non aggression principle & politics

[Undertoad]

The majority doesn't see the government's actions as force, and so they don't accept your premise.

The majority will always have the bigger guns, so whether it was right or wrong, the net result is you are dead. As a dead person your rights are no longer a concern.

The current government has something very important: the consent of the governed. The vast, vast majority does not always agree with government, that's clear; but they agree to be governed in this way. They don't agree with the government, but they agree with the system of government.

We know that the government does not have your consent to govern you in this way. But they will govern you in this way. You will have to find a compromise between your rights and how the government you find to be governed by, allows you to live. May I suggest moving out of California, as a good first start.

You say that the only valid government is one that doesn't initate force. But you can't find a government on earth that operates that way. This is not a coincidence. Human nature itself, abhoring disorder, defines force differently than you do. The only answer, in the long term, is education and evangelism, because we see through history that education has a transformative effect on people (and their ability to make choices based on abstract things like "freedom").

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The majority doesn't see the government's actions as force, and so they don't accept your premise.

Ask most people on tax day if they want to pay taxes, or if they pay them because they are forced to do it. Ask them what happens to them if they don't pay the taxes.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The majority will always have the bigger guns, so whether it was right or wrong, the net result is you are dead. As a dead person your rights are no longer a concern.

They will have more guns, but that doesn't matter. Only 5% of the people in the Colonies actually fought against the British, and they won. I know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of American soldiers would NOT fire on other Americans, even if they were taking the government back. In fact many would help out in returning the government to the Constitutional Republic we started with.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The current government has something very important: the consent of the governed. The vast, vast majority does not always agree with government, that's clear; but they agree to be governed in this way. They don't agree with the government, but they agree with the system of government.

Saying it has the consent of the governed is debatable. I can't consent to steal my neighbors car. I have no right to offer such consent. So the "consent" you're talking about is false. The government doesn't so much have consent as it has apathy, and ignorance thanks to government funded schools.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We know that the government does not have your consent to govern you in this way. But they will govern you in this way. You will have to find a compromise between your rights and how the government you find to be governed by, allows you to live. May I suggest moving out of California, as a good first start.

I already live in California. I'm on the Executive Committee of the statewide Libertarian Party.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You say that the only valid government is one that doesn't initate force. But you can't find a government on earth that operates that way.

Actually I said a valid government only initiates force for the defense of rights, and the common defense of the nation from outsiders and pretty much nothing else. It doesn't use force to tell people how to live thier lives, it only uses it to defend them when a crime has been committed against them.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

This is not a coincidence. Human nature itself, abhoring disorder, defines force differently than you do. The only answer, in the long term, is education and evangelism, because we see through history that education has a transformative effect on people (and their ability to make choices based on abstract things like "freedom").

Libertarians don't believe in a utopian government. We just want one that allows us to live the way we want as long as our actions don't PHYSICALLY harm or endanger non-consenting others or their property or violate their equal rights.

This is not utopian. It's a form of government we actually had in America.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Radar

Ask most people on tax day if they want to pay taxes, or if they pay them because they are forced to do it. Ask them what happens to them if they don't pay the taxes.

Yes, but where will you be asking them? On line while they are waiting to mail their taxes, that's where.

They don't like it, but they accept it, and they do not act to change it. Their apathy is a signal of acceptance. For the things that bother them, they work within the system and nearly unanimously believe that is the best approach.

Saying it has the consent of the governed is debatable. I can't consent to steal my neighbors car. I have no right to offer such consent. So the "consent" you're talking about is false. The government doesn't so much have consent as it has apathy, and ignorance thanks to government funded schools.

It has the consent of the governed. It doesn't require any particular person's consent. It doesn't require your consent at all. It requires a large majority agreeing that the elected government is actually the valid government. That the police's job is to police them, that the courts determine how the law is applied, that elections are how we determine who's in charge.

There are a few people in New Orleans tonight who believe that the police do not police them. These people are called "looters". The vast majority expects that the police do police them. In fact they *demand* it and are incredulous when it is not present. This is consent of the governed in action.

This is not utopian. It's a form of government we actually had in America.

Or at least that you like to think existed; blacks, women, and non-landowners might take some offense with the idea that force was correctly applied or not applied, in 1800s US. Unfortunately you will have to deal with modern citizens... the ones who actually elect the current government.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It has the consent of the governed. It doesn't require any particular person's consent. It doesn't require your consent at all. It requires a large majority agreeing that the elected government is actually the valid government. That the police's job is to police them, that the courts determine how the law is applied, that elections are how we determine who's in charge.

It does not have the consent of the governed. I've discussed in another thread that the income tax amendment is blatantly unconstitutional and was fraudulently ratified without the consent of the governed. Saying that people consent to it because they do it out of fear of government retaliation is like saying a person being robbed at the point of a gun consented to give you his money. He was coerced under the threat of violence to comply. If this threat were removed, nobody would pay.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

There are a few people in New Orleans tonight who believe that the police do not police them. These people are called "looters". The vast majority expects that the police do police them. In fact they *demand* it and are incredulous when it is not present. This is consent of the governed in action.

This is a nice strawman you've setup, but completely irrelevant. The valid role of government includes protecting people from others and from each other when it comes to crime. This does not need to be funded by income taxes. 100% of the valid functions (Constitutional) of government can be funded without raising any taxes and without collecting a penny of income tax. We'd have firefighters, policemen, judges, courts, a military, etc. without a penny of income tax if we got rid of the unconstitutional parts of government.