Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Barakistan

Ya but you have to find honest men in authority to apply the law only. Aren't too many of them around. Back to square one.

No, because under the rule of law no one possesses a higher authority than the law itself, so all public officials are subject to removal and/or punishment when they themselves violate the law. Dereliction of duty and all that.

...except that the folks who interpret the law and decide whether public officials are subject to removal or not are...public officials!

Bed time, so I will leave you all with a reading from Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England:

But public officials who are answerable to the people in election.

Sorry I don't have a desire to be anyone's slave, but since that is the difference between the 2 of us you must be walking around harder than woodpecker's lips as things stand today.

Guess again, champ.

So Barak here's one for you. The dictionary says that anarchy is lawlessness and absent a government. So what do you call it when you have a lawless government such as our present national government?

Alcohol hasn't always been legal and if you are worried about death destruction and general mayhem eminating from those who are impaired, the best group to crack down on would be the alcohol drinkers. No one except fanatic zealots would want to ban drugs either unless you are to believe everyone of them just likes adhering to failed policies.

Do you drink?

If your rationale matches it, well, that's where the hypothesis as to age comes from.

If you're older than that, and your ideology still matches that of an idealistic, though misguided and inexperienced, child perhaps the problem lies deeper than expected. [/quote]

Sorry I don't have a desire to be anyone's slave, but since that is the difference between the 2 of us you must be walking around harder than woodpecker's lips as things stand today. [/quote]

Guess again, champ. [/quote]

That was what I was guessing. Under the current conditions, but sans the (D) after the names of the head honcho and so many others you would be ok with being a slave.

Do you drink?

That's what you call the rule of men, as distinct from the rule of law. Also called tyranny or despotism.

You said you were going to bed!

Well I've tried tyranny so I guess I'll try that anarchy thingy.

Jason, do you use drugs? If you do, you're already a slave. As to whether I drink, if you can show a need to know other than curiousity, I'll gladly tell you.

They are not answerable to the people.

In the best and most idealistic of all worlds, they are answerable only to the majority of the people who vote, which is very frequently a minority of the population; and then they're answerable only once every few years.

Let me put it this way: which politician--federal, state, county, city level, I don't care--is answerable to me?

Answer: none of them, of course.

And I've noticed that this is hardly the best and most idealistic of worlds.

First, anarchy has nothing to do with law or the absence of law. It simply means "without rulers" or "no rulers," in the same way that "monarchy" means "one ruler."

Second, every government is lawless. There hasn't been a single government in the history of humanity that has obeyed the same laws it imposes on its subjects. Extortion is illegal, unless you're the government; then you do it and call it taxation. Counterfeiting is illegal, unless you're the government; then you do it and call it monetary policy. Kidnapping is illegal, unless you're the government; then you do it and call it imprisonment. And on and on.

The fact that many are derelict in their diligence to vote does not discredit the system of voting.

A rapist put in prison is not kidnapping.

Lawful taxes are not extortion.

If the state, (ordained of God no less; Romans 13) does not collect taxes, and pay the policeman to arrest the rapist then the state is derelict before God Himself. If they do not collect the taxes for a military to fend off invasion; again, derelict before God, who ordained the human ordinance of government, flawed as it is.

Barak;

This thread has gotten cluttered up badly with a lot of rabbit trails and some usual bickering.

I enjoy debating these things with you. Of course I don't adhere to Anarchy, but the questions you raise are legitimate and ought to be answered seriously. Why have any government at all considering all the injustice they have perpetrated down through the ages? It is a GOOD question.

I think John Locke in his second treatise goes to great pains to answer this question in clear concise terms. I agree with Locke, almost in lockstep... oh my!

No, the system of voting stands discredited long before anybody actually votes or doesn't vote, simply because it's a way for some people to use the coercive power of the State to enslave other people. There is no liberty or respect for fundamental rights in voting. It's a less direct way of holding a gun to somebody's head to force him to do your will, but that's what it's morally equivalent to, at least if you win.

But surely you're not one of those who believes everyone has a duty to vote, are you?


It's worse than simple kidnapping, because that prison is used to protect the rapist from the just attentions of his victims, and because that prison is financed with money extorted from those victims. In other words, imprisonment even for a real tort takes a single victimization and turns it into a triple victimization.


What is a lawful tax?

Is it a tax that a majority of those who vote agreed to?

You could make the argument, then, that for the minority of the population that voted for it, it isn't extortion.

But for those who didn't vote for it, but who are forced under threat of violence to pay it anyway, it is absolutely extortion.

Ok...

Damned if I do and damned if I don't...

If you were serious in your convictions you would return to a state of nature in a wilderness area and divorce yourself from life as we know it. You could in fact do this in several places and avoid voting, taxation, police, military draft, and every other thing that is bad about "society"

I choose to remain in society. I prefer voting first and foremost to the other alternative of constant duels, and blood fueds, and mini-wars.

As a friend I would suggest you have been pickled in theory too long! What is it; the best intellect is one that can defeat nature??? 2+2 does not equal 4 and here is my proof... and so forth and so on.

Prison is not kidnapping. Rape in addition to rape, IS kidnapping.

As for this turning folks over to the mob, that used to be called lynching. You see how poorly that worked in the U.S. in the first part of last century. Also, if it is up to an individual to dispense justice, and one is a Christian and believes in the conceptof forgiveness, justice can never be served. The weakness of the mob rule system you advocate is that it ignores a community, a state, and a nation's need for justice.

A serial rapist can continue to be a serial rapist if his victims forgive him, under your concept. An innocent man who someone THINKS is a rapist can be killed, legally in Barakville, without hope of appeal. Or can be let go. There's no justice in either of those, as people can be wrong. The court system is set up to minimize wrongful convictions, but mobs are not.

Justice is too valuable a ideal to be left up to mobs, or individuals to deal out their individual concept of justice. Especially in the heat of the moment. It's near-sighted and really based on nothing but a bad idea.