I asked an attorney when I consented to this government

Thank you for describing what you and many others wrongly define anarchy to be.

My post is not a description of anarchy, by anyone's standard. If you would read it carefully you could actually respond to what I wrote, rather than mischaracterizing the whole thing. As I go on, we'll see this thread of mischaracterization continuing.

Basically all you said is that we are forced into it by mob rules with no options to opt out unless we can get the mob to agree with us.

Strangely, this is EXACTLY the same situation you'd be in under anarchy IF an angry mob showed up in your yard to burn your house down over something you were overheard to say. It would be up to YOU to convince them not to do it.

Wow what a great government.

It is impossible ever to fully escape the force of mob rule. Whether in a riot or in a fad of political philosphy---or even in an anarchy---people will think what people think, and they will act accordingly. If you have the energy, the resources, and the compelling message to get them to shift their paradigms, then you can knock yourself out. Otherwise, you are fighting nature, just as if you were trying to sweep the high tide back off your favorite beech with a push broom. This is not a philosophical matter, but a matter of direct observation. Anyone can come to this same conclusion by observing society.

By the way, the Constitution attenuates the whole mob rule phenomenon by requiring such a high standard for amendment.

As far as being born without consent you really don't know if you were or were not so you are not qualified to answer that.

If you weren't in such a hurry to take exception to what I write, you might read for comprehension first. Go take another look if you care to be accurate. If not, then plow forward.

Your analogy of government being necessary for things like roads, fire, prevention, police etc is a complete misnomer.

1. It was not an analogy.
2. It was not about government being necessary for those things. It was about the notion of "opting out" of what already exists.
3. I did not "name" anything, so the word "misnomer" is inappropriate here.
Again, if you will try to understand what I mean before you respond, it will be very helpful in future correspondence. It does no good to jump to conclusions.

Roads were all built originally in this country privately, Why shouldn't I be able ot opt out of fire and police services? Of course that used to all be done privately too.

See above.

But your idea that you can't imagine someone opting out etc. is ridiculous.

See above.

So because government stole peoples money to build a road I have to continue to be robbed by them? ... Sigh!

This is an example of the same irrational and irresponsible language I have corrected so many times in these last two weeks. There is an obvious difference between stealing and taxation. Most adults understand this freely. You can call it "stealing", but it simply is not. You can insist on it all you like, but you are simply wrong---even if incorrigibly so.

You departure from common reasoning and from conventional definitions is a very troubling symptom of some underlying problem in your thinking. I will not purport to understand what is its cause, but the result is that you are not able to have a reasonable conversation with others wherein you draw normal distinctions, abide by conventional definitions, and acknowledge that which is obvious to the rest of the world.

Wouldn't it be easier to disagree with me on my actual points than to try to weave my every sentence into something I did not say?

last but not least and perhaps most importantly what has any of that got to do with the constitution? You still have failed to explain why a constitution is necassary.

To most people, it is quite obvious why a constitution is necessary. You, however, seem to belong to a cult of predetermined conclusions, in which any answer to the question is predetermined to be wrong, no matter its merits. Further, you dispense with typical logic and formal proofs, opting instead to value only the answer, and not the math by which the answer is supposed to be calculated.

The framework given did not empower the people they already had the power, it robbed them of such power and concentrated it into the hands of a few people who promptly used it to murder their countrymen

Tell me, how many of the people of 1775 voted for King George? How many got to vote on the Stamp Act? How about the Tea Tax?

The problem was that they had NO say in these matters. As the phrase evolved, it was "taxation without representation". You, however, are not in that position. For you, a framework exists for you to be represented in the legislative process. This you owe to the Constitution.

I imagine at this point that you will rail about how terrible everything is under this system. Further, I imagine that you will fail to acknowledge that the present way of things is simply NOT the envisioned system as designed by the Framers. No, you seem to prefer simply being irate than to be rational.

(i.e the whiskey rebellion) because they refused to turn over the fruits of thier labor or more aptly stated refused to be robbed by this newly formed supposed limited government.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that EVERYTHING the government did in the Whiskey Rebellion was completely diabolical.

Just what point are you making? Do you mean to suggest---and I really doubt you're going to answer this question----but do you mean to suggest that under anarchy, there would never be any diabolical acts?

If that is your claim, I find it remarkable and fantastic.

You get lost in the ruckus and forget the need to keep like things in mind when engaging in comparison and contrast. You say that anarchy is better than government, but then you give examples that do not treat each side alike. You use every failure of government to support anarchy, yet you refuse to acknowledge that anarchy has its failures, too.

This is irresponsible.

The difference in our philosophies is that you have no compunction to deal with the contradictions that naturally arise as the result of trying to defend your position. I, on the other hand, have arrived at my position BECAUSE OF dealing with contradictions in my previous beliefs.

Someone here suggested that anarchy is the "logical conclusion" of freedom. The fact of the matter, however, is that boundless freedom leads to situations that wise people consider to be out of hand. Therefore, their "logical conclusion" is that we do indeed need SOME form of government to curb the baser instincts of mankind.

A thousand governments have been formed as the result of such experience. You, however, would have us all reform to your wishes without anything more than your hope in your predetermined conclusion that anarchy would work if only we would try it well enough. The fact of the matter is that most Americans simply do not WANT anarchy. You, on the other hand, envision some magical way by which you may march to the beat of your own drummer without ever being disturbed by the machinations of the body politic around you.

Tell me, can you "opt out" of a passing hurricane merely by asserting your sovereignty?

And if, under anarchy, somebody stepped on your lawn without permission, I could jump up and down and adamantly declare, "See, anarchy doesn't work because that guy didn't respect your property rights!!!!!!"

And you'd think I was an idiot for judging your entire political philosophy by one single event.

But I'd insist (hypothetically) that ANY failure of the system was an indication that the whole thing was flawed and unsustainable. And you would think I was really stubborn and block-headed for insisting this when it's perfectly clear to you that the system would work just fine if only the PEOPLE would have a higher character and behave better.

What I am trying to do is to reform our national character enough to make us qualified citizens for our role as governmental overseers. We have abdicated that role and haven't the character for it anymore. It's a ridiculously difficult task.

What you are wishing for, however, requires an even greater miracle than what I'm after. Anarchy requires an even greater character on the part of the people to achieve an equal level of justice and order in a society as that that can be afforded by a form such as is prescribed by our Constitution.

You can wish and you can complain, but you cannot show a functional model of what you desire.

Your position is quite like this cartoon:

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php

If a person were the victim of a physically abusive spouse, I wonder if it would seem more reasonable to pose philosophical questions about "opting out" of the abuse than it would be simply to leave.

Does the one who stays bear any responsibility for future abuses suffered? Even the slightest responsibility?

So let's say that you are really serious about reforming the nation into anarchy. Do you have a plan for this? Have you calculated what must be achieved, and in what order? Have you launched a public education campaign?

I could be wrong---and I hope I am---but given your tone and your style of argumentation, I doubt very seriously that you've done enough "math" to arrive at such a state of preparation. It seems like a seat-of-the-pants endeavor to me, and not a viable political philosophy.

As far as I can tell, all you have going for you is your adamancy. The prospect of anarchy itself is repugnant to most Americans, so they will never accept it willingly without a monumental paradigm shift.

Will you then force it on them? Is that consistent with your principles?

OK, I think I have said enough to you to make my position clear for anyone who cares to understand it. I'll not be responding to your further posts on this subject. If something is really pressing, feel free to contact me privately about it.

Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com