What of this has been government propaganda?
Civics deals with how governments use power. I am discussing the issue of what seperates a government from tyranny and it is a civics topic, since the difference is in how they use their monopoly on power. Governments use the monopoly morally and tyrannys use them with no respect for morals whatsoever. A moral government respects rights. Any entity with a monopoly on the use of force that does not respect rights is a tyranny and not a government.
Who said anything about benevolent office holders? Not me. Don't know why you would say that's my way.
""Am I legally obligated to obey their statutes?"Yes."
This is a point that is important, legality. What entity etablishes laws? Do laws serve a purpose? What entity enforces laws?
Since you answered your own questions ill answer mine for you. Government establishes laws. Laws serve the purpose of setting boundaries for acceptable behavior between two or more parties. A combination of law enforcement(police, sheriffs), court system and prison system.
"Government GOVERNS you. It claims total power over you. That power in and of itself is by definition tyrannical. Without this power, the entity loses its ability to govern you and therefor ceases to be government."
Governments must respect rights and therefore cannot claim total control over anyone, a government can only intervene when one party's rights are undermined, threatened or taken away by anothers that is the essential difference between tyranny and government. The similarity is the monopoly on the use of force. The difference is in the exercizing of that force, i it exercizes the force to uphold rights it is a govenment if it use force to trample even one person's rights it is a tyranny totally.
"Government is a militant entity that occupies society in order to achieve its own ends, whatever they may be.
That is the origin of government and the purpose of government."
Funny, i thought orgin means where how and when something began, not what somebody claims it is... Also if i have this correct you say the purpose of government is to 'achieve its own ends, whatever they may be.' An then you claim to have stated the government's purpose? Everythings purpose is to achieve its own end, whatever it may be. Have i just explained the purpose of everything?
So courts are seperate from government, what enforced a court's decision? I a court's decision wasn't supported by a governing body what purpose would it serve in protecting people from fraud and the like when nobody can be forced to come before court, or if upon losin a case one could disregaurd the verdict and go to a different courthouse.
Do you advocate no government? If so what is your proposed method of dealing with criminals and maintaining rights for the wrongfully accused? What happens when two people with legitimate arguments hire two different private police firms to go after the other and take back what they feel was wrongfully taken? What is your answer for keeping a monopoly on the use of force from developing? What entity will enforce the policy to keep a competitive market for the use of force?
Is government serves its moral purpose as the entity with the monopoly on the use of force. A tyranny exists when the entity posing as a government and having the monopoly of force rejects its moral purpose and abdicates its responsibility.
A government's moral purpose is to protect rights, provide a court system, provide for the protection of its territory from foreign invaders and be an objective third party to settle disputes between two or more parties.
There is no government on the face of the earth, it is all tyranny but making the distinction helps to see that government has an actual purpose in society; it also goes to show that a monopoly on force is going to occur in any society and that it is the people who make up the society's job to establish and keep their government from becoming a tyrannical state.
Court issued contract insurance. Noone is forced to buy the insurance but if you dont then it is on you to enforce the contracts terms. In a free market there would be plenty of contracts being insured, enough to fund criminal court systems, prisons, police and military. Ayn Rand propose this somewhere and I thought it was a clever idea.
"late 13c., from Old French governer (11c., Modern French gouverner) "govern," from Latin gubernare "to direct, rule, guide, govern" (cf. Spanish gobernar, Italian governare), originally "to steer," a nautical borrowing from Greek kybernan "to steer or pilot a ship, direct" (the root of cybernetics). The -k- to -g- sound shift is perhaps via the medium of Etruscan. Related: Governed; governing."
Every entity that makes choices requires a governing ability. The faculty which governs the entity can be said to be the entitity's government. In the case of a rational human being alone on an island, his mind is his government. Without the ability to "direct, rule" and "guide" his body he will perish.
The smallest, most powerful and most important government in existence is your own mind.
The trespaser uses force by infringing on the property owner's property rights
Do you deny the existence of evil orientated people, or believe that you can convince them to repay the damAges or that people should make their own judgements as to the punishment that an offender is due?
I havent Argued for standing armies, i will argue that a government serves the purpose of protecting a society's soveriegnty.
I clearly understand the difference between society and government as you have pointed out from the quote, yet can you elaborate on the difference between a state and a government for me?
The quote emphasizes the moral justification of a government. It explains at the end also that it is a necessary "evil." some obvious questions are: necessary for what and to whom?
Government is necessary as a negative against vices such as theft, murder and fraud. To whom is it necessary? Society. Society is the result of individuals joining together to make existence easier. Individuals cannot always come to agreement and this is why government is necessary for society.
I agree that there is no moral government of a state and has never been, but I won't argue that society (or a mind) is sustainable without some governing factors, which for lack of a better term one could call government.
State-"a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization of such a body of people c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character " http://i.word.com/idictionary/state
So a state is a society which has an established government.
Transaction occurs. By virtue of the fact that the trade is voluntary ie (there was no force (or coersion if you prefer)) it is traded in a free market. Since a market is simply an abstraction of the reality of a transaction, and to be free is to use one's own mind to make decisions without being forced.
True there has never been a macroscopic free market but there has always existed a free market anytime individuals agree to tradeing value for value.
The deciding factor of society government. You seem to want the functions of a moral government so long as nobody calls the governing force government. You are likely in favor of prisons, police, military and court systems yet you want those without having to identify them as they are: government.
With everyone deciding for themselves what is a good retaliation for an encroachment what would stop the cycle of mercenaries killing as a response to theft, then another mercenary group killing the one who hired the others to murder the theif and so on? The benefit of an agreed upon and moral government is that the government is given the monopoly on legal use of force in defense of liberty. This means the government is the agreed upon final arbiter of disputes.
Your property rights. So again i don't see this as innitiating force unless you are talking about the trespasser in which case i agree he innitiated force yet i cannot justify his actions so i still need an example where innitiating the use of force against another is moral or just.
"to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of b : to exert a determining or guiding influence in or over" http://i.word.com/idictionary/governing
Now tell me about a society or even an individual which existed without a governing faculty. The entity with the monopoly on the ability to govern is a region's government. Even a man alone must act as his own government if he wishes to exist.
What entity in a stateless society justifies such a situation?
Are responding with force you did not innitiate the conflict, you simply preserved that which is most valuable to yourself which is your self, and that is perfectly moral
That is morally just and I will conceed the point.
Im simply pointing out the purpose of a government. A government's purpose morally speaking is to be the objective third party which prevents or punishes encroachments on rights. To the extent a "government" goes against its moral purpose it is on a path towards destruction of its own society and others potentially.
Where is your utopia where there is no entity with a monopoly on the use of force? How is it better for there to be competition on the use of force and no standards for how force can be used legally?
So i fail to see the distinction clearly. It is the act of forcing someone to act against their own judgement which is forbidden fundamentally in a moral society.
THe right of an individual to act freely goes up until the point of innitiating force against another individual. A free market is helped greatly by a morally just government, as fraud, theft and blatant force would be punished by an objective third party.
My point was rand is neither ideal nor evil, kindof like Gail I suppose. Ron Paul was ideal, he was Howard Roark, understanding and keeping to the structure of his truth, he was Hank Reardon fusing together a coalition which could not have developed were it not for him, he was Fransico d'Anconia seeking to dismantle the wealth f power in the 'government' he was a member of, he was John Galt never betraying his own principles. Ron Paul is a nearly fictional character in how ideal he was to serve as president, a hero.
What likely turns ppl off about Rand who like his father is Rand's political career is not as heroic, no Rand is not perfect, he is a regular man. But i see him as a very moral person and that is the standard for me. He promised to endorse the gop candidate prior to being elected, by doing so he has gained influence and doners that he likely could not have gotten had he gone back on his promise and pissed off the gop. If he didnt endorse the nominee do you think his filabister would have been supported by his fellow republicans? I doubt it they would have ended it with a majority vote before it began.
I think partisan politics is stupid but i cant blame rand for allowing the media to paint the picture that he is playing into partisanship, by doing so he has furthered his father's message to the even more mainstream and not even in an election cycle. I applaud his work and reserve the right to change my opinion of him if he turns put to be anti liberty, he has yet to do that though.