Chucktshoes

Nice job slightly altering your language there but it doesn't fool me. I still don't think you actually understand the words you are using. Your civics teacher gets an F.   What has been proven time and time again is that men of baser instinct are attracted to government because of the power it wields and then use that power to control, steal from and murder their fellow man by the millions. Once again, I ask of you the question Frederic Bastiat asked nearly 200 years ago.  

Mark, you are half right. I am not looking for definition B, but would be very  happy with A. The strain of anarchism that I most closely identify with is Anarcho-Capitalism. This would be the system I would choose if it were up to me, but it isn't. As I mentioned before, I can accept a semi-minarchist style of government which would very closely resemble the very small federal system our government initially resembled, not the many tentacled leviathan that seeks more and more control that currently exists. So while I do advocate ultimately moving towards a voluntary based society, I also advocate returning to the constitutionally limited republican form of government this nation once had as a more immediate method of restoring individual liberty. I can start a thread about Anarchism/ Voluntaryism and we can discuss its merits and flaws as it may provide a nice illuminating discussion. I'm going to leave that subject here with this quote on the supposed rampant violence of anarchy folks love to bring up.       All of that aside; Now to Robert.   You did an admirable job of deflecting the subject away from your own confusion of democracy with the republican form of government that our nation was intended to and at one time did have. The founders of this country viewed democracy with the same sort of revulsion that most of us here today view communism. They understood that democracy was nothing more than mob rule. Here are a few quotes from John Adams and Thomas Jefferson on the matter.      Just to throw this in as a bonus, make what you will of these quotes from Jefferson and Adams.  

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1113878" timestamp="1392913739"]Yes...do look at the context. The US. IS a representative democracy and always has been it is also a Constitutional republic in that we are guided by a constitution. As to the "property rights"; yes..I believe people have a right to voluntarily come together and set rules and standards for themselves...that's part of freedom of choice or the right of the individual which you claim to hold dear...[b]I suspect, however, that you are only for free choice/individual rights for people if they make the choices you want them to make[/b].[/quote] :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: <--regarding the bolded portion. Do you even read or comprehend anything I have posted here? For that matter, do you understand the words that you are using? I'm really not sure you do. As far as the property rights debates, I'm not gonna rehash those arguments for the umpteenth time, but yeah, you just contradicted almost everything you have ever written here on the subject of property rights. :rofl:

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1113841" timestamp="1392910040"]I have never said anywhere or even hinted that a democracy is better than a representative democracy or that "majority vote trumps the rights of the individual".[/quote]Look at the words you used and compare them to the ones I used because the terminology matters. Control the language and you control the mind. The difference between a democracy and a representative democracy is that in the latter you send representatives to engage in mob rule in your place as opposed to doing it directly. The rights of the individual still have no protection from the whims of the masses. A constitutional republic with individual liberty as its core principle protects the rights of the individual to their life, liberty and property from the whims and desires of others. As far as the second point goes, all anyone has to do is look at any debate I or JayC has had with you on the subject of property rights to see that contrary to your present denials, you absolutely view the whims of the masses as superior to the rights of the individual.

I love the honesty about how the only real use is to piss off the gun grabbing legislators. :lol:

Still not answering how if people can't be trusted to govern themselves, they can be trusted to govern others. That's okay as there isn't an answer that actually has any logical consistency. On the other hand, I am not surprised by your elevation of democracy (like we have now) over a constitutional republic (like our founders instituted) as time and time again you have stated a belief that majority vote trumps the rights of the individual. To paraphrase a famous sci-fi character "the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the one".

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1113525" timestamp="1392850933"]Some people can but as a whole, people can't be trusted - people have proven that for as long as we've had recorded history. If people always did the right thing by others we wouldn't be in the mess we are in...we wouldn't have men kidnapping and killing (and who knows what else) to 10 year old little girls like the guy just arrested today.[/quote] Read the quote from Bastiat again, Robert. I will absolutely agree with you that people can't be trusted. So why do we trust them with the power to govern others if they can't be trusted to govern themselves?

:rofl: Well played. :rofl:   I hadn't thought of it like that before, but I can't necessarily deny it either.

Yes, because people that can't be trusted to rule themselves should instead be given the power to rule over others.     

I'm all for ditching DST. Never made much sense to me. 

Government? While I can very grudgingly accept some limited, minarchist forms of government, I would never seek to create one. I find the very concept of government fundamentally flawed and so I am an anarchist. If governments are built on the consent of the governed, only the individual can grant that consent and it cannot be granted for him no matter how many others vote on the matter.     I'd say that history has shown us that without fail, the answer to Jefferson's question is a resounding "no". 

 She's a wise woman, but that awkwardness is almost over.

That's pretty well spot on. I have a couple of friends that are communists. I don't mean commie like your average college age liberal idiot or teamster boss, but red dyed in the wool, celebrating Che's birthday card carrying members of the CPUSA commies. These are guys I consider friends and have had plenty of arguments and debates about politics over beers. I don't have any desire to stick a gun in their face or gut them and hang them by their own intestines because they have no ability to be a danger to myself or my family. They don't have the ability to get together with a couple of other folks, take a vote and then grant themselves the power to take my life, liberty or property with the ability to send armed folks to my door. They don't have a national audience and use it to sell the lies of thieves and murderers and increase the power of the state to control the lives of the citizenry. My two friends and I have a difference of political opinions, The bastards that I am talking about that need shooting have the means to enforce their will upon me.

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1112946" timestamp="1392742635"]I, for one, am immensely glad that we don't have a Confederate Stats of America today but if by some chance the CSA has won the war and we did have two countries where there used to be one I've not doubt that both would be just as screwed up as the current USA is.[/quote] I'd agree with that assessment. As long as people believe they have a legitimate right to use violence and coercion to rule others, we will have a screwed up state of affairs. When folks are allowed to voluntarily choose their associations, only them will things begin to not be so fucked up.

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1112675" timestamp="1392681782"]You would have to be an idiot to start murdering people that are no immediate threat to you. From reading your posts I don’t think you are an idiot. It’s just easy to pump yourself up and start talking non-sense about what you would do in a given situation when you know the chances of that situation happening are about the same as winning the lottery.[/quote] Dave, those politicians and media whores are the most immediate threat to not just me, but everyone you or I know. It is their actions that are going to bring this whole American experiment to an end.

[quote name="JayC" post="1112650" timestamp="1392678907"]I meant they are successful in overthrowing the current government in the vast majority of cases. [size=4]And I completely agree in the vast majority of cases the outcome is just as bad if not worse than what they had before.[/size] Which is why I don't advocate for an insurgency... which is why I tend to make sure people don't have a false sense of bravado... Our Government and by extension the military won't win an insurgence here at home... and neither will we the people. So we should do everything in our power to avoid it... but the fact remains many politicians don't see it that way... and they're playing with fire... we're maybe 2 steps away from a civil war, and many in both parties are happy to keep marching along in the same direction hoping we don't step into a pothole and kick off the worse war any of us have ever seen. Eventually they'll poke the wrong bear... and all of us and for 4 or 5 generations to come will be paying the price.[/quote] Well stated. I know some folks view me as some bloodthirsty internet blowhard clamoring for an excuse to start shooting folks. That isn't the case at all. I would love it if the fed.gov would return to its original semi-minarchist form. I just don't see that happening and I have determined that a point does exist where I won't take anymore. As far as my position on the targeting of politicians and media partisans, look at it this way. If there is someone who is hiring hit men to kill you and they will never be prosecuted for it no matter how many they send, do you just attempt to defend yourself against the hit men until one of them gets you? Maybe the real solution is to go after the person paying the hit men. The agents tasked with enforcing the intolerable acts like this gun registration in CT aren't the real enemy (though if they catch lead trying to kidnap a citizen for not complying with it, so be it) the politicians who passed the laws and the media whores who sell their lies for them are. If one is going to possibly die resisting these intolerable acts, might as well take out some of the real villains first.

That's exactly what I was saying. Robert didn't misunderstand it, he just rejects the premise because he apparently believes that as long as some body, somewhere that calls itself a government took a vote on the matter then it's violence against the individual is legitimate and should not be resisted.   Robert, if you are going to paraphrase and butcher my words by leaving out the key portion in an attempt to twist them against me, do yourself a favor and at least attempt to form a grammatically coherent sentence. You managed to quote it correctly the first time but I'll go ahead and quote myself for you again for clarity's sake. Compare the bolded texts if you will.     Those few words really have a profound effect on the thrust of the argument as they provide the moral justification for the act of self defense. I am not advocating that anyone take any specific action, especially actions of such profound consequences. I am only explaining what I believe to be is the moral basis for those actions which I view as an inevitability. 

[URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html[/URL] :D

[quote name="Sam1" post="1112545" timestamp="1392659962"]My point is that there is nothing to differentiate the two. However, while Haslam (and other pols) run around the state claiming to be business friendly and stating that the government has no place interfering with private business, he is also essentially attempting to extort a private business for partaking in activities that only involve them. To put that in perspective on a gun forum, that is like the gov. being pro 2a, but then threatening to implement a firing range tax to businesses that open their range on Sundays because we think their employees should be at home instead. Think about this in the long term, the pols have come out and blatantly said that they are scared that if VW unionizes that other businesses will not come to the state, that's why they are interfering. Now, if you are a business thinking of coming in, do you not now consider that if the current administration is willing to go to these measures, what guarantees are there that the next one that doesn't line with your beliefs isn't going to do the same? [b]We're getting to the point where common sense is being replaced with "because I said so" on the conservative side of the fence, and that's not good.[/b][/quote] Your tense is wrong. ;)

[quote name="Mark@Sea" post="1112528" timestamp="1392657489"]Heinleins' definition of an honest politician.[/quote] Yep. What a lot of folks should realize is that they may have voted for Haslam but they didn't elect him. VW, FedEx and all of the other large corporate interests that paid for his campaign bought him lock, stock and barrel and it is their interests he represents. I don't like what the man does in office but I can't fault him for representing is actual constituency.

[quote name="Sam1" post="1112491" timestamp="1392653391"]They should contest it, Haslam was trying to coerce them by threatening to take away freebies for the sole reasoning if they organized. I also like how they claim to be friendly to private business and are for less interference of government in them, but they are playing interference as much as possible because they don't like it. Am not pro-union, but this is a matter between the business and its employees, not politicians and people not working for VW[/quote] So Haslam came down on the side of the corporate interests that bought and paid for him. Just curious, how is that any different than the Democrats coming down on the side of the unions that have bought and paid for them? The only positive thing I can say about Haslam is that as a politician he at least appears to stay bought.

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1112112" timestamp="1392583799"]Because in this state (and I would guess most others) you don’t get to kill people that you think are trying to deprive you of something. You get to kill people when a reasonable person (That means a jury; not what you made up in your mind) believes that you were in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. I can remember when cops could shoot fleeing forcible felons…. And did. However, the bleeding heart criminal huggers put an end to that practice (for many states around the 80’s). So if you can’t shoot criminals that are in the act of a felony but fleeing, I doubt they will look favorably on you shooting those that you suspect of a crime. See how it works.[/quote] I can tell you exactly how it will work out for me. At some point in the future I will most likely be murdered by agents of the state unless I choose cowardice and accept the chains of slavery the state wishes for all of us. Some folks will wear them gladly, some folks will die by exercising their last inalienable right, the right to an unfair gunfight. To be clear on something I think you may be misinterpreting me and I want to ensure that I am 100% clear. I am not speaking about simple, petty crime. I am speaking about the civil war that I think has already begun much like the War Between the States began long before Fort Sumter. At the point anyone engages in that last unfair gunfight, their war is over and their battle was with the wrong people. The government agents who will come knocking in the early morning clad in black like the assassins they are aren't the real enemy. The real enemies are the politicians who send them and their media lapdogs who sell their lies to the masses. They are the ones who are deserving of the citizen vote of last resort now that the ballots are meaningless. When they understand that the wages of their sins against the people are a few dozen grains of lead to the cranium then they might begin to reconsider their crimes. I'm admittedly not very eloquent in making my case for right of armed response to the crimes of the state. The folks at [URL]sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com[/URL] and [URL]westernrifleshooters.wordpress.org[/URL] as well as Matthew Bracken are much better at it than I am.

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1112105" timestamp="1392583095"]You can call it that but it still isn't "self defense"; justified or otherwise. You said. paraphrasing, that [i]you think the correct and appropriate consequences for the legislators and [/i][i]the individual's liberty and the lickspittles in the media that support their totalitarian schemes with their propaganda is to [b]kill them[/b]. [/i]Well, unless those legislators and/or media types show up on your doorstep with guns blazing I don't see how you can call "killing them" as being "self defense". You don't "kill" people because they have a different political philosophy than you do...you don't kill people because they violate the Constitution...you vote them out of office...maybe you put them in jail for crimes if they've committed any; but you don't "kill them".[/quote] We are obviously never going to find agreement here as I don't believe in the validity of the state as an entity to even exist and you will defend its power over folks down to the ability to control what they choose to put in their front yard. I am a libertarian, an anarchist while you are an authoritarian statist. That is why when we do find agreement on an issue I always have to check my position to determine if I have built it on the solid moral grounds of freedom and liberty for the individual.

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1112086" timestamp="1392581017"]I think that's called murder and I think that's illegal in most jurisdictions. I see no "good" outcome for violent resistance; just a lot of dead people.[/quote] I would call it justified self defense. If an individual or a group of individuals from the wrong end of town in tshirts and baggy pants seek to deprive me of my life, liberty or property by gun/knifepoint, I am well within my rights to seek to defend myself using whatever force I have available to me. What is the difference in the equation if those individuals that seek to deprive me of my life, liberty or property hail from the good end of town, wear suits and pay others to wield their guns for them? You say you see no good outcome from violent resistance, only a lot of dead people. I see no good outcome at all, just the same piles of dead folks. The only real difference I can find is that hopefully the piles I see will have more of the people that deserve to be in them than those who just want to be left alone.

[quote name="bersaguy" post="1112058" timestamp="1392578761"]Hope so cause sure will make him a lot easier to see just before his hears incoming expendable projectiles in his direction..........jmho[/quote] I hope not. This gentleman is actually part of a self-defense force group that is fighting against the narco's.