slug.com slug.com

10 11

Statism is the most widely practiced and accepted Religion on the planet. So I find it strikingly odd when those who do not believe in a Creator act as though they are somehow more objective or critical in their thinking skills.

In reference to the arguments, debates, and the countless conversations taking place all across Canada, the US, and the rest of the modern developed world these days....

There is nothing more disturbing and profound as seeing or hearing full grown adults debate or discuss which political Deity or group of "Ministers" they should pick. Even more disturbing is the fact that people who have actually reached full maturity still believe in wholly mystical concepts like having legitimate rulers at all. Anyone who takes even the shortest amount of time to think critically as to what "government" truly represents will eventually come to the same logical, unquestionable truth. That there is no such thing as a "legitimate government".

No human being has any legitimate right or authority to plunder (tax), manipulate, counterfeit, or devalue the labor or worth of Millions of people, or force their edicts or preferences (legislate) onto other human beings. Nor does any human being have the right or authority to ask a group or gang (political party) to plunder (tax) manipulate, counterfeit, or devalue the labor or worth of Millions of people, or force their edicts or preferences (legislate) onto other human beings on their behalf. Whether by verbal, written speech or by checking a box on a ballot, there is no possible way for one human being to grant a right or authority they do not personally possess onto others just because you call those actors "government".

In this age of information; what I refer to as the the Era of Enlightenment 2.0, I expect these truths and revelations will come to be known and embraced by larger and larger segments of the population. And within a generation or two these very antiquated concepts of having an all powerful central planning authority will be tossed into the dustbins of history. Libertarians and those who understand the true philosophy and principles of liberty are the modern day abolitionists. They are pointing out that the modern form of slavery and forced subjugation is not only immoral and unjust, but a great weight holding us back from the next phase of human evolution in regards to how we live and cooperate. Sure, there will be many people echoing the failed pleas of yesteryear by saying things like "who will build the roads" or "how will we defend our borders". But they will sound the same as those who said "who will pick the cotton" in past eras of enslavement.

Morality, principles, courage, conviction, innovation, and standing for individual liberty must override fear of the unknown if we are ever going to make that next step.
CL

cdnlibertarian 5 Apr 17
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

10 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Libertarianism is a nice pleasant sounding theory or philosophy, and unlike socialism and communism that has consistently failed in every instance where it has been implemented, libertarianism has never actually been implemented anywhere as a legitimate system of governance. Why do you suspect that is? Me personally, while it does have its appeal in some ways, it is hopelessly myopic and naive. I think most of its most ardent adherents are really just closet anarchists.

0

There is no such thing as legitimate government. That can be proven to be objectively true, yet you won't hear that from anyone who benefits as a result in that mystical entity.

You may have an opinion that I am wrong in my assertion, but universally consistent, non contradictory observations prove the validity of that claim.

Anyone who wants to test the validity of this claim need only ask themselves or anyone else a few very basic questions that lead to one logical conclusion.

  1. Do I have the legitimate authority to take any portion of your income without your express permission? (Or do I have the authority to arbitrarily dictate how you live?)

  2. Do I have the legitimate authority to delegate that task of taking a portion of your income without your express permission onto my neighbor on my behalf? (Or do I have the authority to delegate the task of controlling how you live onto my neighbor on my behalf?)

  3. Do I have the legitimate authority to delegate that task of taking a portion of your income without your express permission onto a group of people on my behalf? (Or do I have the authority to delegate the task of controlling how you live onto a group of people on my behalf?)

There is only 1 logically consistent answer to these questions. Which leads to the last question.

  1. How do politicians gain an authority from people who do not possess that authority?

Magic does not exist. It is an impossibility. Therefore, there is no such thing as legitimate government.

Any philosopher worth their salt knows this. But since most come from academia it is not in their interest to speak so openly and honestly about this truth that is kept hidden and locked away from the masses to maintain a certain power structure.

1

Wow this is so on point.

Thank you.

0

There will always be slaves until “the day of our Lord”

2

Globalization is nwo

1

Politics is the constant search for another human being to worship .

2

Libertarian nonsense again. Government arises whenever two strangers live close enough together to affect each other and have a disagreement. If the biggest person wins, then you have simple anarchy first, evolving to monarchy and autocracy, with the "King" being who has the most firepower. It's good to be the king, but not otherwise.

If two people make some kind of agreement rather than fight, you have democracy of a sort. A local home-owner's association.

The limitations of libertarianism start with the simple question of "How free am I to poop in the water supply?" That leads to "Whose river is it?" And who owns water-rights, bearing in mind that our word "rival" comes from people fighting about water rights on a river. So how to decide?

There is no way but force. Same with land. One cannot have an idea that the first person to step on land (or in a river) owns the "whole thing." For what distance? How to decide?

You can't solve boundary and ownership problems democratically, because you can't draw voting boundaries without solving the problem in the first place! So, back to force.

And that's how we've done it historically. Voting boundaries and national boundaries are settled by conflict, then (if lucky) internal problems democratically (perhaps with representatives). Nobody likes it, but nobody has had a better answer. It's the worst system, save for all the others.

Well said

Nicely said. And you just made the ground level case for the 2nd amendment.

There is no such thing as legitimate government. That can be proven to be objectively true, yet you won't hear that from anyone who benefits as a result in that mystical entity.

You may have an opinion that I am wrong in my assertion, but universally consistent, non contradictory observations prove the validity of that claim.

Anyone who wants to test the validity of this claim need only ask themselves or anyone else a few very basic questions that lead to one logical conclusion.

  1. Do I have the legitimate authority to take any portion of your income without your express permission? (Or do I have the authority to arbitrarily dictate how you live?)

  2. Do I have the legitimate authority to delegate that task of taking a portion of your income without your express permission onto my neighbor on my behalf? (Or do I have the authority to delegate the task of controlling how you live onto my neighbor on my behalf?)

  3. Do I have the legitimate authority to delegate that task of taking a portion of your income without your express permission onto a group of people on my behalf? (Or do I have the authority to delegate the task of controlling how you live onto a group of people on my behalf?)

There is only 1 logically consistent answer to these questions. Which leads to the last question.

  1. How do politicians gain an authority from people who do not possess that authority?

Magic does not exist. It is an impossibility. Therefore, there is no such thing as legitimate government.

Any philosopher worth their salt knows this. But since most come from academia it is not in their interest to speak so openly and honestly about this truth that is kept hidden and locked away from the masses to maintain a certain power structure.

@cdnlibertarian You didn't actually read my post, did you? Even libertarians believe in "My house, my rules." But they disagree on whose house it is.

You don't want to pay rent? Then get your boat, go to the shore, and shove off! Want to argue that this is your land, too? Fine. How much do you think is yours? Objectively. I want no magic answers. I want PROOF.

4

I agree with the sentiment, and much of what you said. However, I think saying there is no such thing as a legitimate government goes too far.

I think you're thinking much more deeply here about what government is really doing when they redistribute wealth or impose certain regulations than most do. I certainly don't believe these things are the proper role of government.

But let's dig down even a bit deeper. What is a government at it's most fundamental level? What distinguishes it from other entities? The answer is it is the one entity a society designates which may enforce rules through violence... it is the one entity which may lawfully use violence offensively, not just defensively.

The question is, what kinds of laws should a government be allowed to enforce through violence? The classical liberal response is government should be used only to protect individual rights- to enforce consent between parties and protect its citizens from violations of their freedoms.

So there's your definition of government that was used to found the US, and it's the one I believe in: The state is the entity which may use violent force to protect its citizens against violations of their natural rights.

Now, if we think about that definition as basically as possible, we can see that "the state" is not an artificial construct. It is actually a mere statement of fact. It is just as "natural" as the rights it protects.

And that is because, at a base level, "the state" is actually the individual. Individuals have the right to use violent means to defend themselves against the violation of their rights (not that that's always, or even often, the answer when your rights are violated, but it is a God-given right).

So the question then becomes, do we extend the definition of "the state" out beyond the individual, and just how far do we extend it? Anarcho-capitalists would say the state should only be defined at the individual level. American conservatives argue state power should be strongest with the individual, then extend outward toward family, local and state government, and finally a Federal level. Extreme leftists (who actually know what they believe) argue it should be defined at the global level, and leftist polices tend to push the state in that direction, even if most of the left isn't comfortable calling for the abolition of nation states and for the formation of a new world order.

Obviously, I don't agree with the globalists. But I also don't agree with the other extreme. I don't agree because in a society of exclusively individual sovereignty, the only enforcer is also the individual. This will ultimately lead to tyranny, because a) it makes the rules arbitrary and based upon each individual's twisted ideas of right and wrong, and b) in the absence of an official government, individuals will inevitably form coalitions and use their collective force to gain advantage over other individuals, and use violence to violate their rights. In essence, they'd inevitably form a government... just an undemocratic and tyrannical one.

Though I'm very libertarian in my beliefs about government, I am not an anarchist. I actually believe a state at the individual level is natural, and it will inevitably extend beyond the individual.

The idea of the modern government entity, even when they do things I disagree with, is actually far better than how life used to be ancientally (and anytime when there isn't an official government, like the Wild West) when strong men gathered followers to go rape, pillage, and plunder small communities.

States will always exist. We ought to proactively decide what kind of state we want to govern our society if we want to ensure the protection of individual rights.

In my view, the US's founding was the best we've ever done at formulating that kind of state.... now if we could only live up to that founding.

3

Sure there are legitimate governments. Their legitimacy is based on force. Always has been. Untrammeled freedom isn't desirable in any group. No government = chaos. No thanks. Force may not be an ideal solution but no other mechanism has been effective in enabeling most of the people in a society to live together in a productive manner. A balance that always needs adjusting (conformity by force vs freedom). Sudden radical changes in operative governments usually leads to (or is preceeded by) massive disruption and suffering.

0

The next step will be off a cliff, I'm afraid. We're not going to give up on the idea that one day it might be we who rule.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:31454
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.