Posted on 01/31/2009 6:13:23 AM PST by Starfleet Command
I’m going to start with a most controversial proposition:
No government has the right to exist.
First, I must specify what I mean by a right. We can define a right in many different ways, but the one thing that all conceptions have in common is that they are, ultimately, a justification for the use of force, or more simply, “I’ll kick your ass if you try to take this away.” If I have, for instance, a right to action or property, this means ultimately that I am ethically justified in using force to oppose you if you try to take my freedom or property away.
So far so good but, as for all other ethical principles, the trouble comes with the implementation. The government, for instance, claims the right to extort taxation money for all sorts of actions and trades, including simply working or owning a piece of land. Does it have such a right?
Groups cannot have rights above and beyond those of their component individuals, as only individuals can use violence and determine its validity. Any group is nothing more than the addition of individuals and the property and principles they produce or acquire for the purposes of the group’s activities. Therefore, if the government has the right to tax, meaning that it is justified in using force to take people’s money for its purposes, it must be the case that the individuals composing the government also have that right as individuals.
(Excerpt) Read more at whiskeyandgunpowder.com ...
I read the first line and want to jump and cheer.
Right. The government has only the rights we give it. Not the other way around. Unfortunatly the ignorant morons in the USA choose to give it more and more. We never ever reduce the “right” of government.
I’m going to start with a most controversial proposition:
You’re easily excited.
I know I am. *shrugs*
For those who cheer at the decline of gubmint, may want to look at The Rise and Decline of the State by Martin van Creveld.
The state would seem to be in global decline replaced by large corporations for many of the previously state provided functions.
So long as the people believe in and abide by the “rule of law”, governments can do ANYTHING they want - including suspension of any and all liberties.
Today, the “rule of law” is a myth. Tax evaders do not go to prison; they become cabinet officers. People in this country illegally have more rights than citizens. Juries find criminals guilty, then judges overrule. A carjacker in Florida is arrested for the ONE HUNDRED NINTYTH time and people are driving without insurance or driver’s license. What laws do I get to break?
Once the “rule of law” disappears, governments lose all authority to exist.
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
it is their right,
it is their duty,
to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I hope we personally will not suffer for your words and for mine, but there are far more important issues at stake. What matters is that the people of the United States of America continue as a free nation. I'm not optimistic about the usurper preserving, protecting, or defending the Constitution, but I am firmly convinced that the people, at least those who value and exercise their Second Amendment rights, will recall these words and ensure that our government returns to its proper role.
Right; 1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
SOOOO...
Individuals have “Rights”. Governments have “Powers”. Something amoral, like a government cannot have rights, only powers. In the same way a gun is totally amoral, which the left also confuses. Without morality. Like a rock falling on your head, it is neither good or bad, but has only the potential WITH human interaction. Government is like a gun or weapon. Can be good or bad depending on the human control, but without moral quality, and incapable of having any rights by definition.
This actually flows into a very good point. The amendments to the Constitution define inalienable individual rights of the people, not the government. This was explored last summer in the Heller ruling in the Supreme court, where the 2nd amendment was affirmed as an individual right, and not a government power to have an armed force (National Guard), and it is silly to the extreme to think that any government needs to have a “right” to have a military or have that right defined in a part of our Constitution which in every other part limits government “Power”.
“No government has the right to exist”
No house has the right to exist
No firearm has the right to exist
No rock has the right to exist
None of these things have any rights. The article starts out with a BS proposition.
Once “rule of law” disappears we are by definition in “anarchy”.
Exactly. Inanimate objects, like rocks, guns and governments are tools, absent of moral quality, and incapable of right or wrong in and of themselves. Human interaction with their moral quality define the morality of the use of the object. Governments don’t need rights. They have power over man, like a gun. Ayn Rand went into a long dissertation on the government use of “force on man”, and I wish I had the link to it. She did the subject justice in ways I can only dream.
Looks like we’ve got the same thought, but your presentation of it is better than mine. I’ll have to work on that.
>>Once “rule of law” disappears we are by definition in “anarchy”.<<
Again, I maintain that the “rule of law” is a myth foisted upon us by those who do not obey the law. One-sided application of any law is tyranny. Our forefathers took on the mightiest military power in the world - and beat them for the freedoms we hold so dear. Can we be expected to any less?
Well, like any tool a government can be used for evil or good. That a government is amoral means that it isn’t really the government’s “fault”, like you don’t blame any tool for what it is used for.
I think we are saying the same thing. The people who are to blame are the real target.
There was once a LAW that hung/executed those responsible for treasonous behavior. I would maintain that the enemies of this country have made such law enforcement impossible, to the point that treason is practiced with no fear by those in government, to the point that during the Clinton administration the W-88 thermonuclear warhead design, the best weapon we have ever designed, was potentially sold to our potential enemies by those in power, and campaign funds were traced back to the Chinese Red Army.
What would Washington, or Jefferson have said about such acts? I suspect an execution, followed by a BBQ and a national holiday for the death of a traitor, but that is just me...
Are you able to read? You might want to prove it by reading the article for content.
It's point is that *government* is a BS proposition. Sheesh.
“Are you able to read? You might want to prove it by reading the article for content.”
Your post does nothing to disprove my words.
Throughout the article the author treats government as if it has a life of its own. He backs that treatment into the proposition “No government has the right to exist”. It is self evident that no government has the right to exist (or any rights at all) as it is inanimate like a house, firearm or rock, which also have no rights. If government had a life of its own it might be possible to discuss whether or not it had a right to exist. Since it has no self animation, since it is a creation of people and is animated by people it would be more appropriate to start out with the proposition that “People have no right to bring a government into existence” and go on from there.
Treating government like it has a life of its own is similar to treating guns like they kill people and spoons like they make people fat. In each case any fault belongs to the people in control of the inanimate creation, not the creation itself.
Conservatives who want nothing to do with government because they blame government for “whatever” instead of blaming the people in control of government are like the hopolophobes who want nothing to do with guns because they blame guns for killing people. In both cases they concede any control they might have had to people who will use that control against them.
Apparently we agree on the end conclusion, although we arrive there through very disparate paths. You are treating "government" like a noun, and denying it certain characteristics. I am treating it like an adjective, e.g. "government people", "government authority", and denying it autonomy.
“Apparently we agree on the end conclusion, although we arrive there through very disparate paths.”
I think I can live with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.