Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Why I have Faith in the Constitution

I think I owe one final post on why I have confidence in the Constitution, why I am convinced that the Hologram folks are dead wrong, and why I think that as ratified, while implemented in the spirit of the DoI and BoR would correct this country, return us to a republic in hours, and return the republic to the highest goals set forth by Jefferson & Company.

If I thought that filling our House, Senate and Oval Office (only the elected positions for now) with Patriots like Concerned America, Tom Baugh, Miss Violet, AP, Bill Nye, Ken Lane, Rich T, Brock, RegT, Tam, Zoomie, Curtis, Trainer, Russ Longcore, Bill Buppert, Alvie, TL, Will, Craig, Mozart, CIII, John Mosby, Dan III, Denninger, Mike C. Mike B., Kent, Keith, Deacon, Blue, and others from this Community would make no difference, would run with the same or more tyranny and perversion of Liberty as we have now, I'd walk away from this entire aspect of my life.

You look at that roster (and forgive me if I left anyone off who deserves to be there, my memory is wretched and I am typing fast) and you tell me that group of people in the House, Senate and Oval would keep the Status Quo.

Not one of you can say that, not with a straight face. And if you do I'll call you an f'n liar and/or idiot.

You say we can't vote our way out of this? Sadly, I suspect you are correct. But not for the reasons you may think. My reasons are timeline, course and speed. Many of you think that "The evil conspiracies" of the world would never let it happen, would never let such people into office.

Sorry, I call BS on that one. Jefferson was President. Hamilton was not.

The simple fact is that we elect Bad People every cycle because we have let our country become filled with Bad People who are lazy, entitled and FSA.

Who do you think is in that 50% of people who never go to the polls? It is OUR people. The Silent Majority, or what's left of it.

No, I am not going to make a play to get these folks to run for office. There is no point given the imminent implosion. After the culling of the herd, however...

But my point stands: If these people were in office and the remaining seats filled with men and women like them, the abuses of "Government" would end, right now.

If you think of the Constitution as an engine, it needs maintenance. It also needs the proper fuel. If you fuel it with Bad People, as we have done, you get bad results.

This marks the end of this topic for me. I am moving forward to achieve results, not quibble about how many Angels...



  1. FWIW I find this post totally out of character for you. While I'll continue to withhold any agreements or disagreements we might have on principle until you ask for them, you generally seem to be a man inclined toward physical action here on Earth. As you yourself put it, more or less, "These are existential matters." I think that's right.

    So I don't get the point of this post. Even Ron Paul alone as President could make a huge difference, but so what? We can come up with a zillion counterfactuals that could make a huge difference, including 7 billion people opting for liberty and peace this afternoon. What's the point of counterfactual imagination when "these are existential matters"?

    Though I'll grant that I like the title and think it's accurate---that's exactly what you've got in the Constitution!

  2. Jim: Feel free to share your perspective. You have a standing invitation. ;)


  3. Rebel yell. The Constitution was not "vague" when it was written. The Left - which has always been with us (thanks a lot, Mr. Hamilton) - uses their weapon of twisting words, neo-definition, if you will - to make meanings either appear to be "vague" or to change them totally into what _they_ want the words to mean. They make it difficult to argue because they won't allow you to speak the same language. That's because they have no interest in argument, just forcing you to accept their meme.

    As Sam points out, the Constitution would work just fine if it were used as intended. Even Washington should have been slapped down for his response to the Whiskey Rebellion (again, as Curtis points out, thanks a lot, Mr. Hamilton). The Founders themselves told us it would only work so long as we kept it true and followed it as written, that it was up to the citizens to make certain it was not abused or ignored.

    Unless you believe it is possible for humankind to exist in some form of society without a written method of protecting individual rights and telling government what it can and cannot do, _some_ document is needed, and the Constitution is the best to have been written to date.

    Even if it it moot ("existential", well - sort of ;-) at this point in time, it is going to be important at some time in the future, so talking about it isn't futile, in spite of what some folks would have you believe.

  4. I don't do perspective; I'm all about the facts and the principles. Of course I have a perspective, just like everyone does, but it's terribly boring. Well, most people would find it terribly boring.

    Epistemology is my main thing, because I think that's the main mistake. If you're interested in how I use these words, like "fact," "truth," "context," "perspective" and so on, then you can check out the first 3 posts at an old blog of mine, starting with this:




    For now, I'll just address the vet/flag thing. The problem with your position is obvious---you can't have Rule of Law and not have Rule of Law simultaneously. Either idiots are allowed to say (and do, absent physically interfering with others) whatever they want, or they aren't allowed. I won't even offer an opinion, but you offered both choices of an either-or.

    You and I may understand that socialist/collectivist bullshit inevitably leads to tyranny, but talking about it is still different from doing it. Marx may have plenty to do with where we are, but it's the thugs who are the real problem.

    Basically, in a world of 7 billion people, a standard of rhetoric which is "obviously statist" or "anti-liberty" or something like that, just ain't gonna cut it. The whole purpose of Rule of Law, which is what you're defending if you're defending the Constitution, is that the rules are laid out clearly and objectively. "He's talking idiocy" doesn't meet that standard; there are going to be a lot of idiots, even in a free world.

    I'll leave it at that for now, on the assumption that it's clear enough, and mention anything else along the way. Oh, I do have one question about the gun shows and the $20 for the patch and one-year membership.

    Membership...in what?

  5. Reg, obviously you're right about the Constitution "if it were used as intended." What this demonstrates, though, is that it all rests on the intention and not the Constitution.

    Begin at the beginning. In our own lives, it's our own intention that matters most. "All action is taken first by the self, upon the self." In a social context, it's the other guy's intentions that count. That's all.

    1. You are right, Jim, intention is what matters - right up until you actually do something. Then you are on "the road to hell" paved with those intentions. Then it becomes what you _do_ that counts, not your intentions.

      We need some sort of convention, so that you aren't paddling backwards while I paddle forwards. A written document that we can all refer to and say, "This is what I intended and what I plan on doing" is really helpful. If we hold ourselves to the promises or directions that were written in the document, we just might be able to avoid having to try to herd all those socialist cats.

      We simply have to make those socialist cats understand the penalty if they shit all over our document. We got lazy, and/or distracted, and started letting them "paper-train" each other all over our nice Constitution. They've gotten use to it, and now claim that their shit on the document is what it really means, instead of the words written by some pretty damed smart individuals. (Plus they think it doesn't stink.)

      It has been my personal experience that once a cat finds a place to shit or piss in your home, nothing will stop them excepting either kicking them out (doors) or getting rid of them. I like cats, but some you simply cannot share living space with. That is where we are with the socialists /collectivists now.

      If we get the chance to start over, or start anew, the Constitution will work if we understand it has to be enforced from the beginning, and without end. You can no more let enforcing it slide that you can stop breathing, if you want to remain free.

  6. Jim: When the Rule of Law is abused and used as a bunker to ultimately destroy the culture from within, for the sake of infringing and destroying Natural Law, then one does what is morally and proper within Natural Law.

    Does that square with the absolute of "The law is the law and you must follow it - and the law is that you may not have a widget within 100 yards of a school or you will go to prison for 100 years"? Nope.

    "The Law" has been used as a weapon by the Enemies of Liberty to enslave moral people. We now have two choices: Let it ride and let everyone be enslaved to those with the pen to write the laws, or follow moral and natural law and kill the slavers so that the words "Rule of Law" once again have meaning.

    Parse that, if you will. That's what lawyers tyrants do until the meaning of "is" is called into question and average people are placed in jeopardy at the whim of those weilding "Law". The proper term is Lawfare, and I am way too damned familiar with it to tolerate it.

    In Paragraph 4 of your comment, where you claim that talking about socialism/tyranny is different from doing it...really? Voting for a socialist is not the same as imposing socialism? Advocating the voting for socialism is not the same as imposing socialism?

    We'll have to agree to disagree.

    Should prudent, moral men slit the throat of anyone who uses the word "Socialism" in a sentence? Obviously not. Nor would they. Nor do they. But "Rule of Law" is not a suicide pact any more than is the Constitution.

    There are times when Right and Wrong must be decided upon Jefferson's imperative that noted any law that violates Natural Law is void and of no force. And when some idiot or group of idiots tries to impose stupidity, we must add some bleach to the gene pool so that decent men and women may live in peace.

    If I am labeled an outlaw or hypocrite as a result, so be it.


  7. Uh-oh, you got a problem...because you were right!

    "In Paragraph 4 of your comment, where you claim that talking about socialism/tyranny is different from doing it...really? Voting for a socialist is not the same as imposing socialism?"

    Well, I used "socialism/collectivism," not "tyranny," but your point is valid. Being creatures of intent, the desire to impose thuggery on others is tantamount to actually doing it. This is the nature of a threat, and why you don't have to wait for someone to pull the trigger before you drop him.

    That doesn't quite resolve the problem of free speech or flying flags, but no matter because you've got a bigger problem here...

    "Advocating the voting for socialism is not the same as imposing socialism?"

    Okay, then dig this. Advocating voting at all, with regard to anything that encumbers or may encumber individual liberty, is itself tyranny. You should agree with that, I think, at least as it's worded.

    So that leaves an obvious question---what the hell are you going to vote on?

    It's a nice theory, that there won't be any voting that encumbers individual liberty. That was the point of this country, after all. But as we see, right from the get-go, there's at least the problem of how to pay for that which was voted on. You can say, "We'll worry about that later," but as you've made very clear, it's something to worry about even before anyone gets started.

    I can see maybe everyone agreeing to vote on the color of uniforms or something, but anything much more than that and you'll be encumbering someone's liberty. Is that person's liberty to be sacrificed? Is any person's liberty to be sacrificed?

  8. Jim: The Constitution, as I read it, has very, very little direct impact on the free use of Natural Laws of the individual. Most people who feel oppressed by the Constitution point to taxes and the Draft.

    Would not the legitimate functions of the Federal Government (for the sake of this discussion let's leave "legitimate" to include defending the borders and defending against foreign invaders) - could not the costs of doing these tasks be generated by imposing taxes on imports, for "luxury" items? If we agree, for the sake of argument that such a tax would satisfy the financial needs of FedGov, how is the Liberty of any American impacted unfairly?

    If he wants a similar luxury item, he can build it himself and avoid the tax. Or, he can buy it from a US maker.

    Most people, in a world wherein the FedGov is properly operating within its bounds, would have far more problem with State Governments than Federal, I think.

    Raising an Army (FedGov) would never be a problem, in the face of legitimate threats. Most real Americans would pick up a kit and muster if Canada got frisky. There would never be a need for a Draft if FedGov behaved properly, thus, again, no imposition upon the individual.

    Most people who have a problem with the Constitution really have a problem with the mal-implementation of the Constitution...or they live in a world of fantasy in which there are not billions of people belonging to other Tribes who would, without a doubt, slaughter us all.


  9. That's the key to this whole mess, Reg - The fact is that many of us will never be able to co-exist because some people just won't leave others alone.

    Once we get to the task of evicting Bad People, our lives will improve.

    Of course, that will make Felons of us all, according to the Rule of Law folks.

    So be it.


  10. Credit where it's due...that was well written. Sure, defense could be taken care of voluntarily. The draft isn't even worth discussing since that's about the most reprehensible thing a government can do, being an explicit statement that one's life doesn't belong to him.

    So if Govco isn't taxing, drafting or encumbering individual liberty by imposing on trade or anything else, then what the hell is it doing? As you yourself are trying to prove, you don't really need it to muster up. What's that leave?

    There's dispute resolution, of course, but simple logic says that introducing forceful imposition (Govco's only tool) into every dispute is a piss-poor way of reducing the use of force in disputes.

  11. Jim: Here is a thought from another site where I have been discussing a parallel theme. His position is that no person is entitled to Trademark or Copyright ownership. I take a different position, since I see intellectual property as fruit of labor.

    This is where dispute resolution can be a legitimate function of government. I'll use the same example here I used there: JK Rowling wrote the Harry Potter series. I believe she owns it, and the characters, and should be protected, by "Society", to earn profit from her creation.

    If Joe Blow starts printing copies of her book in his basement (a very easy task these days) and begins selling pirated copies, he is stealing food from her mouth, and should be held responsible.

    Now, in general, I believe dispute resolution is NOT the sole province of Government, nor is the use of violence. But without "Society" having set up the infrastructure for dispute resolution, Ms. Rowling would be left to the predations of anyone who has a printing press, a bit more money to print more copies, or distribute them, et cetera.

    I think good people agree that Ms. Rowling, in such circumstances, should not be responsible for hunting down the pirates and slitting their throats on her own.

    When men and women in Government have a strong moral compass, I think this is one area that is legitimate to delegate. (NOT surrender, but delegate).

    I also believe that old-school methods should be equally lawful: Ms. Rowling offers a bounty on the head of any pirate and free enterprise takes care of the rest.

    Where we get into real trouble in American Government, is when people with bad moral compasses are let into positions of public trust, then abuse their authority and insulate themselves with "Laws" of immunity and so forth.

    My problem is rarely with "Government". It is with Bad People abusing the delegated powers "Society" offers. The general Soul of our larger population is not suited to having authority and power, for they do not use it responsibly.


  12. "I think good people agree that Ms. Rowling, in such circumstances, should not be responsible for hunting down the pirates and slitting their throats on her own."

    Then help her; maybe others will too. That's not the relevant question. The relevant question is whether the justice of any person's position is some claim on other people to help them instantiate it. The answer to that is, "No," because any person's desires, needs or wants are not claims on other people. It's not a suicide pact, remember?

    Your Moral Compass will not justify your aggression against other people who themselves have not used aggression themselves. Period. That's because this is all about a social context and in that context, the absence of that aggression (in non-defensive instances, of course) is the fundamental principle. IOW, nothing can trump it---that's WHY the Constitution has the supposed protections of individual liberty. Otherwise, you're right back where we started, with everyone yapping about why their Moral Compass is sufficient to force everyone to go along.

    This is not an argument for moral relativism. I happen to believe in a strict objective morality, but you and most everyone else would think it's off the wall, so its objective truth really doesn't matter that much in a social context.

    Lastly, notice that you must always put "Society" in scare quotes, and for good reason. That's because there's nothing out there except individuals, driven by their own volition. As I said to Reg, begin at the beginning.

    1. You're right, I use quotes around "Society" because it is merely a tool to represent a bunch of individuals, many of whom dissent.

      Do you not think that the guy pirating Ms. Rowling's work is performing an act of aggression, equal to the Liberal idiot who pulls the voting booth lever for a Socialist/Tyrant politician?

      I see both as aggression, worthy of equal defense, even if removed from the actual scene of the crime, as it were.


  13. It doesn't matter if it's an act of aggression because that's not the issue. The issue is whether other people's earnings and/or time can be forcefully taken for the purposes of either defense or retaliation, or anything else for that matter.

    Defense is worthwhile and moral, yes? Only a nutcase would disagree with that. So the question is, if a nutcase disagrees that he wants to be part of our defense, can we rightfully force him to be part of it anyway?

  14. Kerodin,

    "Intellectual Property" doesn't actually exist. What actually exists is a Harry Potter book in mt hands; MY PROPERTY. Are you for property, or not? You can't simultaneously be for the idea of PRIVATE property, and against it at the same time, can you? Tell me, would you advocate sending men with guns to my private property, because I "violated" someone's so-called "intellectual propery"? Would you deprive me of my actual property for a concept?(and a fairly new one at that!) For an idea? For a belief you hold? Remember, intellectual property doesn't actually exist.

    Your argument also presupposes that the market could not handle what you assume to be a problem, when in fact, it is doing so as we speak. I know of writers, musicians, and film producers that are innovating to adapt with the fact that the internet has made the idea of intellectual property an impossible one.

    For instance, the band Nine Inch Nails, released their songs one by one last album, and they made money doing it that way. They would only release another song when there was sufficient market demand for one. Writers are releasing their books in chapters at a time, following that same model. They are also finding out that this method places the control back into the hands of the artist's themselves, and they are collecting more of the revenue. Instead of only getting 9%, they are getting 90%. Their music is not the "property" of RCA, BMG, and other Big Music behemoths, so they can market it how they see fit. The idea of intellectual property only serves the monopolists, and fascists, not the people who actually do the leg work and create.

    You think intellectual property to be such a good idea that you would use the guns of government to enforce it. The people who hold this belief stifle innovation; the market will adapt and overcome. Human beings will find a way to make money on their creations, there is ZERO need to have any sort of government involved.

    Even the term "intellectual property" sounds like it's right out of the novel 1984. Doesn't it sound like newspeak to you? Sure, people will try and rip you off--that's life man-- but this is why your reputation would really matter in a "state of genuine liberty"(snipped from the side of your blog). The way for you to stay profitable in the market is to--be the first to market, be the best in the market, and have the lowest prices in the market. If you can't pull that off as a company, or a writer, or a musician, or whatever, you have no business being in the market. Literally. People value quality too y'know, not just cheap shit. Here's an example, sitting atop most of my rifles are Leupold scopes. I buy Leupold for the quality, and their quality is not easily duplicated. So, some guy can't just slap some stickers on some Chinese junk and pawn them off as Leupold scopes. He would be exposed for the fraud that he is quicker than shit. Fraud would not be abolished along with copyright. People still desire "the real deal". The market has a way of weeding out the fraudsters.


  15. Chris: Intellectual property doesn't exist?

    OK - so if I start printing copies of a Harry Potter book, listing myself as author(or "Owner", since it is mine, since I printed it) You'd have no problem with that?

    That doesn't strike you as theft?


  16. No Kerodin, it strikes me as fraud, not theft.

    Now, here's the real question.

    Do you believe the government ought to punish this crime?

    You can't list yourself as "owner" either, because you would cease being the owner as soon as you sold the book. Well, I suppose you could, but it would not mean too much to the new owner.

    If I started to copy this book, and sell it, well tough titty, that's how it rolls. But this is not even really a big fear, since the author will obviously be the first to market. They will surely have factored in things like this, and I have no doubt a successful author would plan accordingly.

    I frequently go to the second hand book store 'round my way, and they are frequently giving away books for free. If I was to accept one of these free books would I now have a responsibility to send the author money before I read it to prevent theft?

    Here's why it's not theft. Let's say I have a table and a book. If you come over and copied my table I still retain the original. If you come over to copy my book, I still retain the original. It's only theft when someone steals something, not copies it. This is why it would be fraud(if you applied your name as author), not theft, and it's why I said earlier that the market can handle fraudsters; there is zero need for Govco. Liberty can handle this job just fine.

    Intellectual property does not exist. Your response is a non-sequitur. Just because I do not recognize the concept of intellectual property, doesn't mean I don't have a problem with you commiting fraud and claiming someone else's work for your own. But again, this does not warrant a need for Govco. Would you risk YOUR reptation in a free society to only embarass yourself? Only ask yourself that question, worry about no one else.


  17. Chris: You write "...since the writer will obviously be the first to market..."

    How do you figure?

    Under your paradigm, the moment she walks into the Publisher and hands it over, it is no longer hers. She gets squat, owns squat, and the guy with the printing press gets all the fruit of her labor. Of course, he's out of luck too when the truck driver decides to just take the load of freshly printed books to the flea market, because now "He" "owns" them.

    "Tough titty, that's how it rolls?"


    I guess I am just a fascist SOB.


  18. Your still missing the point.

    Intellectual property doesn't exist. I'll try again. I borrow a book from you, I copy the book, I give the book back to you. Who did I steal from?

    Your response is just one big strawman, because it assumes author and the publisher would not have some kind of contract already draw up. AND AGAIN, you assume that, along with the abolishment of copyright, fraud is also abolished. I still don't understand how you necessarily come to that conclusion.

    You assume that just because the truck driver is in possession of the books in transit, they are his. Why do you assume this? Did the truck driver participate in a voluntary exchange of property to honestly acquire the books? No? Then THAT is theft,and the author has every right to try and recover the stolen property.

    BUT....If I buy one of her books, and copy it. THERE IS NO CRIME. There was a voluntary exchange of goods, and at this point in time I can do with my property whatever I wish, because if not, then it's really not my property is it?

    It's all about property; it always comes back to property. Even animals recognize property. It's more than just an idea--unlike copyright. Now, do you believe in the timeless universal truth--property--or do you not?


  19. Chris: No, I'm not missing the point. We are so far apart on the issue the horizon is in the way.

    Let's just agree to disagree.


  20. Let's not lose sight of the focal topic, please. Assume that copying a book is theft, or take the instance of outright theft of physical property. Take rape, or murder, or any ol' crime you wish.

    My question was this. Without regard to the just manner of handling this--whether through defense or retaliation--does that manner justify forcing everyone to go along with it?

    Defense is sane; duh. Doing it cooperatively is sane; duh. Having everyone participate, whether by direct action or by paying for it, would be great; duh. But if Joe over there doesn't want to do his part--for whatever crazy reason he might have--should he be forced to do his part? THAT is the question and it's an important one because it applies to a lot more than just defense.

    If you believe in government, then you believe it is proper to force Joe to go along, even if Joe hasn't bothered a soul. That's alright; nearly everyone believes that. I'm just trying to find out if anyone can rationally defend it.

  21. I can agree with that.


  22. Jim: Your premise about my position is mistaken. As I said before, my Constitution does not require anything of Joe who wishes to abstain.

    So long as Joe is not violating the equal Rights of others, leave Joe the hell alone. "Government" (as we have defined, nothing more than a group of individuals who have been delegated certain authority) does not have the moral authority to force Joe to do anything, in violation of Natural Law, any more than do I.

    And if our laws reflected the intent of the Constitution (Jefferson's version), Joe would never be in a position of jeopardy. Taxes would not be direct on Joe or the fruits of his labor. Joe would never be drafted.

    Joe would be left alone.

    So, your premise that I must believe it is proper to force Joe to do something if I believe in Government is flawed. The definition of "Government" as intrinsically having the authority and power to force anyone to violate Natural Law is incorrect. Many acts of "Government" have nothing to do with the Natural Law of the Individual, and any moral "Government" would never try to infringe Natural Law.


  23. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to represent your position; I was trying to discover it! Thanks for clarifying. Naturally, if there's not going to be any Law imposed on anyone who doesn't mess with anyone else, there's a question of why we need the Law in the first place. After all, as everyone agrees, Law is irrelevant when it comes to stopping the really Bad Guys who do interfere with others. I think you agreed with that; lemme know if that's mistaken.

    Other than that, it's your business why you believe Law is necessary for you to delegate anything, so I won't press you on that. You seem to say that it's perfectly fine with you if others don't. I hope I've got that right, and it sounds mighty liberty-oriented to me. Thanks again for clarifying.

  24. Jim: Nope, I would not impose force on anyone who is not infringing the equal rights of others, which of course includes malum in se crimes. Then, I think that "Society" has the right to delegate enforcement to a subset of Citizens the responsibility of getting the bad guys on behalf of the weak or victimized.

    That is what we have now, in the police/"Government". Of course, I think our current police system is corrupted horribly, and we have criminalized nearly everything, the act of which is immoral. I also believe that we have never surrendered responsibility to LEO absolutely (though LEO and politicians like to claim a monopoly on enforcement and violence, I take the position that "we" never gave them absolute control.)

    And in most cases of "Enforcement" of a genuine wrong, I'd prefer free enterprise handle the issue. I agree, law will never stop anyone from doing wrong if they intend to do so. But here is a scenario that may offer clarity: If I or my wife or anyone in our families is the victim of a crime, I'd handle it.

    But let's say I get murdered (not as far-fetched as it may sound ;) - my wife has no one to whom she can turn for redress in a Zero-Gov world. The men in our families are not capable or willing to chase down a bad guy and S.S.S., and potentially recover whatever property they may have stolen.

    In those instances, I prefer knowing that we have a group of honest, moral Citizens who accept the responsibility to effect Justice where she is unable to do so herself. "Government".

    But, as I have said, in my perfect world, "Government" enforcement of any issue is the last recourse, when mercenaries/bounty hunters/avengers-for-hire/brothers/uncles et cetera are not able to get it done.

    In all issues I look to Jefferson's definition of Liberty: Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

    When I advocate "limited government" I really do mean "limited".


  25. "But, as I have said, in my perfect world, 'Government' enforcement of any issue is the last recourse, when mercenaries/bounty hunters/avengers-for-hire/brothers/uncles et cetera are not able to get it done."

    You ain't gonna like this, but that makes you effectively an anarchist. One of the defining attributes of a government--all governments--is that its enforcement is the FIRST recourse, not the last. Indeed, a ubiquitous rule of governments, including ours, is that others may NOT serve its functions unless IT delegates those functions. That's why a lot of people define it as a "monopoly of force in a given geographical area," and why it ALWAYS has overwhelming force in that geographical area...or at the very least, endeavors to have that.

    I'm no anarcho-capitalist myself, but that's basically what you're offering here. You're saying there is some "meta-agency" to which you'll delegate your use of force in the event your personal use of force, for whatever purposes, isn't sufficient. And you're also saying that this agency should not engage any force on behalf of those who don't so delegate to it, and presumably don't pay for it. And since they have their option to delegate to similar "meta-agencies," the result is standard "anarcho-capitalism," at least as I've seen it presented.

    Who'd a-thunk it?

  26. Jim: I have stated before, elsewhere, that I nearly fit in the Anarchist camp - except for he issue of national defense and a few nuances. ;)

    I take Jefferson at his word when he said "Limited Government", so I consider myself a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist, or Jeffersonian republican. If I had to try and describe it within general political terms - I'd say I am a "real-world" Anarchist.

    But, I hate labels, because they usually lead to confusion rather than clarity.


  27. Oh, and Jim: After this conversation I put you in that class of Patriot who I would like to see in Congress. You know more about me than I do about you at this point, but I know enough to trust that your instincts and intellect would pull "Government" in the proper direction, away from improper use of force.



  28. Aw, shucks...that's very kind but you wouldn't want to do that. I might put everyone in prison until they woke up and admitted that there's no higher cause on Earth than their own lives.


Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.