Does unprovoked murder previously consented to by contract violate the non-aggression principle? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14934929
ingliz wrote:Why do you worship a state by proxy ie. An association through which you can exercise power?

The state is an institution through which individuals and groups seek to exercise power.... Though a state may be a political community, it need not be. Yet it must always be an association: a collectivity with a structure of authority and a capacity for agency.

Chandran Kukathas, A Definition of the State Department of Government, London School of Economics


:)

Sounds like an economist talking outside his field. The bolded part pretty well defines a political community. Great example of making a distinction without a difference. :)
#14934951
One Degree wrote:The bolded part pretty well defines a political community.

No

States can exist without government and frequently exist with many governments. Weber’s definition of the state as a body having a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force in a given territory is also inadequate. The extent of a state’s control, including its control of the means of using violence, varies considerably with the state, not only legally but also in fact.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 23 Jul 2018 17:17, edited 1 time in total.
#14934961
Victoribus Spolia wrote:WTF?

Example: Somalia from 1991 to 2000 (de facto, 2002)

Somalia currently has no stable government and many of the areas of the country continue to be under self-rule with control held by local leaders.


:)
#14934962
Victoribus Spolia wrote:WTF?

Ingliz superstitiously believes the state is a person (which he worships like a god) in its own right, so then governments would be like the personalities of that person. When blind drunk and passed out in a coma a person can be said to be temporarily without a personality, just so in his quaint belief system the state can be without a government. In other circumstances the state might have multiple governments, like a person with a multiple personality disorder.

Image
#14934965
Ingliz is a communist, not a fascist, and doesn't think the state is the means to an end, but should eventually wither away. It's absolutely clear from what he's talking about, and from the concept of the state itself, that a "state" in a national context means a cultural, economic, and political entity regardless of whether the people and ethnic groups living in that state have a functional government or not.

In other words, I'm not surprised to see @SolarCross misrepresent what Ingliz clearly wrote in a way only a Lolbertarian could possibly be confused about, and wrote a post showing he is indeed confused about something that is both clear and not confusing to people who aren't Lolbertarians.
#14934968
SolarCross wrote:Ingliz superstitiously believes ...

What difference is there between paying a corporation to exercise power on your behalf and paying taxes to government, a corporate entity, to do the same?


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 23 Jul 2018 18:56, edited 1 time in total.
#14934969
Bulaba Jones wrote:Ingliz is a communist, not a fascist, and doesn't think the state is the means to an end, but should eventually wither away.

A meaningless distinction given that every time communists become governors they become de facto fascists, every time. Communists are just particularly deceptive fascists.

Image
#14934973
You wrote an awful, ignorant post with stupidity on full display, and now you're doubling down on that public display of not understanding words with a macro that isn't even clever, funny, or make a coherent point. I don't know what to tell you since you seem to think Marxists care about a cartoon that doesn't even coherently criticize right-wing liberals like Obama. :lol:
#14934975
ingliz wrote:omalia currently has no stable government and many of the areas of the country continue to be under self-rule with control held by local leaders.


What do you mean by self-rule?
#14934978
Bulaba Jones wrote:You wrote an awful, ignorant post with stupidity on full display, and now you're doubling down on that public display of not understanding words with a macro that isn't even clever, funny, or make a coherent point. I don't know what to tell you since you seem to think Marxists care about a cartoon that doesn't even coherently criticize right-wing liberals like Obama. :lol:

Statism is a religion, it's time we accept that. You think the state schools of the USSR didn't inculcate a belief system centred around worshipping dear leader and the state? For the last pic you can substitute Obama for Stalin, the US flag for the USSR one and so on. It is equivalently the same thing, differing only in small details. The state is a fiction though. There are governors but they are people, and there is the land over which they rule but that is just mud, rocks and sand. Then there is the accretion of law but those are just rules. There is no state, it's a fiction.
Last edited by SolarCross on 23 Jul 2018 18:20, edited 1 time in total.
#14935007
@Bulaba Jones and @ingliz seem to think a ‘state’ must be recognized as a government by someone/something other than the people being governed. If it looks like a government and acts like a government...
#14935011
One Degree wrote:a ‘state’ must be recognized as a government by ...

A state usually gains recognition through its capacity to monopolise violence; the people being governed have very little say.

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun

So what difference is there between paying a corporation to exercise power on your behalf and paying taxes to government, a corporate entity, to do the same?


:)
#14935012
ingliz wrote:So what difference is there between paying a corporation to exercise power on your behalf and paying taxes to government, a corporate entity, to do the same?


Voluntarism.
#14935026
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Voluntarism.

But one cannot presume any sort of consent to a totalised system such as capitalism, as within the system no viable alternative exists. Any such system, or any part of such a system, may be "voluntary", but it cannot be consensual.
#14935053
ingliz wrote:But one cannot presume any sort of consent to a totalised system such as capitalism, as within the system no viable alternative exists. Any such system, or any part of such a system, may be "voluntary", but it cannot be consensual.


You miss my point.

In the case of a corporation monopolizing violence, I am voluntarily consenting to their protection, in the case of government, they never asked me if I wanted it.

Hence the difference.

ingliz wrote:But one cannot presume any sort of consent to a totalised system such as capitalism


Non-sense, capitalism, true capitalism, is the condition of consent itself in point of fact.

ingliz wrote:no viable alternative exists


Thats because they all suck.
#14935864
SolarCross wrote:@Pants-of-dog
I don't understand what you think you are getting from trying to pretend a contract isn't an agreement? What's the point?


If that is what you think I am arguing, then yes, you do not understand.

——————————

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Under Old Testament law, various infractions of marital law were punishable by death and this law was enforced by family-clans during the period of the Judges even before the existence of a state (the Monarchy, in this case).

This is the case in many cultures, many groups throughout the world, including the Bedouin among others, enforced marriage laws without a third-party monopolist of coercion.

NOTE: Ostracization is also a means of enforcement.


Your understanding of Judaic law is incorrect. Punishments were not meted out by family clans but instead by beadles and Rabbinical judges. Since these judges were not part of either family, they were a third party with a monopoly on coercion.

They viewed it as a binding agreement that was enforced by society, family, or religious institutions prior to the state. The sources confirm that state mingling in marriage institutions is a relatively new phenomena in the Christian-west, in spite of the fact that marriage-infractions were punished more severely in times-past before the state began regulating the institution directly.


Please quote the text that supports your claims.
#14935868
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Punishments were not meted out by family clans but instead by beadles and Rabbinical judges. Since these judges were not part of either family, they were a third party with a monopoly on coercion.


Stoning was done by the community, not the Rabbis. Old Testament law makes this clear as in the OT the people, enforced locally by the family-clans, enforced executions. (this is evident from examples in the book of Exodus of actual stoning and prescriptions in the Law of Moses)

Priests, Rabbis, and Judges were religious clerics, and before the existence of the monarchy, were the main mediators of such contracts, but only the Elders of the tribes (family-clans) and occasionally a special-Judge, could declare war and were the ones who organized violence. (as evidenced by the book of Judges).

Judah was the one, for example, who determined that Tamar ought to be executed for getting pregnant (under the presumption) she had an affair with a man outside the family clan after the death of Judah's sons (her formers husbands). (Genesis 38 and on).

These are punishments and mediation prior to and independent of, the state.

Likewise, I never denied third-party mediation through religious clerics, but they certaintly did not hold a monopoly on enforcement, often times they didn't carry out the enforcement at all even if they made the judgement.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please quote the text that supports your claims.


What do you mean? Texts of what and from what?
#14936527
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Stoning was done by the community, not the Rabbis. Old Testament law makes this clear as in the OT the people, enforced locally by the family-clans, enforced executions. (this is evident from examples in the book of Exodus of actual stoning and prescriptions in the Law of Moses)

Priests, Rabbis, and Judges were religious clerics, and before the existence of the monarchy, were the main mediators of such contracts, but only the Elders of the tribes (family-clans) and occasionally a special-Judge, could declare war and were the ones who organized violence. (as evidenced by the book of Judges).

Judah was the one, for example, who determined that Tamar ought to be executed for getting pregnant (under the presumption) she had an affair with a man outside the family clan after the death of Judah's sons (her formers husbands). (Genesis 38 and on).

These are punishments and mediation prior to and independent of, the state.

Likewise, I never denied third-party mediation through religious clerics, but they certaintly did not hold a monopoly on enforcement, often times they didn't carry out the enforcement at all even if they made the judgement.

What do you mean? Texts of what and from what?


I think you are making some erroneous assumptions here.

Specifically, you seem to be thinking that marriage, contracts, and the state in ancient Biblical times were the same as they are today. This is not the case.

But even if they were, we can see that marriage during that time was not a contract as we understand it. The parties involved in the marriage are not the people who arranged the deal, for example.

And there is still a state. It is simply not as separated from the community as it is in modern times. There was still a monopoly on violence. The community could not stone a female adulterer or flog a male one without the accompanying legal trial. By the way, please note that male adulterers were not stoned, and the flogging was administered by a beadle.

Most importantly, the marriage “contract” back in ancient Biblical times had an associated legalistic framework. These deals did not exist in some sort of legal vacuum where the terms of the contract were decided solely by the parties involved.

Also, if you are not clear on what claims you made, or what sources you used to supoort your claims, please go back and reread our last few posts.

Then post the text that supports your claims. Thanks.
#14936640
Pants-of-dog wrote:Specifically, you seem to be thinking that marriage, contracts, and the state in ancient Biblical times were the same as they are today. This is not the case.

But even if they were, we can see that marriage during that time was not a contract as we understand it. The parties involved in the marriage are not the people who arranged the deal, for example.


All irrelevant. Please provide evidence that ancient marriages don't constitute contracts between groups of people.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And there is still a state. It is simply not as separated from the community as it is in modern times. There was still a monopoly on violence. The community could not stone a female adulterer or flog a male one without the accompanying legal trial. By the way, please note that male adulterers were not stoned, and the flogging was administered by a beadle.


What makes you think that under anarcho-captialism there can be no legal trials?

No Ancap believes this, the era of the judges is described in scripture as not having a state, but being confederated among tribes/family-clans.

If you consider the community executing justice among their own after a religious leader made a ruling statism, then you either don't understand anarcho-capitalism that you are presuming to critique, or you have an excessively broad understanding of statism.

Family claims executing judgment on their own lands against perpetrators of an accepted moral code in those lands, after the ruling of an accepted religious authority, is definitive of AnCap thought. There is not third-party overriding the ability of justice to be reckoned on their own lands in this system, thus it does not qualify as a "third party monopolist of coercion" as Ancap's define those terms.

If I own 1,000 acres of land, and on my land I have peasants working my farms and living in their homes, they are under my authority as the owner of the property (proprietorship) and thus I have the authority to set the terms of their staying on my lands. These can include, and usually do, laws and covenants etc.

If someone violates this law, and as a term of living on the land, agreed to obey it even given its potential consequences, I can enforce their punishment on my land. That does not make me a state according to AnCap thought. Likewise, If I had a local bishop come and determine that the person was guilty via a trial, that is not a violation of Ancap thought either.

If the church said that "they should be the ones to carry out the execution", and I let them based on a covenant I have with the church, that is not a violation of Ancap thought either.

You are just mistaken on this and are trying to change the definitions now to save face on your clear embarrassment.

I have bigger fish to fry, I don't have time to deal with the silliness that you post weeks after I give a response.

I was done with this talk awhile ago.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

You're such a great feminist-communist stereotype,[…]

EU-BREXIT

I don't know about the others, but at least Honda[…]

a trace gas has increased from .025% to .04% ove[…]

Very Serious People

I will let Potemkin handle this should he come al[…]