Foucault and self-policing Derail

[Seth]

Yeah, well there's no "natural" laws as you want them to be, despite your years of trying to convince people.

Only Socialist fuckwits think that way.

Speaking personally, my morals don't align very well with our current society. There's things I would consider doing if I wouldn't go to jail for it.

That's generally referred to as "sociopathy."

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, well there's no "natural" laws as you want them to be, despite your years of trying to convince people.

Only Socialist fuckwits think that way.

Well I and a vast number of other rationalist thinkers think that way, and we aren't socialists or fuckwits.

Speaking personally, my morals don't align very well with our current society. There's things I would consider doing if I wouldn't go to jail for it.

That's generally referred to as "sociopathy."

Which is a relative concept. It's no way to defeat an argument about the arbitrariness of social laws and mores by pointing to a relative social concept. That's patently silly. And stop pretending like you are a paragon of good citizenship. You aren't a libertarian worth his salt if you don't think that at times one needs to disobey the state. And of course, we know you think this anyway, as your writings over the years have shown.

[Seth]

Yeah, well there's no "natural" laws as you want them to be, despite your years of trying to convince people.

Only Socialist fuckwits think that way.

Well I and a vast number of other rationalist thinkers think that way, and we aren't socialists or fuckwits.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Speaking personally, my morals don't align very well with our current society. There's things I would consider doing if I wouldn't go to jail for it.

That's generally referred to as "sociopathy."

Which is a relative concept.

To a point.

It's no way to defeat an argument about the arbitrariness of social laws and mores by pointing to a relative social concept. That's patently silly. And stop pretending like you are a paragon of good citizenship. You aren't a libertarian worth his salt if you don't think that at times one needs to disobey the state. And of course, we know you think this anyway, as your writings over the years have shown.

Tsk, tsk...there you go again getting all personal and junk...

[pErvinalia]

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.

[Seth]

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.

Problem is you're completely wrong.

Libertarianism is about the state not needing to be disobeyed because it's not big enough or intrusive enough to require disobedience from the people, who are supposed to be in charge and are supposed to be left alone by the state unless they initiate force or fraud on another.

But then you know this but choose to mendaciously ignore it with a high degree of consistency, which makes all your Libertarian-related strawman slurs in response to me exactly the thing that you are bitching and whining about me doing.

Hypocrite.

[Svartalf]

Yeah, well there's no "natural" laws as you want them to be, despite your years of trying to convince people.

Speaking personally, my morals don't align very well with our current society. There's things I would consider doing if I wouldn't go to jail for it.

What are the laws of gravity, movement and thermodynamics if not natural laws?

[pErvinalia]

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.

Problem is you're completely wrong.

Libertarianism is about the state not needing to be disobeyed because it's not big enough or intrusive enough to require disobedience from the people, who are supposed to be in charge and are supposed to be left alone by the state unless they initiate force or fraud on another.

And what does a libertarian do when the state gets too big like it is now?

I can't believe you are seriously trying to debate this point. I'm not trying to score some point against you by making you seem like a criminal. I'm showing solidarity between the bits of libertarian philosophy we share. You've regularly talked about the moral justification of allowing for the overthrow of a government based on a subjective interpretation of the constitution. And by "subjective" I don't mean the authority to overthrow the government, I mean the interpretation of when the point is reached that the government should be overthrown.

Libertarianism is about stopping the overreach of the state. If the state overreaches, then are you going to try and maintain that you will do nothing outside the present laws to fight that overreach? I don't know about you, but I'm surrounded by people who will do just that. Perhaps I'm the real libertarian here, and you are just a pretender.

Hypocrite.

Didn't you just say in the other thread that you don't personally attack people?

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, well there's no "natural" laws as you want them to be, despite your years of trying to convince people.

Speaking personally, my morals don't align very well with our current society. There's things I would consider doing if I wouldn't go to jail for it.

What are the laws of gravity, movement and thermodynamics if not natural laws?

"as you [Seth] want them to be" I'm not going to regurgitate his whole philosophy. Ask him if you are interested.

[Svartalf]

Sortry if my joke was in bad taste

[Seth]

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.

Problem is you're completely wrong.

Libertarianism is about the state not needing to be disobeyed because it's not big enough or intrusive enough to require disobedience from the people, who are supposed to be in charge and are supposed to be left alone by the state unless they initiate force or fraud on another.

And what does a libertarian do when the state gets too big like it is now?

Works to change it...without initiating force or fraud.

I can't believe you are seriously trying to debate this point.

Quite serious.

I'm not trying to score some point against you by making you seem like a criminal. I'm showing solidarity between the bits of libertarian philosophy we share.

Great. Now learn the rest and get back to me.

You've regularly talked about the moral justification of allowing for the overthrow of a government based on a subjective interpretation of the constitution. And by "subjective" I don't mean the authority to overthrow the government, I mean the interpretation of when the point is reached that the government should be overthrown.

Such an event would be triggered by the initiation of force and/or fraud by those in government and therefore would not be in opposition to Libertarian principles, which allow for the use of force in self-defense and defense of others.

Libertarianism is about stopping the overreach of the state. If the state overreaches, then are you going to try and maintain that you will do nothing outside the present laws to fight that overreach? I don't know about you, but I'm surrounded by people who will do just that. Perhaps I'm the real libertarian here, and you are just a pretender.

Depends on the situation. Just because the state may overreach does not necessarily mean it has initiated force or fraud, so force in self-defense would be inappropriate so long as no force or fraud has been initiated.

Hypocrite.

Didn't you just say in the other thread that you don't personally attack people?

Hm. I thought about that after I wrote it and wondered about it. I decided that the rules here don't prohibit calling someone a hypocrite, but I'll be glad to be corrected on that by a mod. Perhaps I'll use the word "hypocrisy" instead next time, just to keep you from bitching like a little baby. Note that I'm not saying you ARE a little baby, just that your bitching is reminiscent of what a little baby would do, which is an analysis of your argument.

[pErvinalia]

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.

Problem is you're completely wrong.

Libertarianism is about the state not needing to be disobeyed because it's not big enough or intrusive enough to require disobedience from the people, who are supposed to be in charge and are supposed to be left alone by the state unless they initiate force or fraud on another.

And what does a libertarian do when the state gets too big like it is now?

Works to change it...without initiating force or fraud.

I can't believe you are seriously trying to debate this point.

Quite serious.

I'm not trying to score some point against you by making you seem like a criminal. I'm showing solidarity between the bits of libertarian philosophy we share.

Great. Now learn the rest and get back to me.

You've regularly talked about the moral justification of allowing for the overthrow of a government based on a subjective interpretation of the constitution. And by "subjective" I don't mean the authority to overthrow the government, I mean the interpretation of when the point is reached that the government should be overthrown.

Such an event would be triggered by the initiation of force and/or fraud by those in government and therefore would not be in opposition to Libertarian principles, which allow for the use of force in self-defense and defense of others.

Libertarianism is about stopping the overreach of the state. If the state overreaches, then are you going to try and maintain that you will do nothing outside the present laws to fight that overreach? I don't know about you, but I'm surrounded by people who will do just that. Perhaps I'm the real libertarian here, and you are just a pretender.

Depends on the situation. Just because the state may overreach does not necessarily mean it has initiated force or fraud, so force in self-defense would be inappropriate so long as no force or fraud has been initiated.

All of that is subjective. That's the point of this whole line of discussion. The difference between society's laws and personal morals. The determination of when "force" or "fraud" has been initiated is subjective.

And besides, you've said that force is used all the time, in your constant rants about taxation and other government services like Obamacare etc. So the point still stands. There can come a point where you will break the laws of the day to defend your libertarian principles. Once again, I'm not sure why you are bothering to even argue this.

Hypocrite.

Didn't you just say in the other thread that you don't personally attack people?

Hm. I thought about that after I wrote it and wondered about it. I decided that the rules here don't prohibit calling someone a hypocrite, but I'll be glad to be corrected on that by a mod. Perhaps I'll use the word "hypocrisy" instead next time, just to keep you from bitching like a little baby. Note that I'm not saying you ARE a little baby, just that your bitching is reminiscent of what a little baby would do, which is an analysis of your argument.

[/quote]

You really need to consult a dictionary. Me pointing out your hypocrisy isn't "bitching" or "butthurt". You're over-compensating for your own obvious emotion in a couple of our recent interactions. Maybe you should step away from the computer and take a break till you can regain your composure?

[Seth]

All of that is subjective.

Everything except physics is subjective. So what?

That's the point of this whole line of discussion. The difference between society's laws and personal morals.

What's the point you're trying to make? It's unclear to me.

The determination of when "force" or "fraud" has been initiated is subjective.

The determination of the justice of mob decision making is subjective. So what?

And besides, you've said that force is used all the time, in your constant rants about taxation and other government services like Obamacare etc.

It is. Government is by definition an exercise of force. Whether that force is initiated or responsive is the real question.

So the point still stands.

No, not really, it's your willful and deliberate misapprehension of Libertarianism that stands.

There can come a point where you will break the laws of the day to defend your libertarian principles.

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Once again, I'm not sure why you are bothering to even argue this.

Because I know whereof I speak and you don't.

[pErvinalia]

I can't believe you actually don't get the point. I suspect you are just arguing to be a pain in the arse. The point is clear, you even posted a quote regarding libertarianism that states it explicitly. Libertarianism justifies the breaking of the laws of the land as it is enacted if it is necessary to uphold a personal view of what the constitution states. Since you agree with this, I'm not sure why you are debating what I said (other than to be a pain in the arse).

[Seth]

I can't believe you actually don't get the point. I suspect you are just arguing to be a pain in the arse. The point is clear, you even posted a quote regarding libertarianism that states it explicitly. Libertarianism justifies the breaking of the laws of the land as it is enacted if it is necessary to uphold a personal view of what the constitution states. Since you agree with this, I'm not sure why you are debating what I said (other than to be a pain in the arse).

No, it doesn't. I said nothing about "personal view of what the constitution states." I said that if the "laws of the land" violate the Constitution, they are not laws at all and enforcing or imposing them is an unlawful initiation of force and/or fraud which authorizes the use of defensive force against those who are acting unlawfully.

Just because the government says something is a "law" doesn't mean it is. That happens all the time when the Supreme Court overturns an unconstitutional statute.

So lets suppose that Congress passes a law banning the possession of firearms by private individuals. There would be an immediate outcry but there would also be an immediate challenge of the law in court. Passing the law triggers the court battle. Trying to enforce an unconstitutional on the other hand is an act of despotism. In some cases, like the one given, there is clearly no authority on the part of the Congress to entirely ban firearms. Congress is explicitly DENIED that power by the plain language of the Constitution itself, so any attempt to do so would be an obvious usurpation of power and an unlawful and despotic act that contravenes the fundamental principles of our nation. But so long as nobody tries to enforce that law, it's just words on paper...words by which those who voted for it must, in short order, end up at the end of ropes hanging from the light poles along Constitution Avenue, but words all the same.

But should the Congress send out the jackbooted thugs to gather up weapons from the citizenry, why their right to resist such tyranny would be exactly the same as that of the Militia at Lexington and Concord because that would be an unlawful and despotic initiation of force by the government.

And THAT'S when the arms come out in earnest, just as they did at Lexington and Concord.

And justifiably so.

[pErvinalia]

I don't know why I even bother with you. I've address every one of these points (if not all here, I've addressed them ad naseum with you in the past). You aren't listening. Quelle surprise. You are agreeing with everything I've said. The only point of contention is the subjectivity of when a law is unconstitutional. And don't bleat on about the supreme court. 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.