The Issue Again...

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
ACers here are wont to argue at times that the concentration of power/wealth under corporate capitalism is illegitimate/immoral but are loathe to talk about any sort of seizure and redistribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the only way to accomplish this is through a state, and as anarchists, this is anathema to us. If there were a non-state way to accomplish this, we might well support it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[quoteHi Copernicus,

If your social contract is so great, why can't you get explicit consent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say you CANT get explicit consent? Explicit consent isnt necessary, but if it were desirable then it could easily be done. Eg when we finally get National ID cards there could be an explicit statement that you agree to abide by the laws of the US and any of its jurisdictions you choose to live in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not resisting does not equal consenting.

Also, please quit [censored] up quotes.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Irrelevant. The people voted for representatives who then decided to exercise eminent domain. We have a representative government because it is impossible for every individual to have a say in every matter. The people did exercise eminent domain by giving the reps their proxy.


[/ QUOTE ]

well as for representing the people, representative democracy is such a terrible and inefficient system. Politicians do so many things that the majority of people just dont hear about, care about, or understand. There is so much room for politicians to do shadey things.

Regardless it doesnt change my more important point that you are assuming the legitimacy of government. Property rights are just abstractions that we have created so that society can function. You claim government represents the people, when in reality government is just a bunch of guys that have to answer to a really terrible process of election. Its like we have property rights several times removed. We need to scientifically decide which system provides the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. I think history has shown that the more collectivist you make property rights, the worse off society is.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[quoteHi Copernicus,

If your social contract is so great, why can't you get explicit consent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say you CANT get explicit consent? Explicit consent isnt necessary, but if it were desirable then it could easily be done. Eg when we finally get National ID cards there could be an explicit statement that you agree to abide by the laws of the US and any of its jurisdictions you choose to live in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not resisting does not equal consenting.

Also, please quit [censored] up quotes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I press quote, scroll to the bottom and reply. If that doesnt do what you like it to do, ts.

If not resisting doesnt equal consent (which it does under the law), it is just because you dont have the integrity and strength of character to make your dissent known (in this hypothetical of course).

Surprise? Not.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
If not resisting doesnt equal consent (which it does under the law), it is just because you dont have the integrity and strength of character to make your dissent known (in this hypothetical of course).

Surprise? Not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show me what law states that not resisting equals consent.

If I get pulled over, and the cop asks me if he can search my vehicle, I will clearly state that I do not consent to such a search. If he then decides that he's going to search anyway, I will continue to state that I am not consenting to such a search, but I will not resist such a search. Even here in the US, no court is going to accept that I *consented* to such a search by *not physically resisting* this officer's actions.

At this point I feel the government has violated my rights (more than they normally do). He's not going to let me leave, withholding my taxes will have zero postitive effect (and saying something to the effect of "I pay your salary!" is going to make things notably worse for me), and open revolt against the cop's authority is clearly a -EV option.

Not resisting is not the same as consenting.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
We need to scientifically decide which system provides the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scientific utilitarianism? What if this system determines that the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people comes by throwing puppies in blenders? Or kicking grandmothers off a bridge? These are, of course, absurd examples, but utilitarianism easily leads to oppressive outcomes.

Further such "benefit" cannot possibly be scientifically measured, because it's a subjective, personal preference. To do what you suggest requires a central planner to arbitrarily determine benefit for others.

No thanks. How about we just let other people do what they want, even if we think they might be happier doing something else?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If not resisting doesnt equal consent (which it does under the law), it is just because you dont have the integrity and strength of character to make your dissent known (in this hypothetical of course).

Surprise? Not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show me what law states that not resisting equals consent.

If I get pulled over, and the cop asks me if he can search my vehicle, I will clearly state that I do not consent to such a search. If he then decides that he's going to search anyway, I will continue to state that I am not consenting to such a search, but I will not resist such a search. Even here in the US, no court is going to accept that I *consented* to such a search by *not physically resisting* this officer's actions.

At this point I feel the government has violated my rights (more than they normally do). He's not going to let me leave, withholding my taxes will have zero postitive effect (and saying something to the effect of "I pay your salary!" is going to make things notably worse for me), and open revolt against the cop's authority is clearly a -EV option.

Not resisting is not the same as consenting.

[/ QUOTE ]


Also not surprising that you cant respond to the character issue, because you know youre a spineless weasel if you sign the statement with no intent to follow the laws that allow you to enjoy the benefits of the country that youve decided to enjoy. No intellectual integrity and no ethical integrity.

In this hypothetical means signing a sworn oath to uphold the laws of the country. If you sign that without the intent to follow those laws you are committing perjury, which is not confined to statements made in court.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Also not surprising that you cant respond to the character issue, because you know youre a spineless weasel if you sign the statement with no intent to follow the laws that allow you to enjoy the benefits of the country that youve decided to enjoy. No intellectual integrity and no ethical integrity.

In this hypothetical means signing a sworn oath to uphold the laws of the country. If you sign that without the intent to follow those laws you are committing perjury, which is not confined to statements made in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Since you're the personal attack police, I presume you reported yourself.

What the [censored] are you talking about, anyway? What statement did I sign? A cop is digging through my car. He didn't ask me to sign anything. Are you in the same thread as I am?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also not surprising that you cant respond to the character issue, because you know youre a spineless weasel if you sign the statement with no intent to follow the laws that allow you to enjoy the benefits of the country that youve decided to enjoy. No intellectual integrity and no ethical integrity.

In this hypothetical means signing a sworn oath to uphold the laws of the country. If you sign that without the intent to follow those laws you are committing perjury, which is not confined to statements made in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Since you're the personal attack police, I presume you reported yourself.

What the [censored] are you talking about, anyway? What statement did I sign? A cop is digging through my car. He didn't ask me to sign anything. Are you in the same thread as I am?

[/ QUOTE ]

Also not surprising you didn't actually produce an example of the law saying that not resisting is the same as consenting.

[Copernicus]

Nice attempt to change the discussion. We were discussing your claim that "consent cant be obtained" and my response that it can easily be obtained at the time of issuance of national ID cards, which you admitted you would sign with no intent of obeying.

And it isnt a personal attack when discussing a hypothetical, since Im absolutely sure that you wouldnt lower yourself to lying in a sworn statement, and I said "if" you would.