no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Comments

4 Comments

RSS
  • Don says on: December 18, 2010 at 9:55 am

     

    Any chance of copy/pasting the thing so those of us that don’t do facebook can check it out?

    • David Z says on: December 18, 2010 at 12:14 pm

       

      Substitute the word “government” with the words “coercive aggression”. Then justify agreeing with the idea of government. “I’m a big coercive aggression supporter.” “I believe in moderate coercive aggression.” Or “I believe in limited coercive aggression.” And my favorite “We need only the coercive aggression written in the Constitution”. ~ Guy Linville
      Thursday at 9:17am · LikeUnlike · Comment

      *
      *
      James Calvin Hanks Jr., Justin V Stout and 24 others like this.
      *
      o
      Paul Elledge Substitute the word “state,” not “government.” Government isn’t necessarily a problem.
      Thursday at 9:19am · LikeUnlike
      o
      Steven Hasty If government was limited as much as intended by the Constitution, you could replace “government” with “the people.”
      Thursday at 9:23am · LikeUnlike
      o
      Josh Spradley State and govertnment are synonymous.
      Thursday at 9:23am via Facebook Mobile · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…
      o
      Justin V Stout ‎@ Paul… I guess you’re right, technically. It’s ok if it’s a voluntary government. The problem is, I don’t know of any voluntary governments. Do you? Oh.. and I believe in self-government. :)
      Thursday at 9:23am · LikeUnlike
      o
      Justin V Stout ‎”But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” ~ Lysander Spooner
      Thursday at 9:26am · LikeUnlike · 3 peopleLoading…
      o
      Josh Spradley I suppose a voluntary government would be perfectly acceptable…
      Thursday at 9:30am via Facebook Mobile · LikeUnlike
      o
      Luke Matthews State and government are not intrinsically wrong- they can be good or bad, depending on the people. Unfortunately our government is corrupt and oppressive and prioritizes protecting and advancing only one class of society. I agree with Justin, self-government is best…
      Thursday at 9:35am · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…
      o
      Matt White
      Steve, I’ve given it a lot of thought. Although, I don’t agree with Lysander’s ultimate conclusions, I can’t argue with his point regarding the validity of the Constitution.

      I don’t agree with anarcho-capitalism or any form of anarchy, but I…’m thinking the anti-federalists were right. As much as people talk about the Federalists papers, it was the anti-federalists that proved to be correct. I think I might start reading more of the anti-federalists, besides, Hamilton was an ahole, I can’t stand to see his name anymore.See More
      Thursday at 9:41am · LikeUnlike
      o
      Justin V Stout ‎”Government is the negation of liberty.” – Ludwig von Mises
      Thursday at 9:43am · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading…
      o
      Luke Matthews ‎”There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”
      Mark Twain
      Thursday at 9:58am · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading…
      o
      Benjamin Moake Regulation and freedom are mutually exclusive.
      Thursday at 10:07am · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…
      o
      Paul Elledge The governing board of a homeowners’ group is a government. Nothing wrong with that. If this particular homeowners’ group’s governing board kept annexing adjacent land/homes with the consent of the owners and became pretty sizable, nothing wrong with that. Then if they choose to hire a private police force for security and arbitration panels to administer justice, as well as other services, charging each homeowner a user fee for those services, nothing wrong with that.
      Thursday at 10:31am · LikeUnlike
      o
      David Zemens Are members of the HOA allowed to leave the HOA without surrendering their property? Are they allowed to withdraw their support for that government, peacefully? If not, then you’ve got a government which owns everything and the people are feudal serfs and there IS something wrong with that; it is exactly what we have today only on a smaller scale.
      Thursday at 3:46pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      Benjamin Moake David, it depends…did the homeowners join the contract (HOA) of their own free will? If so, they are obligated to obey the terms of that contract.
      Thursday at 5:03pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      David Zemens If someone (of his own free will) agrees to be my slave forever is that a valid contract?
      Thursday at 5:16pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      Dana Nutter I prefer to call it “govnoment.” “говно” (govno) is the Russian word for “shit”.
      Thursday at 6:15pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      Bryan Keelin blah, blah, blah. I haven’te heard of any better ideas that have actually worked. It needs to be cut back using a chainsaw and it needs to have it’s powers extremely confined but as I have said before, it is human nature to dominate and it is human nature to want community, therefore we will always be fighting against the growth of government. We just need to start winning the fight.
      Thursday at 6:31pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      Dana Nutter If it’s voluntary, it’s not government. It’s cooperation.
      Thursday at 6:33pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      Dana Nutter An HOA is a different story. You willfully buy the home under the conditions that you must join. In the case of a condo, you really don’t own your home, rather you own a share in the entire complex that the HOA governs with the rights to occupy your specific unit.
      Thursday at 6:39pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      David Zemens
      what if you’re not a part of the HOA to begin with (i.e., the HOA approaches you and asks you to join?) and after a period of time you decide that you’re no longer satisfied with the services they render? Under what conditions (if any?) ar…e you allowed to leave the “voluntary association”?

      The key is that once you are NOT ALLOWED to leave, it doesn’t matter whether the association was entered in to in good faith, or entered in to voluntarily, etc. If you are not allowed to leave, then you are a prisoner.See More
      Thursday at 7:08pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      Benjamin Moake It depends on the terms of the contract. If you voluntarily signed a contract with no “escape clause”, then you are bound to it, or you can sell and move somewhere that has the rules (or lack there of) you want…If they breech their end of the contract, that is a different story…
      Thursday at 7:17pm · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…
      o
      Dana Nutter HOA’s are usually set up as a covenant when the complex is built. Joining the HOA is just part of the contract which must be passed along when ownership is transferred. If you don’t like the HOA, or its tersm, then don’t buy in. You do have a way out. Selling your home!
      Thursday at 7:23pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      David Zemens
      You know as well as I do that eventually this HOA may eventually enact rules and bylaws which were not part of the agreement which you “voluntarily” signed when joining the association. And it is at this juncture where the HOA says, “If y…ou don’t like what we’re doing (now) then you have to deal with it because you signed a contract (then) which allows us to do this to you (now) whether you like it or not.”

      The situation need not involve breach, any contract which contains such a woefully ambiguous allowance (e.g., the Commerce Clause) ought to be void on its face. Otherwise, your “voluntary” system permits abominations like slavery contracts.See More
      Thursday at 7:33pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      David Zemens Dana, go back about a dozen posts in the thread where someone hypothesized about an HOA that decided to expand.
      Thursday at 7:34pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      Dana Nutter
      As long as the HOA purchases the land that’s fine. If the people in the adjacent lots decide to voluntarily join, then that too is not a problem. Realize expanding an HOA isn’t going to be done unless all parties have something to gain. …The existing members would need to approve any expansion, and new members would have to see some benefit to joining.

      If they start annexing without consent, then that is a coercive act, and technically would be a justification for the owners to take up arms to resist the HOA.See More
      Thursday at 7:42pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      David Zemens You’re blowing it.
      Thursday at 7:43pm · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…
      o
      Benjamin Moake Most of the time there is a clause about how amendments are made. it typically requires a majority of residents approval. Therefore, when you signed the original contract, you agreed to abide by whatever future rules were created in accordance with the rules.
      Thursday at 7:43pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      David Zemens Slavery contracts it is. Thanks for clarifying.
      Thursday at 7:48pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      Dana Nutter
      The agreement you sign when joining the HOA isn’t to obey a static set of rules, but whatever rules are in effect at any given time. That’s why you wouldn’t join the HOA unless it had some checks and balances to ensure rules changes favor …the homeowners. For the most part, HOA leadership is democratically elected by the homeowners.

      FWIW: I owned a condo back in my younger days for a short time, and this situation did arise while I lived there. Some unpopular decisions were made by the HOA, that technically could be considered a form of corruption in a government setting. The result was a homeowner’s gathering resulting the immediate removal of all the officers.See More
      Thursday at 7:53pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      Benjamin Moake A slavery contract is called indenture.
      Thursday at 7:53pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      Dana Nutter What slavery? You agreed to it, and if you change your mind you have the option to sell your home and move. If you are not careful enough to read what you are getting into, then it’s your own fault.
      Thursday at 7:55pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      David Zemens I’m not sating HOA *is* alavery contract; rather, that by the logic used thus far in this thread, you must also believe that a slavery contract is moral, valid, and enforceable.
      Thursday at 8:00pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      Benjamin Moake What do morals have to do with it? A contract is a contract. If all parties voluntarily agree to it…it is no one else’s business…
      Thursday at 8:07pm · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…
      o
      David Zemens ‎>What do morals have to do with it?

      If you don’t have a moral basis for your system, then you end up with what we’ve got, or worse.
      Thursday at 8:20pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      Benjamin Moake Contracts are business, not morality. Morality isn’t relevant.

      Morality comes into play in society…
      Thursday at 8:34pm · LikeUnlike
      o
      David Zemens Morality comes in to play in the law governing the society in which said business is transacted.
      Thursday at 8:38pm · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…
      o
      Bryan Keelin where does business take place? In a vacuum?
      Thursday at 10:09pm · UnlikeLike · 1 personLoading…
      o
      Justin V Stout ‎”I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual.” -Murray Rothbard
      Thursday at 10:24pm · LikeUnlike · 1 personDana Nutter likes this.
      o
      Punk Johnny Cash Paul Elledge I don’t think you get it. Maybe you should read Rothbard or Konkin before you embarrass yourself further.
      Thursday at 11:45pm · Like

  • Don says on: December 18, 2010 at 12:38 pm

     

    Thanks David. The word Libertaian does not mean no aggression and therefore has little use for me. This is backed by some of the nonsensical comments – voluntary gov’t – for example, nevermind that there is no such thing. At least 3/4 of the people residing in the US have their heads on backwards.

    • David Z says on: December 20, 2010 at 9:43 am

       

      To me, it does mean “no aggression” but what it doesn’t mean is “no force”.

      As for the 3/4 of the population, Yes their heads are on backwards or upside down or inside out…

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics