced. This is why advertising is not allowed and parents bitch about advertising in schools. Is is really victemless?
[/quote]
Again, if schools were funded by subscription, rather than theft, you'd be free to pull your kid and your money from the school which permitted the offensive advertising, and send him to a different one.
If enough people did this, the school would go broke.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27045#msg27045 date=1264196965]
The real problem with government, local and federal, is that the talented people, those with ideas of freedom, dont run.
[/quote]
While I also support political activity, I think the core of the problem is the public's delusion that the majority has the moral right to do things that would be immoral for any member of the majority. If I don't have the moral right to take your money by force, I don't gain the right to do so by getting a bunch of friends together, who also want to take your money by force.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=2347.msg27048#msg27048 date=1264200544]
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27045#msg27045 date=1264196965]
The kid who imitated you made that choice, and the responsibility for their action is the kid's (and to an extent, the parent's). The fact that someone has a kid they want to protect does not give them the right to threaten violence in order to control the example of others, and try to forcefully shape society into something they approve of.
A childs brain is physically undeveloped until they reach a certain age, the age of maturity of the brain reaches its vertex at different rates for everyone and cannot be predicted. However, it has been defined in America that physical adulthood has been arbitrarily reached at the age of 18, at which time the parent has no authority over the actions and influence of the child except by which authority is given by the 18+ year old. Given this true statement, the "choice" you mentioned is one made by an incompetent person in the absence of the parent. In the presence of the parent, the outcome is invariably different and thus negates the problem. This is why I advocate parents being present when they can and teaching their children to their utmost. At this point, if someone influences the child and the parent is not around to make the right decision, the child is being harmed by the person influencing them negatively.
.
If I see a man eating trans-fats, I do not have a right to shoot, kidnap, harass, or fine him, simply because I'm worried my kid may imitate him. By eating trans-fats, he was not violating my property rights, or using force against me. I don't have the right not to see anything I disapprove of. Perhaps I should have a conversation with my kid, instead.
I think these moral rules are fairly self-evident, especially examined on an individual basis.
Do you remember what its like being a kid?? Its not just a person smoking weed. its the whole influence that person has over you because hes cool or him and his friends might beat u up I fyou don’t. Kids don’t think like we do and they don’t make the same decisions based on experience. Its a completely different situation, and if that person who is "eating the trans fat" was doing that, I would react the same way as a parent.
By your statements this is what I gather. It is your right to do as you please without regard to the preferences of others around you, within the realm of non-violence. This is your vision of freedom. Lets pretend this reality becomes legal fact. You are allowed to smoke or run around naked whenever, wherever you want.
The concept of social norms and fringes play a big part here. It could be legal to walk around naked anywhere you want, but would you try and do it at a Chucky Cheese? A smart person wouldn’t , even if it was legal, because if you did and refused to leave when a parent/parents ask you, you will get lynched. This reaction, being outside the law, is being caused by your legal action, means that your legal action is outside the social norm and part of the unacceptable fringes of society (there of course is an acceptable fringe as well).
Why would you do this at a Chucky Cheese, as a form of activism? Who knows why, you just want to take advantage of your rights, like anyone would, but because it is so hated by so many, you are punished anyway. This leads me to the moral…rudeness at certain levels is unacceptable by society in general.
is there any way to fix the quotations on this? Or is there a link to a thread that gives back-story?
I agree full heartedly with the concept of non violence to solve issues. How does it become possible to be able to live your life the way you want to , without impeding someone elses right to live the way they want to? When this happens, how do you solve the issue, who mediates if needed and what if it does get violent? Whos at fault? The person who was living freely and impeding on anothers freedom to do the same or the first person who got violent? or the person who instigated the violence?
I also understand that the government has powers we as individuals do not. Also, the "majority" that is so often cited here, is who exactly? Also, who is the minority? The system of government that is referenced when speaking of the problem between those is democracy…we do not live in a democratic government. Its a government based on laws, specifically. Made and destroyed and enforced by the people who live under them. In the situation of a republic, majority and minority do, not, matter. Specifically, what matters is groups of minorities called special interest groups, which this group is one!
If you mean the government is the majority, you would be mistaken. The government exists as a concept only kept alive by the people that chose it to govern them. Meaning the people choose the laws, who gets elected (along with the electorial college), and which laws dont fly, example, healthcare bill. The people in a historically democratic state spoke loudly against it (group example). Gideon…a prisoner…wrote to the supreme court to have a trial because he was convicted in court without an attorney. His arguement that he had to be able to understand law and was incompetent to do so, therefor a lawyer should be appointed to him. Now we have the ability to have legal council no matter our financial situation. Miranda did the same for the reading of the Miranda rights. so on and so fourth for the individuals.
This proves minority, majority dosnt matter, its the constitution of the person to bring justice to others by bringing cases before the court and argueing for what is right. Otherwise, what are we REALLY doing besides going to jail?
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27118#msg27118 date=1264308744]
I agree full heartedly with the concept of non violence to solve issues. How does it become possible to be able to live your life the way you want to , without impeding someone elses right to live the way they want to? When this happens, how do you solve the issue, who mediates if needed and what if it does get violent? Whos at fault? The person who was living freely and impeding on anothers freedom to do the same or the first person who got violent? or the person who instigated the violence?
[/quote]
Can you give an example of what you mean by impeding someone else's ability to live freely?
My rights only extend as far as the next person's, as they say. I have no right to initiate force or fraud against another person, or their property. I would say that the person who initiates force or fraud is at fault, and the other has a right to respond defensively, with the minimum necessary level of force.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27118#msg27118 date=1264308744]
I also understand that the government has powers we as individuals do not.
[/quote]
If by "powers" you mean that practically, they can do things that an individual cannot (they have the guns, manpower, etc), of course that's true. If you mean they have the right to do things the individual cannot, I disagree. If a behavior would be immoral for an individual, it's immoral for a collection of individuals calling themselves "government".
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27118#msg27118 date=1264308744]
Also, the "majority" that is so often cited here, is who exactly? Also, who is the minority? The system of government that is referenced when speaking of the problem between those is democracy…we do not live in a democratic government. Its a government based on laws, specifically.
[/quote]
Yes, but these laws are determined by the will of the majority. If you get enough people together, you can get the government to do whatever you want. Even the constitution can be changed at will – just elect a majority of representatives in 3/4 of the states.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27118#msg27118 date=1264308744]
Made and destroyed and enforced by the people who live under them. In the situation of a republic, majority and minority do, not, matter.
[/quote]
Of course they do. That's how the "representatives" are elected.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27118#msg27118 date=1264308744]
Specifically, what matters is groups of minorities called special interest groups, which this group is one!
[/quote]
Only in that the representatives are trying to put together a majority to support them, by combining special interest groups.
The fundamental point is, that the "legitimacy" of this government is supposedly derived from the consent of the people. But there is no monolithic "the people". There are only large numbers of individuals. And ultimately, what determines whether "the public" "consents" is popular elections, determined by majority.
Perhaps this will make it clear: Suppose 10% of the country just wants to be left alone. They do not want to have their money taken from him, they do not want victimless crimes or ponderous regulations enforced against them, etc. I am saying that even if the other 90% want to take their money by force, etc, they have no right to do so.
If a gang of ten guys mugs one guy, that's not moral – and it's no more moral on a larger scale.
Yet, according to the popular delusion, all they must do is elect representatives, change the law, change the constitution if necessary, and their theft is suddenly somehow "legitimate". Millions of people who would never dream of breaking into their neighbor's house and pawning their TV, have no problem voting for "representatives" who will do exactly the same thing for them.
That delusion is what I object to – that the political process makes fundamentally immoral acts magically ok.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27118#msg27118 date=1264308744]
If you mean the government is the majority, you would be mistaken. The government exists as a concept only kept alive by the people that chose it to govern them. Meaning the people choose the laws, who gets elected (along with the electorial college), and which laws dont fly, example, healthcare bill. The people in a historically democratic state spoke loudly against it (group example).
[/quote]
Who is "the people"? Do you not mean the majority? Many people spoke for it, but you say "the people" spoke against it, because the majority did.
We have a constitution, but the constitution is mostly ignored. Sometimes, the people are too – calls to congress were 20-1 against the bailouts, but they happened anyway – because politicians know which side their bread is buttered on.
In reality, we have some mix between a constitutional republic, a democracy, and an oligarchy. We're moving more towards oligarchy all the time.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27118#msg27118 date=1264308744]
Gideon…a prisoner…wrote to the supreme court to have a trial because he was convicted in court without an attorney. His arguement that he had to be able to understand law and was incompetent to do so, therefor a lawyer should be appointed to him. Now we have the ability to have legal council no matter our financial situation. Miranda did the same for the reading of the Miranda rights. so on and so fourth for the individuals.
[/quote]
So, the nine men and women of the supreme court have a lot of power. That doesn't prove anything. You could tell a story about a little girl who wrote to Mao and got her wishes granted, and it wouldn't make that any less of a dictatorship.
And the nine members of the supreme court, by the way, were appointed by the president, which was elected by – you guessed it – popular opinion.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27118#msg27118 date=1264308744]
This proves minority, majority dosnt matter, its the constitution of the person to bring justice to others by bringing cases before the court and argueing for what is right.
[/quote]
What happens when the court is corrupt – and enforces immoral laws? What happens when the thief goes to court, and the court forces the victim to pay the thief?
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27118#msg27118 date=1264308744]
Otherwise, what are we REALLY doing besides going to jail?
[/quote]
I can only speak for myself, but I am trying to convince people to grow consciences. Especially, I am trying to convince them that if it would be immoral for you to extort money from your neighbor by threatening to kick him out of his house, it's also immoral to hire a representative to do it for you. If it would be immoral for you to grab a gun and go demand money from someone because they ate trans-fats, or smoked pot, it's immoral to hire representatives to do it for you. And if you have no right to force everyone who wants to open a business to pay you for the privilege, you have no right to hire someone to do it for you - etc, etc, ad absurdum.
Getting a large enough group together, electing a leader, and writing things down on paper, do not magically make acts we would all recognize on an individual level as theft, kidnapping, and assault, anything more than theft, kidnapping, and assault.
[quote author=PraeterIdiot link=topic=2357.msg27117#msg27117 date=1264308639]
is there any way to fix the quotations on this? Or is there a link to a thread that gives back-story?
[/quote]
Uhhh…why was this posted titled "Re: mike barskey"?
[quote author=Mike Barskey link=topic=2357.msg27131#msg27131 date=1264344125]
[quote author=PraeterIdiot link=topic=2357.msg27117#msg27117 date=1264308639]
is there any way to fix the quotations on this? Or is there a link to a thread that gives back-story?
[/quote]
Uhhh…why was this posted titled "Re: mike barskey"?
[/quote]
This looks like split and merged posts from another thread or threads. One of the admins must’ve done it without posting an explanation.
ya, sorry about that, I had to log back in and it posted it as new post, instead of in the same thread. Sorry mike, I also put the wrong name to the reply, it was supposed to be to ttii. =oP
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2357.msg27144#msg27144 date=1264351248]
ya, sorry about that, I had to log back in and it posted it as new post, instead of in the same thread. Sorry mike, I also put the wrong name to the reply, it was supposed to be to ttii. =oP
[/quote]
Is there a thread I should merge this all with? Which one if so?
Ttii, you said. Can you give an example of what you mean by impeding someone else's ability to live freely?
My rights only extend as far as the next person's, as they say. I have no right to initiate force or fraud against another person, or their property. I would say that the person who initiates force or fraud is at fault, and the other has a right to respond defensively, with the minimum necessary level of force.
An example of what I mean by impeding someone else’s ability to live freely is a matter of perception of actions and how negatively a person or a group of people perceive your action to be vs. you not seeing any problem with it. You do not need a government for this “discrimination” to occur, it happens naturally. As I said before, if you smoke “the pot” in front of my kid (this is seen negatively by society (defined society is a group of individual people with different life experience through which a natural agreement/disagreements, along with factions occur)), you will be punished in some form by the parent, group of parents and/or concerned individuals or a representitive of the group used to deflate the “mob mentality” which is much more dangerous than the punishment which could be inflicted by the mob. One who disagrees with the mob mentality vs. the individual representitive (being the safer rout) should do some research into “mob mentality”.
On that note, it is not true that the “concept” of “people” or “a people” does not exist. A group of people acts MUCH differently than an individual acting/thinking alone. This change in reality from the individual to the group indicates a different entity, not physically but metiforically, much like a corporation is a metaphorical entity.
I define powers as those powers government is “given” to them by the group of individuals that choose to live in that government. They do not naturally have any rights not given, literally, every day by that group of individual people. I’m using “group of individual people” as a specific phrase, because 1 person can change the law.
And on that note, you said that “So, the nine men and women of the supreme court have a lot of power. That doesn't prove anything.”
They have 0 power. The only thing they can do, IF, a case makes it to them, is to hear the case and interpret the constitution. Of course there is the argument of judicial fiat, which can definitely occur (which happens rarely). If that happens, all that happens is a change in the law to not allow the fiat to be legal. How does that happen? A call by the people or an individual. Also you stated that the supreme court is appointed by a president….yes…only when the seat opens and the seat is for life. This means the members of the supreme court are not effected by the election process and have different views because they span many presidencies and along with them, their views of the constitution.
Which brings me to what you said about the president being elected by the majority. That’s not true as well. He or she is elected by the electoral college, not by the people. Example is GW, not elected by the people, but by the EC. What you said about us being a combination of a constitutional republic, democracy and an oligarcy…ive heard before…from my American federal government professor. I distinctly disagreed with her as will I you. Yes, perception changes over time and it has, many people think what you are saying is true. In reality, we are a republic. A nation based on Laws, which are based on original ideals that the country was based on, which is said in the federalist papers, DoI, the constitution, letters by Franklin and the actions of John Adams in defense of those who committed the boston massicar. Specifically, what I am stating, is the country is based on the original ideals, which guide the law, which is what we are ruled by….not the government. Thus, we are a republic. No other country in history, was based on ideals, not rome or Athens, nobody and we are a nation that pushes the boundries of freedom contantly, which also makes the country great. Because its human nature, not the nature of government (being only a concept created by people) to want to live free and assert their freedom over others (which is what you and I are commonly against). In this country and only this country, we all have the right to join that tug of war.
You said “What happens when the court is corrupt – and enforces immoral laws? What happens when the thief goes to court, and the court forces the victim to pay the thief?”
A corrupt supreme court would be very VERY hard to accomplish, because they are so far different in their interpretation of law and life experiences.
Please define/give an example of “the court forces the victim to pay the thief”.
ya, its in introduction and zholzapfel, the other one i have there. thanks!
i forgot to add, a supreme court is hard to accomplish, but a local court…whole different story.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27186#msg27186 date=1264429339]
A corrupt supreme court would be very VERY hard to accomplish, because they are so far different in their interpretation of law and life experiences.
[/quote]
Stanford law school professor, Lawrence Lessig has said that the supreme court is corrupt. His plan has changed from a "use the courts to change the system" stand to a "change congress" stance, specifically because of corruption in the supreme court.
Unfortunately, I don''t think he will ever give up his statist viewpoint and become a volunteerist or anarchist.