Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

LULZ.

Advancement of human civilization? You call this "civilization"? What's so civilized about it? Nothing's really changed. It's still just people fighting over who's going to rule the roost. It's still just people fighting over who's going to exploit the population's labor. It's still just people trying to accumulate as much power over their fellow man as possible. The boundaries have changed, the technology has changed, and the justifications have changed, but it's still just the same charade.

Which, again, you are necessarily asserting in your "codefications of rights and limitations on sovereignty are BAD" stuff is that we were a more civilized species the day before Magna Carta (and one could pull other codes far earlier in fact) as any day hence. Which, well... durp. That is all I got. Well, and hurp.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

And if I might interject, nearly every nation, save the US, ended it without conscription and bloody conflagration.

In other words, they didn't resort to one form of slavery to end another form of slavery.

Conscription is not a form of slavery.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

And if I might interject, nearly every nation, save the US, ended it without conscription and bloody conflagration.

In other words, they didn't resort to one form of slavery to end another form of slavery.

Most of the heavy lifting of really, actually ending slavery (or the only kind of slavery we count as such, unlike our hundreds of thousands slaves held in the US today), was done with extreme prejudice, by the Royal Navy. Egads, violence! Warmongering!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Which, again, you are necessarily asserting in your "codefications of rights and limitations on sovereignty are BAD" stuff is that we were a more civilized species the day before Magna Carta (and one could pull other codes far earlier in fact) as any day hence. Which, well... durp. That is all I got. Well, and hurp.

If's that's all you could come up with, why bother at all?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Conscription is not a form of slavery.

False.

Conscription = Forced military servitude = Slavery

Chattel slavery = Forced economic servitude = Slavery

Both the same thing in practice, with the same basic result.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Conscription is not a form of slavery.

True, not if they ask.

Oh wait, they don't ask before they snatch your baby boy from your arms.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Minister doesn't believe that the State exists to serve the people, he believes that the people exist to serve the State.

This is an important distinction.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

True, not if they ask.

Oh wait, they don't ask before they snatch your baby boy from your arms.

Is breathing a choice, or is it the labor required by life?

Liberty along with life also requires labor. And neither can endure unless we bear their burden.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Is breathing a choice, or is it the labor required by life?

Of course it is. After all, people often make the choice to stop breathing.

Let me guess, you don't believe that kind of personal choice should be allowed?

Liberty along with life also requires labor. And neither can endure unless we bear their burden.

And what if a man doesn't want to? Isn't that his choice?

You keep mentioning liberty and freedom, but you don't seem to understand what those words truly mean.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

If's that's all you could come up with, why bother at all?

Why bother with you? Touche. Valid question. Anarchism is something I take every bit as seriously as the nihilists in "The Big Lebowski". It is pretty hard to 'bother with' an ethos that, as a practical matter, turns all rights into a nullity since it rejects the premise that they can be protected by anything beyond might or wishful thinking.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Of course it is. After all, people often make the choice to stop breathing.

Let me guess, you don't believe that kind of personal choice should be allowed?



And what if a man doesn't want to? Isn't that his choice?

You keep mentioning liberty and freedom, but you don't seem to understand what those words truly mean.

One could choose not to breathe, even permanently as by asphixiating himself, yet he cannot also live. If he wants to live he must breathe, and just so if we want to be free we must defend ourselves.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

One could choose not to breathe, even permanently as by asphixiating himself, yet he cannot also live. If he wants to live he must breathe, and just so if we want to be free we must defend ourselves.

Aren't those individual, personal choices though? I mean both suicide and defending ourselves?

Are you an individualist or a collectivist? Do you believe you exist to serve yourself or others?

[Minister_of_Information]

The choice to defend the nation is a collective one, delegated to the government to which we have delegated the administration of that which is collectively necessary. And the defense of the nation is collectively necessary.

The connotation of those terms seem too ideologically strident to me, though I've always believed that the dignity of the individual is an end in itself. The point of society ought to be to empower and liberate the individual. Yet I do not imagine that I am free from the violence of nature merely by my individual will: that requires the collaborative efforts of a society of the like-minded to ensure. And the organization of those collaborative efforts will require some sort of administration, and that administration will have to be empowered to make decisions.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Why bother with you? Touche. Valid question. Anarchism is something I take every bit as seriously as the nihilists in "The Big Lebowski". It is pretty hard to 'bother with' an ethos that, as a practical matter, turns all rights into a nullity since it rejects the premise that they can be protected by anything beyond might or wishful thinking.

LOL. Disaster post of the day.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The choice to defend the nation is a collective one, delegated to the government to which we have delegated the administration of that which is collectively necessary. And the defense of the nation is collectively necessary.

The connotation of those terms seem too ideologically strident to me, though I've always believed that the dignity of the individual is an end in itself. The point of society ought to be to empower and liberate the individual. Yet I do not imagine that I am free from the violence of nature merely by my individual will: that requires the collaborative efforts of a society of the like-minded to ensure. And the organization of those collaborative efforts will require some sort of administration, and that administration will have to be empowered to make decisions.

These truths do appear to be self-evident.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Is breathing a choice, or is it the labor required by life?

Liberty along with life also requires labor. And neither can endure unless we bear their burden.

The state inhales the free and exhales the spent. Conscription amounts to slave labor. But if the notion of enslaving your baby boy or baby girl to the politic aims of the state doesn't sit well with you, I suppose you're free to call it by another name.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The choice to defend the nation is a collective one, delegated to the government to which we have delegated the administration of that which is collectively necessary. And the defense of the nation is collectively necessary.

I disagree. The choice to defend the nation is an individual one, and it's a choice freely made by each and every member of the nation. It's a choice no different than the one involved in renouncing citizenship, as far as I am concerned.

"Do I want to be a part of this nation?"
"Do I want to live within the borders of this nation?"
"Do I want to defend this nation?"
"Do I want to kill or be killed for this nation?"

All the same.

The connotation of those terms seem too ideologically strident to me, though I've always believed that the dignity of the individual is an end in itself. The point of society ought to be to empower and liberate the individual. Yet I do not imagine that I am free from the violence of nature merely by my individual will: that requires the collaborative efforts of a society of the like-minded to ensure. And the organization of those collaborative efforts will require some sort of administration, and that administration will have to be empowered to make decisions.

I disagree again. I see no reason to believe society is dependent on any form of higher, monopolistic administration to make "decisions" (government). I also see no reason to believe that individual human beings need to be ruled by anyone but themselves.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

These truths do appear to be self-evident.

No, not really.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

No, not really.

Yes, quite really.

But do go on.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I also love the notion that we delegate to government any administrative powers. This is a complete and total myth. No government asks for permission. No government waits for the people it claims dominion over to delegate anything before they begin exerting power. We were all born into this system and agreed to nothing.

The government would fight us tooth and nail using every means available, up to and including nuclear weapons, if we ever attempted to revoke any imaginary powers we allegedly delegated it to it.