You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: The fundamentals of rules without rulers -Universal Law

in #anarchy8 years ago

I'm going to make a reading suggestion for you, though I doubt you'll take it (even though the work is free online). Bastiat- The Law PS- Your law is legalized plunder of the individual to conform to something that doesn't exist. You might also take a peek at the video synopsis I left by Professor David Friedman, though I doubt you'll do that either.

"Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? f this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over all.”

Sort:  

@maytons. You can doubt as you wish. You are free to do so. But compare your first statement "law is nothing more than legalized plunder" to your second "organizing for the common defense'

This is what i mean by cognitive dissonance. There is no individual natural universal law. Law only exists when two or more people are involved.

Sorry if i sounded more harsh than i intended. I was exhausted when i wrote the above and not functioning at my highest levels.

Very typical statist response. Misquote my words then claim cognitive dissonance applies. You've committed numerous logical fallacies throughout William. Good day.