Hold up Henry; what's a libertarian?

[henry quirk]

What does “minarchy” mean?

here's a lil intro...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

Thanks!

One of the ancap complaints is 'state' in 'night watchman state'. Seems to me one can easily side step that criticism by recasting 'state' as 'employee(s)'. After all: security guards 'work for' someone, they don't call the shots.

[Age]

"Who or what guarantees the right to life, liberty, and property?"

I'm a deist and I own a shotgun, so: God installs 'em, I (self)defend 'em.

So God needs men with shotguns to further his aim? Isn't this a sign of weakness and the inability to use more practical means?

My god built me with all the tools I need to make a go of living. The gist of Natural Law is integral to me. He doesn't expect or want my worship, and he offers no aid. What my god's ultimate aim is, or what he needs, is his business.

Question: Why does God need prophets and scriptures to further his agenda?

Because you do not listen "yourself".

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Yeah, oil, that's it: and that black gold was worth every brown, heathen soul.

So much for the libertarian minarchist.

just yankin' your *anti-american chain, doofus.








*you're gettin' to be as big a butt as veg...you used to be a good egg...now: you're just another reactionary

What's wrong with being anti-American? Do you lot seriously expect to be liked?

[Age]

"Interesting points, Henry. On the whole, I pretty much agree with you."

All the right people (and Robot Overlords) do. Seems only pussies and commies and necrophiliac mom bangers don't.

#

"I think you’re saying that there’s really just one law: don’t mess with someone else’s life, liberty or property except under special circumstances (e.g., self defense). That makes sense."

Square on the head, Common.

#

"There are few societal institutions (which could just as well be private rather than governmental): courts, police and the military (the military could be utilized on infrastructure during times of peace). Good idea."

With courts, constabulary, and military you're lookin' at what I think of as essential services. Someone to arbitrate dispute, someone to investigate dispute, someone to keep invaders out. Not sure how to classify them (sumthin' less than government, sumthin' more than private services). The key feature of the three is they're employees, never directors, never leaders. They don't comprise a state. They don't rule.

#

"With the militia ruling the the other 3, there’s just one question that comes up: who or what controls the militia?"

Each adult in the militia.


The Night Watchman model I propose is a fragile thing (no more or less than the current American system, but still), and to work needs a mature citizenry. Mature, in context, means self-directing, self-relying folks with little patience for parasites or politicians. No doubt there'd be circumstances where folks might disagree on whether courts, constabulary, or military had overstepped, but law is rather stark and minimal and unambiguous in a minarchy, and it won't take long for anyone to recognize if violations had occurred.

Hangings (at the worst) and bein' shot in the ass with rock salt (the best) would be common penalties for proxies who look to be more than proxies.

Would either 'you', "henry quirk", or the one known as "common sense", or both, like to discuss these points in more detail?

Obviously they are very personal and only one-sided views of things, which could and would never work in practice.

Which of the above points would never work in practice?

1. Seeing, there are "right" or "wrong" people.

2. Seeing, human beings as being "pussies", commies, et cetera.

3. Seeing, people who agree with one's own as being "right" or "good" people and every one else who disagree as being "wrong" or "bad" people.

4. Seeing, don’t mess with someone else’s life, liberty or property except under special circumstances (e.g., self defense).

5. Seeing, there is only one law, which only benefits some and not ALL, equally.

6. Seeing, courts, constabulary, and military as being necessary.

7. Seeing, someone is needed to arbitrate dispute, someone to investigate dispute, someone to keep invaders out.

8. Seeing, employees.

9.Seeing, a militia is needed, and that that needs some thing to control it.

10. Seeing, a militia with human beings who have little patience.

11. Seeing, people has "parasites" and/or "politicians".

12. Seeing, it won't take long for anyone to recognize if violations had occurred.

13. Seeing, hangings (at the worst) and bein' shot in the ass with rock salt (the best) would be common penalties for proxies who look to be more than proxies.

They are the ones in your reply here. I did not look in the other posts in this thread for the others.

[henry quirk]

What's wrong with being anti-American?

Nuthin', if that's your bag.

[gaffo]

That's not right. The rebels didn't take English assets; they got out from under English governance. Joe the farmer didn't steal his farmland from the Crown; he told the Crown it no longer had a say over his farmland.

Depends on your point of view. Bear in mind that, to the Crown, the entire empire is an asset.

[/quote]

no, Henry is correct here, the 1776 revolt was quite conservative.

After the US was formed, its legal founding affirmed all ALL British common law and even perticualr court rulings via the Brit courts -= prior to 1776 as rule of law in the newly formed US.

and why the Road Island and the Providence Plantations State Constitution (which was the 1640? King Charles II charter) was affirmed as the Rule of Law - even while there there was a low level civil war over it via Thomas Dorr in 1840's) was affirm for 3/4s of a century after America was no longer a British colony, as legally valid even though it was of British origin.

[gaffo]

Henry

My specific view: The individual owns himself. The individual has a right to his life, liberty, and property, The individual's life liberty, or property is only forfeit (in part or in whole) when he willingly, knowingly, deprives (in part or in whole) another of his life, liberty, or property. Some individuals can't self-defend or can't self-defend across all circumstances, so instruments are used to offer defense and compensation: a sensible, minimal court of last resort, a sensible, minimal constabulary, a sensible, minimal, border-stationed military, and a militia to rule the other three (the first three are employees; when they look to dis-embed themselves from that subordinate position, the militia - every other armed person in the minarchy - is empowered to put them down).

Who or what guarantees the right to life, liberty, and property?

The Declaration of Independence says they are guaranteed by our creator:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Secular Statism asserts that your rights are defined by and guaranteed by a central government which will tell you what to do and force compliance in the cause of peace.

Which will do the better job serving the goal of the ideal society and preserving your rights?

I'm a secularist and the DoI states "nature's God" not "the creator". so i note your lie there.............not need to continue my post, you showed your bias.

[gaffo]

tell that to the crusaders, communists and the jihadists...

-Imp

Maybe tell it the Yank as in the last few decades they've destroyed a couple of countries and led to a couple of million deaths.

stones glass houses Sir. you are Brit and should know at least as much as i do as a Yank about your history.

both of ours was less steller than it should have been, but both better than the German/Belgeun(sp) congo, French (west african), USSR, Japan, and China.

so be mindful-informed of history when you cast your stone sir

[gaffo]

That was for booze and chicks, not god (and they deserved every lick we gave 'em).

Nah! It was for Oil and it wasn't worth the dead grunts lives nor all those women and children's lives that were destroyed.

yep.

OIL Operation Iraqi Liberation.............then hastily renamed OIF.

lol.

[gaffo]

Out of a predominantly Judeo-Christian moral and epistemological ethos, we got the West and Israel.

since 1967, and especially since 2000, there is nothing commendable nor Judiac/Christian about 5/8'ths of a population caging and denying basic Civil Rights to the 3/8th.

Palestinians and the illegal occupation of the Westbank by Israel since 1967.

in full violation of the 4th Geneva Accords - which Israel is a signatory.

Israel is a boil on humanity as long as it insisted upon illegal occupation and Apartied in the Westbank, and if you are a real Christian, you should be ashamed of yourself for affirming Israel and her character these last 2 decades.

Israel - Germany 1933.

wake up, assuming you are just ignorant and of good character.

[gaffo]

Out of a predominantly Judeo-Christian moral and epistemological ethos, we got the West and Israel.

Crusades anyone?

Out of a Muslim ethos, we got the majority of the Middle East,

Tunisia kicked out their asshole 7 yrs ago and is doing well.

and some of southeast Asia. And out of Atheism, we got Russia, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea...and so on. So that's how all of that has played out already.

ya, and the Christian Pinot Chile, and the 70's Christian Argies - throwing out alive pows from choppers by the hundreds and a few thousands killed in soccer fields.

you want to play "Athiest countries bad Christian one good"

I'm game Bubba lets do it!!!!!!!

BTW Pol Pot was a BUDDIST - so remove your Atheist Cambodia bullshit above.

[Immanuel Can]

Crusades anyone?

Do you mean the comparatively small-scale Catholic crusades done for manifestly political and anti-Christian reasons, or the large Islamic ones that spanned several centuries, done in explicit obedience to Mohammed and his successors?

Out of a Muslim ethos, we got the majority of the Middle East,

Tunisia kicked out their asshole 7 yrs ago and is doing well.

One down, perhaps; but plenty more to go. And the jury's still out on Tunisia.

you want to play "Athiest countries bad Christian one good"

No. I wouldn't do that, and you don't want to do that.

Trust me, if we do, it's not going to come out well, statistically or factually. Secular regimes killed over 100 million people in the last century alone. No religious regime of any kind, nor all of them together, have ever come up to more than a tiny fraction of that (with half of that fraction, at least, to Islam).

However, there is no such thing as a "Christian country." Countries are not "Christian"; only individuals can be. When somebody speaks of a "Christian country," it's a secularist, not a Christian; and what they usually are meaning is just "not Muslim," or "not Buddhist," or "not Hindu" in terms of their broad social norms. They're saying that America, or the UK perhaps, have historically been influenced by Christian moral norms and social patterns -- not that the people in the country are Christians, and not that their actions and policies are for Christian reasons anymore -- if they ever were. So it really says nothing about how many people in the country actually even believe in God, let alone how many are genuinely Christian.

However, Atheist countries tend to be very explicit about the ideology driving their actions. Marx said that "the critique of religion is the first of all critiques" in the Marxist ideological plan. And they single out religious people for the first wave of persecution, re-education or elimination. The second wave gets the intellectuals and landowners.

BTW Pol Pot was a BUDDIST - so remove your Atheist Cambodia bullshit above.

Nominal only, apparently -- unless you want to say that Buddha made him a Communist. Sorry: that's one the Atheists have to own.

[uwot]

BTW Pol Pot was a BUDDIST - so remove your Atheist Cambodia bullshit above.

Nominal only, apparently -- unless you want to say that Buddha made him a Communist. Sorry: that's one the Atheists have to own.

Mr Can, atheists do not have to "own" any such thing, any more than you, as a theist, have to take personal responsibility for flying aeroplanes into the World Trade Center. If you wish to have civil discourse, stop making such baseless, ugly and stupid allegations.

[commonsense]

However, there is no such thing as a "Christian country." Countries are not "Christian"; only individuals can be. When somebody speaks of a "Christian country," it's a secularist, not a Christian; and what they usually are meaning is just "not Muslim," or "not Buddhist," or "not Hindu" in terms of their broad social norms. They're saying that America, or the UK perhaps, have historically been influenced by Christian moral norms and social patterns -- not that the people in the country are Christians, and not that their actions and policies are for Christian reasons anymore -- if they ever were. So it really says nothing about how many people in the country actually even believe in God, let alone how many are genuinely Christian.

No, a Christian country is simply a country where the majority of individuals are Christian.

[Immanuel Can]

No, a Christian country is simply a country where the majority of individuals are Christian.

Not even. If that were the case, there are no "Christian" countries at all...that is, unless you count as "Christian" merely people who are not Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or some other creed, but who have no knowledge or practice worthy of the name.

Look, I get it...it's confusing. People say, "I'm Christian," and mean no more by it than, "I'm not Muslim." People say, "I'm Christian," and mean "I'm Catholic," or "I'm Mormon." People say, "I'm Christian," and mean only "I'm a nice guy," or "I'm civilized." People say, "I'm Christian," and mean "I was born in the post-Christian West." And some say "I'm Christian," and then do things that the Carpenter from Galilee never would have approved at all. So what is a secular person to make of that? Only that there are a lot of people who are saying a lot of things that aren't really true. The criteria keep shifting.

In truth one doesn't actually get to be Christian by being born in a "Christian" country, by preferring a church on Christmas to a Mosque on Ramadan, or by saying vaguely, "I believe in a god." One has to be, however imperfectly, a follower of Christ. And that's the most generous definition that a common sense analysis will allow.