[Drlee]

Is this because you are a Libertarian, or is there some actual substantial basis for it?

I have never met a libertarian "of substance".

Our friend Red is in way over his head. His dogged refusal to consider any government legitimate is frankly a bit childish.

[RedPillAger]

I like how Red just keeps on going with the whole "nope, you're wrong because you're wrong" or "nope, your argument is wrong because it's wrong" routine. Instead of critical, abstract thinking, everyone's just wrong while Red is 100% right because he's right. No matter what kind of argument is presented, no matter what kind of ideas and concepts are used, he's right because he's right.

i wish it were a matter of answers being right or wrong. no one has even answered the question, at all. again, where does any one of you get the authority to tell another man he cannot be armed?

where do you get such authority bulaba?

I have never met a libertarian "of substance".

Our friend Red is in way over his head. His dogged refusal to consider any government legitimate is frankly a bit childish.

again, avoiding the question and resorting to ad hom. and for the record, i'm not a libertarian, nor a constitutionalist. and, my avatar is not relevant here. i think if you could stick to the subject and answer a simple question, you would. review what you've done instead.

[Drlee]

I answered your question comprehensively. That you are not able to understand the answer is not my problem.

[Rich]

i wish it were a matter of answers being right or wrong. no one has even answered the question, at all. again, where does any one of you get the authority to tell another man he cannot be armed?

where do you get such authority bulaba?

Well ultimately that authority comes from the barrel of a gun. But you see exactly the same question can be asked about private property. Who gave you the authority to monopolise land and other scarce natural resources, who gave you the right to consume scarce natural resources? Who gave you the right to pollute? Who gave you the right to alter the environment? All this property is illegitimate and because it is illegitimate any other property acquired through the use of illegitimate property is also illegitimate. But our possessions are not just physical. A Middle class or upper class (or even working class) Brit or American who leaves school at 18 that is healthy and has good qualifications has huge personal capital even if his parents never give him another penny. That person's self their healthy body and brain have themselves been acquired illegitimately though illegitimate property. They there for have no right to monopolise the fruits of their self.

We must reject the absurd Libertarian notion of self ownership. One only has to look a the great Libertarian heroes, from the Spartans though Cato, Locke Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, they were all slavers, slave investors, defenders of slavery and then Libertarians have the fucking audacity to tell us that no Libertarian could support slavery. Libertarians have this habit of making these great discoveries. like when Misses and Hayek suddenly discovered they were against fascism. One of the latest wheezes is that Libertarians have now discovered self ownership which means that they oppose conscription on principle. Funny how most Libertarians never discovered this during the Cold War when they wanted mass conscription to defended their property from international Communism.

[beacon]

Honestly, you are being deliberately obtuse. Godstud already answered your question that the authority derives from rules of society, but I will expound.

Owning a gun requires a permit. Just like driving a car. Once you get a license to drive a car you agree to obey certain rules. You can't drive at 100 mph, just because. You can't drive drunk, just because. If you were denied the permit because you are too young, too blind, too many DUIs, then you can't drive a car.

Why should owning a fire arm be treated any differently? You agree to keep the gun safely stored when not in use, you agree to not modify the gun into an automatic. And you can be denied a permit if you are a convicted felon. Personally, I would extend it to no guns for people with mental disorders and low IQs.

[One Degree]

Owning a gun requires a permit.

This is not true in many states.

[RedPillAger]

I answered your question comprehensively. That you are not able to understand the answer is not my problem.

saying that you answered the question does not answer the question. some of you have attempted to explain fallaciously that collectives have authority one way or another. none of you have answered where you, as an individual, get the authority...and that was my initial question.

the answer is, that neither you, dr. lee, nor any of the other individuals here or anywhere else have any authority to tell a man he cannot be armed. truth be told, unless another man initiates force against you, you have no legitimate right or authority to control another in any way.

a man being armed does not necessarily initiate force against any other individual. you ensuring that a man cannot be armed necessarily requires that you initiate force against him. you would be in the wrong to do so, and the armed man would even be justified in defending himself from you.

saying that society somehow magically has this authority is not coherent. society is just a collective of individuals. where did this collective get an authority no individual has? the same can be asked of any government.

[Rancid]

Why does "authority" need to be an absolute thing that is granted? Why can't it be an organic collective societal agreement?

[RedPillAger]

Why does "authority" need to be an absolute thing that is granted? Why can't it be an organic collective societal agreement?

with your philosophy, without the explicit requirement of consent, you would claim legitimacy in your authority to control me. i could claim the same over you. who would be right?

the importance of consent frees you from this paradox. it is the only system that is logically and morally coherent. anything else is necessarily hypocritical.

further, at the collective level, you will not likely have universal consent, especially for mala prohibita. this still means an individual will be initiating force against another individual against his will, and will still not be legitimate. if you do have universal consent about a wrong, it will be considered malum in se. then you would need to ask what use is a law if everyone agrees to it. the answer is none.

[Rancid]

with your philosophy, without the explicit requirement of consent, you would claim legitimacy in your authority to control me. i could claim the same over you. who would right?

the importance of consent frees you from this paradox. it is the only system that is logically and morally coherent. anything else is necessarily hypocritical.

There's no paradox. The system we have today exists.

It's not about me personally controlling you or you personally controller me. It's about society controlling you, and society controller me. In a case where I'm trying to control you personally, say for example, I don't want you to build a pool on your property. Society (via local laws and courts) would be the arbiter for us. Even in this case, I'm not controlling you directly anyway.

[RedPillAger]

There's no paradox. The system we have today exists.

It's not about me personally controlling you or you personally controller me. It's about society controlling you, and society controller me. In a case where I'm trying to control you personally, say for example, I don't want you to build a pool on your property. Society (via local laws and courts) would be the arbiter for us. Even in this case, I'm not controlling you directly anyway.

the system exists. its legitimacy does not. i added why above.

[velvet]

where did this collective get an authority no individual has?

The problem is, your individual is just as constructed as your society is.

She's just a product of her genetics and material conditions (both outside her control), her actions are just reactions to external stimuli as determined by these things.

Considering this, designating authority to her seems about as arbitrary as designating authority to the collective.

who would right?

Historically, the figure with the bigger stick.

We created the state to escape this Hobbesian paradigm, though.

[Rancid]

its legitimacy does not

It's legitimacy exist because most people accept it. It happened organically.

[RedPillAger]

Historically, the figure with the bigger stick.

We created the state to escape this Hobbesian paradigm, though.

you've escaped nothing with the creation of the state. they are the bigger stick. it's still a "might makes right" solution with no more legitimacy than the fallacy of argumentum ad populum or ad numerum can grant it.

It's legitimacy exist because most people accept it. It happened organically.

see above

[Rancid]

What's your point?

[RedPillAger]

What's your point?

ultimately, my point is that you collectivists' attempts to control others are illegitimate, and that you should stop.

[Rancid]

I'm not controlling you or others.

[velvet]

you've escaped nothing with the creation of the state. they are the bigger stick.

I live in a society existing under the rule of law, and with the biggest stick being restricted by a constitution.

I have, if not escaped entirely from the Hobbesian paradigm, at least achieved a major improvement.

it's still a "might makes right" solution with no more legitimacy than the fallacy of argumentum ad populum or ad numerum can grant it.

I'm not saying it's right because it has grand support. I'm saying it's right because it works.

Of course, getting back to what I mentioned above, I'm questioning whether 'legitimate' authority can even exist.

[RedPillAger]

Of course, getting back to what I mentioned above, I'm questioning whether 'legitimate' authority can even exist.

then i congratulate you for at least stepping on the right track. i used to be a constitutionalist myself.

i think you may eventually come to see that it does not "work" the way you think it does.

[RedPillAger]

I'm not controlling you or others.

if you are a collectivist, you are trying to.