No, you don't help choose your rulers. And no, they aren't your "representatives." Does someone who represents you have the right to do things that you don't? Does YOUR representative have the right to boss you around and demand money from you, under the threat of caging you if you don't comply? And yes, sometimes it IS either 1 or 2. Either you will NEVER resist aggression done in the name of "law," or at SOME point you would resist aggression done in the name of "law." If you can describe a third option, I will be very impressed.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'm not sure. Give me an example of a right that my representative has that I do not have. I can't think of one, I think they live under the same laws that I live under.
Maybe I am missing something on your 'boss around' comment. Does that mean something other than the 'uphold the laws' thing that's gotten such traction?
And as far as your 1 and 2 go they sound a lot like the old 'do you still beat your wife' question.
See, you've been trained to view the bossing around as "law enforcement," and trained to imagine that to be inherently legitimate and righteous, because of documents and rituals. It's not. The ruling class proclaims literally THOUSANDS of things you may not do, things you must do, amounts of money you must give them, or they send men with guns to hurt you. If you tried to do the same to them, they would kill you.
I'm still waiting for an option OTHER than: a) you would never resist, or; b) at some point you would resist.
I appreciate that differing views are not being met with anything other than honest debate. There is no ruling class (I am in the U.S.). Each of us have one vote. I don't agree with all of the laws. I try to follow them anyway. But again I disagree with your a/b question's validity. You're making us all into frogs in a pot of cold water and asking us at what temperature we'd be too uncomfortable to continue. You are equating resistance with being anti-government as opposed to being a part of it. I resist right now - I resist Trump with my vote and my voice and reason. I resist laws with which I disagree with my vote and my voice and reason. And I am doing it from within.
Of course, one could always leave if you really need a C for your A and B.
jsteck objects to one-or-the-other propositions, then, more or less, says 'love it or leave it'. Well done!
Can you kidnap people, for smoking a plant?
You might be voting to "legalize it", but can you actually do it yourself?
Can you legally do that as well, or is it only a privilege reserved for your "representatives"?
@jsteck what is it that gives you the right to give someone else permission to kidnapp someone for smoking a plant?
Jsteck, your "representatives" can exercise rights that you nor any individual has. Due to the belief in the myth of authority they can make rules without even the aproval of those that voted for them, let alone the consent of each individual it affects. And to make this worse these rules can be made regarding actions that cause no harm to others. Enforcement of which does cause harm through violence or threat thereof, and which is funded by theft, under threat of violence. By accepting and more so, by advocating this system by voting and willingly paying taxes, you fall under the category of amoral people that would have their will or that of their chosen masters forced upon other peaceful people. And as for the Muh Roads argument.... Private businesses actually build roads, and without govt extortion depleting the funds of all citizens, could be funded through VOLUNTARY contribution.
I vote for legalize it. But nice choice of words.
I cannot and neither can my representatives. The question was about rights that my representatives have that I do not.
Can you tax people and put them in a cage if they do not oblige?
@jsteck Why do people that don't understand anarchism always think we'll have dirt roads, no buildings, and no infrastructure? PEOPLE build things, not governments, and when you see roads today, they are built by the people funded by the money stolen from THE PEOPLE. Without Government roads would be built same as today, the difference being it would be built by a free market, voluntarily, and without theft.
I can choose to vote for or against laws that require taxation, same as my representatives. I can also drive on the roads that my taxes built. I've never been able to figure out how anarchists get around.
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.” FBI Director James Comey, while discussing the charges dropped against Hillary Clinton.
If you want to do some great you
you should find a way where is no law at all, a way of totally freedom, way of the first man.
Yes, when you choose a representative he acts on your behalf. If you hire a lawyer to argue a speeding ticket, for instance, and he accepts a fine then you are beholden to his decision. That's how representatives work.
The "third option" you ask for is trial, up to the Supreme Court to determine if the law was constitutional or not.
Again, it was "No taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION."
If you cannot rob your neighbor or extort money from them, you don't have that right, tell me exactly how can you possibly have "your representatives" have extort money from them and call it tax?
If you cannot write some words on magic paper, and force your neighbor to obey, and if he doesn't, cage him or kill him, yourself, without any third party, because you don't have such rights, naturally, tell me how "your representatives", have such a right to "legislate" on your behalf?
And your rights don't come from a magic peace of paper, that you call "constitution". Your rights come from nature, by birth. Just like we did not make laws of physics and mathematics, (like gravity or speed of light etc) we did not make natural law regarding human interactions either. We rather, discover them. And live according to them.
The only natural law is survival of the fittest. Society is humans' species specific adaptation which made us the fittest. Government is what society has created to protect the weaker members of society.
The elected representatives are vested with more power because people have granted it to them. This was done because that power is necessary for protecting people. There is no magic here, these are simple principles that, to date, have worked. The great thing about our government is that you have a voice in who has that power.
The problem with Anarchy is that it does nothing to protect the "weak." (Well, that and the fact that the type of person who seeks power will still do so, and most likely violently, without a government to protect the people... Meaning that a few days after you removed our representative government you'd have a nice military dictatorship.)
Survival of the fittest does not mean what you think it means. It means the species who fit the environment best who survives, in the context of evolution and a species becoming instinct. For example, in a post nuclear war scenario, cockroaches are better fit to survive in a nuclear winter than humans. It is not even about inra-species conflicts.
Intra-species lethal violence is practically non-existent even in non-human species.
Government is not "what society has created". And it does not "protect the weaker members". That simply is an illusion. The poorest %10 of the population in a free market country is better off than average person in a big government socialist or communist country.
"The elected representatives are vested with more power because people have granted it to them."
You cannot grant anyone else something you don't have. If you do not have the right to extort money out of your neighbour by threats of violence, with the lie that you will protect them in return (it is called extortion or protection racket if non-state organizations do it)
Please tell me, how well the state worked to protect their people, when the state turned against their own people, killed their own citizens in democides. 263 million people have been mass murdered by their own government in 20'th century alone. This dwarfs even how many people of other countries governments killed, in 2 world wars (around 100 million).
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
Please tell me, if governments protect the weak against the strong, who protects the weak from their own government?
There is very little difference between what you call "representative government" and "military dictatorship". Look at the democide list. They have all risen to power by democratic elections, in a representative democracy.