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

Plants Are Growing on the Moon for the First Time (Chinese cotton plantation)

Laura Loomer Brings Illegal Immigrants To Nancy Pelosi's Home. Pelosi Has Police Remove Them

P&G’s Gillette ad asks men to shave their ‘toxic masculinity’ and a big backlash ensues

Chemtrails Exposed: The Deep State And The New Manhattan Project

Reality Beyond Belief

Oregon bill would cap magazines to 5 rds, ration ammo to 20 rds/month

Nobel Prize-Winning DNA Pioneer James Watson Stripped Of Titles For Insisting Race And IQ Are Linked

Trumps shutdown trap?

Free Speech Is Dead in Canada: The Persecution of Christian Activist Bill Whatcott

The Unique Pleasures of Watching Alexa Deny Children What They Want

Police visit father after he joked on Facebook about feeding five-day-old baby hot sauce

Big Pharmas Worst Nightmare, Survey Finds Most Medical Pot Users Quitting Prescription Drug Use

Cops Raid Innocent Family With No Warrant, Drag Them From House and Beat Them

'McJesus' sculpture sparks outrage for Christians in Israel

Kasich Looking to Join Fake News Brigade After Governorship (third party, bipartisan kind of ticket)

The Bounty ... Pitcairn Island --- Fletcher Christian's Descendants

Rand Paul to have hernia surgery in Canada

The World Wildlife Fund Now Controls The US Beef Industry!

Missing Uncle Much?

Ocasio-Cortezs Twitter Baby Prattle: Who dis? Who datWHO CARES?!

I Cannot Comply: A Second Amendment Advocates Fight Against the City of Boulder, Colorado

30 Democrats in Puerto Rico with 109 lobbyists for weekend despite shutdown

Trump Confronts the Prospect of a Nonstop Political War for Survival (Junk News)

'I Cannot Comply': A Second Amendment Advocate's Fight Against the City of Boulder, Colorado

Lisa Page Sang Like A Canary

Julin Castro announces 2020 presidential run from Texas

THINGS DEMOCRATS HAVE FUNDED THAT COST MORE THAN THE BORDER WALL

Meccas Grand Mosque plagued by swarm of locusts

Government shutdown impacting breweries (No new beers, panic now!)

You white Americans be more inbred ... Yo genes be f-cked up --- You be a bunch of walking defects

Mike Pompeo Says the US is a Force for Good in the Middle East. No, Really!

Border Patrol and the TSA allowed to secretly spy on everyone's social media accounts

Karl Marx & the Great Socialist Revival

Breakthrough Study Finds Another Compound in Cannabis with Powerful Anti-Inflammatory Properties

FOOTAGE: HOUTHI DRONE ATTACK AT YEMENI MILITARY BASE

Palestinian-American Activist Linda Sarsour: The Prophet Muhammad Was A Human Rights Activist; We Don't Need The West To Teach Us About Feminism

88-Yr-Old Granny Sings Somewhere Over The Rainbow as Grandson Plays the Piano

Lift Up Your Hearts: The Democrats Are in a Shambles

Officer on force only 2 weeks shot dead in Northern California

Meyers on Trump Being Expert at Technology: You Dont Even Know How To Operate an Umbrella

Man sues four San Diego police officers for assault in Mission Valley

Trump administration slams Fiat Chrysler with a half-billion dollars in fines for flouting emissions rules

Trump White House urging allies to prepare for possible RBG departure

This is Nancyboys vision for the future

Donald Trump Jr. suggests border wall is like a zoo fence

Trump dubs media the 'Opposition Party,' accuses press of working with Democrats

Sheila Jackson Lee Says the Unthinkable About Killing of Black Girl by Black Man

To the APA, Transgenderism is Fine but Masculinity is a Mental Illness

Is Michelle Obama Plotting to Take the White House in 2020?

The Root of Police Militarization


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: 168
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