Democracy makes the purpose of government and authority pointless.

[Philosophizer]

Politicians don't have authority. Law enforcement does.

Politicians have the authority to pass the laws that law enforcement upholds; the police can only enforce the laws the politicians legislate.

If you disobey the law, you should be punished.

Every single one?

But if you disagree with the legal system, then shouldn't you pick another society to live in?

It's not about disagreeing with the way the legal system is operating, it's about realizing that "authority" is irrational nonsense. No one elects politicians because they themselves want to be subject to their laws, they vote to impose their will on others. Politics only benefits one group, which is those in power. The voters are left distracted fighting against each other, thinking that their vote actually means anything, while those elite with influence and power behind the scenes make the real decisions.

If you don't consent to be ruled by the laws of the land, then you don't deserve to be protected under those laws either.

I don't need a group of people called politicians declaring murder will be punished for me to have the right to defend myself or others from a killer, or to have the right to hire someone else to protect me and others.

 

[Kanzler]

Politicians have the authority to pass the laws that law enforcement upholds; the police can only enforce the laws the politicians legislate.

Every single one?

Yes. Living in a society under law is a package deal. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you obey and which laws you don't. It's kind of like a relationship - you don't just get to accept all but one dealbreaker from your partner. They'll leave you if you did that.

It's not about disagreeing with the way the legal system is operating, it's about realizing that "authority" is irrational nonsense. No one elects politicians because they themselves want to be subject to their laws, they vote to impose their will on others. Politics only benefits one group, which is those in power. The voters are left distracted fighting against each other, thinking that their vote actually means anything, while those elite with influence and power behind the scenes make the real decisions.

If you simply "realize that authority is irrational nonsense" then you haven't done anything substantial. I can realize a whole bunch of things, but it doesn't really matter unless it's reflected in actions.

Now, part of what comes with a society under law is legal authority. If you don't accept authority, then you don't accept the legal system. You say it's about "realizing" something, but that's really vague and I'm not sure if I could investigate it in much depth because it's something that you can do without any real consequences.

Imposing your will on others is something that might be seen as unfortunate, but is necessary in a democratic system. Who says your opinion is better than anyone elses? At least voting is a somewhat fair system to gauge what is acceptable to most people, since you can't satisfy everybody. And debate about policies is definitely something that's necessary. I'm not sure if you, or anybody else, has a suggestion for alternatives.

It's often said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the other that have been tried. There's a lot to criticize about democracy, that's for sure, but what other system would we use?

I don't need a group of people called politicians declaring murder will be punished for me to have the right to defend myself or others from a killer, or to have the right to hire someone else to protect me and others.

I don't actually think murder is the punishment for self-defense, lol. Isn't self-defense one of the few scenarios where you can kill someone without a severe penalty? Look at the Trayvon Martin case for instance.

If you can't do with police, then go live in a country without police. Nobody's forcing you to give consent to live in this society. The ability to pack up and leave is your own. But as long as you live in its jurisdiction, you will receive the protection of the law of the land, whether you like it or not.

 

[Philosophizer]

Yes. Living in a society under law is a package deal.

Yeah, a crappy one at that if "law" means a group of people imposing their will on others and funding destructive wars, which it does.

You don't get to pick and choose which laws you obey and which laws you don't.

Oh of course not, only the omniscient politicians should determine that! This is the state where I live, and people should have to follow all these laws according to you:

https://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/new-jersey?page=20

Here are four examples from that link:

All cats must wear three bells to warn birds of their whereabouts.

It is forbidden for a woman, on a Sunday, to walk down Broad Street without wearing a petticoat.

Pickles are not to be consumed on Sundays.

It is illegal to sell ice cream after 6pm, unless the customer has a note from his doctor.

Not to mention, you're also saying that if the Jews in Nazi Germany, or the people living in Stalinist Russia, didn't like the oppression they should have just left. Rather than try to stop the evils committed by Hitler's regime, the White Rose movement should have either complied with the laws or moved elsewhere according to your logic.

It's kind of like a relationship...

You're absolutely correct: the politicians are the masters, and the subjects are the slaves.

You don't just get to accept all but one dealbreaker from your partner. They'll leave you if you did that.

Except your partner has a choice of whether to be in a relationship with you or leave if he/she is not satisfied with the way you are treating him or her. No matter where anyone goes in the developed world, there will always be some government forcing them to fund programs, projects, wars etc. they don't agree with as well as abide by some laws that shouldn't be followed.

If you simply "realize that authority is irrational nonsense" then you haven't done anything substantial. I can realize a whole bunch of things, but it doesn't really matter unless it's reflected in actions.

The only action I can take now is demonstrating to people why they don't and shouldn't feel an obligation to obey politicians or give them money. Once enough people realize this, the "government" will fade away as the illusion it is and we will live as we should: voluntary interaction with force only being used in self-defense.

Now, part of what comes with a society under law is legal authority. If you don't accept authority, then you don't accept the legal system.

I don't accept others having the right to force anyone against their will.

You say it's about "realizing" something, but that's really vague and I'm not sure if I could investigate it in much depth because it's something that you can do without any real consequences.

If you don't believe an "authority" figure has the right to force you to commit an act that you feel is wrong, then you are rejecting their authority, as in they don't have authority to begin with. If you do believe authority has that right, then that is the sort of mentality that allows totalitarian states to come about.

Imposing your will on others is something that might be seen as unfortunate, but is necessary in a democratic system.

No it's not, you can choose to let your neighbors live their lives as they see fit as long as they don't threaten you.

Who says your opinion is better than anyone elses?

You know this question works in both ways right? Who says the majority's, or the politicians' opinions are better?

At least voting is a somewhat fair system to gauge what is acceptable to most people, since you can't satisfy everybody. And debate about policies is definitely something that's necessary. I'm not sure if you, or anybody else, has a suggestion for alternatives.

I've already mentioned my alternative in this post, but I'll state it again: My alternative is to stop imagining that calling something "law" means it has to be followed just because a group of people says it does. That is slave mentality.

It's often said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the other that have been tried. There's a lot to criticize about democracy, that's for sure, but what other system would we use?

The non-aggression principle.

I don't actually think murder is the punishment for self-defense, lol.

I never said it was, you misunderstood what I wrote. What I mean is that I have the right to protect myself and others from attackers regardless of whether it is the "law" or not.

If you can't do with police, then go live in a country without police. Nobody's forcing you to give consent to live in this society. The ability to pack up and leave is your own. But as long as you live in its jurisdiction, you will receive the protection of the law of the land, whether you like it or not.

I replied to this claim in this post as well: there would be a government forcing me to comply with some laws I don't agree with or fund things I don't agree with anywhere I go in the developed world, and the government ruling over me forces me to pay for drone bombings that are killing innocent families overseas.

 

[Kanzler]

Yeah, a crappy one at that if "law" means a group of people imposing their will on others and funding destructive wars, which it does.

Oh of course not, only the omniscient politicians should determine that! This is the state where I live, and people should have to follow all these laws according to you:

https://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/new-jersey?page=20

Here are four examples from that link:

All cats must wear three bells to warn birds of their whereabouts.

It is forbidden for a woman, on a Sunday, to walk down Broad Street without wearing a petticoat.

Pickles are not to be consumed on Sundays.

It is illegal to sell ice cream after 6pm, unless the customer has a note from his doctor.

Dumb Laws is a dumb website, because if that's how you base your understanding of your legal system, then you would have an incredibly distorted view of how the law actually works. Most of the "dumb laws" they mention don't even have a citation telling you where in the books they exist. The "dumb laws" that do have a citation are often outdated and aren't enforced. I'm guessing you live in the United States, so you ought to know that much of the law is case law that exist through the history of legal decisions.

Not to mention, you're also saying that if the Jews in Nazi Germany, or the people living in Stalinist Russia, didn't like the oppression they should have just left. Rather than try to stop the evils committed by Hitler's regime, the White Rose movement should have either complied with the laws or moved elsewhere according to your logic.

I thought we were talking about democracies.

You're absolutely correct: the politicians are the masters, and the subjects are the slaves.

Citation needed.

Except your partner has a choice of whether to be in a relationship with you or leave if he/she is not satisfied with the way you are treating him or her. No matter where anyone goes in the developed world, there will always be some government forcing them to fund programs, projects, wars etc. they don't agree with as well as abide by some laws that shouldn't be followed.

Then it seems your only recourse to get what you want is to exit the developed world.

If you don't believe an "authority" figure has the right to force you to commit an act that you feel is wrong, then you are rejecting their authority, as in they don't have authority to begin with. If you do believe authority has that right, then that is the sort of mentality that allows totalitarian states to come about.

You might claim that you reject the authority of government, but as long as you obey traffic laws, you're accepting their authority. It seems that all you're doing is talk, not any substantive action. And there's a middle ground between having no authority and a totalitarian state. You're not wrong, but based on your logic I might as well say that studying hard at school is the kind of mentality that leads to stressed-out students committing suicide. It's true, but not exactly meaningful because there's no nuance nor specifics.

No it's not, you can choose to let your neighbors live their lives as they see fit as long as they don't threaten you.

Yes it is? What you are advocating for is not a democracy - you are advocating for no government at all. Voluntaryism, yes? There is a state in a democracy, there is no state under voluntaryism.

You know this question works in both ways right? Who says the majority's, or the politicians' opinions are better?

Because that's how we resolve differences in a democracy. It's not necessarily the best way, but how else should we manage collective decisions? I don't expect you to answer this, since you seem to be a voluntaryist so you don't believe in collective decisions and want to create a system where you don't even bother with collective decisions.

I've already mentioned my alternative in this post, but I'll state it again: My alternative is to stop imagining that calling something "law" means it has to be followed just because a group of people says it does. That is slave mentality.

So you want to live in the presence of a democracy, but you won't uphold your responsibilities. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The non-aggression principle.

That's not a government, nor is it a way of organizing people. Based on everything you've said, I suspect that you would prefer no government, or anarchism.

I never said it was, you misunderstood what I wrote. What I mean is that I have the right to protect myself and others from attackers regardless of whether it is the "law" or not.

I guess? I'm not sure what your point is though.

I replied to this claim in this post as well: there would be a government forcing me to comply with some laws I don't agree with or fund things I don't agree with anywhere I go in the developed world, and the government ruling over me forces me to pay for drone bombings that are killing innocent families overseas.

Then go to the Western Sahara, or Antarctica where there's no central authority. There are Western countries that aren't paying for drone bombings, but you might not agree with their social programs. You seem clear about what you want, but there honestly aren't many opportunities to get that.

 

[Philosophizer]

Dumb Laws is a dumb website, because if that's how you base your understanding of your legal system, then you would have an incredibly distorted view of how the law actually works.

It's pretty simple how the law works, you even stated it yourself: You have to follow all of them.

Most of the "dumb laws" they mention don't even have a citation telling you where in the books they exist. The "dumb laws" that do have a citation are often outdated and aren't enforced.

Those laws weren't always outdated, so you would be considered a criminal for breaking them back then. If the police didn't enforce those laws, according to the concept of authority and law, they weren't performing their duties fully. Who are they to decide which laws they should enforce or not? It would be mayhem and chaos if they did. (sarcasm)

I'm guessing you live in the United States, so you ought to know that much of the law is case law that exist through the history of legal decisions.

Yes, and these decisions are obviously all accurate and correct, and therefor should be followed without question.

I thought we were talking about democracies.

We are, the Nazi party had popular support and had a plurality of the seats in Parliament. How else would Hitler have risen to power? In Russia, Stalin wasn't elected, but his party was able to gain control because he had the backing of a lot of the public.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/poll-finds-stalins-popularity-high/476342.html

Citation needed.

You and every other citizen is the property of government. The politicians decide how much you owe them and have the final say in the rules the citizens have to obey.

Then it seems your only recourse to get what you want is to exit the developed world.

I'm pretty sure there are governments in Africa, the Middle East and Central America as well.

You might claim that you reject the authority of government, but as long as you obey traffic laws, you're accepting their authority.

No I'm not, as the laws I do obey I choose to obey because I believe they should be followed, not because the politicians tell me to follow them. There is no choice in authority and law; you comply with authority or are punished period.

It seems that all you're doing is talk, not any substantive action.

What do you want me to do? The problem isn't the government, it's the belief in peoples' heads that it's legitimate and should be obeyed blindly.

And there's a middle ground between having no authority and a totalitarian state. You're not wrong, but based on your logic I might as well say that studying hard at school is the kind of mentality that leads to stressed-out students committing suicide. It's true, but not exactly meaningful because there's no nuance nor specifics.

I don't have much to say regarding this, as you already know I advocate for no authority.

Yes it is? What you are advocating for is not a democracy - you are advocating for no government at all. Voluntaryism, yes? There is a state in a democracy, there is no state under voluntaryism.

Fair enough, I also realized this mistake after I hit reply.

Because that's how we resolve differences in a democracy. It's not necessarily the best way, but how else should we manage collective decisions? I don't expect you to answer this, since you seem to be a voluntaryist so you don't believe in collective decisions and want to create a system where you don't even bother with collective decisions.

Pretty much, I advocate that people organize and interact with those that have similar plans and goals and compromise with others, rather than being forced or forcing their ideas on others.

So you want to live in the presence of a democracy, but you won't uphold your responsibilities. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

No, you were right before, I don't want to live in a democracy, I want to live in a voluntaryist society.

That's not a government, nor is it a way of organizing people. Based on everything you've said, I suspect that you would prefer no government, or anarchism.

You can organize without government by agreeing with others to work on a mutual task or goal.

I guess? I'm not sure what your point is though.

In my opinion, you were making it seem as if it was only the law and authority providing me protection, when it's actually the ability to use force.

Then go to the Western Sahara, or Antarctica where there's no central authority.

Strong governments don't create a structured and orderly society, wealth and resources do. When people are satisfied with what they have and their opportunities in life, they don't have a reason to complain. If there is mass unemployment and famine, it doesn't matter how much control the government asserts over the population; they will protest and revolt until the government listens to them or is replaced.

There are Western countries that aren't paying for drone bombings, but you might not agree with their social programs. You seem clear about what you want, but there honestly aren't many opportunities to get that.

Sure there aren't many opportunities now, but when people realize those politicians don't have any special authority there will be.

 

[Kanzler]

It's pretty simple how the law works, you even stated it yourself: You have to follow all of them.

Those laws weren't always outdated, so you would be considered a criminal for breaking them back then. If the police didn't enforce those laws, according to the concept of authority and law, they weren't performing their duties fully. Who are they to decide which laws they should enforce or not? It would be mayhem and chaos if they did. (sarcasm)

Well, I said that because I assumed that you had a nuanced understanding of how the law works. I'm not so sure of that anymore, so I'll give a more in-depth explanation.

How do we follow the law? Is the law simply words on a page? The answer to the second question is no. The law is living and breathing and is dependent on how judges and juries interpret the law. Sometimes a series of legal decisions constitutes case law, which is written down in no book but has power as a precedent. Sometimes laws are overturned through these decisions. Sometimes laws become forgotten and nobody takes them seriously any longer, or they get superceded by more recent and relevant laws.

So the body of law in a democracy can come from multiple sources: constitution, statutes (written law) and case law (unwritten laws). These laws can sometimes be in conflict, so it's never a simple matter of "following all of them". But on the other hand, the laws try to reflect what is just and appropriate, so you should, in general, follow them.

The police don't really "enforce" the law per se, they protect and have the power to detain. I guess the true "enforcers" of the law are the judges and juries that interpret who should be punished and which laws stand. But the police do get to choose which laws they are going to enforce, and which not to enforce. With limited resources, the police have to decide what is the most just way of spending those resources - and in the process which laws to enforce to what degree. Attorneys of the state also pick and choose which cases they will pursue. So the police and other legal actors decide, to an extent, which laws to enforce and there's no mayhem or chaos about it.

I hope this gives you a better picture of how the law actually works.

Yes, and these decisions are obviously all accurate and correct, and therefor should be followed without question.

Obviously not, that's how you've got same-sex marriage in your country. There were laws banning same-sex marriage, people decided to get married anyways, the case got up to the Supreme Court who then decided that those laws banning same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. So in this case laws got overturned because of people who didn't follow it. The law is something that evolves with its society.

We are, the Nazi party had popular support and had a plurality of the seats in Parliament. How else would Hitler have risen to power? In Russia, Stalin wasn't elected, but his party was able to gain control because he had the backing of a lot of the public.

Not a lot of people know this, but Hitler was appointed Kanzler (hehe that's me) by the President. Also the German constitution apparently did not have the checks and balances to stop someone like Hitler (although I can't blame them because Germany was going through very tough times). Stalin's party was in power before he came to power, so it's a bad example.

You and every other citizen is the property of government. The politicians decide how much you owe them and have the final say in the rules the citizens have to obey.

Citation and explanation please. I don't think you understand what property is. I wonder if BadSheep could pitch in on this subject.

No I'm not, as the laws I do obey I choose to obey because I believe they should be followed, not because the politicians tell me to follow them. There is no choice in authority and law; you comply with authority or are punished period.

Fair enough.

What do you want me to do? The problem isn't the government, it's the belief in peoples' heads that it's legitimate and should be obeyed blindly.

Fair enough, I guess there's not much you can do other than change people's minds.

Pretty much, I advocate that people organize and interact with those that have similar plans and goals and compromise with others, rather than being forced or forcing their ideas on others.

But how do you enforce those compromises? What if I take back a decision? Who's to stop me from breaking a contract?

You can organize without government by agreeing with others to work on a mutual task or goal.

But who enforces agreements that are made? If I purchased something from you and took it without payment, should you be compensated? How would you get compensated?

In my opinion, you were making it seem as if it was only the law and authority providing me protection, when it's actually the ability to use force.

Well, yes. The raison-d'etre of the state is legitimized compulsion. We point to a group of people and say that they're allowed to use force to provide order and hopefully there is mutual agreement about the scope and degree of that force being used.

Strong governments don't create a structured and orderly society, wealth and resources do. When people are satisfied with what they have and their opportunities in life, they don't have a reason to complain. If there is mass unemployment and famine, it doesn't matter how much control the government asserts over the population; they will protest and revolt until the government listens to them or is replaced.

They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[Ivysaur]

"Citizen" is just a nicer term for the word "subject", but that's exactly what people are to the governments that rule over their jurisdictions: subjects.

I'm afraid you have no clue of what either word means- or rather, that you can't find a difference between either, which is a bit more worrisome.

Subject means a person who is bound to obey the rules with no rights of its own. A cittizen, on the other hand, has rights, including the right to stand in for office and become one of the rulers, to vote in favour of dismissing the rulers, to vote in favour of changing the rules and to demand that the rulers be held to the same rules as everyone else. Ie: until the 60s, blacks were subjects in the US. Until the 20s, women were subjects in the UK (and in most other countries too). But you can't be a subject if you -yes, you- can stand for (insert political office here) and become the one who sets the rules. Yes, you. If you were a subject, don't worry, you wouldn't even have that chance.

If you think that everything that is not voluntarysm is the same evil blob of slavery, I guess it makes no difference to you. But, for everyone else who agrees to having a common set of rules, there IS an actual difference, and a very big one at that.

Also, on the Hitler issue: he never won a majority in any elections, he was appointed Chancellor (as Kanzler pointed out) by the President, who had the power to appoint whoever for Chancellor regardless of election results or parliamentary support; and in the elections before he did a Coup d'Etat, he removed several Constitutional rights by decree due to the Reichstag Fire, banning several MPs (including all the Communists) and artificially lowering the level for a Constitutional change. And he even broke the clauses in the law that made him dictator several times. Why did nobody stop him? Becuase he had a private gang of thugs (the SA, later the SS) terrorising the population and outpowering the police.

So, in the end, it was a case of a person declaring himself ruler because he was the stronger one and there wasn't a public police to defend all people equally. Sad.


Incidentally, allow me to ask you a few further questions:

- How does voluntarysm fix the problem of "free riders"? I asked this in a PM but hey, it's good to have it public. How do you make sure everybody who walks on a street in a city pays their fair share to mantain the streets, the lighting and the litter removal? You get a private company charging a fee to everyone who sets a step outside of their home? You ask for voluntary donations? Then how do you stop people who didn't pay from enjoying the results anyway?

- How does voluntarysm fix the problem of negative externalities? I mean, when someone owns a car and rides it, the pollution it causes reduces my lifespan and dooms the planet to a CO2-caused catastrophe. If someone smokes tobacco next to me, he's poisoning me directly. How can I protect myself and my family from being killed by other people's negative actions? How do you make them compensate me for it?

- How does voluntarysm fix the issue of, say, a massive banking corporation holding the savings of millions of families putting their money in misguided investments and crashing? You simply let them crash... and leave millions of people with no savings and your economy with a massive hole that will surely cause it to implode the day later?

- How does voluntarysm print money? How is the money-making process managed?

 

[Philosophizer]

Well, I said that because I assumed that you had a nuanced understanding of how the law works.

I'll be honest and say that I doubt this. I'm pretty sure you said that because either 1) it's what you believed or 2) you didn't think about it enough.

I'm not so sure of that anymore, so I'll give a more in-depth explanation.
How do we follow the law? Is the law simply words on a page? The answer to the second question is no. The law is living and breathing and is dependent on how judges and juries interpret the law.

I'm sorry, I thought you told me

You don't get to pick and choose which laws you obey and which laws you don't.

earlier. So I don't get to decide which laws are valid or not...unless I can randomly get on a jury?

Sometimes a series of legal decisions constitutes case law, which is written down in no book but has power as a precedent. Sometimes laws are overturned through these decisions. Sometimes laws become forgotten and nobody takes them seriously any longer, or they get superceded by more recent and relevant laws.

Right, and under the concept of law, all the laws that have been passed are supposed to be followed and enforced (key word supposed, it doesn't mean they will or can be) until they are repealed or overturned. Laws aren't just recommendations on how people should act in certain situations, they are orders backed by the threat of punishment.

So the body of law in a democracy can come from multiple sources: constitution, statutes (written law) and case law (unwritten laws). These laws can sometimes be in conflict, so it's never a simple matter of "following all of them".

But on the other hand, the laws try to reflect what is just and appropriate, so you should, in general, follow them.

Who gets to decide what is just and appropriate? The judges, juries and politicians? Does your opinion not matter until you are in a jury, are a judge or are elected?

The police don't really "enforce" the law per se, they protect and have the power to detain. I guess the true "enforcers" of the law are the judges and juries that interpret who should be punished and which laws stand.

The bolded part defeats the purpose of having politicians pass laws if those who have to follow the law also have the right to decide if they actually do have to follow the law. It's odd and contradictory.

But the police do get to choose which laws they are going to enforce, and which not to enforce. With limited resources, the police have to decide what is the most just way of spending those resources - and in the process which laws to enforce to what degree.

Is this a matter of "We don't have the resources to investigate that crime as of now, so it will have to wait or be ignored" or "We shouldn't waste our limited resources on pursuing a suspect who broke a trivial law", or both? I'm assuming both.

Also, if the police got new funding and were capable of cracking down on more crimes, should they enforce the law equally or continue enforcing the same laws they deemed as necessary before being given more funds?

Attorneys of the state also pick and choose which cases they will pursue.

The attorney general for my state isn't elected, but the politicians who wrote the laws are. If you're saying that it's alright for the prosecutors in the end to decide which laws to uphold, that the elected politicians wrote, that seems pretty undemocratic to me.

So the police and other legal actors decide, to an extent, which laws to enforce and there's no mayhem or chaos about it.

Yeah, and the police aren't elected either.

I hope this gives you a better picture of how the law actually works.

Thanks but I had a fair understanding of how the judicial system worked, I was focusing more on the technicality of the concept of "law".

Obviously not, that's how you've got same-sex marriage in your country. There were laws banning same-sex marriage, people decided to get married anyways...

How dare they! (According to you):

You don't get to pick and choose which laws you obey and which laws you don't.

Moving on:

...the case got up to the Supreme Court who then decided that those laws banning same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. So in this case laws got overturned because of people who didn't follow it.

The law is something that evolves with its society.

Indeed. Society doesn't progress because of the law, it progresses in spite of it.

Not a lot of people know this, but Hitler was appointed Kanzler (hehe that's me) by the President.

I wonder why. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the Nazi party held the most seats in the Reichstag, and that Hitler placed second in the presidential election the year prior to his takeover after Hindenburg's death.

Also the German constitution apparently did not have the checks and balances to stop someone like Hitler (although I can't blame them because Germany was going through very tough times). Stalin's party was in power before he came to power, so it's a bad example.

Do you believe Hitler would have cared what the constitution said?

Citation and explanation please. I don't think you understand what property is. I wonder if BadSheep could pitch in on this subject.

My definition of property is something rightfully owned by someone after earning it himself or through trade, which gives that person the right to use his property however he wishes as long as it's not causing harm.

If you truly own yourself and are not the property of the politicians, are you free to disobey those laws which you don't agree with? If they order you to fight or fund a war you don't support, for example, are you allowed to say no? Will the government sympathize with you and let you withdraw some of your taxes that go to the war effort?

But how do you enforce those compromises? What if I take back a decision? Who's to stop me from breaking a contract?

But who enforces agreements that are made?

If I purchased something from you and took it without payment, should you be compensated? How would you get compensated?

It's not about who enforces the agreements, it's about what should be enforced. If I can prove someone stole from me, didn't fullfill his/her end of the bargain etc., I have the right to retrieve what is owed to me through whatever appropriate means, whether it is asking my bank to cancel my payments to the person, or hiring professionals to investigate my case and get my property back if they believe I am telling the truth based on the evidence I offered and so on.

Well, yes. The raison-d'etre of the state is legitimized compulsion. We point to a group of people and say that they're allowed to use force to provide order and hopefully there is mutual agreement about the scope and degree of that force being used.

And if there's not? Authority doesn't encourage agreement, nor does it need to if people believe in its legitimacy. There's no negotiating with authority; you obey authority or face the consequences.

They're not mutually exclusive.

They aren't automatically connected either.

I'm afraid you have no clue of what either word means- or rather, that you can't find a difference between either, which is a bit more worrisome.

Subject means a person who is bound to obey the rules with no rights of its own. A citizen, on the other hand, has rights, including the right to stand in for office and become one of the rulers, to vote in favour of dismissing the rulers, to vote in favour of changing the rules and to demand that the rulers be held to the same rules as everyone else. Ie: until the 60s, blacks were subjects in the US. Until the 20s, women were subjects in the UK (and in most other countries too).

These rights mean absolutely nothing if the politicians in government can "legally" amend the laws that give citizens those rights in the first place, or if the politicians can suspend the laws and/or constitution that give the people their rights using a certain circumstance or excuse. The belief in law and authority requires you to comply and accept the legislation and rulings made by the government, including such decisions that curb your rights. Do you want to believe that you have inherent, inalienable rights, or do you want to believe that your rights are based upon whatever the politicians decide your rights should be?

But you can't be a subject if you -yes, you- can stand for (insert political office here) and become the one who sets the rules. Yes, you. If you were a subject, don't worry, you wouldn't even have that chance.

Why the hell would I want to force people to live their lives the way I feel they should? I can encourage and give suggestions to them, but I'm not going to enforce my will on them through violence.

You brought this up earlier in this thread, and I replied that I'm not interested in controlling other people's lives and issuing threats if they don't comply. For some reason you think I would and possibly even should be.

If you think that everything that is not voluntarysm is the same evil blob of slavery, I guess it makes no difference to you. But, for everyone else who agrees to having a common set of rules, there IS an actual difference, and a very big one at that.

Earlier you stated we need government precisely because we can't agree on a common set of rules. Am I missing something here?

Also, on the Hitler issue: he never won a majority in any elections, he was appointed Chancellor (as Kanzler pointed out) by the President, who had the power to appoint whoever for Chancellor regardless of election results or parliamentary support; and in the elections before he did a Coup d'Etat, he removed several Constitutional rights by decree due to the Reichstag Fire, banning several MPs (including all the Communists) and artificially lowering the level for a Constitutional change. And he even broke the clauses in the law that made him dictator several times.

With enough support and power, crazy power-hungry people don't give a crap what words on paper called "law" say they can or can't do.

Why did nobody stop him? Because he had a private gang of thugs (the SA, later the SS) terrorizing the population and overpowering the police. So, in the end, it was a case of a person declaring himself ruler because he was the stronger one and there wasn't a public police to defend all people equally. Sad.

It's not that simple at all. Hitler had popular support; he didn't need to be officially "voted in" for the public to resonate and agree with his message and plans. He wouldn't have declared himself Fuhrer out of nowhere if he didn't have the backing of a large part of the public, and he needed these very same supporters to join his army in the first place. People tend to rise up, protest and revolt whenever someone or some government they oppose try to impose their rules on them.

Incidentally, allow me to ask you a few further questions:

- How does voluntarysm fix the problem of "free riders"? I asked this in a PM but hey, it's good to have it public. How do you make sure everybody who walks on a street in a city pays their fair share to maintain the streets, the lighting and the litter removal?

If they don't pay for their own services, they don't receive them. If anything, it's government that allows freeloaders to benefit from welfare checks and other benefits/services that others have to pay more for.

You get a private company charging a fee to everyone who sets a step outside of their home?

No, just as you don't charge everyone who visits your store and doesn't buy anything for repairs you need to make on it.

You ask for voluntary donations? Then how do you stop people who didn't pay from enjoying the results anyway?

Roads don't deteriorate immediately after they are fixed, so it's not as if it will be a constant expense. Either way, instead of paying taxes for road maintenance, you pay what you need to to fix your own property, and that includes any piece of a road you may own.

- How does voluntarysm fix the problem of negative externalities? I mean, when someone owns a car and rides it, the pollution it causes reduces my lifespan and dooms the planet to a CO2-caused catastrophe.

What's your point? This happens now. Do you want to ban and confiscate all gas guzzling cars, regardless the reason people own them?

If someone smokes tobacco next to me, he's poisoning me directly. How can I protect myself and my family from being killed by other people's negative actions? How do you make them compensate me for it?

Again, this happens now. Are you going to sue every smoker you come across, or prevent them from having access to any cigarettes?

- How does voluntarysm fix the issue of, say, a massive banking corporation holding the savings of millions of families putting their money in misguided investments and crashing? You simply let them crash... and leave millions of people with no savings and your economy with a massive hole that will surely cause it to implode the day later?

Yeah, the government did a terrific job of preventing the 2008 crash. Without it (the government), these banks wouldn't have been protected and bailed out using taxpayer money that gave them the incentive to be reckless in the first place.

- How does voluntarysm print money?

People and printers.

How is the money-making process managed?

People will still have jobs, roles and tasks, and some will be given the task of printing a certain amount of money that accounts for inflation.

 

[Ivysaur]

These rights mean absolutely nothing if the politicians in government can "legally" amend the laws that give citizens those rights in the first place, or if the politicians can suspend the laws and/or constitution that give the people their rights using a certain circumstance or excuse. The belief in law and authority requires you to comply and accept the legislation and rulings made by the government, including such decisions that curb your rights. Do you want to believe that you have inherent, inalienable rights, or do you want to believe that your rights are based upon whatever the politicians decide your rights should be?

Sadly, your personal beliefs in inherent, inalienable rights mean absolutely nothing if you can't have any guarantee that you'll be ever able to enforce them. And that might be the case if nobody else but you believes you should have the right to X. That's why it's better to have society agree on what rights you have first.

Also, you keep insisting that politicians are some sort of foreign aliens that put and remove rules without asking or bothering to check the opinions of the people they are governing. I think you are missing something pretty big in your reasoning.

Earlier you stated we need government precisely because we can't agree on a common set of rules. Am I missing something here?

Yes, you are missing things like "debating", "compromising" and "voting". That is a system of government whose purpose is setting a common set of rules for everybody without needing to ask every single person for every single thing.

With enough support and power, crazy power-hungry people don't give a crap what words on paper called "law" say they can or can't do.

It's not that simple at all. Hitler had popular support; he didn't need to be officially "voted in" for the public to resonate and agree with his message and plans. He wouldn't have declared himself Fuhrer out of nowhere if he didn't have the backing of a large part of the public, and he needed these very same supporters to join his army in the first place. People tend to rise up, protest and revolt whenever someone or some government they oppose try to impose their rules on them.

So if people can voluntarily gather around a leader that is not part of the Government and elevate him into absolute power through the exercise of violence without regard for democracy, that means that in a voluntary system... Hitler could happen as well. Glad we got that one sorted out!

If they don't pay for their own services, they don't receive them. If anything, it's government that allows freeloaders to benefit from welfare checks and other benefits/services that others have to pay more for.

So how do you stop someone who didn't pay for street lighting from walking into a nearby town at night and enjoying the public lighting? How do you stop someone who didn't pay for the local police force from visiting town Y and enjoying the local security provided by the police force he didn't contribute to? How do you stop someone who didn't pay for the streets in city Z from working there and enjoying the pavement he didn't pay for? I expect your answers!

No, just as you don't charge everyone who visits your store and doesn't buy anything for repairs you need to make on it.

Then... that's a freeloading problem! Because I might not walk into your shop every day, but if I go work in town Y, I do have to move there every day and use your streets and other public goods I might not have paid for.

Roads don't deteriorate immediately after they are fixed, so it's not as if it will be a constant expense. Either way, instead of paying taxes for road maintenance, you pay what you need to to fix your own property, and that includes any piece of a road you may own.

So you are saying that everybody should own a small piece of the streets around their house and take care of them? What about large cities? Do I get 2 square cm of road?

What's your point? This happens now. Do you want to ban and confiscate all gas guzzling cars, regardless the reason people own them?

No, I want to tax people who use polluting cars and use their money to invest in green energy, or in healthcare. Or hell, why not ban cars that pollute more than X amount? We do that now. Or ban companies from producing cars that pollute more than X level. You can't do any of this without a Government.

You are good at complaining about what we have now, but how would YOU fix this problem in your system.

Again, this happens now. Are you going to sue every smoker you come across, or prevent them from having access to any cigarettes?

Tax the cigarettes and ban smokers from doing so in closed buildings. What would you do to protect me?

Yeah, the government did a terrific job of preventing the 2008 crash. Without it (the government), these banks wouldn't have been protected and bailed out using taxpayer money that gave them the incentive to be reckless in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises

Look at all the banking crises that happened before regulations were put in place!

People and printers.

People will still have jobs, roles and tasks, and some will be given the task of printing a certain amount of money that accounts for inflation.

No, seriously. Printing money is not "printers duuh". Let's talk actual monetary policy. Who is going to decide how much money will be needed? Who controls the supply? Who makes sure nobody is printing more money than needed? Who takes seignoriage profits? Who is the lender of last resort in case of an economic downturn? Who sets interest rates to control inflation? Who decides what is more important (controlling the supply or controlling the interest rates)? What gives confidence in the currency? Because if the answer to the early questions is "a bunch of random, unaccountable people who volunteer to play central bankers", then the answer to the last question is "nothing".

 

[Kanzler]

I'll be honest and say that I doubt this. I'm pretty sure you said that because either 1) it's what you believed or 2) you didn't think about it enough.

I'm sorry, I thought you told me

earlier. So I don't get to decide which laws are valid or not...unless I can randomly get on a jury?

Look, it's not all about you. It's never about you, the individual. The whole point of laws is the idea that justice transcends personal opinions. Even Supreme Court judges don't just decide things out of personal opinion, they have to appeal to precedence and the constitution and interpret that how it was meant to be interpreted. You keep talking about what you get to decide, and that fundamentally isn't what the law is about, because it's meant to transcend the idiosyncracies of every individual. That's why I said "you have to follow all of the laws" - the idea is that what makes something right or wrong is not personal opinion.

Right, and under the concept of law, all the laws that have been passed are supposed to be followed and enforced (key word supposed, it doesn't mean they will or can be) until they are repealed or overturned. Laws aren't just recommendations on how people should act in certain situations, they are orders backed by the threat of punishment.

Who gets to decide what is just and appropriate? The judges, juries and politicians? Does your opinion not matter until you are in a jury, are a judge or are elected?

Okay. Juries don't decide things out of personal opinion because they just don't? It's not about personal opinion. They interpret laws according to principles as fairly as possible. That's why jury selection is meant to eliminate bias. Again, it's not about you, it's not about me, it's about what's right and that's something that shouldn't be decided by the whims of opinion.

The bolded part defeats the purpose of having politicians pass laws if those who have to follow the law also have the right to decide if they actually do have to follow the law. It's odd and contradictory.

Well, it's true. It's an accurate description of how many Western governments work. Make of that what you will.

Is this a matter of "We don't have the resources to investigate that crime as of now, so it will have to wait or be ignored" or "We shouldn't waste our limited resources on pursuing a suspect who broke a trivial law", or both? I'm assuming both.

Also, if the police got new funding and were capable of cracking down on more crimes, should they enforce the law equally or continue enforcing the same laws they deemed as necessary before being given more funds?

That's something that they have the power to decide. That's also something that can be constrained by local government, something you get a say in.

The attorney general for my state isn't elected, but the politicians who wrote the laws are. If you're saying that it's alright for the prosecutors in the end to decide which laws to uphold, that the elected politicians wrote, that seems pretty undemocratic to me.

Well, no, prosecutors get to decide which cases to pursue, not which laws to uphold. If you only have so much time, then you have to make choices.

Yeah, and the police aren't elected either.

And they don't need to be.

Thanks but I had a fair understanding of how the judicial system worked, I was focusing more on the technicality of the concept of "law".

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

How dare they! (According to you):



Moving on:

I was trying to make the point that law fundamentally isn't about picking and choosing based on personal opinion? Look the bottom line here is that it's not about what you personally think. Justice is greater than that.

Indeed. Society doesn't progress because of the law, it progresses in spite of it.

And without law you don't have society at all. Gotta take the good with the bad.

I wonder why. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the Nazi party held the most seats in the Reichstag, and that Hitler placed second in the presidential election the year prior to his takeover after Hindenburg's death.

Bottom line is that he wasn't elected Kanzler.

Do you believe Hitler would have cared what the constitution said?

No?

My definition of property is something rightfully owned by someone after earning it himself or through trade, which gives that person the right to use his property however he wishes as long as it's not causing harm.

If you truly own yourself and are not the property of the politicians, are you free to disobey those laws which you don't agree with? If they order you to fight or fund a war you don't support, for example, are you allowed to say no? Will the government sympathize with you and let you withdraw some of your taxes that go to the war effort?

See, there we go again with your personal opinion on what property is. Property is really just a bundle of rights: including the right to use, the right to earn income, the right to transfer to someone else, and the right to enforce the above rights, among many others. To have a title on something is to have a claim to those property rights on that thing.

The bottom line is that you can talk about your personal opinion on what property is, but if we want to have a fruitful discussion, we have to talk about things with real world consequences. The government does not have a title for all of us and so we're not the property of the government. If you're going to talk about not-real world issues as if they were real world issues, then I'm not going to be a part of that discussion.

It's not about who enforces the agreements, it's about what should be enforced. If I can prove someone stole from me, didn't fullfill his/her end of the bargain etc., I have the right to retrieve what is owed to me through whatever appropriate means, whether it is asking my bank to cancel my payments to the person, or hiring professionals to investigate my case and get my property back if they believe I am telling the truth based on the evidence I offered and so on.

What's an appropriate means? What if the bank already fulfilled the payment to the person? What if the other person hires professionals who believe him and stop your professionals from getting your property back?

And if there's not? Authority doesn't encourage agreement, nor does it need to if people believe in its legitimacy. There's no negotiating with authority; you obey authority or face the consequences.

Democracy is how you negotiate with authority.

They aren't automatically connected either.

That's what I'm saying.