Rational Mysticism?

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Sure, low-level government officials and non-insiders are sometimes sacrificed to keep the illusion of government accountability alive, but that doesn't necessarily mean all government officials can and will be held accountable.

Why do you think our government shields itself behind "qualified immunity"? Because they wish to limit accountability, and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

In anarchy, there would be no such thing as the farcical legal concept of "qualified immunity". Nobody would be above the law. Under government, not so much.

Actually, I disagree about the rationale for qualified immunity. It is needed to allow the judicious use of discretion where the authority to use discretion has been granted. You can't have officials making decisions that are unduly influenced by the fear of future spurious prosecutions, at least you can't without engendering timidity in those officials.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Yes of course, that was my point. "Rights" mean that there is concord about what "rights" are and that they ought to be respected, sufficient that I am able to resort to reason rather than force when asserting them, and that social pressure is usually sufficient for enforcement (though one can posit cases of collaborative force being applied, even anarchically, in furtherance of some claim or other). Unfortunately this can only be accomplished anarchically if all of the actors are known to one another and so are informed enough to evaluate the claims made, and if force is used it becomes complicated by the social need for revenge.

Assuming this is true, I don't think it's a good enough justification to create a massive, legalized extortion racket.

Do you?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Actually, I disagree about the rationale for qualified immunity. It is needed to allow the judicious use of discretion where the authority to use discretion has been granted. You can't have officials making decisions that are unduly influenced by the fear of future spurious prosecutions, at least you can't without engendering timidity in those officials.

In other words, you want "officials" to be legally shielded while they go around doing things mere mortals aren't allowed to do. Basically a two-tiered society, where it's "us" and "them".

Some animals are more equal than others.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Assuming this is true, I don't think it's a good enough justification to create a massive, legalized extortion racket.

Do you?

You chose an interesting analogy to use when begging the question, as legality as a concept depends upon the existence of a magistrate with enforcement powers. Who is that supposed to be where the establishment of government is concerned, God?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Yep. And even then, there seems to be a need to invent laws.

There "seems" to be a "need"? Who says? And what laws are you referring to?

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

In other words, you want "officials" to be legally shielded while they go around doing things mere mortals aren't allowed to do. Basically a two-tiered society, where it's "us" and "them".

Some animals are more equal than others.

Yes, government entails the delegation of power to officials.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

There "seems" to be a "need"? Who says? And what laws are you referring to?

History says. And the laws among people that are able to all know each other are commonly called tribal laws.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

You chose an interesting analogy to use when begging the question, as legality as a concept depends upon the existence of a magistrate with enforcement powers. Who is that supposed to be where the establishment of government is concerned, God?

I think you're missing the point, or maybe just avoiding it.

How does not personally knowing everyone justify the need for an involuntary protection racket? If it's a problem that you don't know someone, how would allowing them to extort other people that you don't know solve the underlying problem?

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

History says. And the laws among people that are able to all know each other are commonly called tribal laws.

Hunter gatherer tribes do not appear to have very much in the way of heirarchy or interpersonal authority apart from parent to child. Agrarian tribes OTOH are significantly more authoritarian.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

I think you're missing the point, or maybe just avoiding it.

How does not personally knowing everyone justify the need for an involuntary protection racket? If it's a problem that you don't know someone, how would allowing them to extort other people that you don't know solve the underlying problem?

I don't think I'm missing the point. You're presuming a legal framework that emerges spontaneously from nature, whereby "extortion" could become "legal" and call itself government. Without a legal framework "extortion" is a meaningless term. Seen that way, when societies emerge from within a state of nature and consequently create legality via collaborative force, that created legality imposes a burden that must be borne by the members of that society if it is to endure. You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't judge society under the terms of its derivative institutions.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Yes, government entails the delegation of power to officials.

Government doesn't entail the delegation of anything. I never delegated powers to anyone, they simply took them. And if I or anyone else ever tried to revoke those powers, the government would fight with murderous, indiscriminate ferocity to prevent it.

Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is a fantasy. It's a government of special interests, and you ain't it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

History says. And the laws among people that are able to all know each other are commonly called tribal laws.

There's also been quite a bit of rape and murder throughout human history. Does that mean history says there "seems" to be a "need" for it? Of course not.

By the way, most tribal laws are a reflection of natural law.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Government doesn't entail the delegation of anything. I never delegated powers to anyone, they simply took them. And if I or anyone else ever tried to revoke those powers, the government would fight with murderous, indiscriminate ferocity to prevent it.

Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is a fantasy. It's a government of special interests, and you ain't it.

Very well, the founders delegated them, and we have the liberty to revisit that delegation anytime we find it "adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution"; yet we are also cautioned to avoid doing this for "light and transient causes."

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I don't think I'm missing the point. You're presuming a legal framework that emerges spontaneously from nature, whereby "extortion" could become "legal" and call itself government. Without a legal framework "extortion" is a meaningless term. Seen that way, when societies emerge from within a state of nature and consequently create legality via collaborative force, that created legality imposes a burden that must be borne by the members of that society if it is to endure. You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't judge society under the terms of its derivative institutions.

That's not what I'm saying at all. The legal framework for a government protection racket comes not from nature, but from groups of men who seek power. So I ask, what's the justification for allowing them to have this power and the authority to do things other people can't do?

If it's wrong for me to rob you, why is it OK for them?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Very well, the founders delegated them, and we have the liberty to revisit that delegation anytime we find it "adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution"; yet we are also cautioned to avoid doing this for "light and transient causes."

Come on. What do you think our government would do if the little people tried to "revisit that delegation" of powers? If the forces of government couldn't covertly subvert the effort in its early stages, there would be all-out war in the streets. The people who own and control our government don't give a damn about the Constitution or the people's right to "redress grievances".

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

There's also been quite a bit of rape and murder throughout human history. Does that mean history says there "seems" to be a "need" for it? Of course not.

By the way, most tribal laws are a reflection of natural law.

I don't know about need, but those things are certainly part of human nature. As, apparently, are the "need" for humans to make law.

I think it less of a need and more of a reflection of cultural Darwinism.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

That's not what I'm saying at all. The legal framework for a government protection racket comes not from nature, but from groups of men who seek power. So I ask, what's the justification for allowing them to have this power and the authority to do things other people can't do?

If it's wrong for me to rob you, why is it OK for them?

Hmmm, that is a deeper question than it appears. War is the justification for government, as it is the justification for the state.

Government cannot be a "protection racket" that "robs" people, because "protection rackets" and "robbery" are deriviative of the law, which is derivative of the institution of government itself. I hope that is clear.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Come on. What do you think our government would do if the little people tried to "revisit that delegation" of powers? If the forces of government couldn't covertly subvert the effort in its early stages, there would be all-out war in the streets. The people who own and control our government don't give a damn about the Constitution or the people's right to "redress grievances".

I'm not sure why that is supposed to matter. If a war is required, a war will be fought.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Government cannot be a "protection racket" that "robs" people, because "protection rackets" and "robbery" are deriviative of the law, which is derivative of the institution of government itself. I hope that is clear.

No, it's not clear. Walk me through it in the most basic terms.

By saying that robbery and extortion is derivative of the law and government, are you meaning to say that robbery and extortion can only be defined by what the government says it is? That the acts of robbery and extortion, outside the existence of government, aren't really robbery and extortion at all? That for something to qualify as robbery or extortion requires government and man-made laws declaring it so?

It seems like you are saying just that. If not, feel free to correct me. But if this is your claim, it's incorrect. Robbery and extortion are only derivative of natural law, which in fact is not derivative on the institution of any government at all. In other words, in a state of anarchy, you would not be justified in going around robbing and extorting other free men. Such actions would naturally be seen as unjust, and you would likely end up getting your throat slit.

[lacuna]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Don't trust your eyes, Burke.

Burke making his way through life: