[Albert]

False, how did independent manors and lords in medieval Europe and Japan operate for 1,000 years then? They claimed land and defended it. The means of protecting land, that we now delegate to police and militaries against our will, were privately retained at this time.

Um, they had guys with sticks who enforced their rule.

VS, you can not protect yourself on your own, because there will be guys who will organize themselves in a group and subdue you or just kill you and take your land. Even at most primitive level humans organize in a tribe that has hierarchical structure and form of governance.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Um, they had guys with sticks who enforced their rule.

VS, you can not protect yourself on your own, because there will be guys who will organize themselves in a group and subdue you or just kill you and take your land

Yes that could happen, but then they will likewise privately retain my land.

Of course, If I had enough resources, I could hire armed guards and soldiers of my own, like ancient lords did.

Even at most primitive level humans organize in a tribe that has hierarchical structure and form of governance.

Heirarchy can exist without a state, I already gave an example; whereas, a state denies you the right to protect your own property and forces you to pay for that loss of rights likewise under threat (taxes).

[ThirdTerm]

Article 10
The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under
Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and
accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 went
beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious
intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the
freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.

The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive
nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended
on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the
context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin
of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements
were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.

The Court reiterated that it has distinguished in its case-law between statements of fact and value
judgments. It emphasised that the truth of value judgments was not susceptible to proof. However,
a value judgment without any factual basis to support it might be excessive.

The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the
applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not
been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child
marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad
was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware
that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The
national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his
general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical
background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court
saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts’ qualification of the impugned statements as
value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made.
The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the
applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings
protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.3

The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the
Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable
expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the
permissible limits of freedom of expression.

Lastly, since Mrs S. was ordered to pay a moderate fine and that fine was on the lower end of the
statutory range of punishment, the criminal sanction could not to be considered as disproportionate.
Under these circumstances, and given the fact that Mrs S. made several incriminating statements,
the Court considered that the Austrian courts did not overstep their wide margin of appreciation in
the instant case when convicting Mrs of disparaging religious doctrines. Overall, there had been
no violation of Article 10.

The punishment was a moderate fine and it was not disproportionate. The woman's identity is unknown to the public but I suspect that she may be Austria's Marine Le Pen who spoke at a far-right rally.

[Albert]

Heirarchy can exist without a state, I already gave an example; whereas, a state denies you the right to protect your own property and forces you to pay for that loss of rights likewise under threat (taxes).

Instead of hiring armed men to protect your property you pay the state to do it for you, aka taxes.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Instead of hiring armed men to protect your property you pay the state to do it for you, aka taxes.

Yeah, but I don't want to pay them and I shouldn't have to.

Being forced to give them money against my will is called "theft."

[Godstud]

Taxes is theft is the most idiotic position that people can take. You benefit from taxes, whether you choose to recognize this FACT, or not.

Now, take your head out of your ass, and get back on topic.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Taxes is theft is the most idiotic position that people can take. You benefit from taxes, whether you choose to recognize this FACT, or not.

Irrelevant and not an argument against the claim.

get back on topic.

Technically, this discussion evolved from an on-topic point.

[Godstud]

Not irrelevant, but I know that the "tax is theft" crowd doesn't like dealing in facts, but their feelings.

[annatar1914]

@Victoribus Spolia

As you and I can both agree-I think-that the basis of the State is Force, it must be noted too that ''Force'' in practical terms is groups of people set over or against other groups of people. Thus, your question;

How can you curb private owners from speaking as they wish without a state? How can you bring in uninvited guests against the will of property owners without a state?

You can't.

Is that in the alleged absence of the State, this sort of thing is going to still happen, or be attempted, albeit on a probably cruder and more visceral level.

None of this could be an issue without a state.

Again, the ''State'' is just organized people enforcing their will on other people, for good or for bad.

Except part of the basis for critiquing a state is that its combines depravity with unmitigated power.

I think you can make a greater argument against the state on the basis of total depravity than for it.

But we have it from Scripture that as bad as it might theoretically be, the State, it does restrain and punish the wicked somewhat, much as war and slavery did or do.

A purpose of the Law is to restrain evil doing, but you don't need a state to enforce laws.

The judicial law of the Old Testament was implemented and enforced long before Saul became King....how was that you think?

A embracing of a state is a de facto rejecting of God's direct rule through patriarchs (family heads). God said so himself to the Prophet Samuel.

Remember in the Book of Judges, at the very end? The Holy Spirit writes that;


"Judges 21:25 King James Version (KJV)

25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

But recall the context of what was previously happening among the Isrealites, a pattern of repeated anarchy, subjugation by pagan tribes, intra-Israelite warfare, and becoming like the surrounding Canaanites...

[Victoribus Spolia]

But recall the context of what was previously happening among the Isrealites, a pattern of repeated anarchy, subjugation by pagan tribes, intra-Israelite warfare, and becoming like the surrounding Canaanites...

Sure, but the Jews were a stiff-necked and hard-hearted people, uniquely depraved.

That is the point, the salvation of God was taken from them and given to a people "bearing its fruits."

The whole Old Testament is a guide of what-not-to-do for Christians regarding the Jews, and a demonstration of God's long-suffering, Grace, and Justice in spite of such.

But we have it from Scripture that as bad as it might theoretically be, the State, it does restrain and punish the wicked somewhat, much as war and slavery did or do.

Once again, this is the Law, not necessarily the State.

Again, the ''State'' is just organized people enforcing their will on other people, for good or for bad.

Technically the court of a feudal lord is organized people, but such is not really a state. The state presumes control over things that it does not specifically own.

For instance, If I am a lord over my own property and I have tenant farmers on my lands, I can enforce my will upon them as they are on my land and are contractually obligated to follow my laws on that land (or leave).

The state is different in that it enforces its will over lands that it does not presume to specifically own. This is especially true of all representative governments following the social contract system.

Is that in the alleged absence of the State, this sort of thing is going to still happen, or be attempted, albeit on a probably cruder and more visceral level.

Sure, but I wonder what is the cause of greater loss of life?

If we have learned anything from the 20th century, its that super-states like Nazi Germany, the United States, and the Soviet Union were capable of taking life on a scale and with a level of efficiency that no marauding gang of bandits or oppressive feudal lords could have possibly imagined.

If you are going to defend the state on the basis that its a fair trade off to the violence that exists without a state, you are arguing from a position that cannot possibly be won, historically speaking.

States of nature and nation-states can both yield harmony or violence, but the potential of mass violence, death, and destruction are far more likely under a nation-state than under a state of anarchic natural order and this is simply true based on the means at the disposal of such states contra their populace.

As you and I can both agree-I think-that the basis of the State is Force, it must be noted too that ''Force'' in practical terms is groups of people set over or against other groups of people. Thus, your question;

The means of the state to enforce its claims can indeed be called "force", but this is would be the same for land-owners in the absence of a government.

What makes a state different is that its a third party monopolist of force, force being something of a right that all should be able to engage in if necessary.

The state violates this right when it comes to individuals, especially patriarchs who should have the right to pursue justice and proper defense over their own families and over their own lands. The state denies them this right and Divine obligation.

[annatar1914]

@Victoribus Spolia

You said;

Sure, but the Jews were a stiff-necked and hard-hearted people, uniquely depraved.

Above the common ''massa damnata''? Possibly, the Fathers appear to agree with you from what I've read, like St. John Crysostom.

That is the point, the salvation of God was taken from them and given to a people "bearing its fruits."

When Christ the Redeemer came, salvation was extended to the ''Church of the Old Testament'' (''Abraham saw this day and was glad'', etc...) and to the greater Church, the ''Israel of God'' which will exist to the End.

The whole Old Testament is a guide of what-not-to-do for Christians regarding the Jews, and a demonstration of God's long-suffering, Grace, and Justice in spite of such.

I can't disagree, although perhaps for different reasons.

Once again, this is the Law, not necessarily the State.

All Rulers, VS, they wield not the Sword in vain. Only tyrants and usurpers are the exception to the rule. Now, you could make the case that in modern times there is no true authority in the world existent today, that it all perished eventually with the rise of the Social Contract theory of Government and the Westphalian system...

Technically the court of a feudal lord is organized people, but such is not really a state. The state presumes control over things that it does not specifically own.

In Autocracy, all the land is owned ''de jure'' by the Tsar or Caesar, the Emperor, and he disposes of it as he wishes, with an understanding with such forms of government that it is the rulers that establish all law, including whether or not to have private property, theoretically. Everybody is a Tenant of Somebody.

For instance, If I am a lord over my own property and I have tenant farmers on my lands, I can enforce my will upon them as they are on my land and are contractually obligated to follow my laws on that land (or leave).

Precisely, as I note above.

The state is different in that it enforces its will over lands that it does not presume to specifically own. This is especially true of all representative governments following the social contract system.

Good thing I as a Socialist (or I should say, a certain kind of Socialist) don't follow that idea or concept of the State.

Sure, but I wonder what is the cause of greater loss of life?

If we have learned anything from the 20th century, its that super-states like Nazi Germany, the United States, and the Soviet Union were capable of taking life on a scale and with a level of efficiency that no marauding gang of bandits or oppressive feudal lords could have possibly imagined.

I might argue that this violence is more a function of modern weapons, dishonorable as they are and fit for mere long distance butchery.

If you are going to defend the state on the basis that its a fair trade off to the violence that exists without a state, you are arguing from a position that cannot possibly be won, historically speaking.

No, it's probably an influence of Joseph de Maistre still upon my thought, but to me all bloodshed follows a mysterious purpose of justice and expiation, loosening somewhat the universal effect of human depravity upon the individual sinner. Executions can redress the social moral balance; but when this fails war is the other homeostatic mechanism. To be sure it's a mystery, but I know that the relatively innocent tend to suffer disproportionately in relation to the more guilty, in this life.

States of nature and nation-states can both yield harmony or violence, but the potential of mass violence, death, and destruction are far more likely under a nation-state than under a state of anarchic natural order and this is simply true based on the means at the disposal of such states contra their populace.

I'm sure then that you recall the more recent conversation we had in your thread on gun ownership, where it played out that the consistent advocates of self defense were the Communists and the Right Libertarians....

The means of the state to enforce its claims can indeed be called "force", but this is would be the same for land-owners in the absence of a government.

What makes a state different is that its a third party monopolist of force, force being something of a right that all should be able to engage in if necessary.

Is any State a true monopolist of force, though? All Governments have to have some sort of consent from the governed, or they simply wouldn't exist. However, far more common I think, is a mere rotation of the Elites

The state violates this right when it comes to individuals, especially patriarchs who should have the right to pursue justice and proper defense over their own families and over their own lands. The state denies them this right and Divine obligation.

Well, here we're getting more into the particulars of your ideal society. As for the OP therefore, we can both agree this is not right, what happened, although I see it more as an unjust ruling than over-reach of the State by it's very nature.