3 votes

The Power of the State vs. the Power of Love

For thousands of years, philosophers have argued that society must invest great power in the rulers because only great power can hold back the forces of evil — violence, plunder, and disorder. They have often conceded, however, that this solution has a down side: powerful rulers may themselves resort to violence and plunder.

Given that wealth destruction undermines social well-being, how did it come to pass that the state — an institution based on violence and plunder — has overridden peaceful cooperation as the dominant factor in social life virtually everywhere on earth?

Individuals may rest their personal lives on love and thereby find the peace that seemingly evades all philosophical and sociological understanding of social affairs. Whatever wise men and women may know and practice in their own lives, however, essentially Hobbesian analysis holds the great thinkers in its iron grip, and those who recommend love are dismissed as muddle-headed and simplistic. Yet, to repeat, here we are, inhabiting a world made no better by our hanging on the words of the greatest political philosophers, statesmen, and international-relations experts. In their view, the state is a given, and their analyses take for granted its nature and conduct. Perhaps this point of departure is their root error: that they readily accept what most needs to be challenged.

So long as the state exists, with its intrinsic violence, plunder, and insolence, and we seek solutions to our pressing social problems through it or in its dark shadow, we are doomed not to second-best or third-best solutions, but to make-believe solutions that are, at best, momentary rest stops on the road to our worsening degradation and ultimate demise. Destruction is what states do (or threaten to do); it is the nature of the beast. As technological changes augment state powers, the culmination of this terrible sequence may be our absolute annihilation.

http://mises.org/daily/6570/The-Power-of-the-State-vs-the-Po...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

King and State we want

People wanted a King (and State)

1 Samuel 8:7
And Yahweh said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers .
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and Yahweh will not hear you in that day.
19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said , Nay; but we will have a king over us;
20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

paper money is civilization

bumper sticker

Michael Nystrom's picture

An excellent book on love

OSHO: Love, Freedom, Aloneness: The Koan of Relationships

This was recommended by telepathic on this thread. I packed it up into my kindle. This is the most fascinating book on love I've read.

(Though I haven't read that many books on love, and I don't know how many there are on the subject)

Thanks for the post.

He's the man.

So Happy to Hear, Michael

that you enjoyed the book tremendously.

This book is pure R3VOLution as in it Osho, for example, states: "Love makes you rebellious, revolutionary. Love gives you wings to soar high. Love gives you insight into things, so that nobody can deceive you, exploit you, oppress you." (p. 6)

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nz2qWiSY10

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

Michael Nystrom's picture

Yes, thank you. I am still enjoying it.

I only have a few minutes to read each night before zonking out.

But this book is truly wonderful. Delicious. Thank you very much for the suggestion. In the book he talks about another book. He says that book is his favorite book. I'll have to go back to remember the title and the author.

He's the man.

Osho's favorite books

I wonder what that book is?!? But talking about Osho's favorite books that have inspired him I truly recommend his book titled "Books I Have Loved" in which he speaks about 168 books that he has loved. I have learned about so many interesting books by reading this book about his favorite books.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/8172611021/ref=rdr_ext_sb_ti_hist_2

Osho was a true lover of books in his own words he has read over 100,000 books. Here is a youtube-clip about his love of books:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1h8-WvzexY

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

Michael Nystrom's picture

I thought you might have known it off the top of your head...

But since that is not the case, I looked it up.

At the beginning of Chapter 4, he begins, "The Book of Mirdad is my most loved book. Mirdad is a fictitious figure, but each statement and act of Mirdad is tremendously important. It should be read not as a novel, it should be read as a holy scripture -- perhaps the only holy scripture."

He begins that chapter with a quote from the book:

Love is the only freedom from attachment. When you love everything you are attached to nothing.
...Man made prisoner by the love of a woman and woman made prisoner by the love of a man are equally unfit for freedom's precious crown. But man and woman made as one by love, inseparable, indistinguisable, are verily entitled to the prize.

- from The Book of Mirdad, Mikhail Naimy.

- - - -

On a different note, might I venture to guess, telepathic, that you are in England, or somewhere in Europe. Or perhaps you are just a very early riser?

He's the man.

Actually I thought of it!

When I was thinking which book this could be the first one that came to my mind was actually The Book of Mirdad, but I didn't said it as I was not sure if that's the case. I have not read it, but it sounds like a very beautiful book and for sure I will read it one day. Osho/Bhagwan has mentioned it many times in his books.

In the book that I recommended to you "Books I Have Loved" the first 10 books (Osho's Top 10) are:

1 Thus Spake Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche
2 Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky
3 The Book of Mirdad
4 Jonathan Livingston Seagull by Richard Bach
5 Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu
6 The Parables of Chuang Tzu
7 The Sermon on the Mount
8 Bhagavad-Gita
9 Gitanjali by Rabindranath Tagore
10 The One Thousand Songs of Milarepa

So here in this "Top 10" it is number 3.
This quote from The Book of Mirdad is beautiful.
Another quote from The Book of Mirdad:
"Love is the law of God. You live that you may learn to love. You love that you may learn to live. No other lesson is required of Man"

The interesting thing is that even the authors wikipedia page mentions Osho's love for The Book of Mirdad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikha'il_Na'ima

------
Michael, your guess is somewhat correct as indeed I am living somewhere in Europe which is in my case the beautiful island of Crete (Greece) and your guess was almost perfect because before my life in Crete I was living in England and indeed I am very early riser as well.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

Michael Nystrom's picture

Crete sounds beautiful

Are you experiencing any impact from the economic situation in Greece?

I'm curious about how collapse happens. I wonder if things are isolated to Athens? Even in collapse, I know that some places float on ok.

- - -

Thank you for the list. I've read a pitifuly small number of those books.

The Book of Mirdad is next on my list.

He's the man.

Oh Greece, oh Greece!

Definitely the economic situation in Greece effects my life here in a sense that finding work is difficult, it is very badly paid and the government controls the wages even in the private sector in order to "make Greece more competitive as a country" which is of course a completely BS argument. The situation is not good here. And connected to financing my PhD studies it is not easy.
But the thing what makes everything possible for me is the people around me. My girlfriend's parents own a big farm with animals´(chickens, sheep, goats), vineyard, olive trees, vegetables and fruits. Their farm is absolutely amazing place.
Then also the situation is completely different in Athens and other big cities compared to Crete as many people on this island have on their backyards vegetable gardens and few animals for food and tourism brings a lot of money to the island. Athens is definitely miserable place and in a way Crete is a place which "float on ok". And what helps a lot is the amazing sun here and this island is one of the most beautiful places I have ever been.
For my personal reasons, I truly hope that the total collapse comes after I have finished my PhD.

----

I think it is a fantastic choice to have 'The Book of Mirdad' next on your list. When you have read it I would be happy to hear what you thought of it.

Here is by the way a link to the whole list of those 168 books that Osho names in his book "Books I Have Loved". As you notice from it the man of your motto Krishnamurti's 3 books are numbers 26, 76 and 96 on this Top 168 list.
http://www.osho.nl/New-Osho-NL/EnglBooks/BooksIHave.htm

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

is that even a valid question?

is the DP REALLY that stupid?

like the "State" and Love can really be compared.

;)

Well-said

Love is certainly the key to dissolving authoritarian influences and the force which drives the goodness of the People, which in turn upholds Liberty -- the substrate of Liberty, as I think Michael Nystrom put it.

I tend to talk a lot about Love here, because I've grown more and more convinced that it is the metaphysical reality behind all else, which gives everything else meaning. Lately, I've been convicted as well that I need to focus more on living out that love of God and neighbor and enemy, beyond what I currently am. The r3VOLution starts inside each of us and our dealings with others.

Not to be the "Debbie Downer"

Not to be the "Debbie Downer" if the thread, but I don't believe in love. I remain steadfast in my belief that we are, all of us, self-interested smart animals. Philosophies, societies, religions...all of these things are artifice which distract us from the underlying truth that at any given moment, for any given reason people could go apeshit crazy. This is why the people at the "top" always become paranoid, oppressive and dictatorial. They are a reflection of the animal-human psyche at work.

Yeah...

...I think you are on to something with regard to how the elite view us as nothing more than wild animals to be domesticated, to be scientifically controlled and managed, which in their minds justifies all kinds of things like the eugenics movement, etc. Really, if there is no Love, if there is no true spiritual meaning to everything beyond mere rearrangements of atoms and energy, then who can really say they are right or wrong? It's just rearrangements of meaningless stuff, anyway. Calling the elite 'evil' or 'wrong' would be like calling the violent Great Red Spot on Jupiter 'evil', when obviously it's just a material, physical phenomenon without such spiritual connotations. (I used to have nightmares about that Great Red Spot when I was a kid, which is probably why I picked that. lol :) )

Actually your 'animal nature' isn't really all that dissimilar, in terms of something to be overcome, to the 'sin nature' concept you'll find in religious thought: some internal thing, latching onto us and causing a conflict between what we want/ought to be and what we do.

I'm optimistic, though, that in the end, all of us creatures will eventually get through this journey of becoming, to discover that we have overcome the struggle and that Love is really there after all, waiting for us, perfecting us over time. If I'm right, it will break through to you in time as well. :) If you're right, I guess we'll both die and never have the opportunity to know it. Heh heh -- I'm not a betting man, but how about if I'm right, in the age to come you owe me a cup of coffee; if you're right, then well, I guess I'll get off scott free? :)

Thanks for the insightful

Thanks for the insightful comments.

I am starting to feel pretty "metaphysical" too.

I am sorry Darlin but you were set up.
trolls tend to "appeal to emotion" look for it and you will see what I mean by that.

OH! NO!
it must be the...

Not sure...

...exactly what you're disagreeing with here. Show me a society without Love, and I'll show you a society with Liberty in decay if not already extinguished.

We all have some metaphysical basis of our worldview, unless we're totally agnostic.

I meant no offense.

I simply do not see how two can even be remotely compared.

peace.

No worries...

Not really offended; just trying to make sure I understood what you were saying. :) I'm probably just tired and slow in my thinking today. This time change has me all mixed up...lol.

Whoa,

is Robert Higgs channeling Glenn Alport?

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

This is why Jesus said: If you want to be great in the Kingdom..

of God, you must learn to be the servant of all."

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

And the meek shall inherit the Earth.

.

And my poor friend Goldspan that posted this

will never get it.

Jesus' message has never been so clear to me.

These misguided idealists -

The misguided idealists I've noticed posting "anti-state" rants here on DP have no clue what drives them. The "rulers of society" Goldspan is grumbling about should be the laws themselves, not individual people - he seems to have missed that. Lawlessness is evil. A Republic grounded in truth, without guile or malice in its governance, free of internal interests, is the closest thing humankind will ever see to "utopia" where an entire population is concerned - it allows for love to flourish on an individual grade without physical aggression. Just because "our state" has fallen into ruin - through lies, hatred and greed - does not mean state itself is to blame.

But do not say "my friend . . . will never get it" - let the Message of Jesus be clearer still and pray! Let the rocks and the trees cry out. He said to Zacchaeus in Luke 19:10, "[I] have come to seek and save that which is lost." Even those who have become culturally programmed to see only "religion" are capable of being drawn to God and the Truth of His Son. I am living proof of that.

Why not talk to me rather than about me?

The reason is anyone that makes statements like this just can’t compete in the world of ideas.

“Lawlessness is evil”.

I don’t have to prove this wrong….I will allow you to do it for me, with just a few simple questions.

Are you “evil”?
Yes….well, good luck with that…..No….then……Why Not?

Are you not “evil” because you follow the law or because it is not in your heart?

It’s not in your heart?......what makes you the exception?
So of 300 million people in the country you are the only one that is not “evil”.

No….what you are said is it is only the law that keeps “evil” in check”…..it’s not a person’s choice?

So what you really mean is you would be “evil” yourself if not for the law…..so you do have”evil” in your heart…….like I said good luck with that.

How naive do you have to be not to understand that the written law of men is just as corruptible as any form of government….government is the problem…..not the solution.

One of Rothbard’s many great contributions to the cause of LIBERTY was to restore the original theory, which pitted the people against the State. In the Rothbardian theory of class struggle, the government, including its clients and enforcers, exploits and enslaves the PRODUCTIVE classes through taxation, regulation, inflation and perpetual war. Government is an incubus, a parasite, incapable of producing anything in its own right and instead feeds off the vital energies and productive ability of the PRODUCERS. (Which includes bankers)

Please grace me with your definition of LIBERTY?

And food for thought…..you really need a better understanding of nationalism…because I don’t think you get it.

BTW…..Base1ass….thinks I am “evil” …what he fails to realize is that I am treating him EXACTLY the way he treats others…….He is seeing a mirror reflection of himself……and he doesn’t like it. I am glad I am not him!

Leading -

Your leading mindset might make you a good criminal defense attorney. Isn't that ironic?

No, the reason I did not "talk to you" is you never engaged me. Now that you have, we'll see how well I compete in your personal "world of ideas".

Am I evil or good? Whose individual perception of these concepts are we relying on? Yours? Now, you're saying we should live in a "State of Goldspan", where your "heart" and your cadence of "state bad, state bad!" establishes our individual rights?

If you thought you were going to "allow me" to prove you "right", the least you could have done is had a little patience.

If every person following "their heart" is "good", I believe Charles Manson would be exonerated. But even a village of Natives with only "natural law" would have stood up against Manson - as a localized community with a small government based on tribal leaders. But that would make them bad according to you. The heart is no judge of good or evil, since it can only see through the mind's eye. The mind of an individual may have a genuine understanding of human value and respect for the rights of others, but it's uncommon. You cannot disagree with that - read the news. I suppose you believe your idealistic "love" is above the common man in understanding human value, which assumes that of 300 million fellow Americans your ideals should trump the fact that not everyone has a "heart" like you. Maybe you think we should? Are you calling yourself some supreme guru of love? Maybe the phrase "heart of gold" should be rewritten "Heart of Goldspan".

Your ideas of "mutual respect" have only come from laws. Even the Natives had oral laws - the more technology we embrace as a society, the more necessary laws that are written become. This tautology of "state bad" I keep hearing is exactly the same cyclical argument you're trying to project upon me: Is a person good or evil? Is a state good or evil? Aren't they both personal choices?

What you are trying to say makes no sense - the individual perception of good and evil is the reason laws are necessary, because what is good for a thief or murderer is not good for a productive person. How naive of you to think that all people would follow the "law of their heart" they way you expect them to without a guarantee of legal consequence to keep them from violating your liberty.

Now, do you really want graced with my definition of "liberty"? Guaranteed personal independence? Mental and physical sovereignty? Are you "anti-capitalist" or "anti-state"? You cannot have mental and physical sovereignty when you are forced into a system that is ran by corporations, not any more than you can maintain mental and physical sovereignty in a system that forces you to be your own police and military on a regular basis without any guaranteed support from an established code. For you there is no balance, no equilibrium. So, am I saying established codes are "good"? They can be - just as people can be.

Here's some real food for thought - though I doubt that, now faced with my words and not your juvenile inferences, you'd have much of an appetite left. Without written laws, men like myself would have a "code in their hearts", yeah. I have a code as a man, just as I have the Holy Spirit as a Christian, just as I have reason in my mind as a philosopher. Do you expect your code to be the same as mine? You may have "love in your heart", just as I do, just as Charles Manson did for "his girls". But there is no way to establish that code without words to facilitate an agreement, and there is a way for us to come to a general agreement for the common good of individuals. Maybe we should write a general agreement down so we can get on with our lives, so we do not have to explain it to those who disagree with our individual rights as human beings? Oh, but that would be a government, and they are bad.

Perhaps it is you who should acquire a better understanding of nationalism, because it seems to me that you've pulled it from distopian movies or the defeatist propaganda of our age. We do not live in a civil state anymore, we live in an empire. Are you blinded to the difference? So, just because we live in a bad state does not mean state is bad, no more than just because a person can only commit evil does it mean that all people must be incapable of good.

Am I evil or good? Whose

Am I evil or good? Whose individual perception of these concepts are we relying on? Yours? Now, you're saying we should live in a "State of Goldspan", where your "heart" and your cadence of "state bad, state bad!" establishes our individual rights?

Why should I refute this when I can’t do any better than Rothbard.

people who think that the elimination of corporate influence from the public sphere will finally end the wars and graft will be encouraged to rethink their assumptions about the state: it is not, after all, an organization for the public good that has been hijacked by the rich and powerful, nor an engine of corporate control that can be reformed toward liberal ends. The state itself is and always will be the problem, and so long as it has a military arm, it will be influenced by some private interests or others toward opportunistic warring, and at a minimum manipulated by politicians, even the most supposedly humanitarian and egalitarian of whom have a murderous and diabolical record in deploying its forces and dropping its bombs. Even large business interests can come and go, but the political apparatus itself, the most inherently corrupting of all institutions given its unavoidably coercive and monopolistic nature, will continue to inflict misery and loot the disadvantaged on behalf of the powerful.

Allow me to put on my attorney hat now.

YOU defined “evil” with your statement “Lawlessness is evil” …..not me……so “Whose individual perception of these concepts are we relying on”?.......YOURS.

“Nature Law” defines and grants me my Liberty by my Creator……not by the State……the State can only take my Liberty.

And by this statement I don’t think you know a thing about “Natural Law”.

“But even a village of Natives with only "natural law" would have stood up against Manson”

The “Heart of Goldspan” lives according to “treat other as you would want to be treated”…..there is no “LAW” that is necessary for this to happen……When this happens I am respecting other’s Liberty to live the way they want….which doesn’t require any LAWS. But Liberty ends when you infringe on another’s Liberty….you don’t need a “State” to rectify this ….the “natives” as you so lowly called them, would cast that person out of the society, shamed with disrespect, labeled them with dishonor. There was never a punishment that was worse than to know I disappointed my parents with dishonor. There is never a punishment worse than to dishonor myself. I do not live according to the LAWS of this land….I live to the honor a higher idea…..you according to your statement……don’t have any understanding of this concept. Or you wouldn’t make such foolish statements. According to you….I must be “evil” because I am "lawless".

But alas you make just one more statement to prove my point again.

Do you expect your code to be the same as mine? You may have "love in your heart", just as I do, just as Charles Manson did for "his girls". But there is no way to establish that code without words to facilitate an agreement, and there is a way for us to come to a general agreement for the common good of individuals.

You could never write ENOUGH code to stop CM, only enough to infringe upon yours, mine and every other person Liberty that lives to a higher “CODE” that you called it…...and we can do it without THE STATE……we could do it with Honor……to Honor other peoples Liberty. All functions of the STATE could and should be done in a free market…….unless you just want to give your Liberty to others.

You should read some Albert J. Nock…..Our Enemy; The State.

Let me ask you a question…..what do you do for a living?
Because if your “station in life” is derived by the State, there is little chance you would be honest enough with yourself to be open to these ideas…..much less honest enough with me…..but then again…..I could use my position as a prosecuting attorney and have the State question you.

We do not live in a civil state anymore, we live in an empire.

You are right about half of this ….we do live in an Empire…..it was sold to us as a “Civil State” but that’s just the fairytale…the real story is….. it was always supposed to be an Empire. But for the life of me I can never understand why people think the written law is not corruptible…..it is so very much more corruptible and maybe even easier. I mean all the Civil State has to do is name a law something like oh….I don’t know…..The Affordable Care Act…and make it a LAW…..then there is no way it could be “evil” according to you…….c’mon man.

The only difference -

The only thing that differentiates "natural law" and "law" is that law itself is written down, is established between individuals who may not have the same mindsets and can be enforced without violence. It takes the obscure and individual "code of heart" and establishes it. You still haven't gotten the difference between state and empire. I do believe, as Ron Paul believes, that laws can be written and enforced only to protect individuals from each other, not from themselves.

Nor did I ever imply that all laws written are for the common good - the problem with you is there is no equilibrium, no logical inferences or understanding of my context beyond your "state bad" argument. Laws can be bad, so lets get rid of them all? State can be bad, so it's the problem? You've read this in a book, correct? I suggest you try reading some Bastiat and look for a middle ground in your argument.

It is no wonder that you disagree with my statement "lawlessness is evil" if you would yourself say that a civil state is a fairytale. And while you've got your hat on, consider this: lawlessness disallows your idealistic natural law. "Love other people the way I love myself? Meh, I don't have to do that." It's as simple as that. Now you get to be your own police and army - fun, huh? Just like in a movie. I will restate myself, then, because you cannot shake the argument - lawlessness is evil.

So, no established law is required for you to treat others the way you wish to be treated . . . you must not live in L.A., Chicago or St. Louis, New York, et cetera. Where are you from? Switzerland? Must be nice. Oh, I know, I've read my share of news on "infowars.com". I know that "cops bad" just like "state bad" just like "law bad", but I get the feeling that you don't have to deal with crime on a regular basis or you'd understand just how ignorant it makes you sound to infer that "love your neighbor as yourself" is some unwritten code inside every man's heart that doesn't need a state statute criminalizing armed robbery to uphold. Or Jesus Christ, but that's an individual decision. You do agree that faith in God should be an individual decision, don't you? Good thing there's a law to protect that from Church Nazis.

Now, remove that attorney hat and pick up a "reading context" hat, because I never said I don't live by higher ideals. Were you incapable of reading the context because you're angry? I'm sure your Heart of Goldspan would keep you from acting out on that anger, but again I must reiterate that it makes you ignorant to infer you are the rule and not the exception. No, I did explain that I have my own higher law that I live by - as man, as a Christian and as a philosopher. But I am not so naive to expect every person willing to commit acts of violence against others has the same standard I have. That was the crux of my reply - you missed it because I was not saying what you wanted to hear.

Don't forget that laws were also originally written to protect people from tyranny. Without unity under the rule of law, tyranny is going to be inevitable. Don't give me some vomit about your individual idealism conquering an invading army or despot either. It will last for a little while, then you will fall.

One last thing for you to consider - you want to know my occupation? Really?! hahaha I am currently unemployed! I was laid off over a month ago and haven't been able to find a new job since. I'm online right now plastering my resume . . . It was, I believe, this new O'Care legislation that's to blame. A law . . . How could I continue defending laws if a law has caused me to suffer?! How?! Maybe it's because I understand the context of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", no? That I don't have to live with a polarized mindset, no?

Why would you assume I am angry…

You would have to successfully challenge my beliefs system to make me angry and you haven’t come close to that. So who’s really projecting here?

I have read “The Law”.
What is The Law
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God —to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force— his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right— its reason for existing, its lawfulness —is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason —cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

Because of the immaturity of your thoughts you will read this and say to yourself…Au hay I was right… “Lawlessness is evil”.

But that is not what is says at all…..the law is secondary to everything that man needs is in his life….everything that is good of man…… Life, Liberty and Property. The law is given its life by man…… so to say lawlessness is evil is to say that if man does not create the law …..Man is evil.

“I'm sure your Heart of Goldspan would keep you from acting out on that anger, but again I must reiterate that it makes you ignorant to infer you are the rule and not the exception”.

Do you espouse to Machiavelli’s Philosophy? The only way to corral the “evil” in man is the State.

So if you think that the only difference between “natural law” and “Law” is because one is in written form you are woeful misguided. Natural law can be discovered by reason alone and applies to all people. The law written by man has never been a civil union of common defense; to protect the natural law of man….the written laws WAS and Has always been written to create the State….period.

Have you ever read about Plato or Aristotle? After being taught and then systemizing the “Natural laws” Aristotle’s philosophy basically was pushed by the wayside for the next 2000 years. The philosophy of Plato’s Absolute Statism reigned over the world until “natural law” resurfaced with the Magna Carta and eventually the classical Whigs of England, but never capturing anything more than attention. I say that because they only were able to get concession from the State and never actually ruled.

When the philosophy made its way to America….it peaked with the Article of Confederation when Absolutle Statism won out with the U.S. Constitution…….ONLY Statism has ever existed in the USG.

http://www.dailypaul.com/304030/journey-to-jekyll-island-par...

John Locke, over 150 years before Bastiat, claimed that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property that have a foundation independent of the LAWS OF ANY PARTICULAR SOCIETY.

So my “rights” are above that of the State and of the State Law. But when has the “Civil State” ever succeeded in “protecting these natural rights”. These “rights” were never even written into the Constitution…….they had to be amended into it two years after the Constitution was ratified. The “consent of the governed” is a joke….is a “fairytale”. They had NO intention of ever writing the “Rights” in to the Constitution.

No I don’t live where violence is most common….but doesn’t that prove that people can live in harmony without the coercion of the State. Where violence is common ……Isn’t this empirical evidence that people that live under the law of the State will do a lot of things not because they are right or wrong but only define them as legal or illegal. Your philosophy is that people will devolve to their least, while I am more optimistic for myself, you and all people….have you ever coached kids in sports? There were coaches that I coached with and against; the ones I espoused to be more like were the ones that taught to play the sport with HONOR and not just by the rules. That is what I espouse for my myself, my children, my church, my government and yes even you my friend…..I think the best of you until you prove to me that you are not worthy…..that you have NO HONOR.

Somewhere down the line the men of this country lost their Honor…….probably because the State cannot write a code for that and we have devolved to the lowest form of a people………. Citizen of a State full of Laws.

You say there is no middle ground with me……prove to me it’s ever existed and I will listen…..don’t feed me your fairytales. You know the surest way to never have an economic bubble pop…..never allow it to form. You know the surest way to make sure your Liberty is never threatened…..never give it to the State.
Label me an anarchist…. it a label I wear with Honor, So you must a Statist….. Middle ground is where they bury loser.

THE CAPS

No, I wasn't projecting. Maybe you just don't know how to use HTML.

Again, I have only to simply reiterate - you are polarized. "Middle ground is where they bury losers" is perhaps the most ignorant and in-compassionate thing someone with an alleged heart could possibly say. You are a poster child for the blindly biased, programmed into conformity and inhuman herd that populates our nation, those that forfeit their reason and ability to understand for an easy selection that does not afford them any risks. You may never have the maturity to realize your ignorance, but that is free will.