How do you define the state? Does *it* actually exist?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

that is exactly what i said. and yet, you claim i agreed with him.

?

No, you agreed with him by saying: "the state is an idea and to claim ideas don't exist is absurd."

It's HIS argument the state merely exists as an idea.

The state may have originated as an idea, but the people, the Constitution, and the democratic process brings that idea to fruition in the form of a legitimate governing body, granted authority and jurisdiction by said people. It's as real as the car in your driveway, and it makes no difference if you were wrong in your beliefs that the car was created by magic car fairies at the dealership, or you understand it was made at an auto assembly plant. To argue it doesn't really exist, is STUPID!

 

[ironhead]

Because you make the choice to live here and therefore choose to live by what they have enacted.
Your second sentence is just a strawman defense.

It's not a strawman, I'm not saying you are making the argument as such. I am saying, however, that it is an application of the same principle. If people are bound to the laws put forth by a group of individuals 200 years ago simply by virtue of occupying space in the same geographic area, then it stands to reason that we would also be responsible for any crimes they may have committed. I would doubt you would make that argument, however I am saying that it is applying the same principle.

 

[ironhead]

No, you agreed with him by saying: "the state is an idea and to claim ideas don't exist is absurd."

It's HIS argument the state merely exists as an idea.

The state may have originated as an idea, but the people, the Constitution, and the democratic process brings that idea to fruition in the form of a legitimate governing body, granted authority and jurisdiction by said people. It's as real as the car in your driveway, and it makes no difference if you were wrong in your beliefs that the car was created by magic car fairies at the dealership, or you understand it was made at an auto assembly plant. To argue it doesn't really exist, is STUPID!

Dixie, individuals in power created laws, just like individuals in factories created the cars in your scenario. I am not arguing that the individuals don't exist, I am saying that the state is merely a concept, an idea. It is no different from the mafia, except in size. You can dress it with fancy democratic language, but at the end of the day, the individuals in the government would have no power, were it not for coerced robbery via taxation and the subtle stealing via fiat currency.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No, you agreed with him by saying: "the state is an idea and to claim ideas don't exist is absurd."

It's HIS argument the state merely exists as an idea.

The state may have originated as an idea, but the people, the Constitution, and the democratic process brings that idea to fruition in the form of a legitimate governing body, granted authority and jurisdiction by said people. It's as real as the car in your driveway, and it makes no difference if you were wrong in your beliefs that the car was created by magic car fairies at the dealership, or you understand it was made at an auto assembly plant. To argue it doesn't really exist, is STUPID!

good lord dixie....you're agreeing with me. i said it is an idea...the people make it a reality....and it is a legal reality.

tell me precisely what i'm not making clear to you. use my words to explain it dixie. how am i not agreeing with YOU?

1. we agree it is an idea

2. we agree people make the idea a reality

3. we agree legal documents further that reality

your turn dixie

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Dixie, individuals in power created laws, just like individuals in factories created the cars in your scenario. I am not arguing that the individuals don't exist, I am saying that the state is merely a concept, an idea. It is no different from the mafia, except in size. You can dress it with fancy democratic language, but at the end of the day, the individuals in the government would have no power, were it not for coerced robbery via taxation and the subtle stealing via fiat currency.

do you believe the mafia exists?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Why does someone's "consent" removed several generations from me, not even my ancestors (not that it would change much in this equation), have any authority over me? Do we bear responsibility for crimes committed by people in the past?

alright....i will try and follow you down your little rabbit hole

you were born here, i presume. you reached the age of majority and decided to stay, i presume. you are still consenting to live here...no?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

good lord dixie....you're agreeing with me. i said it is an idea...the people make it a reality....and it is a legal reality.

tell me precisely what i'm not making clear to you. use my words to explain it dixie. how am i not agreeing with YOU?

1. we agree it is an idea

2. we agree people make the idea a reality

3. we agree legal documents further that reality

your turn dixie

Okay... Something can't be "just an idea" and also be reality. If people made the idea a reality, it is no longer "just an idea," it is a reality. It's not real complicated.

1. We don't agree that "the state" is an idea. The state really exists, it's NOT just an idea or thought.

2. We agree that it's not an idea, that people made it a reality, although your position is a contradiction of Position #1 above.

3. We agree that it's not imaginary or "just an idea" and that legal documents further that reality, again, contradictory to your position in #1. It WAS an idea, then legal documents made it REAL... it can't be BOTH!

 

[Minister of Truth]

It's not a strawman, I'm not saying you are making the argument as such. I am saying, however, that it is an application of the same principle. If people are bound to the laws put forth by a group of individuals 200 years ago simply by virtue of occupying space in the same geographic area, then it stands to reason that we would also be responsible for any crimes they may have committed. I would doubt you would make that argument, however I am saying that it is applying the same principle.

Actually, it's very simple, Ironhead. If you were to go on TV, or start up a blog, etc., and suggest that Americans get started on a new Constitutional Convention for the purposes of drafting a brand new one, you would find yourself talking to thin air. The fact that Americans haven't demanded a new social contract, is the same thing as them signing onto 1787.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, individuals in power created laws, just like individuals in factories created the cars in your scenario. I am not arguing that the individuals don't exist, I am saying that the state is merely a concept, an idea. It is no different from the mafia, except in size. You can dress it with fancy democratic language, but at the end of the day, the individuals in the government would have no power, were it not for coerced robbery via taxation and the subtle stealing via fiat currency.

Individuals WE voted for and gave power, made laws that we told them to make on our behalf. You see, most of us are working and raising families and such, and don't have the time to tend to the day to day details of how the government runs, so we developed this really neat system of representation, and it has worked fairly well for over 200 years.

If we mess up and elect someone to office who engages in "coerced robbery" or whatever, we have the power to vote them out of office. The people who operate the government work for US, the people. We decide when it's time for them to go, we decide what amount of power they wield, and we decide the extent of how much that power infringes on our god-given rights. This isn't "fancy democratic words," but rather, the brilliant concept on which our nation was conceived.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Iron, do you believe in intellectual property, such as that protected by patent and copyright law, or is that just an idea?

 

[ironhead]

Iron, do you believe in intellectual property, such as that protected by patent and copyright law, or is that just an idea?

I don't support IP. If you purchase a book, CD, computer, etc. - it is your property, not someone else's just because they petitioned the state for such "rights."

 

[ironhead]

Individuals WE voted for and gave power, made laws that we told them to make on our behalf. You see, most of us are working and raising families and such, and don't have the time to tend to the day to day details of how the government runs, so we developed this really neat system of representation, and it has worked fairly well for over 200 years.

If we mess up and elect someone to office who engages in "coerced robbery" or whatever, we have the power to vote them out of office. The people who operate the government work for US, the people. We decide when it's time for them to go, we decide what amount of power they wield, and we decide the extent of how much that power infringes on our god-given rights. This isn't "fancy democratic words," but rather, the brilliant concept on which our nation was conceived.

The Constitution has failed to restrain the Federal government from breaking its own rules from virtually the very beginning. No matter how much voting has occurred, those in power keep violating their own rules. Sure, at the beginning it was far less a violation of its own rules than it is now, but it has steadily eroded over time. This is of course, completely overlooking the horrible predations of slavery, murder of Native Americans, and treatment of women. Following the Civil War, the USG has expanded its power exponentially.

Historically speaking, the longer the government is around, the bigger the government gets. There have never been more voters. There's been more than enough voting going on for quite a while - and magically, the state just seems to keep expanding its power.

 

[ironhead]

Actually, it's very simple, Ironhead. If you were to go on TV, or start up a blog, etc., and suggest that Americans get started on a new Constitutional Convention for the purposes of drafting a brand new one, you would find yourself talking to thin air. The fact that Americans haven't demanded a new social contract, is the same thing as them signing onto 1787.

So, let's say you sign a lease contract with your landlord for two years for an apartment. At the end of the two years, you don't sign it to renew and he just assumes you agree because you didn't call for a re-negotiation of the contract? Mind you, in this scenario, you signed the first contract. At the outset of the US, there were a tiny few people, enlightened as they were, who signed the document. Millions didn't even know what was in it.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

I don't support IP. If you purchase a book, CD, computer, etc. - it is your property, not someone else's just because they petitioned the state for such "rights."

You don't support intellectual property? So copyright laws would be out the window in your new corporate utopia?

 

[ironhead]

You don't support intellectual property? So copyright laws would be out the window in your new corporate utopia?

First of all, nobody's talking about a utopia. There is such thing as a perfect arrangement for human society. There will always be problems. And I reject your use of the word "corporate," as it implies corporations in their current form (with limited liability) would continue, when they would quite clearly not.

I don't know how everything would work if a stateless condition were to arise. IP law, in its current incarnation, is purely a creature of the state. I would tend to think that some individuals or companies would attempt, via contract, to limit reproducibility of their products. I don't know how they would do it or, more importantly, apply consequences to such a stipulation. Regardless, it would not involve state protection, only contracts.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

First of all, nobody's talking about a utopia. There is such thing as a perfect arrangement for human society. There will always be problems. And I reject your use of the word "corporate," as it implies corporations in their current form (with limited liability) would continue, when they would quite clearly not.

I don't know how everything would work if a stateless condition were to arise. IP law, in its current incarnation, is purely a creature of the state. I would tend to think that some individuals or companies would attempt, via contract, to limit reproducibility of their products. I don't know how they would do it or, more importantly, apply consequences to such a stipulation. Regardless, it would not involve state protection, only contracts.

Limiting reproduction of intellectual property via contract is nonsense. Do you have everyone signing this contract? Do you have to sign a contract to buy a book or cd?

There are times when having the blessing of society to create laws and protect us, as a duty not a contract, is a good thing. This is one of those cases,

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

First of all, nobody's talking about a utopia. There is such thing as a perfect arrangement for human society. There will always be problems. And I reject your use of the word "corporate," as it implies corporations in their current form (with limited liability) would continue, when they would quite clearly not.

I don't know how everything would work if a stateless condition were to arise. IP law, in its current incarnation, is purely a creature of the state. I would tend to think that some individuals or companies would attempt, via contract, to limit reproducibility of their products. I don't know how they would do it or, more importantly, apply consequences to such a stipulation. Regardless, it would not involve state protection, only contracts.

But you keep talking about DROs and such, and that contracted services would replace the gov't.

I am curious about how you would punish those who violate the rules.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The Constitution has failed to restrain the Federal government from breaking its own rules from virtually the very beginning. No matter how much voting has occurred, those in power keep violating their own rules. Sure, at the beginning it was far less a violation of its own rules than it is now, but it has steadily eroded over time. This is of course, completely overlooking the horrible predations of slavery, murder of Native Americans, and treatment of women. Following the Civil War, the USG has expanded its power exponentially.

Historically speaking, the longer the government is around, the bigger the government gets. There have never been more voters. There's been more than enough voting going on for quite a while - and magically, the state just seems to keep expanding its power.

this is not the fault of the constitution, this is the fault of it's creator.....we the people. WE do not hold government accountable. WE do not restrain our federal government anymore.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Ironically, the Constitution specifically addresses intellectual property law.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It's not a strawman, I'm not saying you are making the argument as such. I am saying, however, that it is an application of the same principle. If people are bound to the laws put forth by a group of individuals 200 years ago simply by virtue of occupying space in the same geographic area, then it stands to reason that we would also be responsible for any crimes they may have committed. I would doubt you would make that argument, however I am saying that it is applying the same principle.

You saying that your strawman is the same principal, doesn't make it true.
It's still a strawman and has no bearing on the first part of your post.