18 votes

What makes law "legitimate?" - A question from an anarchist - posed to the minarchist

So the "anarchist vs minarchist" debate is on pretty strong here at the DP. I like it, let's keep that topic open. Jan, Marc, and BILL3 have been doing well at keeping this topic alive at the DP.

So one thing that minarchists claim to be SO NECESSARY that a government or state court system supposedly has, is the "power to pass and enforce legitimate laws."

So minarchists basically say that "state courts are necessary in order to enforce laws, and the authority of the court is the highest possible authority. Without these state courts, under anarchy or voluntarism, there would be no "way of addressing criminals and criminal activites efficiently or correctly."

And then the minarchists go on to pose questions like "What makes the NAP valid at all?" "Why should the NAP be binding on others?" and "Why should property rights be binding on others?" In a non-statist world?

So minarchists are basically saying "The NAP (property rights) is not necessarily valid or binding. That is why we need a valid and binding court system."


But here is where I see a major problem for statists and minarchists. We do have states right now. We do have courts right now. We do have a "limited govermnent" that is supposedly "bound in its limits" outlined in "the constitution."

So here is my question to you minarchists. You want a constitution; you have one. You want a "limited government," you have one, the constitution supposedly guarantees this.

But WHAT IS BINDING about laws passed by the state and limits found in the constitution????


Because it seems that we have these laws and these courts. But WHEN THE GOVERNMENT breaks the limits, breaks the law, doesn't follow the constitution... WHAT IS THE RESULT? Are corrupt politicians and judges tried? Don't we see the government and its employees, agents, departments and agencies BREAKING THE SACRED LAWS left and right without recourse?

So to turn this line of questioning "What makes it valid?" (In reference to the NAP or property rights.) Let me turn this line of questioning around and ask you the same about the "sacred court system" that you statists insist is necessary to HAVE JUSTICE.

In other words, "Is your sacred court REALLY SO SACRED?"

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Define 'law'

Are you referring to statutes, or what is referred to as 'common law'?

You know what? Doesn't Bastiat cover this in "The Law"?

I'd look there.

Cyril's picture

The just law is about the rendering of justice.

The just law is about the rendering of justice, when and only when justice is called for.

Justice, and only justice.

The socialists want to use the law to shape society as they deem it suitable.

For, they think they are the Supermen of humanity.

Eventually, with this belief, they make themselves the scum of humanity, as History taught us.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Yes, nothing wrong with the law.

Yes, nothing wrong with the just law.

Everything wrong with the law perverted.

Ron Paul said this about liberty; I'd venture this is also valid for justice:

(the exact opposite of what the socialists aim at)

"To truly understand liberty is to divorce it from any social outcome."

-- Ron Paul

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

farmer, if you're around,

farmer, if you're around, this idea is mostly for you, but I'd like anyone to chime in.

The basic idea, which you established below, says that language is an "inaccurate" way to relay meaning. We can only understand one another as far as we share ideas regarding the basic meanings of words. Words, in turn, establish concepts and ideas. The meaning of a word is communicated, primarily, through the use of still more words, which endlessly compounds the problem.

This is an issue which I have thought about a great deal. The only solution that I have found which matches up with reality lies in a deliberate realization that words really do have different meanings. Meaning, like most value, is not definite, rather it is in the eye of the beholder.

I think there ought to be more argument about the basic definitions of basic words and the relationships amongst different words. Language is an art; it is flexible and up to interpretation. Ideally we ought to come to an agreement that is based in what would benefit most people, an agreement that would most propel peace and freedom, while we maintain the realization that we can never completely understand one another--this is a complicated concept.

Language is one of the most flexible tools we have to change minds--the popular understanding of words can be altered I think; in fact, language is destined to be altered, it has a history of extraordinary change.

What do you, or anyone else, think of this idea? Am I expressing myself clearly?

I think I understand you...

I also think there is something I would like to add. I will try.

In human relations, this matter of definitions is not simply theoretical. People act immorally based on their perception of words and their relation to reality, sometimes without even knowing it. What is somewhat frustrating is that even when this is clearly (of course relatively clearly) explained to them, they seem to sometimes/often respond with efforts to deliberately confuse the matter and disown or disguise their immoral behavior, which I am convinced they actually do understand as immoral behavior. This I call "being a psychopath." Many of these people know exactly what they are saying and doing and what they want to get out of it.

Let me back up. I am assuming here---and it may be to a certain extent in opposition to what you are saying---that there is an objective reality outside questions of language. Language plays a role, but that is not the whole story, and there is a notion of (what I call) morality that exists fundamentally in the natural world completely outside language, legal and mental constructions etc.

This notion of morality is also more than a utilitarian notion, strictly speaking. (Some of what you have written above appeals to a utilitarian idea: "...what would benefit the most people, an agreement...") I think it's immoral at some level to think that I, as an individual, can make a determination of what benefits "most people" or act on that basis, especially if I seek to bring about an agreement which results on that reality being forced on some smaller number of people who disagree.

Each individual has some kind of fundamental right to be left alone. Others have the fundamental right to live their lives as if I didn't exist. It is entirely beside the point that no one can or wants to live their life in that way. We all want and require human interaction, and most of us even desire to live within human society, which is something more. However, it is still immoral to try to determine a notion of "ultimate good" for another individual. It is immoral to impose a notion of "ulitmate good" on others. And I think that most thinking people have some kind of notion of "ultimate good" and it's a very important concept.

Unfortunately, many people have a notion of ultimate good which necessitates the immoral subordination of the ultimate good of others. That, it seems to me, is a consequence of the kind of utilitarianism you possibly suggest.

I think there is a place for utilitarianism, and it is a very powerful notion which you can see attacked very viciously, but very comically, in Michael Sandel's book "Justice" which is a kind of (comical) general attack on philosophy. Moral utilitarianism has a kind of one-way valve attached to it. In society, there are certain things that we know, if we do them, will result in the frustration of elements of many people's legitimate notion of "ultimate good."

For example, many people have as an element of their notion of ultimate good, the tenet that they stay alive in the limited sense of not being slain by another human while healthy. One has to assume so---a right to life. So if we know that a certain course of action is going to result in the death of such a person at our hands, directly or indirectly, then it is immoral to maintain a position or execute actions which lead to that end.

Application: Doing honest work and paying taxes to kill impoverished brown people in the Middle East (is immoral). It doesn't matter if you want to do it to maintain your current lifestyle which involves *peacefully* and *freely* burning their oil. (That may be irrelevant to this conversation, but it is often the justification I hear.)

In any case, I hope you get my point. There are real things going on in the real world. That is my interest in language, and that is my motivation for an attempt at nonstandard (corrected) usage. Many of the things I say may be strange to others, but I am making some effort to be clear.

Great points...

In my experience, about 90% of Internet debates boil down to semantic misunderstanding. That is, the opposing parties are using the same word to mean different things.

The more simple-minded of them don't even realize it.

The slightly more sophisticated will debate endlessly about which definition is "right."

Personally, I think it is a waste of time, and just takes away from a meaningful debate.

Once you realize that a word it being used differently by the parties in a debate, all that is necessary is to have each party to explain what they mean when they use the word, and then move forward. Once you understand what each person means it is philosophically meaningless to continue to debate which 'meaning' is 'right.'

Of course, for purposes of politics and mass culture, "word branding" is very important. It is like when some cheap manufacturer from Taiwan buys a venerable brand like Abercrombie or Marantz. Then, they can sell their cheap junk for triple the price until the brand is ruined, then do it again. That is common in politics (just look at how the "liberal" brand was ruined in the US to such an extent that, for strategic reasons, they had to dump the brand in favor of "progressive." Of course, the "conservatives" have done pretty much the same thing, vis a vis ruining their brand.

But, that is irrelevant in an honest philosophical debate among people who are attempting to understand one another, even if they disagree.

In that case, increasing the amount of "redundancy" in the conversation, and decreasing the amount of "abstraction" by using more explanatory words to communicate complex concepts rather than highly "compressed" words, eventually leads to mutual understanding.

Hi kyletownsend

Far below (page 2+), I responded to your post which was similar to this post concerning wasting time etc. In particular, you concluded that what I was saying was absurd and not worth discussing. For your convenience, I will paste that response here and add something:

Perhaps what I am trying to communicate should be called "legitimacy."

The fact that what I am saying is outside some particular view of "libertarian philosophy" is hardly an argument to dismiss it or call it absurd.

Using language to describe things and discuss them in those terms is an implicit attempt to give them legitimacy. I am challenging the legitimacy of joint ownership.

I would challenge your example of an HOA on another level. All property, to be legitimately considered property, must be actual matter, i.e., made of atoms---as best we understand it. An HOA has no material substance. It is not property "owned" by anyone. You can get together with your fellow condo occupiers and claim you "own" your condos and the HOA. I don't care about that. But if you want a notion of property which is viable as a concept upon which to construct a society with clear intention and legitimacy, then (I think) you need to adopt my views as dictates of nature. (I'm not suggesting their adoption, of course, simply because they are my views. What I'm suggesting is that expecting people to base their view of reality upon whatever arbitrary definitions you happen to make is absurd, and nature itself suggests reasonable definitions and ways to think about things based on the consequences of ill advised and arbitrary legal and linguistic constructs.)

My two proposed principles of property ownership:

1. All property must be material, i.e., made of atoms.
2. Ownership is something that a person can legitimately exercise only, i.e., is something one can do only, on one's own. That is, joint ownership is illigitimate to the extent that individuals are individuals.

Edit: Here are third and fourth ones (not so well explained here, but just to let you know there are others).

3. Property ownership requires responsibility, both negative and positive. If property is used in an immoral way, the owner is responsible. Property ownership does not include a right to destroy. There is a limitation based, at least, on life, and future generations have a right to your property equal to yours. That is, there is a positive responsibility of sustainability.

4. Property ownership requires connection. Perhaps this one should be first or second. To have title to something to which you have no connection, like owning land by title, is not legitimate ownership.

I understand that people can invent various legal definitions of joint ownership. I understand that people have been doing that for a long time. I understand that most people don't think the way I do. But the thinking of most people is what has led us into the situation which we now experience and are going to leave, i.e., force on future generations.

It's time to start thinking differently and more clearly.

That's fine

I think you have stated your ideas well enough that I generally understand what you are trying to get at. Thanks for that.

It is an interesting twist.

I just put it into the category of things that are so outside of human nature and of objective reality that it will never get any significant traction.

Therefore, I don't see any point in getting into a long discussion about it.

Simple misdirection

People not states agree or disagree to perpetrate crimes upon each other or to defend against criminals.

If that is not understood then people, not states, may be fooled into the foolish trap of misdirection.

Misdirection works for the criminals as the criminals take over courts, take over governments, take over defense against criminals, as the victims are led to believe that courts, governments, and defense against criminals can be done by things, not people.

This is the classic misdirection at work and it can be seen in very simple examples.

"So here is my question to you minarchists. You want a constitution; you have one."

When the people defended themselves in America during the time period between 1776 and 1787 the people created 13 Constitutions for 13 defense associations and all 13 defense associations worked within a free market voluntary government association known as The Articles of Confederation.

The people also defended themselves with an improved version of trial by jury that was improved from the higher cost and lower quality version that was in England under a counterfeited version of common law.

So the misdirection here, in that sentence quoted, has to do with the difference between a working free market government or defense association market, or Federation, and the counterfeit version run by criminals.

Here is the quote again:

"So here is my question to you minarchists. You want a constitution; you have one."

The criminals took over the free market defense association Federation in 1787 turning 13 competitive defense associations into ONE MONOPOLY CRIME SYNDICATE/CARTEL/MONOPOLY.

"So here is my question to you minarchists. You want a constitution; you have one."

That is a misdirection.

The same so called Anarchist named Lysander Spooner who wrote Trial by Jury also wrote No Treason.

Those two works are here and here:

The bait and switch is the same misdirection each time, and the fools fall for it each time.

There is a fool born every minute, so says one man, and another man says that you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time, so some of us are not fooled by this:

"So here is my question to you minarchists. You want a constitution; you have one."


When anyone ever says OBEY WITHOUT QUESTION they confess their guilty criminal minds as they off that MONOPOLY VIEWPOINT.

The only reason that such a lie gains traction, is able to fool the fools, is that the lie is offered under the color of law, or under the false claim that the only way to get to VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION (Liberty) is through INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION (crime).

The lie fools the fools into the belief in the lie because the fools are led to believe that the only way to get to freedom from the criminals is to pay the criminals everything the criminals demand, and do so without question.

How stupid are the fools?

You may need to take a more careful look in the mirror.

The supposed Common Law Courts of England (not America) were of this same duality, or same genuine versus counterfeit, and so the free market force applied in England caused the genuine free market people to leave England and settle in America.

Fresh in the minds of the American settlers were the concepts of our courts, our government, our religion, our common sense, our common defense, and our common needs for survival, AND the criminal, counterfeit, monopoly, tyranny, despotism, MONARCHY version of our common defense.

1. Genuine free market, of the people, by the people, and for the people who reject the counterfeit, monopoly, monarchy, cartel, cabal, criminal organization.

2. False version, counterfeit version, of the criminals, by the criminals, and for the criminals, monarchy, monopoly, cartel, cabal, criminal organization POSING as government, defense, non-aggression, free market, peace, liberty, freedom, good.

Fresh in the minds of those people where the stark differences between right and wrong as defined by at least 16 documents as such:

Common Sense by Thomas Paine

That led to the next document:

The Declaration of Independence

That led to the next 13 Documents:

1. Unwritten Constitution of Connecticut:

"An unwritten constitution that the whole society believes in is likely to be much stronger than a written one that a society does not believe in. England has lasted a millennium with an unwritten constitution, whereas a majority of the countries today with a written one have seen it ignored by military strongmen and others."

2. Constitution of Delaware; 1776:

The Constitution, or System of Government, agreed to and resolved upon by the Representatives in full Convention of the Delaware State, formerly styled "The Government of the Counties of New Castle, Kent, and Sussex, upon Delaware," the said Representatives being chosen by the Freemen of the said State for that express Purpose.

"...by the freemen..."
"...a free and independent State..."
"... lay embargoes or prohibit the exportation of any commodity for any time not exceeding thirty days in the recess of the general assembly; he shall have the power of granting pardons or reprieves, except where the prosecution shall be carried on by the house of assembly, or the law shall otherwise direct, in which cases no pardon or reprieve shall be granted, but by a resolve of the house of assembly, and may exercise all the other executive powers of government' limited and restrained as by this constitution is mentioned, and according to the laws of the State..."
" which court shall be styled the " court of appeals," and have all the authority and powers heretofore given by law in the last resort
"...sheriffs and coroners..."
"...officers in the army or navy of this State..."
"...to the King in council, under the old government..."
"And all officers shall be removed on conviction of misbehavior at common law, or on impeachment, or upon the address of the general assembly."
ART. 25. The common law of England, as-well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention.
ART. 26. No person hereafter imported into this State from Africa ought to be held in slavery under any presence whatever; and no negro, Indian, or mulatto slave ought to be brought into this State, for sale, from any part of the world.

Those words (lower case common law for example) establish the concept of "we the people govern ourselves by consent" (voluntary association) as opposed to "government by a thing, a monopoly, a cartel, organized crime, monarchy, despotism, tyranny, etc. (involuntary association or "AP" or Aggression Principle) so moving now to document 2 of 13 Constitutional Free Market Defense Associations or State/Republic/Democracy/Government by the people, of the people, and for the people, not government by the criminals, of the criminals, for the criminals AT THE EXPENSE of the victims.

3. Constitution of Georgia; February 5, 1777:

ART. XXXIX. All matters of breach of the peace, felony, murder, and treason against the State to be tried in the county where the same was committed. All matters of dispute, both civil and criminal, in any county where there is not a sufficient number of inhabitants to form a court, shall be tried in the next adjacent county where a court is held.

ART. XL. All causes, of what nature soever, shall be tried in the supreme court, except as hereafter mentioned; which court shall con sist of the chief-justice, and three or more of the justices residing in the county. In case of the absence of the chief-justice, the senior justice on the bench shall act as chief-justice, with the clerk of the county, attorney for the State, sheriff, coroner, constable, and the jurors; and in case of the absence of any of the aforementioned officers, the justices to appoint others in their room pro tempore. And if any plaintiff or defendant in civil causes shall be dissatisfied with the determination of the jury, then, and in that case, they shall be at liberty, within three days, to enter an appeal from that verdict, and

demand a new trial by a special jury, to be nominated as follows, viz: each party, plaintiff and defendant, shall choose six, six more names shall be taken indifferently out of a box provided for that purpose, the whole eighteen to be summoned, and their names to be put together into the box, and the first twelve that are drawn out, being present, shall be the special jury to try the cause, and from which there shall be no appeal.

ART. XLI. The jury shall be judges of law, as well as of fact, and shall not be allowed to bring in a special verdict; but if all or any of the jury have any doubts concerning points of law, they shall apply to the bench, who shall each of them in rotation give their opinion.
ART. XLV. No grand jury shall consist of less than eighteen, and twelve may find a bill.
ART. LVIII. No person shall be allowed to plead in the courts of law in this State, except those who are authorized so to do by the house of assembly; and if any person so authorized shall be found guilty of malpractice before the house of assembly, they shall have power to suspend them. This is not intended to exclude any person from that inherent privilege of every freeman, the liberty to plead his own cause.
ART. LXI. Freedom of the press and trial by jury to remain inviolate forever.

Above are some points in the area of trial by jury in this Constitutionally Limited Republic or State, where there is an obvious effort to "...to exclude any person from that inherent privilege of every freeman..." words claiming otherwise notwithstanding the actual evidence?

4. Constitution of Maryland - November 11, 1776

"THE parliament of Great Britain, by a declaratory act, having assumed a right to make laws to bind the Colonies in all cases whatsoever, and, in pursuance of Rich claim, endeavoured, by force of arms, to subjugate the United Colonies to an unconditional submission to their will and power, and having at length constrained them to declare themselves independent States, and to assume government under the authority of the people; Therefore we, the Delegates of Maryland, in free and full Convention assembled, taking into our most serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State, for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare,"

III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by Jury, according that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and of such others as have been since made in England, or Great Britain, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the courts of law or equity; and also to acts of Assembly, in force on the first of June seventeen hundred and seventy-four, except such as may have since expired, or have been or may be altered by facts of Convention, or this Declaration of Rights-subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State: and the inhabitants of Maryland are also entitled to all property, derived to them, from or under the Charter, granted by his Majesty Charles I. to Crecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore.

XVII. That every freeman, for any injury done him in his person or property, ought to have remedy, by the course of the law of the land, and ought to have justice and right freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the law of the land.

Those people in Maryland were obviously serious about their rights.

And a reference to common law courts (lower case):

LII. That every Chancellor, Judge, Register of Wills, Commissioner of the Loan Office, Attorney-General, Sheriff, Treasurer, Naval Officer, Register of the Land Office, Register of the Chancery Court, and every Clerk of the common law courts, Surveyor and Auditor of the public accounts, before he acts as such, shall take an oath " That he will not directly or indirectly receive any fee or reward, for doing his office of , but what is or shall be allowed by law; nor will, directly or indirectly, receive the profits or any part of the profits of any office held by any other person, and that he does not hold the same office in trust, or for the benefit of any other person."

5. Constitution of Massachusetts 1780

Before quoting from sources it may help general knowledge with a clear understanding of the two Parties of people known as Federalists (Washington, Hamilton, and John Adams) whereby these people had very close ties with Organized Crime Syndication, Cartelization, Monopoly POWER. Washington was the Strong Man:

Hamilton was the Central Banker Monopolist:

John Adams was President during the days when the PARTY (Federalists) were working to destroy the main enemy of the British Criminal Organization (or Monarchy, or Bank of England) which was The French. Remembering accurate history includes the memory of how The French aided American Revolutionary Forces to defeat the criminal British invaders. So...why was John Adams so well tied with British Interests to the point at which John Adams presides over The Alien and Sedition Acts?

Back to Massachusetts Charter and then Constitution of 1780 (4 years after 1776 and The Declaration of Independence)

Charter: Explanatory Charter of Massachusetts Bay - 1725

"...Kingdom at Westminster..."

Constitution of Massachusetts 1780:

"The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it..."

That is where I smell a rat. There is in that construction the making of a thing that is an entity onto itself, a "body politic" that is then "the government" and "it" does this, and "it" does that, such as "it" furnishes "individuals who compose it," and if you do not see how "it" then becomes a legal fiction, then you may need some effort on your part invested in knowing better from worse.

I can go into this in much greater detail concerning the probabilities of why the last battle of the Revolution was lost in Massachusetts and why that battle triggered the formation of the Federalist PARTY (should have been named Communist Party) where Morris, Hamilton, and the other central bankers enticed their Strong Man Washington to dishonor is word to retire, and enlisted their Strong Man Washington to command their Standing National Army of Tax Collectors (war debt collectors collecting debt for their money fraud POWER in England, and onward to whoever, Jesuits, The Vatican, whatever)

Here is where the proof of how free market government proves again, and again, why free market government works as it is designed to work, since Massachusetts would have been one of the first (worst) Republics to then be forced (by market forces) to end the infestation of despotism, and to supply to the people what the people demand; which is Liberty.

Although the Revolutionary forces (free market forces) were crushed in Massachusetts by the existing organized crime cabal running the Massachusetts "government," those who survived the battle fled to other Constitutional Republics such as Vermont. That "voting with their feet" from one despotic State (Massachusetts) to find sanctuary in a less, or non-despotic State is called MARKET FORCES, as the voters are then voting with their feet, like runaway slaves, from one organized crime system to a free system, and what can the criminals do to force the slaves to return to slavery?

They hold secret meetings and they hatch a criminal plan is the standard criminal procedure:

Moving to another Constitutional Republic (from the original 13):



I agree, it is the people.

But a people in unity is the state, a people in a state of unity, as I stated below, exercising their collective sovereignty through a government. There are technically no states left in the American Union because, 1) no one claims state nationality, and 2) even if there were, and there are a few, they must establish unity of culture and habits in order to reestablish common law for themselves and exercise their rightful republican sovereignty.

You mistake the "state" (the condition of a people in unity) for the government or the "State of (fill in the blank)" municipal corporation. This is not the case. Without state nationality or the condition of unity, the government is left to be autonomous, without a people to govern it. (Multiculturalism is a lie.) It therefore does what it wants. That, I believe, is the really big problem.

It's not what "they" have done to us, it is what we have become, and thus let happen to us, then unwittingly perpetuate.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/


I just lost about 1 hours work when finding the 403 ERROR message.

I should have backed up sooner, before you responded.

Not too many people respond to my offers.

Those who do respond are often those who tell me what I think.

"You mistake..."

How can you be so certain as to what I think or what I do not think?

"It's not what "they" have done to us, it is what we have become, and thus let happen to us, then unwittingly perpetuate."

If you are looking for an argument then you may want to find someone who is also looking for an argument.

If you claim to know what I think, and you are wrong, then you are arguing with your false version of me.

If that is what you want to do, since you are definitely wrong as to what you think I think, then go ahead.

Go ahead and argue with an imaginary version of me that you create in your mind.

By all means do that, and have fun with what you do, at your pleasure.

If you continue to make false claims about what I think, while you have been offered a rejection of your false claims about what I think, then you willfully choose to make false claims about what I think and that makes you a liar.

I've been accused of making false claims about someone lying.

As if I call everyone liars at the drop of the hat, and that is a fault of mine.

Is that true in this case?

No, if the facts mean anything to anyone, I am not yet calling you a liar, why would I?

You merely make false claims about what I think, as if your version of me can become me because you think so.

That is an error. You made an error.

I am informing you of the error you made about what you think is my "mistake," whereby your version of me is demonstrably untrue.

I can demonstrate how your version of me is untrue.

Now you have been informed.

I am not identifying you as a liar. I am not calling you a liar.

You are now informed of your error in judgment concerning what I think.

If you persist in making errors, again, and again, whereby your claims of what I think are demonstrably not what I think, then that makes you a liar, if that is what you do, so make my day.

You wrote:____________________________________
You mistake the "state" (the condition of a people in unity) for the government or the "State of (fill in the blank)" municipal corporation. This is not the case. Without state nationality or the condition of unity, the government is left to be autonomous, without a people to govern it. (Multiculturalism is a lie.) It therefore does what it wants. That, I believe, is the really big problem.

Who makes the mistake you claim to be a mistake made by someone?

How about that?

How about nailing down the accurate record of what actually happens in the here and now?

Here is a useful quote:

Responsibility must be Individual, or there is no responsibility at all.

So who is responsible for the mistake that you point out as a mistake in your words?

You wrote:____________________________________
You mistake the "state" (the condition of a people in unity) for the government or the "State of (fill in the blank)" municipal corporation. This is not the case. Without state nationality or the condition of unity, the government is left to be autonomous, without a people to govern it. (Multiculturalism is a lie.) It therefore does what it wants. That, I believe, is the really big problem.

If you have a way to help me see my errors then your help has to actually be help, not misdirection.

"It therefore does what it wants."

Claiming that "it" can do what it wants is like claiming that the gun (it) can murder someone.

Who makes that mistake?

I do not make that mistake.


Let's look at what a law is

A law makes order out of disorder. If you look at the etymology of the term we see that it is a 'laying in order' and is "something laid down and fixed".

What makes a law legitimate is whether it creates order or not. What we find in nature is that Laws are complimentary, universal, and do not have loopholes, what we see in Arbitrary man made law is that laws are very often contrary to each other and almost always have loopholes.

We originally created laws and government (Sheriff is first recorded office invented) to create order, to prevent chaos and loss, and to serve justice in an equal and common manner.

Can Anarchy serve that role? Maybe, but the obstacles are numerous and large. Can Minarchy serve that role? To me more likely, and we have a great deal of info on how we reached National Socialism from Limited Government the first time so we can place better controls on Scope and Authority of Government this time.

The ability for us to reasonably predict the outcome of our actions and behaviors is quite necessary to have a prosperous and peaceful society. That means that rules must be complimentary and stable and there should not be too many, and not too few.

Perhaps debating the Pros and Cons of Anarchy & Minarchy in that regard would prove fruitful as well.

If you think order makes laws legitimate you should be anarchist

What makes market order so.. orderly it that it cannot be evaded and it costs nothing to enforce and it happens without anyone doing anything.

It's because market discipline can seem so harsh to bad actors, people who fail to produce or service their fellow man in ways they find desirable that people want states to protect them.

They don't want discipline. They want to be protected from discipline.

Now we all do. No one likes discipline applied to them.

But the difference between us and you.. protectionists, statists, socialists, is that we understand society as a whole would be better off under the iron fist of market discipline.

If you have rulers, you don't have rules, you have arbitrary orders.

If you have lawmakers, you don't have laws, you have ephemeral edicts.

The ultimate rule of law is by the law which cannot be escaped. The only escape from that law is government.

No government means absolute law.

I should qualify Almost Anarchist

I do not believe Adults should have any rulers save themselves, if they are handicapped I can see the need for guardianship.

I recognize the value of a Republic where are Adults have equal station, NO RULERS. I adhere to the concept of a Rule of Law based upon Natural Law which I understand to be the root of the NAP.

I understand that people of equal station should have a reasonable ability to insure MAD Mutually Assured Destruction when faced with Destruction themselves. When a community possess MAD as individuals, it creates a pretty awesome means to deter tyranny.

I say adults because I understand that Parents own their children and have Authority and Responsibility over them.

I believe that Self Rule within a Republic where The Rule of Law based upon Natural Law is possible, IF a majority of people practice Self Rule.

Almost Anarchist! :)

Very similar to being an Almost Christian in that most Christians find that even more offensive than not being Christian at all. Go figure.

It's because market discipline can seem so harsh to bad actors, people who fail to produce or service their fellow man in ways they find desirable that people want states to protect them.

That's by far most of America. So how do you get 300,000,000 people to the point where they are able to participate in the division of labor that allows them to live without subsidy?

You're not going to get there overnight. Moving towards Minarchy will get us close. Children require a great deal of supervision prior to their teens, once in their teens they require less and a different kind of supervision and direction, once they are adults they should be able to navigate this world without supervision or direction.

If the Anrachists think you can transition a young child straight to adulthood without their being able to test/strengthen their wings, and be able to come home til they can fly on their own, I think you need to look at your strategy again. If you're just talking theory and how it 'should be' then don't get upset when people scoff at your theory, it's only talk and no walk.

If you think we can simply ignore all the people largely dependent upon Gov't and simply make the change, I'd offer that there are enough people to form a mob that will decimate those forcing Anarchy to the point Anarchists will be synonymous with NAZI's. Yes, two different systems, but the same hatred will be applied to both.

But the difference between us and you.. protectionists, statists, socialists, is that we understand society as a whole would be better off under the iron fist of market discipline.

How are you going to convince 'us' (LOL) that we'd be better off? Funny thing is that I have this same understanding, save a few areas. You seem to think that we can't have Limited Gov't, I think Anarchy never gets a chance without first achieving Minarchy. Sort of like having the teenage years where those not exactly comfortable with full blown Anarchy (like Adulthood) can have the safety of not having to be fully independent, yet. The US is almost all Children and Adolescents in that regard.

If you throw millions of adolescents to the wolves, guess what, a high demand for Shepherds is going to be created. You're going to get a bunch of sheep willing to use force to go back to the old way, Civil War will erupt, and the most likely outcome is Central Planning again.

The question is moot

My goal is not to attempt to bring about capitalism.

My goal is to educate, so that when/if capitalism comes, we don't backslide into slavery.

I think you are correct that most people believe they gain a benefit from their servitude. After all this is exactly what they are indoctrinated to think in socialized education centers.

The current system will fail. They know it, they aren't buying up all that ammo for no reason. They aren't spying on us for no reason.

Now if you have the 'understanding' of economics that you get from Keynesianism you may not see what is coming. But it is coming. When? Hell if I know. It will come when someone with a lot of gold, like maybe China, has had enough of our crap and blows the dollar to hell.

So all the people you cite who think they are being 'helped' by government protection will wake up. They are going to jump some way. Will it be to freedom? Or deeper into slavery?

Again, I don't know. But if we don't educate now our odds get worse.

If a free society could be brought about gradually it would be more humane. But I agree, it's probably impossible. (barring a multigenerational exercise such as Stef promotes) I certainly don't know how to do it.

A free society cannot be brought about through violence.

So it will come, if it does, as a result of the collapse of empire.

Our empire.

The unity of a people in the

The unity of a people in the context of the legitimate exercise of their colective sovereignty makes law legitimate.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

There is no such thing as

There is no such thing as individual sovereignty. One has sole use, control, and resposibility over one's body and actions. One should also have sole use, control, and resposibility of ones possessions. But there is no greaterer sovereignty there.

Sovereignty over anything else is possessed by a people unified by a common culture and habits, exercising their collective sovereignty through some form of government. This is the definition of a state: the condition of a people in unity exercising their sovereignty through a government.

There is no other way to organise a republic or to possess sovereignty with others.

The purpose of government is to be the conduit for the people to exercise their collective sovereignty. Now,the question arises: what is it that such a government needs to make laws about? The people, under common law, have natural rights among which are the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. No government, in a republic, can regulate, legislate, or otherwise abridge any of one's natural rights.

So, what does the government make law for? The answer is that the government exercises its "just powers" over activities which fall outside of natural rights. A simple example is the ownership of a corporation. Corporations are artificial persons which are granted the power own property, sue and be sued, and have infinite life spans. It also limits indevidual liability (barring fraud). Bringing such a beast into existence is NOT a natural right and requires permission of the people, the state, through its government.

The real problem that anarchists and minarchists unknowingly struggle with is the fact that 1. There is no unity among the peoples of the American Union, so they can no longer exercise their sovereignty over and throught the state governments. All that's left is the government without constraint. And 2. There are no longer any indigenous peoples in the nations of the American Union who possess the necessary sovereignty to control state governments even if they had unity.

Anarchists and minarchists choose to negate law, as well as the people and their unity, while they invent something new, without precedent or continuity, out of nothing. As far as I know, only God ( and the Federal Reserve ;-) ) has ever achieved that feat.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Join was a typo haha Joint

Join was a typo haha

Joint ownership is a pretty ancient principle my man.

Ventura 2012

Ancient yes.

There are lots of ancient contradictions: Freedom for some and slavery for others. Freedom without responsibility. Ownership without connection (title).

There are lots of contradictions in language. It is incumbent upon us to discern the true nature of things in spite of the inaccuracy of language, rather than build more error and deception on that innacuracy.

Webreally have a messiah

Webreally have a messiah complex in this movement

Ventura 2012

Are you serious? Have you

Are you serious? Have you come to this conclusion based in part upon what farmer has said?

Yeah, he thinks he gets to

Yeah, he thinks he gets to override 1000 years of english common law because it doesnt make sense to him.

Ventura 2012

Does farmer have a Messiah complex?

The laws are generally based in some long standing tradition, and this provides a reason for you to give these laws legitimacy? And you think farmer should suffer under these laws which enforce unreasonable intrusions--things which are understandably not suitable to him? That is a mean idea.

Farmer should be permitted by, not just the "government", but by you and me, to produce and transact as he wishes, as long as he does so in good faith. Freedom, as much as it is something we must take for ourselves, it also might be regarded as something that is "allowed"--it could be thought of as a general understanding amongst a group of people which is not to be violated, an understanding based in good things like mutual respect and love, not bad things like unwelcome and violent offensive forces.

The present state of law, according to the way that most people recognize it, is in sad shape. I don't know what positive things you can say about the maintenance of traditional "law"? Is normal good, or should normal change? Is it not inevitable that what is normal, or traditional, will be greatly altered at some time in the future? Everything continues to change, and that includes the very way that we understand language.

But maybe by your messiah complex accusation you do not even mean anything negative, I just thought of this! Most great leaders could be said to have a messiah complex, eh?

Joint ownership is one of the

Joint ownership is one of the foundations of the modern market economy.

What farmer is saying is that joint ownership shouldn't exist and makes no sense because he can't make any sense of it. But his understanding has no bearing on it!

Ventura 2012

His understanding of joint

His understanding of joint ownership may be flawed, but this is no reason to imply that he has a messiah complex. We all have flawed ideas!

Criticism and questions provide progress in the course of discovering personal truth and shared ideas, unpleasant accusations have no place in legitimate discourse, unless there is a real big deuche involved who really needs to be put down :)

Farmer made a great and honest attempt at answering my questions and he has great ideas, I would never allow a silly disagreement about "joint ownership" to effect my overall opinion of him. Just sayin'!

Vape ownership...

is very recent. :p

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~



Ventura 2012

IMO, This is a stupid debate.

And I am not just talking about the question of the legitimacy of law.

The whole "anarchy" vs. "minarchy" debate is stupid, and reflects a shallow understanding of the concepts involved.

Both groups propose to implement the libertarian philosophy. But they differ on the political structures and processes used to do so.

However, they do not differ to the extent that they think they do.

This is because they have an over-exaggerated sense of the difference between "public" and "private" institutions.

The question is not whether institutions are nominally public or private. The costume doesn't matter. The powers and authorities matter.

For example, just as soon as an ancap runs out and buys a condo, he has subjected himself to a private government known as a HOA, in which through some "democratic" process, his fellow property owners will have power over him.

The trivial case in which all property is 100% private, and individually owned, is not realistic. There will always be some property held in common with some other people, for reasons of efficiency, convenience, and preference.

Therefore, a highly decentralized minarchist state is likely to end up looking like an ancap state in most respects, and vice versa.