[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

NFL Players WILL Respect the Flag's Authoritah, Says Commissioner

Trump lawyer 'paid by Ukraine' to arrange White House talks

FBI Agent at Mike Flynn Interrogation Is Ready to Testify Against McCabe, Strzok and Comey!

96-Year-Old WWII Vet in a Wheelchair, Groped & Molested by TSA—For "Freedom"

This Is Why Evangelical Christians Love Israel

St. Louis Town Agrees to Stop Bankrolling Itself by Fining Its Residents into the Poorhouse

A Nation of Narcs

Surveillance Target Sam Clovis Discusses His Contacts With FBI/CIA Intelligence Agent Stefan Halper

Stormy Daniels' Lawyer Ordered To Pay $10 Million Fine In Legal Feud

New Poll Shows GOP Now Leads In 2018 Generic Ballot

Portsmouth man added "copyright" and his screen name to his child porn, feds say

Can a pope change moral truth?

The appointment of Robert Mueller violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution... ·

Investigators Admit Victims in Texas Shooting Could’ve Been Killed by Police Fire

Innocent Man Detained, Assaulted by Cops Because He Had ‘Vegetation’ on His Window

La Jolla hardware store forced to stop giving away free popcorn

Pompeo to Iran: Get ready for "strongest sanctions in history"

Germany’s military is dysfunctional and they have no plans to fix it

ISIS Militants Leave Damascus Under Evacuation Deal As Assad Takes Full Control Of Capital

At the royal wedding, why was the heretic allowed to give the homily?

Dershowitz on Russia Probe: 'They’re All Longterm Reps Who Hated Trump!'

Here's How Much The Federal Government Paid Alleged Trump Campaign 'Spy' In 2016

Don't mess with bears

How Trump Can Dismantle Obamacare Without Congress

Worker Co-Ops Are Wildly Successful But U.S. Media Ignores them

Why Socrates Hated Democracy

Europe may be realizing America isn’t their sugar daddy or punching bag

Has China succumbed to the art of the deal?

John Bolton: We May Punish Europe If They Don’t Pull Out Of Iran Deal Too

Stop Calling the GOP the Party of Small Government

FEDS DROP BOMBSHELL: Comey & Lynch Colluded Entrap, Wiretap Trump

Bad news for green energy lovers: US oil & gas are booming

Poles Blasting EU for Gay Flag

Santa Fe High School shooting: Suspect identified as Dimitrios Pagourtzis

As The Church Slept, Satan Crept In And The Masses Embraced The Doctrines Of Demons

Geoengineering Is ‘Being Used As A Weapon; An All-Out Assault Against Life’

Government Implements Illegal Gag Order On National Weather Service & NOAA Employees

Smart Phones Make Dumb People

Cop Dumps 7 Rounds into Tiny Woman As She Walked Away from Him Holding a Shovel

ANOTHER MUELLER GAFFE: Lawyers Defending Russian Firm Tell Court Named Employees DON’T WORK FOR THEM – Mueller MADE IT UP

I said Israel should be ashamed – now I am the one who is ashamed

White House weighs in on Laurel vs. Yanny debate (Progressive scolds: That’s not funny, you monsters)

Researchers Find Breathalyzers To Be Just More Faulty Cop Tech Capable Of Putting Innocent People In Jail

FBI's Bust Of Black Open Carry Advocate Predicated On An InfoWars Video Ends In Dismissed Indictment

Pelosi gibberish, bizarre laughing; stares off during brain freeze (Dementia?)

Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohen’s Financial Records

Cop Sees Camera, Fears For His Life - Threatens to Kill Photographer for Filming

New Hate Crime Bill Protecting Cops Passes House Despite Clear 10th Amendment Violation

Republicans Love Torture

In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles

Title: Laws Always Mean Guns to the Face
Source: Everything Voluntary
URL Source: http://everything-voluntary.com/laws-always-mean-guns-to-the-face
Published: May 10, 2018
Author: Skyler J. Collins
Post Date: 2018-05-15 10:29:46 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 54
Comments: 4

One of the very first red pills a person swallows on the journey toward becoming a voluntaryist is the idea that every law is guaranteed by an act of violence. In our day and age, that means a gun to the face. In days past, it meant a sword, a club, or a fist. Thus begins the critical analysis of every type of government law that is proposed, passed, and enforced.

It often proceeds as follows: laws regulating the use of private property are summarily dismissed as obvious violations of liberty; laws regulating the use of one’s body are likewise summarily dismissed as obvious violations liberty; laws requiring fees for permission to do things or fines for doing the wrong thing are next; and sooner or later, laws requiring people to give a part of their income to the government and laws protecting businesses from competition are seen for what they are: extortion and protectionism.

Finally, the budding voluntaryist recognizes that the claims of territorial jurisdiction made by people who call themselves “government” are without factual merit. They are nothing more than, “Pay us and obey our rules, or else!” The commands wouldn’t be so bad if not for the “or else!” What is the “or else!”? It’s a gun to the face. Always.

Mind-bogglingly, some people at some point in this journey fail to understand that government laws always mean a gun to the face. Their argument is that because the law is not always enforced at the point of a gun, the law does not always mean a gun to the face. It is perfectly observable the fact that laws are not always enforced at gunpoint. Most people hand over their income, follow business regulations, drive the speed limit, et cetera, without any guns to their face. This is all well and good, but begs the question: why do they do this?

There are two reasons why people obey government laws: 1) to avoid a gun to their face, and 2) other self-interested reasons. The ongoing threat of a gun to the face is why laws are obeyed as a matter of law. If people calling themselves “government” were not willing to enforce their laws at gunpoint, their laws would deteriorate (as many specific laws do). Anybody seemingly obeying them at this point are not doing so to avoid a gun in the face. They are doing so for some other self-interested reason.

I don’t murder people, but not because there’s a government law that says I’m not allowed to murder people. I don’t murder because I consider murder wrong and want to avoid hurting other people, and my conscience. Same goes for speeding on the freeway. I drive the speed I’m comfortable driving. As does everyone else in the absence of speed limits. Government laws prohibiting liberties are wrong, and government laws prohibiting crimes are redundant.

One of the final red pills swallowed by the voluntaryist is the idea that people can be peaceful and cooperative in the absence of people calling themselves “government” and forcing others to pay them and obey their rules. What begins as a critical analysis of these rules rightly ends as a rejection of the people making them.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

There are two reasons why people obey government laws:

No. One reason: The people wrote the laws, not some government dictator.

If the people want to change the laws they can. But the author would have us believe that forces beyond are control are making us miserable and there's nothing to do about it -- except write articles for money.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-15   10:38:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard (#0)

Finally, the budding voluntaryist recognizes that the claims of territorial jurisdiction made by people who call themselves “government” are without factual merit. They are nothing more than, “Pay us and obey our rules, or else!” The commands wouldn’t be so bad if not for the “or else!” What is the “or else!”? It’s a gun to the face. Always.

Mind-bogglingly, some people at some point in this journey fail to understand that government laws always mean a gun to the face. Their argument is that because the law is not always enforced at the point of a gun, the law does not always mean a gun to the face

What you say is true: all law always means a gun (or its equivalent) to the face. The law of God, for example, is not usually immediately self- enforcing, but there's final judgment and the Lake of Fire waiting for those who defy it.

The place where you and I part ways is here, when you say this: "One of the final red pills swallowed by the voluntaryist is the idea that people can be peaceful and cooperative in the absence of people calling themselves “government” and forcing others to pay them and obey their rules. What begins as a critical analysis of these rules rightly ends as a rejection of the people making them."

I know you believe that is the truth. But I am certain that it's not. If men were angels, we would not need laws, and we would not need to resort to the gun. But men are not angels, and they cannot ever become angels, no matter how well they are treated. Children who are treated very well in every way nevertheless often go postal and become drug addicts and violent "brats". And to keep kids from becoming brats, some inherently violent force must be applied - even if the violence is indirect.

Nothing changes when a child crosses an imaginary age barrier and becomes an adult. The only difference between a 50 year old and a 17 year old is that the 50 year old has a lot more experience with reality and getting battered around by the world. 17 year olds have quicker minds and healthier bodies, and are more naive.

I think it is completely naive - a hallucinatory fantasy - that human beings can live anywhere close to volunteerism. We are animals who need SUBSTANTIAL resources in order to be healthy, let alone happy. And resources are scarce. Humans have to compete for those resources, and in competition, cunning, strength and brute force are all effective.

Looking with a hurt face and tut-tutting those who have greater strength and less empathy, who shove the more sociable and honest and empathetic aside and take by force what is best for them - this is what one is left with: turn the other cheek and let the strong take advantage.

Trouble is, the strong will then go on to impose taxes, laws, rules, etc.

There is no combination of policy, laxness and upbringing that will prevent a substantial number of human beings from using violent force, if they can, to grab what they want and make others submit to them. Rape is not caused by acculturation, and cannot be trained or taught out of men.

This is a natural reality: chimps are violent and murder each other too, and they can't be taught not to. Men are smarter than chimps, and the ability to use greater intelligence to compel those beneath exists.

Pure "Voluntaryism" will not and cannot ever work among human beings or chimps. We did evolve to be that way. We're not bonobos, and we're not vegans like deer or sheep (and even deer or sheep are pretty violent in mating season). We're men, and while we're not wholly evil, we're by no means wholly good either. All of us won't abuse the weak, but a substantial number of us WILL do so, unless constrained by greater force.

This is where we differ philosophically: on the actual composition of the heart of man.

You believe that the heart and mind of man is pure, and that if men are allowed to make decisions without force, they won't resort to violence and compulsion. I am willing to allow that in Garden-of-Eden conditions that might even be true, maybe. But actual natural conditions of earth are far, far less ideal. Scarcity is real, and pervasive, and that drives men much farther along the line of force and defense.

I'm not a Calvinist. I do not believe that men are TOTALLY depraved and TOTALLY without any good in us. I've never observed that to be so, and it is not.

Men are capable of great good and also great evil, and humanity overall does not change. We have laws, enforced by the gun, because we HAVE TO. The alternative is violent rule by OTHER men with guns. Pure "voluntaryism" simply will not work for the organization of a society, or a family farm, or anything in between.

Where we can find common ground, I think, is in the realization that we don't, as a society, need to REVEL so much in the application of force and the boot to the face. We can do with LESS restriction and regulation, at least in some areas, than we currently have. I can work with someone like you to lessen the encounters with the gun, to reduce the things that are regulated, though in the course of loosening the restrictions, it becomes clearer and clearer over time that where restrictions DO remain, they have to be enforced pretty strongly - perhaps even stronger than they currently are - simply because the "grey zone" is substantially reduced, bringing the "red zone" of behavior closer to most people.

I think you believe that if the gun were taken out of law and things became voluntary, we would move to a much better place. I think we'd move straight back into the Dark Ages.

I certainly can agree to LESS restriction than we currently have. We have gone much too far, in my opinion, and a good amount of that is driven by the desire to police petty morals and vices. I think we should cut that stuff way back.

But "zero" is never a realistic option. One does not cure obesity through utter famine, one simply kills people in a different way.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-15   11:28:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Deckard (#0)

Laws Always Mean Guns to the Face

So do no laws.

What we need to keep doing is seeking the happy medium ground between the extremes of a police state and anarchy.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-05-15   12:26:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: misterwhite (#1)

The people wrote the laws, not some government dictator.

HorseHillary!

Name just ONE law YOU wrote.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-05-15   12:27:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com