no I am stating there is a relationship between people where naturally authority is given away from child to parent, without the child ever signing up for it. I literally mean parenthood.
Same for suicide. If my brother wants to kill himself in a moment of overwhelming sadness, I will protect him from himself (my brother has no severe depression, this is a theoretical example)
Sure, I am against most forms of state, you can read about it in detail in one of my last post. Funny thing is though that the contract between state and citizien is meant to be a social contract as well, but the auto-check on the checkmark at birth is a problem indeed and this (once good intended) contract got warped into the thing it should protect us from, an oppressive power.
I know of no better alternative to rearing young than parenthood, but this is not a legal theory which can apply to the state, on that I think we agree.
As to loving your brother, your feeling empowered to prevent their self harm is an act of love based on a personal relationship, and far more complex than mere law. I both completely support your intention to be beneficial to your loved ones, and remain, otherwise, unable to comment regarding that relationship.
But that does not address the right of persons to live and die as they choose. Oddly, having this last week been threatened with death (credibly), it is a topic I have been considering. Just as seeking to force death on another abrogates their right to life, so does seeking to prevent their suicide. In view of my lack of authority regarding you and your brother, I cannot have a say. I can say that were you to do so to me, I would object, as you have no authority over me.
I feel we are largely in agreement generally regarding state power, and that merely my arrogance caused you to desire to encourage me to limit my statements to those less grandiose and conceited. For this, I thank you. It is easy to be pompous writing, and it isn't a trait I wish to exemplify.
Clearly the world has been a dangerous place always, and the idea of a protective union of citizenry has great merit. Sadly, amongst the more dangerous phenomena is the con man, and state structures have been continually co-opted by such persons for their own benefits. Today we see a world marked by a quasi-global police state featuring a panopticon none of us can escape.
The fact that republics, and democratic forms of governance in general, depend on the consent of the citizenry as the source of their authority is therefore of critical import. Were this collective power not misused, there would be little point in discussing the source of it's authority. Since it clearly is abused, and I am not consulted, am not empowered to withdraw my support (taxes), and am considered to be a criminal should I take that and other actions to prevent the abuse of my sovereign authority, stating that I retain my sovereignty, because the state has not attained my agreement, is not unduly arrogant, nor (yet) a crime in America.
Only acting to effectuate my sovereign authority to rule myself is a criminal act, and therefore it would be unwise to do so absent community support that might suffice to protect that community from the corrupt state. After reading the post you linked, I reckon you and I could easily consider each other mutual support in that wise.
Edit: I want to clarify that the state cannot somehow legally assume the power of a parent over citizens, because the state legally draws it's power from the consent of the citizens, who therefore are presumed to have it, which children are not.
Just to be clear, if someone decides to die for a good reason, like when there is only 1 year to live and they will have a painful and uncomfortable life. I just wanted to give my examples to show it is hard to make it an absolute.
yes, I do think we would largely agree on todays problems and most likely even on many solutions. However it is no just that I want to dumb down political and philosophical debates in general, to make them more accessible, but I also think we often are hypocritical without noticing. Saying "there should be no laws other than those that directly protect live and property" on the other hand we say "Everything (Or at least money) has to be transparent". Do you see the contradiction?
There are many people who actually do not want to be transparent and I actually dislike all the talk about Orwell, because he is the reason why people love to get hysterical when talking about transparency vs privacy.
I am a very private person. I have no desire to be famous, don't take selfies, and have no wish to be surveilled. There still isn't a damn thing I can do about technology making it possible. In fact, whether we like it or not, that technology will continue to develop, and the depth and breadth of surveillance will continue to expand for the foreseeable future.
As surveillance technology keeps improving, becoming smaller, and cheaper, it will become less and less avoidable for even those most able to purchase privacy, until there is no place to hide anymore.
Whether we want it or not, the physics of the universe dictate what technology can be, and there's no off switch to development. Transparency won't require legislation, because eventually secrets won't be possible.
So, I don't really see a conflict, in the fullness of time, between the strictest voluntarism and total transparency.
I do get your point, that all too often folks claim one thing, and then do another, like add laws they think are super important. I reckon we all short out somewhere. We're just animals, after all, and the amazing complexity of society and civilization is beyond anyone's comprehension.
Sometimes it's a victory just to point the right end of the beer at the right part of my face.
Edit: Which brings us back to @dwinblood's thesis regarding data preservation. As we adopt open blockchain technology, it is likely to contribute greatly to the transparency of society that is looming.
I actually have a very similar standpoint being: It is impossible to block the surveillance of the privat person. The Internet and especially social media make it almost impossible to revert the current 1984-esque world. That is why I personally do not care much about "privacy".
However if we as citiziens are transparent at least everything that is public (everything that the state does) should be transparent as well. Them not showing the full G20 conference made me really mad.
I see a little hypocricy in stating "We do not want to force people" and "We do want the state to be transparent" and I have yet to found a solution to this contradictions.
I want to mention two things:
Confucianism is a 2500 old libertarian movement at it's core
"Confucius taught that when societies operate under laws, people are punished by authorities after having committed illegal activities. People generally conform to the laws, often without necessarily understanding the rationale behind them. He promoted a different way: to internalize behaviors so that actions are controlled beforehand. People then behave properly because they wish to avoid feeling shame and want to avoid losing face. In theory, the result is a reduction in the number of coercive laws required for smooth functioning of the society"
-www.religioustolerance.org on the teachings of confucianism
The Libertarian Peter Thiel is against transparency. I have yet to search for his extensive reasoning on that, but I think I know where he is coming from.
Well, yeah!
But government isn't people, it's an agreement. When people undertake to work in public service, their employer - theoretically the public - should be expected to be able to access their communications and work product, just like any other employer.
There's not much we can do to contrive to save personal privacy. The tech just doesn't allow it. This same force of history is going to make government transparent, whether they want it or not.
Good.
Edit: figgering out proper quoting
I agree, but what if people have a volunteeric agreement with their government (Libertarian Utopia, because right now the agreement is forced) and they do not include complete transparency for the gov, wouldn't it still be Libertarian?
I am for complete transparency, because I find stalking rather flattering instead of dangerous and I do not have things that I really need to hide, but I think this is necessarily a Libertarian idea.
The following made me really mad at the people who "interviewed" Thiel
As I stated, opacity in government is even more temporary than government. The irrepressible progress of surveillance technology, which includes open blockchain, cameras, data harvesting, and all of it, is potentiating surveillance by the public, not only of the public.
While the full range of political positions includes a substantial percentage of people who are most comfortable following leaders, there are yet sufficient folks to use advances in technology that potentiate watching the watchers, and enough others that will throw support their way when they turn up dirt, that those advances will effectively erode government secrecy.
Operation Mockingbird is becoming useless as Wikileaks, a vast complex of citizen journalists, and ever more potent whistle blowers replace the wholly owned media.
Recently I discussed using Wickr with a close associate, but they said they weren't interested in resisting surveillance, because they thought is was the last desperate attempt of TPTB to retain control - and they wanted them to cling to that illusion as long as possible, because that would prevent them from doing even more dire things.
It took me a few minutes, but I had to agree with them.