VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:37:48 02/16/00 Wed
Author: bnimble
Subject: Someone that has their shit together.

Subject:
Re: Some thoughts on the initiation of force thing.
Date:
Tue, 15 Feb 2000 20:34:55 -0800
From:
"anarchometer"
Organization:
MindSpring Enterprises
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.libertarian, co.general, ca.politics, alt.government.abuse
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12




Scott Weiser wrote in message <38aacc64.460254@news.dimensional.com>...
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:15:55 -0800, "anarchometer"
> wrote:


>>>I reserve the right to rescind the authority I granted to them and
>>>replace them with others who will act in a moral manner and within
>>>their grant of authority.
>>Do I have the same rights you have?
>Indeed,

Gee, thanks. Mighty big of you.

Oops. I knew there'd be a catch:

>but you must be willing to use the appointed methods for
>rescinding that authority or you must be prepared to resist by force
>and win. If you lose, you're just another crook.


The founding fathers of the American revolution were NOT
traitors, seditionists, crooks, criminals, murderers, looters,
and terrorists because they kicked the king's ass? "Might
makes right," in other words . . .

Gloat, gloat, gloat.

If you gave the authority to use force to people in "government,"
why do THEY get to make the "appointed methods for
rescinding that authority "? You're trying to pull a fast one on
me, Scooter.

>>>>"Here's some guns. Use them to make us obey the rules.
>>>>In case we disagree with the rules, and want to disobey,
>>>>we reserve the right to take the guns away and kick you
>>>>out of office, okay?"
>>>Red herring, but basically true.
>>And basically insane. What do you do if they refuse to
>>give you back their guns?
>Then we use *our* guns to eject them by force.

But you said only YOU have the right to do that. If I do it,
I should be killed, according to you. Or, are you now saying
that you, too, should be killed if you disobey authority?

>That's the purpose of
>the 2nd Amendment, to ensure that the number of guns, and thus the
>number of people who can respond as a militia, far exceed the number
>of soldiers in a standing army.


But if I don't agree to play according to your rules,
what right do you have to order me to join your cult
and have to choose between blind obedience and
kicking your politicians' asses? I'm perfectly happy
the way things are. I don't bother your armed thugs,
and they leave me alone. You seem to have a fetish
for insisting I go to your church, obey its commandments,
and pay your tithing.

>>A better enunciation would be
>>>"Here's our grant of limited authority to govern us, you may exercise
>>>this authority only within the limits we perscribe, and if you go
>>>outside those limits, we reserve the right to remove that grant of
>>>authority and eject you from office.
>> . . .violently, if necessary. The Law of the Jungle. Might-makes-right.
>>Anarchy.
>Nah. The difference is that revolution is the *last resort* after all
>other methods have failed and all avenues of redress have been closed.


I don't have to do that. I don't have any problems with
anyone that I need to pull a gun on them. I'm mocking
your moronic blind faith in a system that requires you
to risk your life wresting the "limited authority" you
ostensibly "granted" a bunch of evil bastards away
from them when they start to order you to get in the
ovens. I make great sport of the stupidity in giving
anyone the idea that you would obey any commands
they make, no matter how ridiculous, which would
forseeably require you to shoot them to get that
authority back.

But we're just playing a little mind game here, really.
You didn't give anyone any "authority." You don't
HAVE any "authority." There never WAS any "authority."
It doesn't exist, Scotty. You simply bought that propaanda,
and you need to believe you didn't get taken for a ride,
so you want to get me to affirm your faith for you. Forget it.
The politicians rule you, you don't rule them. They tax
you, you don't tax them. They were here long before you
got here, so you gave them jack diddley squat. They
tell you you can vote every two years to make you think
you're actually getting something for the extortion . You
believe them. They think they have the authoity to extort
your money, and order you to shoot their enemies for
them, and you agree. And you can be proud as you enter
the voting booth to pick Lying Scumbag 'A' or Evil Thug 'B'
to be the ones to do that to you. Good deal, huh.


>>But I don't have that problem, because I don't bother giving other
>>bozos guns and telling them, "Now, make sure you behave yourselves
>>when you order me around, or I'll have to get nasty with you." I just use
>>my own judgment to rule my life, and therefore I have no one to fight
>>with as a result of an idiotic attempt to hire someone to replace my
>>judgment with his own "laws."
>Heh. You still don't get it, do you? You don't get to make such
>decisions free of negative consequences should your moral judgements
>be deemed to be faulty.


I never said I was exempt from consequences. I'm
perfectly willing to live with the consequences of my
choices. I'm still free, and I don't obey your commandments.
Why is that? You still can't see that your threats are as
empty as Born-again Christians who threaten me with
hell if I don't nbow to their god. Hey, who knows -- they
(and you) might be right. I might have to face judgment day.
If I do it will be for exercising my judgment, not yours.


>>>Back to "might makes right/law of the jungle."
>>What's the difference between that and what you advocate?
>Lots of things, which I've stated many times.


All you ever do is say, "Tu quoque." You can't point out
the difference because there isn't any. You threatened me
with death if I disobey your cult's orders. I call that "might-
makes-right."

>>>I've already said there isn't an objective morality, it's you who are
>>>insisting that there is.
>>Why should I obey a "law" based solely on someone else's subjective
>>judgment, judgment that cannot be proven to be any better than mine,
>
>Because you have no choice,

I don't? Does that mean if I disobey your cult, I'll be
shot? "Might-makes-right"?

>since any judgement is automatically
>subjective. Collective judgement is, however, generally superior to
>individual judgement in matters of public policy, because it takes
>into account the opinions and judgements of *many* people, which tends
>to cancel out flawed judgement in most cases.


Whose judgment did you use to make that evaluation,
and whose judgment should I use to decide whether or
not to agree with it?

I don't care how many goofs you have making a command. If
the consequences of going along with it fall on me, I reserve the
right to use my own judgment in deciding whether to obey it
or not. To do otherwise would be anti-human, and therefore
evil, in my view.

>>and could just as easily be wrong as mine is, when I am the one who
>>is responsible for my behavior with respect to "laws"?
>Because the law tells you what behavior is acceptable and thus guides
>your judgement along proper, moral paths.


Now, I suspect you're pulling my leg. In case you're serious,
tell me again whether you believe the "law" is automatically
righeous. Then explain why I should do something my own
judgment tells me is morally wrong, just because it's the "law."

Explain why your judgment of what constitutes a "proper moral
path" is any closer to objective morality than mine is. (I know,
there IS no provable objective morality. Therefore, the "law"
isn't any closer to being "objective" than I am, and therefore
I am the sole owner of the responsibility for my actions, regardless
of the "law.")

>>>It's not my job to do so, it's yours, because we're analyzing your
>>>silly dogma.
>>I don't believe the "law' CAN be objective.
>The only objective things in life is science. Every philosophical
>cognition which does not rely upon scientific fact is automatically
>"subjective" in nature. The question is "how subjective is it?"


I don't know. Is there a point to that, other than reaffirming my
own belief that using my individual judgment is inevitable?

>Your individual judgement is far more subjective than the collective
>historical judgement of millions upon millions of people. Rational
>analysis and careful thought by these millions tends to eliminate
>logical flaws and overt bias that often occurs in individual
>judgements...such as yours.

You are assuming that millions of people use rational analysis
and careful thought. I disagree. I won't hold my breath waiting
for you to prove otherwise. I know that public schools don't
even teach logic or critical thinking, and people can even get
through college without it. Very few people in my experience
can articulate even as well as you can what their beliefs are,
or why they believe hem. What % of people claim they believe
in god, 86% ? How rational is that? If you're convinced people
use logic, why do they have so much trouble agreeing with each
other? More than half the people don't vote. The other half
can't agree who is better suited to rob them. Are the people
who think logically and carefully the ones who vote, or the ones
who refuse to vote? How do you know?


>In that, the collective judgement is far
>superior to your individual judgement in nearly every case.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. IOW, prove it.

>And in
>the exceptions, you need but prove that your judgement is better, and
>people can choose to agree with you and amend the collective
>judgement. It can be done. Dr. Martin Luther King, and hundreds of
>thousands of blacks did exactly that.


No, I don't. I don't need to prove jack shit. It's my life, you fascist
control freak. If I must bear the consequences of my actions, I'd be
a friggin' idiot to use someone ELSE'S loony judgment to make
my decidions for me.

>Of course, if your supposedly superior judgements are nothing more
>than self-delusion and self-serving political rhetoric, such as yours,

Superior, or inferior, if I bear the responsiblility for my actions,
then I must use my judgment. So do you. So does virtually
everyone else on the planet. YOU want to avoid the awful
thought that you might be responsible for what you do, so
YOU want to defer to someone else's judgment. That way,
you won't have to accept responsibility when you're wrong.
The problem is, you can't. Individual judgment isn't merely
a convenience, it's friggin' INEVITABLE. You can't use someone
else's judgment (i.e., a "law") without considering whether it
would be right or wrong for you to do it.

I said that individual opinion and judgment is inevitable and
unavoidable. It doesn't mean it's always right. It means you can't
AVOID it. You, on the other hand, keep making these contradictory
blind-faith praises of the delusion called "law," which clearly imply
that "law" somehow bypasses the inevitability of personal judgment.
This is because you WANT to shut off your judgment. I know you'll have
a fit about that, but it's true of ANYONE who wants "authority" (and it
was true of me when I did). You dare not face the universe as a
sovreign entity. You want something ("authority") to blindly follow,
because otherwise you fear chaos and destruction.

But you also show both sides of the insanity. I don't know if I've said
this in here, but NO ONE believes in "authority." The belief is
impossible. And you show both sides of the contradiction: the
insistence that you use your OWN judgment, as well as an attempt
to add some "authority" into the equation to protect us from being
thinking, sentient beings. They don't add up.

Here is the glaring contradiction in any belief in "authority": If you
believe "A" is "authority" (whether "A" is a religion, state, etc.),
then YOU USED YOUR OWN JUDGMENT TO DECIDE THAT.
If, therefore, "A" says something that conflicts with YOUR judgment,
what happens? ALL of its supposedly legitimacy came from YOU
judging it to be so. It CANNOT therefore overrule YOUR judgment,
since YOUR judgement is the ONLY reason you think it's worth crap
to begin with. It looks something like this:

"It's good to obey the law," which means...
"I think I should obey the commands of politicians," which means...
"I judge it to be good to obey politicians," which means...
"I judge that I should follow the judgment of politicians," which
means...
"I judge that my own judgment is less important than politicians',"
which means...
"I judge that my actions shouldn't be based on my judgement," which
means...
"I judge that I should not judge."

Behold, "authority," in all its insane, antihuman bogusness.

>it'll be very difficult to get anyone else to agree with you, and your
>subjective judgements can rightly be ignored and you can rightly be
>compelled to comply with the collective judgements.


By force . . ."Might-makes-right . . ."

Gloat, gloat, gloat.

>> If it can't, it's no better than
>>my judgment.
>
>Pshaw. There are many, many individuals whose judgements are
>demonstrably superior to yours, and their collective judgements are
>infinitely superior.


Do you want to accept responsibility for my actions, Scott?
If I obey you, would you pay my bills for me, and feed my wife
and kids? Would you like to accept the consequences of my
actions for me? I'll be glad to give you the responsibility for
all the mistakes I make, if all I have to do is promise to obey
your rules, okay? Good deal?

Whether your judgment is good or bad, the inevitability of
the consequences for exercising it falls on me. You can't
change that. If that's so, I'm not interested in any psychological

>> Since I am responsible for my judgment, why should I
>>obey a "law" that I believe is immoral?
>Because you are not empowered to dictate absolute morality, for
>yourself or anyone else.


Who is?


>>and citizens *do* have
>>>an obligation to obey the laws,
>>
>>Why?
>
>Because that's how civilization works.


"It's the system." I guess that settles that. Except why is it any
more "civilized" than the system of Divine right of Kings, or
Fascist Dictatorship? Or, choosing rulers by drawing straws?
If you want me to join you in zombie-like obedience to your
cult you'll have to do better than "That's how civilization
works," he 'explained'. I see civilization working just fine in
complete anarchy, each individual doing what human beings
naturally do acording to each one's best judgment. That's
what I see. That's how civilization works, as far as I can see.
You can't explain why you're right and I'm wrong without using
your own judgment to attempt it, which proves the point.

>> "government" doesn't have the RIGHT to make laws,
>>i.e., "rule," according to you. Why would there be an obligation
>>to obey commands that the command-giver doesn't have the
>>RIGHT to make?
>Because government has the authority to do so, as granted by the
>people who are governed.


"Government has the right to rule because government has the
authority to rule."

Sheesh. You're using circular logic, Scooter. Can't you tell?

>>while at the same time retaining the
>>>right to object to them, seek redress and overturn unjust laws and
>>>ultimately to overthrow a tyrannical government which is operating
>>>outside the specific and LIMITED grant of authority
>>Here we go, again: "I have an obligation to obey the 'law,' except
>>when I disagree with it. In that case, I have the right to shoot it out
>>with the guys who are enforcing the 'laws,' because they have no
>>right to enforce 'laws' that no one has the right to make." Why bother
>>with all that? I don't feel like getting into gunfights with people I hire
>>to rule me, so I refuse to hire people to rule me. You have yet to
>>explain why you think that's a good idea.
>Once again you engage in the excluded middle fallacy. You utterly
>ignore the fact that it's not an either/or proposition, and that there
>are many, many processes and safeguards between disagreeing with a law
>and engaging in the last resort of revolution.


I'm not ignoring it. In fact I have repeatedly said, I get along fine
without either obeying your cult, or openly revolting against it.
You have said that I must go to hell -- oops, different delusion
-- I mean, go to jail or die if I refuse to go along with your silly
rules. I'm simply restating your own position.

>>>This mythical "right to rule" you keep throwing out as a semantic red
>>>herring doesn't exist.
>>I wholeheartedly agree that no one has the right to rule
>>anyone else.
>But our elected representatives have the authority to do so as defined
>by our grant of authority.


I revoked it, in my case. I don't have representatives anymore.
I don't neeeeed no steeeenkin' representatives. If I did,
you would be arguing with HIM, not me.

>Because in our system, my "right" to resolve a dispute by force is
>strictly limited and I must first subject the controversy to the
>judicial system to resolve it peaceably and I'm bound to obey the
>judgement of the courts rather than resorting to force.

You poor man. If you don't outgun the bad guys, you may
never get to court. And if the bad guys are the ones you
keep calling "government," you're screwed. They OWN
the courts.

The right of
>revolution is a right of last resort, used by an *entire society*,

In that case, the American revolution was illegitimate. Only
part of the society wanted and participated in it. Their rules
are therefore immoral.

>when their government has usurped authority and overstepped it's legal
>bounds.

All the king's orders were legal. The colonists had no right
to rebel, according to you. Therefore, I am under no obligation
to obey their rules. (I wouldn't be, anyway.)

While individuals can choose to resist what they feel is an
>unjust law by force, they stand the chance that they will not have the
>favor of the public, and, like Tim McVeigh, will be viewed as
>terrorists and criminals.


I'll just ignore them, the way I do any other religious cult.

>Resort to force is always the *last* resort, not the first.


For me. Not for you. You have threatened that if I don't obey
your cult, I might have to "be dead." According to you. Nice
double standard.

>Regards,
>
>Scott Weiser
>
>******
>"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
>friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
>******
>
>http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/
>
>"The Constitution is not a pool or a pond circumscribed by
>limitations and constrained in its depth, it is a flowing
>river of humanity, fed by the wellspring of liberty and
>freedom. It is as deep as human emotion, as wide as
>human thought and it circles the universe of belief
>and expression and returns to feed itself, and thus
>grows ever deeper and wider."
>
>Copyright 1999 by Scott Weiser

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.