Foucault and self-policing Derail

[Seth]

I don't know why I even bother with you.

I do, but I don't want to take another vacation right now so I'll hold my tongue.

I've address every one of these points (if not all here, I've addressed them ad naseum with you in the past).

Addressing them is hardly the same as refuting them.

You aren't listening. Quelle surprise.

I'm reading actually. Every word. It's just that you're wrong and you are failing to comprehend why.

You are agreeing with everything I've said.

Not really.

The only point of contention is the subjectivity of when a law is unconstitutional.

It's not a matter of subjective interpretation, it's a matter of objective analysis of the letter of the law and the actions taken by government. Sometimes it's a complex issue, sometimes its very obvious, but it's not subjective at all. Either a law violates the Constitution or it does not.

And don't bleat on about the supreme court.

Why not? They are one of the three branches of government and it's their job to review such disputes.

We've had this debate before and you've defended the right of nutjob militias and loons to decide by their own reckoning when the constitution has been violated.

Well, since all power and authority flows from the people to the government, it is within the sovereign authority of the people to revoke or amend any power or authority granted to the government whenever the people choose to do so.

Moreover, who would you have ultimately decide when the government has overstepped its constitutional powers if the apparatus of government itself has been corrupted by tyranny and despotism and becomes a self-serving enemy of the people?

Our system says that the people are the ultimate authority and they are fully authorized to take down any government and replace it with one that better suits their needs and desires whenever they feel like doing so.

So it becomes something of a "democratic" issue in that rising up and putting down a tyrant is an authorized constitutional activity...if you win. If you lose, it's "treason."

That's one of the checks and balances against armed rebellion and why we are loathe, as a society, to go down that road while there are any other options available to us.

But in the end, the people themselves, and their arms, decide who governs them and how.

I know exactly what you're trying to do, but it's a false dilemma fallacy you offer. You want to paint anyone who advocates preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States as "nutjob militias and loons" because you have an authoritarian streak that makes you submissive and subservient to your betters in government. You falsely assume that only they have the power, wisdom or right to govern, and that therefore any way they govern must be right and proper, and that it's treasonous to object or resist the government.

The reason that we even have to discuss this is because the federal government has usurped so much unauthorized power and authority, particularly from the states, that it becomes an issue for more and more people.

In a Libertarian society the central government is never, ever allowed to obtain or even seek that sort of power in the first place. It's duties are stringently limited to ministerial and organizational duties and military defense and international diplomacy. All other powers are vested in the people, to apportion out to the states through their elected representatives as they see fit, and in conformance with the principles of Libertarianism.

[pErvinalia]

I don't know why I even bother with you.

I do, but I don't want to take another vacation right now so I'll hold my tongue.

I've address every one of these points (if not all here, I've addressed them ad naseum with you in the past).

Addressing them is hardly the same as refuting them.

You aren't listening. Quelle surprise.

I'm reading actually. Every word. It's just that you're wrong and you are failing to comprehend why.

You are agreeing with everything I've said.

Not really.

The only point of contention is the subjectivity of when a law is unconstitutional.

It's not a matter of subjective interpretation, it's a matter of objective analysis of the letter of the law and the actions taken by government. Sometimes it's a complex issue, sometimes its very obvious, but it's not subjective at all. Either a law violates the Constitution or it does not.

And don't bleat on about the supreme court.

Why not? They are one of the three branches of government and it's their job to review such disputes.

We've had this debate before and you've defended the right of nutjob militias and loons to decide by their own reckoning when the constitution has been violated.

Well, since all power and authority flows from the people to the government, it is within the sovereign authority of the people to revoke or amend any power or authority granted to the government whenever the people choose to do so.

Yawn. You are still agreeing with me. Not sure what you're smoking at your end of the internet. If you are looking for a pointless argument, try Coito. I'll address the rest later (or I won't. I'll have to read it first to see whether it is even worth my effort.)

[pErvinalia]

I know exactly what you're trying to do, but it's a false dilemma fallacy you offer. You want to paint anyone who advocates preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States as "nutjob militias and loons" because you have an authoritarian streak that makes you submissive and subservient to your betters in government. You falsely assume that only they have the power, wisdom or right to govern, and that therefore any way they govern must be right and proper, and that it's treasonous to object or resist the government.

Lol. I couldn't let this go. You really need to get your eyes checked. I was the one who started this whole thing off by saying that I believe I have a moral authority to break the law in some instances. And YOU responded by calling me a sociopath. You couldn't make this shit up, Seth. Aside from Coito, you are probably close to the worst debater (who thinks they can debate) I have ever faced on the internet.

[Seth]

I know exactly what you're trying to do, but it's a false dilemma fallacy you offer. You want to paint anyone who advocates preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States as "nutjob militias and loons" because you have an authoritarian streak that makes you submissive and subservient to your betters in government. You falsely assume that only they have the power, wisdom or right to govern, and that therefore any way they govern must be right and proper, and that it's treasonous to object or resist the government.

Lol. I couldn't let this go. You really need to get your eyes checked. I was the one who started this whole thing off by saying that I believe I have a moral authority to break the law in some instances. And YOU responded by calling me a sociopath. You couldn't make this shit up, Seth. Aside from Coito, you are probably close to the worst debater (who thinks they can debate) I have ever faced on the internet.

Just look in a mirror sometime.

Oh, and I didn't call you a sociopath, I said you have an authoritarian streak that makes you submissive and subservient to your betters in government. This is a rational analysis of your arguments. You seem to think that just because the government says something that this automatically means that I'm obliged to obey it. That's not the case, as I carefully explained. Government actions are not legitimate, and therefore need not be obeyed, if they contravene the law or worse, the Constitution. You want to turn that into some silly argument that "loons" get to decide what's constitutional and what isn't. That's not the case. They don't get to decide constitutionality, they get to decide how to react to government initiations of force or fraud. If they react correctly, they will be vindicated. If they react improperly due to ignorance, bias or disrespect for the law, then they will likely lose and be prosecuted for violating a just and constitutional law. But they get to challenge the constitutionality of the law both on its face and as applied in the particular case as a defense in court. The defendant has a heavy burden to overcome in doing so because of the presumptive constitutionality of a duly-enacted law, but defendants succeed in arguing constitutional violations by the police pretty often as it turns out. They also occasionally succeed in proving that the statute itself is unconstitutional on its face.

In terms of Libertarian philosophy each individual gets to decide for himself how he will react to the initiation of force or fraud by the government and he is expected to accept the full consequences of doing so even if he's found to be wrong in doing so by a jury of his peers or if he's correct in resisting an unlawful or unconstitutional act of government. Thus it behooves the Libertarian to be intimately familiar with the law and to work hard, out of rational self-interest, to avoid getting into such conflicts in the first place by participating in the electoral and legislative processes to ensure that bad laws or bad enforcement of laws doesn't happen in the first place.

The courts still do the deciding about the actual constitutionality of the law and always have.

So, once again, you're wrong because of your willful ignorance of Libertarianism.

[pErvinalia]

Man. You are agreeing with everything I have said. I don't know what the malfunction is at your end of the internet, but you need to get it seen to.

And you called my belief that I have the moral right to disobey some laws as sociopathy. Read the fucking thread.

[Seth]

Man. You are agreeing with everything I have said. I don't know what the malfunction is at your end of the internet, but you need to get it seen to.

And you called my belief that I have the moral right to disobey some laws as sociopathy. Read the fucking thread.

No, I'm not. I'm explaining to you why your statement " We've had this debate before and you've defended the right of nutjob militias and loons to decide by their own reckoning when the constitution has been violated" is factually incorrect.

You seem unable to distinguish between "decid(ing) by their own reckoning when the constitution had been violated" and "reacting in self-defense to government initiation of force or fraud." Government has no more authority to initiate force or fraud than anyone else, ever. Only if the individual himself FIRST initiates force or fraud on someone else, or the government, is "retaliatory" force authorized for anyone, government agent or otherwise.

As I said, if the government bans guns and sends out jackboots to collect them then it's the government initiating force which gives permission to individuals to defend against that initiation of force. If the government bans guns and appeals to the public to turn them in voluntarily but takes no other direct action to enforce that ban, such as sending out the jackboots with machine guns, then government is not initiating force, and no retaliatory force is authorized by Libertarian philosophy.

This is what you clearly aren't understanding. You are making the assumption that "the law" justifies any initiation of force that the government deems necessary to FORCE compliance. In Libertarian philosophy government does not HAVE that authority at all. It only has authority to reply with force when force or fraud are initiated against the government, or some member of society who has agreed to be protected by government against the initiation of force or fraud against them by others.

Just because Congress passes a law making it unlawful for anyone to own a firearm does NOT give government agents license to go out and initiate force on the citizenry to enforce that law. That is Libertarian philosophy, not what you're trying to claim, which is that "nutjob militias and loons to decide by their own reckoning when the constitution has been violated." That's simply not the case and you still struggle after all these years to understand this basic principle of Libertarian philosophy.

No one, not even the government or its agents has the right to initiate force or fraud against another, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever.

The only time that one person, or a group, or the whole society, or government agents acting on the orders of the government may USE force is to defend against the initiation of force or fraud by someone, some group, or another government.

This means that Congress can levy all the taxes it likes, but according to Libertarian philosophy no person is obliged to pay them against their will, and the government has absolutely no authority to send anyone out and use force of any kind to compel or cause anyone to pay any tax. In other words, Congress can SUGGEST politely to the public that it's in their and everyone else's best interests to pay a particular tax, but it cannot force anyone to do so if they don't want to.

The same philosophy applies to the gun rights argument. Congress can pass a law saying "it's the law that no private person can possess a firearm" but no one is obliged to pay any attention to Congress, and if Congress attempts to use force to enforce that law, rather than, for example, a public relations campaign to persuade and convince people to voluntarily turn in their arms, then Congress has initiated force and any person or persons against whom that force has been initiated has the absolute right, at their discretion, to use whatever force is necessary to repel or thwart that attempted or actual initiation of force against them.

This is why your entire argument is based in gross ignorance of Libertarian philosophy. Someday perhaps you'll learn, but I'm not hopeful because I've explained this to you many, many times in many different ways and it doesn't penetrate.

[pErvinalia]

Man. You are agreeing with everything I have said. I don't know what the malfunction is at your end of the internet, but you need to get it seen to.

And you called my belief that I have the moral right to disobey some laws as sociopathy. Read the fucking thread.

No, I'm not. I'm explaining to you why your statement " We've had this debate before and you've defended the right of nutjob militias and loons to decide by their own reckoning when the constitution has been violated" is factually incorrect.

You seem unable to distinguish between "decid(ing) by their own reckoning when the constitution had been violated" and "reacting in self-defense to government initiation of force or fraud." Government has no more authority to initiate force or fraud than anyone else, ever. Only if the individual himself FIRST initiates force or fraud on someone else, or the government, is "retaliatory" force authorized for anyone, government agent or otherwise.

It's back to the future. I've already addressed this, and you couldn't work out what I was talking about, despite it being exceedingly simple. The assessment of whether the government is "initiating force or fraud" is subjective, outside of a ruling from the Supreme Court. And even if it wasn't, it still doesn't change the fact that you, like I, espouse the case where sometimes it is necessary to resist the current laws of the lands - if they are immoral. Somehow you've had a brain snap and think that I think the State is always right and should be obeyed, DESPITE clearly stating the exact opposite. You've clearly got something very wrong going on at your end of the internet. Get if sorted.

As I said, if the government bans guns and sends out jackboots to collect them then it's the government initiating force which gives permission to individuals to defend against that initiation of force. If the government bans guns and appeals to the public to turn them in voluntarily but takes no other direct action to enforce that ban, such as sending out the jackboots with machine guns, then government is not initiating force, and no retaliatory force is authorized by Libertarian philosophy.

This is what you clearly aren't understanding.

I understand perfectly. If only you could grok this. It's obvious that in the case of standard weapons that there is no grey area about what the constitution says, so there's virtually no subjectivity required. But the case gets different when you start talking about taxes and Obamacare and the like. We've been here and done this a thousand times before, Seth. Pity you didn't actually listen the last 50 times we've had this debate. I've specifically asked you if the 2nd amendment (or any other amendment that is close to your heart) was changed constitutionally whether you'd abide by it. You've said that you and heaps of other people wouldn't, as you essentially see the founding fathers as infallible gods. Not that this is necessary for this debate to show that you, like I, think it can be moral and right to disobey certain laws of the land. You've clearly agreed with me on this point repeatedly in this thread. I'm really not sure what the fuck you are arguing about. As I said, if you are in an contrarian mood and are just looking for a pointless argument, hit Coito up for one. He loves that shit.

You are making the assumption that "the law" justifies any initiation of force that the government deems necessary to FORCE compliance.

Read the fucking thread. I've specifically argued the opposite.

Just because Congress passes a law making it unlawful for anyone to own a firearm does NOT give government agents license to go out and initiate force on the citizenry to enforce that law. That is Libertarian philosophy, not what you're trying to claim, which is that "nutjob militias and loons to decide by their own reckoning when the constitution has been violated." That's simply not the case and you still struggle after all these years to understand this basic principle of Libertarian philosophy.

You wouldn't have a clue what I've argued, as you clearly can't read. Man, sort your shit out.

The same philosophy applies to the gun rights argument. Congress can pass a law saying "it's the law that no private person can possess a firearm" but no one is obliged to pay any attention to Congress, and if Congress attempts to use force to enforce that law, rather than, for example, a public relations campaign to persuade and convince people to voluntarily turn in their arms, then Congress has initiated force and any person or persons against whom that force has been initiated has the absolute right, at their discretion, to use whatever force is necessary to repel or thwart that attempted or actual initiation of force against them.

God. What's wrong at your end of the internet? This is exactly what I am saying (but not in the context of guns in the US; I'm speaking more generally). Learn to fucking read.

This is why your entire argument is based in gross ignorance of Libertarian philosophy. Someday perhaps you'll learn, but I'm not hopeful because I've explained this to you many, many times in many different ways and it doesn't penetrate.

[Seth]

Man. You are agreeing with everything I have said. I don't know what the malfunction is at your end of the internet, but you need to get it seen to.

And you called my belief that I have the moral right to disobey some laws as sociopathy. Read the fucking thread.

No, I'm not. I'm explaining to you why your statement " We've had this debate before and you've defended the right of nutjob militias and loons to decide by their own reckoning when the constitution has been violated" is factually incorrect.

You seem unable to distinguish between "decid(ing) by their own reckoning when the constitution had been violated" and "reacting in self-defense to government initiation of force or fraud." Government has no more authority to initiate force or fraud than anyone else, ever. Only if the individual himself FIRST initiates force or fraud on someone else, or the government, is "retaliatory" force authorized for anyone, government agent or otherwise.

It's back to the future. I've already addressed this, and you couldn't work out what I was talking about, despite it being exceedingly simple. The assessment of whether the government is "initiating force or fraud" is subjective, outside of a ruling from the Supreme Court.

No, it isn't, not in a Libertarian society. It's easy and objective. Any time the government tells someone that they must do something and backs it with a penalty of some sort the force is implied because failure to obey results in the use of force to compel obedience. That is an "initiation of force" by the government.

And even if it wasn't, it still doesn't change the fact that you, like I, espouse the case where sometimes it is necessary to resist the current laws of the lands - if they are immoral.

The point is, and I hope you can get it this time, that there is no "law of the land" wherein government has the power or authority to compel someone to do something against their will as a matter of public policy. The ONLY time government can use force is if someone has FIRST improperly initiated force against another, or the government itself. Any form of coercion that is ultimately backed by force, ie: the application of physical force against the person or property of another, that is not triggered by the subject upon whom the force is used by that person's own initiation of force, is illegitimate and may be resisted.

Thus, if a law is enacted that you feel is immoral, if, and only if the government attempts to force you to comply with that law either through actual physical force against you or your property or through coercive threats of the ultimate use of force, which includes the courts because the ultimate power of the courts is to physically force an individual into confinement or other punishment, are you justified in retaliating with force, and if that is justified, then ANY degree of force you must use to defend against the INITIATION of force by anyone is justified.

In a Libertarian society you are under no form of compulsion to abide by a law that you feel is immoral. Of course if your doing so initiates force against another somehow, that individual has the right to resist and retaliate in self defense.

Somehow you've had a brain snap and think that I think the State is always right and should be obeyed, DESPITE clearly stating the exact opposite. You've clearly got something very wrong going on at your end of the internet. Get if sorted.

You get it sorted. You seem to be having difficulty in understanding that in a Libertarian society there are only TWO "LAWS": Thou shalt not initiate force; and Thou shalt not initiate fraud. That's it. Quite literally everything else done by government is merely a suggestion or advice from the government that it has no power to enforce or compel you to follow. Therefore there is no "obeying" or "not obeying" a "law" of the state because in a Libertarian society ALL THINGS ARE LEGAL AND ACCEPTABLE for the individual to do provided ONLY that in doing so they initiate neither force nor fraud. That's it. Nothing else applies. There are no anti-sodomy laws. There are no tax laws. There are no laws other than "don't initiate force or fraud."

Do you understand now?

As I said, if the government bans guns and sends out jackboots to collect them then it's the government initiating force which gives permission to individuals to defend against that initiation of force. If the government bans guns and appeals to the public to turn them in voluntarily but takes no other direct action to enforce that ban, such as sending out the jackboots with machine guns, then government is not initiating force, and no retaliatory force is authorized by Libertarian philosophy.

This is what you clearly aren't understanding.

I understand perfectly. If only you could grok this. It's obvious that in the case of standard weapons that there is no grey area about what the constitution says, so there's virtually no subjectivity required. But the case gets different when you start talking about taxes and Obamacare and the like.

No it's not. That's what you do not understand. In a Libertarian society there are no taxes or Obamacare. Such concepts don't even exist in Libertarian philosophy because in order to allow the government to perform these tasks the government must forcibly compel people to obey the "law." But by doing so the government is initiating force (or fraud) and it is simply not allowed to do that, and when it does, every citizen is empowered not to just ignore the government but to actively use force in retaliation and self defense against any attempt by the government to force them to do something.

We've been here and done this a thousand times before, Seth. Pity you didn't actually listen the last 50 times we've had this debate. I've specifically asked you if the 2nd amendment (or any other amendment that is close to your heart) was changed constitutionally whether you'd abide by it. You've said that you and heaps of other people wouldn't, as you essentially see the founding fathers as infallible gods. Not that this is necessary for this debate to show that you, like I, think it can be moral and right to disobey certain laws of the land. You've clearly agreed with me on this point repeatedly in this thread. I'm really not sure what the fuck you are arguing about. As I said, if you are in an contrarian mood and are just looking for a pointless argument, hit Coito up for one. He loves that shit.

You are mistakenly conflating generalized discussions about Constitutional law with a discussion of Libertarian philosophy. That's a grave mistake. I may apply Libertarian principles to my thoughts and arguments about existing Constitutional law and how society operates today, but right now we are discussing pure Libertarian philosophy and social construction.

You are making the assumption that "the law" justifies any initiation of force that the government deems necessary to FORCE compliance.

Read the fucking thread. I've specifically argued the opposite.

Wrong. You implicitly support the status quo of the initiation of force by government, or indeed nutjob militias and loons, in support of "subjective" interpretations of the Constitution. In a Libertarian society the Constitution does not exist because there is no need to prohibit powers to the Congress since the Congress has NO POWER to compel anyone to do anything absent their prior initiation of force or fraud against another. Congress cannot say "pay this tax" and back it up with a prison sentence or a fine, which is ultimately backed up by jackbooted thugs with machine guns who will enforce the penalty. That's not allowed. Congress can say "Here's why we would like you to pay this tax regularly..." and then explain and persuade people to voluntarily send in their money, but it can't do anything to anyone who declines to participate.

No INITIATION of force or fraud. By anyone, including the government. Ever. For any reason.

Just because Congress passes a law making it unlawful for anyone to own a firearm does NOT give government agents license to go out and initiate force on the citizenry to enforce that law. That is Libertarian philosophy, not what you're trying to claim, which is that "nutjob militias and loons to decide by their own reckoning when the constitution has been violated." That's simply not the case and you still struggle after all these years to understand this basic principle of Libertarian philosophy.

You wouldn't have a clue what I've argued, as you clearly can't read. Man, sort your shit out.

Why bother, you appear to be incapable of comprehending the simple facts of Libertarian philosophy.

The same philosophy applies to the gun rights argument. Congress can pass a law saying "it's the law that no private person can possess a firearm" but no one is obliged to pay any attention to Congress, and if Congress attempts to use force to enforce that law, rather than, for example, a public relations campaign to persuade and convince people to voluntarily turn in their arms, then Congress has initiated force and any person or persons against whom that force has been initiated has the absolute right, at their discretion, to use whatever force is necessary to repel or thwart that attempted or actual initiation of force against them.

God. What's wrong at your end of the internet? This is exactly what I am saying (but not in the context of guns in the US; I'm speaking more generally). Learn to fucking read.

No, it's not what you are saying. You are saying that you can resist Congress because it's "immoral" for them to make such a law and you have a right to disobey immoral laws. What I'm saying is that Congress has no authority to make ANY laws at all, a law being defined as a compulsory dictate of Congress which carries a penalty for disobedience that is ultimately enforced by the use of physical force by agents of the government.

There are but two laws in Libertarianism: Do not initiate force. Do not initiate fraud.

Everything else, and I mean EVERYTHING else government initiates or instigates by way of governing is nothing more than a suggestion to members of the community that the government tries to persuade everyone is the right thing to do for everyone's benefit and rational self-interest.

The sole exception is when government uses RETALIATORY force against someone who has first initiated force against protected individuals or the government itself.

If some disgruntled person plants a bomb in Congress because he's pissed about something, that is an initiation of force and government, just like the individual, can use any force whatsoever that is required to prevent any harm caused by that initiation of force. But Congress cannot go around planting bombs on citizen's property merely because Congress says that it's okay to do so by passing a "law." The word "law" becomes essentially meaningless because it necessarily implies the authority to use force to compel obedience. In Libertarianism no one, including the government, has that authority to initiate force.

This is why your entire argument is based in gross ignorance of Libertarian philosophy. Someday perhaps you'll learn, but I'm not hopeful because I've explained this to you many, many times in many different ways and it doesn't penetrate.

Indeed.

[pErvinalia]

Man. You are agreeing with everything I have said. I don't know what the malfunction is at your end of the internet, but you need to get it seen to.

And you called my belief that I have the moral right to disobey some laws as sociopathy. Read the fucking thread.

No, I'm not. I'm explaining to you why your statement " We've had this debate before and you've defended the right of nutjob militias and loons to decide by their own reckoning when the constitution has been violated" is factually incorrect.

You seem unable to distinguish between "decid(ing) by their own reckoning when the constitution had been violated" and "reacting in self-defense to government initiation of force or fraud." Government has no more authority to initiate force or fraud than anyone else, ever. Only if the individual himself FIRST initiates force or fraud on someone else, or the government, is "retaliatory" force authorized for anyone, government agent or otherwise.

It's back to the future. I've already addressed this, and you couldn't work out what I was talking about, despite it being exceedingly simple. The assessment of whether the government is "initiating force or fraud" is subjective, outside of a ruling from the Supreme Court.

No, it isn't, not in a Libertarian society.

What the fuck are you talking about? We aren't living in a libertarian society. This thread isn't about a libertarian society.

And even if it wasn't, it still doesn't change the fact that you, like I, espouse the case where sometimes it is necessary to resist the current laws of the lands - if they are immoral.

The point is, and I hope you can get it this time, that there is no "law of the land" wherein government has the power or authority to compel someone to do something against their will as a matter of public policy. The ONLY time government can use force is if someone has FIRST improperly initiated force against another, or the government itself. Any form of coercion that is ultimately backed by force, ie: the application of physical force against the person or property of another, that is not triggered by the subject upon whom the force is used by that person's own initiation of force, is illegitimate and may be resisted.

That's a subjective interpretation. Our tangent in this thread is about what you just quoted me saying - that is, are there moral justifications for not following the law as it is enacted. It says nothing about whether the government has a legitimate or otherwise mandate to impose that law. All it says, all this thread is about, is whether an individual is tempted to break the law or not (and what factors might sway them in that).

Thus, if a law is enacted that you feel is immoral, if, and only if the government attempts to force you to comply with that law either through actual physical force against you or your property or through coercive threats of the ultimate use of force, which includes the courts because the ultimate power of the courts is to physically force an individual into confinement or other punishment, are you justified in retaliating with force, and if that is justified, then ANY degree of force you must use to defend against the INITIATION of force by anyone is justified.

Why are you talking about an idealised libertarian society? This thread is about reality, not a fantasy.

In a Libertarian society you are under no form of compulsion to abide by a law that you feel is immoral. Of course if your doing so initiates force against another somehow, that individual has the right to resist and retaliate in self defense.

Yawn.

Somehow you've had a brain snap and think that I think the State is always right and should be obeyed, DESPITE clearly stating the exact opposite. You've clearly got something very wrong going on at your end of the internet. Get if sorted.

You get it sorted. You seem to be having difficulty in understanding that in a Libertarian society there are only TWO "LAWS": Thou shalt not initiate force; and Thou shalt not initiate fraud.

This thread isn't about a fucking libertarian society. Sort your problem out. For fucks sake.

That's it. Quite literally everything else done by government is merely a suggestion or advice from the government that it has no power to enforce or compel you to follow. Therefore there is no "obeying" or "not obeying" a "law" of the state because in a Libertarian society ALL THINGS ARE LEGAL AND ACCEPTABLE for the individual to do provided ONLY that in doing so they initiate neither force nor fraud. That's it. Nothing else applies. There are no anti-sodomy laws. There are no tax laws. There are no laws other than "don't initiate force or fraud."

Do you understand now?

I understand (as I have for a couple of pages now) that you have absolutely no clue what this thread is about or what I am saying. As I've explained above, this thread isn't about a fantasy libertarian society. It's about the real society we live in now and what factors can play into people deciding to break a law or not. Do you understand now?

As I said, if the government bans guns and sends out jackboots to collect them then it's the government initiating force which gives permission to individuals to defend against that initiation of force. If the government bans guns and appeals to the public to turn them in voluntarily but takes no other direct action to enforce that ban, such as sending out the jackboots with machine guns, then government is not initiating force, and no retaliatory force is authorized by Libertarian philosophy.

This is what you clearly aren't understanding.

I understand perfectly. If only you could grok this. It's obvious that in the case of standard weapons that there is no grey area about what the constitution says, so there's virtually no subjectivity required. But the case gets different when you start talking about taxes and Obamacare and the like.

No it's not. That's what you do not understand. In a Libertarian society...

Yawn. It's a shame you couldn't have understood what this thread is about before going off on one of your hobby horse rants.

We've been here and done this a thousand times before, Seth. Pity you didn't actually listen the last 50 times we've had this debate. I've specifically asked you if the 2nd amendment (or any other amendment that is close to your heart) was changed constitutionally whether you'd abide by it. You've said that you and heaps of other people wouldn't, as you essentially see the founding fathers as infallible gods. Not that this is necessary for this debate to show that you, like I, think it can be moral and right to disobey certain laws of the land. You've clearly agreed with me on this point repeatedly in this thread. I'm really not sure what the fuck you are arguing about. As I said, if you are in an contrarian mood and are just looking for a pointless argument, hit Coito up for one. He loves that shit.

You are mistakenly conflating generalized discussions about Constitutional law with a discussion of Libertarian philosophy. That's a grave mistake. I may apply Libertarian principles to my thoughts and arguments about existing Constitutional law and how society operates today, but right now we are discussing pure Libertarian philosophy and social construction.

Wrong. You are discussing some off topic shit, while everyone else understands what this thread is actually about.

You are making the assumption that "the law" justifies any initiation of force that the government deems necessary to FORCE compliance.

Read the fucking thread. I've specifically argued the opposite.

Wrong. You implicitly support the status quo of the initiation of force by government, or indeed nutjob militias and loons, in support of "subjective" interpretations of the Constitution.

How the fuck did you pass basic high school English? Read the fucking thread, FFS.

Just because Congress passes a law making it unlawful for anyone to own a firearm does NOT give government agents license to go out and initiate force on the citizenry to enforce that law. That is Libertarian philosophy, not what you're trying to claim, which is that "nutjob militias and loons to decide by their own reckoning when the constitution has been violated." That's simply not the case and you still struggle after all these years to understand this basic principle of Libertarian philosophy.

You wouldn't have a clue what I've argued, as you clearly can't read. Man, sort your shit out.

Why bother, you appear to be incapable of comprehending the simple facts of Libertarian philosophy.

I don't give a fuck about "Libertarian philosophy" past the most general point that libertarians resist the overreach of the state. Hence why I can't understand why you would think it strange, or even sociopathy, for me to state that the "law" is not the arbiter for me of what is right and wrong. It often (mostly?) coincides with my personal morals and philosophy (which is more or less social democratic, pragmatically; or anarchist with a bit of socialism thrown in, as an ideal) but it doesn't always.

The same philosophy applies to the gun rights argument. Congress can pass a law saying "it's the law that no private person can possess a firearm" but no one is obliged to pay any attention to Congress, and if Congress attempts to use force to enforce that law, rather than, for example, a public relations campaign to persuade and convince people to voluntarily turn in their arms, then Congress has initiated force and any person or persons against whom that force has been initiated has the absolute right, at their discretion, to use whatever force is necessary to repel or thwart that attempted or actual initiation of force against them.

God. What's wrong at your end of the internet? This is exactly what I am saying (but not in the context of guns in the US; I'm speaking more generally). Learn to fucking read.

No, it's not what you are saying. You are saying that you can resist Congress because it's "immoral" for them to make such a law and you have a right to disobey immoral laws. What I'm saying is that Congress has no authority to make ANY laws at all, a law being defined as a compulsory dictate of Congress which carries a penalty for disobedience that is ultimately enforced by the use of physical force by agents of the government.

There are but two laws in Libertarianism: Do not initiate force. Do not initiate fraud.

Yes, in libboland, but no one but you is talking about a fantasy world here. The thread is about the world that exists at this moment.

[Seth]

What the fuck are you talking about? We aren't living in a libertarian society. This thread isn't about a libertarian society.

This thread isn't about a fucking libertarian society. Sort your problem out. For fucks sake.

I understand (as I have for a couple of pages now) that you have absolutely no clue what this thread is about or what I am saying. As I've explained above, this thread isn't about a fantasy libertarian society. It's about the real society we live in now and what factors can play into people deciding to break a law or not. Do you understand now?

Yawn. It's a shame you couldn't have understood what this thread is about before going off on one of your hobby horse rants.

Wrong. You are discussing some off topic shit, while everyone else understands what this thread is actually about.

I don't give a fuck about "Libertarian philosophy" past the most general point that libertarians resist the overreach of the state.

Yes, in libboland, but no one but you is talking about a fantasy world here. The thread is about the world that exists at this moment.

This portion of the thread is precisely and exactly about Libertarianism, and that is a direct result of the following statement by YOU:

I'm only being personal in the sense that I am pointing out how you as a libertarian understands the need to disobey the state from time to time. I can't believe you are seriously going to try and deny that. That's the very definition of being a libertarian.

You made two false statements: First, it is false that as a Libertarian I "understands the need to disobey the state from time to time." Second, it is a false statement to say that disobeying the state is "...the very definition of being a libertarian."

That's when our side discussion turned to Libertarianism, because YOU presumed to try to tell me what I think and what Libertarianism is. I am simply refuting those false claims you made. What you tried, unsuccessfully, to do was take a swipe at Libertarians while hoping I wouldn't notice. You screwed that up royally.

When you, of all people, presume to try to tell me what Libertarianism is about, you can bet your life that I'm going to turn to defending Libertarianism because I know what your tactics are and how you will, in the future, misquote and quote mine inappropriately and out of context to try to once again malign Libertarianism, which you not only do not understand, but also which you do not show any evidence of wanting to understand.

Get it now?

[pErvinalia]

You are talking about "libertarian society". I said nothing about libertarian society and I said nothing about libertarian philosophy other than the most broad tenet that is libertarians oppose overreach by the state. Everything else further than that has been concocted in your one-track mind. As I've tried to inform you repeatedly, this thread is (was; before it was split) about whether people feel it is necessary to always follow the law, and in what circumstances that might change. You're a boring one-track record, and this is why no one bothers to engage you any more.

[Seth]

You are talking about "libertarian society". I said nothing about libertarian society and I said nothing about libertarian philosophy other than the most broad tenet that is libertarians oppose overreach by the state. Everything else further than that has been concocted in your one-track mind. As I've tried to inform you repeatedly, this thread is (was; before it was split) about whether people feel it is necessary to always follow the law, and in what circumstances that might change. You're a boring one-track record, and this is why no one bothers to engage you any more.

You made false statements, I corrected them. You evidently cannot understand Libertarianism, and have never been able to, or if you do you refuse to actually address it honestly.

You're just evading again, as usual.