Officials in Connecticut Stunned by What Could Be a Massive, State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners

[RobertNashville]

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 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 you 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 preset denials, you absolutely view the whims of the masses as superior to the rights of the individual.

Yes...do look at the context.

 

The US. IS a representative democracy; is also a constitutional republic in that we are guided by a constitution. I'm not sure why you care since you have stated you want no government of any kind.

 

As to the "property rights"; yes..I believe people have a right to voluntarily come together and set rules and standards for themselves just as I believe that people have a right to enter into contracts that set fort what each party is expected to do and what each is expected to receive.  Further, thousands or tens of thousands or millions of people living in close proximity to each other as they do in modern society absolutely must have rules and standards for the protection of everyone's rights.  You can bemoan that all you wish but your moaning will not change the necessity of modern society.

Edited February 20, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Chucktshoes]

[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:

[RobertNashville]

All human beings have God-given rights but people cannot enjoy those rights without laws to codify and protect them and to settle the conflicts that will always arise between individuals when rights conflict with each other.

 

There can be no laws to codify and protect those rights or to settle those conflicts without government to institute those laws and the organizations that enforce them and resolves conflicts (police, courts, etc).

 

Anyone who wants anarchy...no government...no laws of any kind is not a champion of "individual rights" no matter how much they claim they are. Rather, they are a champion of animalistic behavior where the bullies and predators pray on everyone else.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What's a representative democracy? I thought it was just mob rule by proxy. The other side has been using the word "democracy"

so long, some have tended to adopt it as the norm. Sorry to see this.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

All human beings have God-given rights but people cannot enjoy those rights without laws to codify and protect them and to settle the conflicts that will always arise between individuals when rights conflict with each other.

 

There can be no laws to codify and protect those rights or to settle those conflicts without government to institute those laws and the organizations that enforce them and resolves conflicts (police, courts, etc).

 

Anyone who wants anarchy...no government...no laws of any kind is not a champion of "individual rights" no matter how much they claim they are. Rather, they are a champion of animalistic behavior where the bullies and predators pray on everyone else.

That's all well and good as long as those laws you mention don't infringe on those God given rights. Otherwise, we see mob rule.

Too much bending of a God given right tends to break the trust we have in the government, especially when the laws are from

emotions and not reason.

Edited February 20, 2014 by 6.8 AR

[sigmtnman]

All human beings have God-given rights but people cannot enjoy those rights without laws to codify and protect them and to settle the conflicts that will always arise between individuals when rights conflict with each other.

 

There can be no laws to codify and protect those rights or to settle those conflicts without government to institute those laws and the organizations that enforce them and resolves conflicts (police, courts, etc).

 

Anyone who wants anarchy...no government...no laws of any kind is not a champion of "individual rights" no matter how much they claim they are. Rather, they are a champion of animalistic behavior where the bullies and predators pray on everyone else.

 

By recognizing property rights, one individual's rights end where another individual's rights begin.  In other words, my rights end where your nose begins.  This has zero to do with anarchy.

Edited February 20, 2014 by sigmtnman

[RobertNashville]

By recognizing property rights, one individual's rights end where another individual's rights begin.  In other words, my rights end where your nose begins.  This has zero to do with anarchy.

It has everything to do with anarchy when one, as one here is, is proposing no government/rules of any kind which is what I was responding to.

 

Further, if what you are doing on your property/how you are using your property adversely affects me/my property then your actions have crossed the boundaries of your property and are impacting me and infringing on my rights.

Edited February 20, 2014 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

That's all well and good as long as those laws you mention don't infringe on those God given rights. Otherwise, we see mob rule.

Too much bending of a God given right tends to break the trust we have in the government, especially when the laws are from

emotions and not reason.

We are a representative democracy (which is significantly different than a pure democracy) guided by a constitution. When our representatives act against our rights then we have the right to replace them with people who will respect our rights.  If the people don't do their job that isn't the fault of government nor justification for advocating no government at all.

 

No one has ever said that our form of government is perfect, only that, so far, it is the best ever devised by man and certainly better than zero government of any kind.

Edited February 20, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I never said it was perfect, either, Robert, but it is less perfect when men pass laws that infringe on God given rights. Where'd

this representative democracy come from? Kos Kids? I've never heard this terminology used.

 

You can have a pure democracy, which is nothing more than mob rule by proxy, and still have a constitution. It just dilutes

the value of the constitution when mobs can rule over the constitution.

Edited February 20, 2014 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Another thing. What Chuck espouses is not anarchy. It's adherence to the Constitution. Our country quit using that

document several decades ago, especially with the advent of the Patriot Act. Several others have gotten in the way, also,

that go back to the Carter era which have taken from you and I and given to a machine, rather than do anything positive,

or right, for so long that we have gotten used to it and would rather play games re-naming definitions of political abstracts

to make us think of our way of life as something it isn't.

 

Yeh, I know it happened a long time before, but the Patriot Act is a convenient stepping off point since it was so intrusive

of a law.

[sigmtnman]

It has everything to do with anarchy when one, as one here is, is proposing no government/rules of any kind which is what I was responding to.

 

You are undoubtedly referring to the recent definition of anarchy.  I'd suggest you dig a little and not use the definition come lately that has been bastardized from it's original meaning.

 

 

 

Further, if what you are doing on your property/how you are using your property adversely affects me/my property then your actions have crossed the boundaries of your property and are impacting me and infringing on my rights.

 

What don't you get about the idea that my property rights do not give me the right to hurt you or anyone else?  You continually throw that out as though that is what we are saying. 

 

If what I do on my property harms you and/or your property I am violating your property rights.  What don't you understand about that?

 

Bad #### will happen, mistakes will happen, people will get hurt.  That is just a cold hard fact of life.  Regardless of the form of or lack of government.  The only purpose a government should have would be to resolve disputes of property rights, in the event that bad #### did happen whether on purpose or by accident, and provide for a common defence against invaders.

Edited February 20, 2014 by sigmtnman

[RobertNashville]

You are undoubtedly referring to the recent definition of anarchy. I'd suggest you dig a little and not use the definition come lately that has been bastardized from it's original meaning.

There is, in fact, no one definition of anarchism that someone can claim as the ‘right one” so if you are trying to say I’m using the “wrong one” I would say the claim is moot. For purposes of the discussion/my posts the definition I’m using would be that an anarchist is anyone who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism which is a society without government or law (and in fact there can be no “law” without some form of government) which is what Chuckshoes indicated in his prior post he wanted and is what I am and have been responding to. How someone else would define an anarchist is immaterial for purposes of this discussion.
 

What don't you get about the idea that my property rights do not give me the right to hurt you or anyone else? You continually throw that out as though that is what we are saying.

If what I do on my property harms you and/or your property I am violating your property rights. What don't you understand about that?

Bad #### will happen, mistakes will happen, people will get hurt. That is just a cold hard fact of life. Regardless of the form of or lack of government. The only purpose a government should have would be to resolve disputes of property rights, in the event that bad #### did happen whether on purpose or by accident, and provide for a common defence against invaders.

Sure, bad stuff happens and in an world with no government and no laws there would be nothing anyone could do about it…no redress of grievances…no justice.

[RobertNashville]

...What Chuck espouses is not anarchy. It's adherence to the Constitution....

Adherence to the Constitution?  I suggest you look again at what he said...
 

...While I can very grudgingly accept some limited, minarchist forms of government, I would never seek to create one.

Someone who would never seek to create a government is someone who is saying he doesn't want a government. That is not advocating adherence to the Constitution or any other method of government. He also said specifically that he is an anarchist...that word does not describe someone who wants to adhere to any government; in fact, quite the opposite.

[JayC]

I'm not an anarchist, so I want to be careful not to speak for Chuck on this...  but, his lack of desire to force a government on anybody else doesn't mean he's suggesting the current government shouldn't follow the Constitution.  You know all of us crazy libertarians we want to take over the world, and force people to do whatever they want to do :)

 

I think he'd say that the government when following the constitution to the letter is bad enough, and what we have right now is much worse ;)

 

And further, why should he support the constitution?  Did he sign it?  Did he agree to give his rights away?

 

How is he any less free than the founding fathers?  They came up with our current form of government...  clearly not placing enough checks and balances in place...  And somehow all of us are doomed to the mess they gave us?

 

Show me the contract Chuck signed his right away...  or was he just born into it?  And if he was born into it, how does he opt out?

 

Adherence to the Constitution?  I suggest you look again at what he said...
 

Someone who would never seek to create a government is someone who is saying he doesn't want a government. That is not advocating adherence to the Constitution or any other method of government. He also said specifically that he is an anarchist...that word does not describe someone who wants to adhere to any government; in fact, quite the opposite.

Edited February 20, 2014 by JayC

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There is, in fact, no one definition of anarchism that someone can claim as the ‘right one” so if you are trying to say I’m using the “wrong one” I would say the claim is moot. For purposes of the discussion/my posts the definition I’m using would be that an anarchist is anyone who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism which is a society without government or law (and in fact there can be no “law” without some form of government) which is what Chuckshoes indicated in his prior post he wanted and is what I am and have been responding to. How someone else would define an anarchist is immaterial for purposes of this discussion.
 
Sure, bad stuff happens and in an world with no government and no laws there would be nothing anyone could do about it…no redress of grievances…no justice.

So anarchism is now a moving target with many definitions?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Adherence to the Constitution?  I suggest you look again at what he said...
 

Someone who would never seek to create a government is someone who is saying he doesn't want a government. That is not advocating adherence to the Constitution or any other method of government. He also said specifically that he is an anarchist...that word does not describe someone who wants to adhere to any government; in fact, quite the opposite.

He has been very consistent. You are saying that someone who would never seek to create a government doesn't want a government?

We already have a government, Robert, one which we need to stay on top of, like the 9th and 10th Amendments indicate. What is the

need to create a new government? We desperately need to fix the one we have before we discuss new ones.

[RobertNashville]

He has been very consistent. You are saying that someone who would never seek to create a government doesn't want a government?

We already have a government, Robert, one which we need to stay on top of, like the 9th and 10th Amendments indicate. What is the

need to create a new government? We desperately need to fix the one we have before we discuss new ones.

Yeah...based on what he said there I believe he doesn't want any/would prefer no government at all...he made it quite clear that he doesn't trust people to crate a government...that any government is an infringement on his "rights".  You can intemperate what he said differently if you like.

[RobertNashville]

So anarchism is now a moving target with many definitions?

Yes and always has been...if you have an "official definition" that everyone agrees on please pass it along! :)

 

"As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy."  Marshall, Peter (2010). Demands The Impossible: A History Of Anarchism. Oakland, CA: PM Press.

Edited February 20, 2014 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

I'm not an anarchist, so I want to be careful not to speak for Chuck on this...  but, his lack of desire to force a government on anybody else doesn't mean he's suggesting the current government shouldn't follow the Constitution.  You know all of us crazy libertarians we want to take over the world, and force people to do whatever they want to do :)

 

I think he'd say that the government when following the constitution to the letter is bad enough, and what we have right now is much worse ;)

 

And further, why should he support the constitution?  Did he sign it?  Did he agree to give his rights away?

 

How is he any less free than the founding fathers?  They came up with our current form of government...  clearly not placing enough checks and balances in place...  And somehow all of us are doomed to the mess they gave us?

 

Show me the contract Chuck signed his right away...  or was he just born into it?  And if he was born into it, how does he opt out?

Well, I guess if someone doesn't like the "contract" called our Constitution he/she could more to another country as a way to "opt out" or I suppose they could refuse to obey any law at all; not sure how far that will get them.

 

When people start talking about the Constitution as a contract that they "didn't sign" (and by extension,I would assume, have no obligation to follow/abide by) it starts sounding a lot like the ridiculous and dangerous "sovereign citizen" movement

Edited February 20, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

So anarchism is now a moving target with many definitions?

 

Well, if you advocate anarchism, best be well prepared for the resultant anarchy.

 

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

So anarchism is now a moving target with many definitions?

 

Yep there are more flavors of anarchism than you can shake a schtick at. Lots more than the baskin robins flavors of ice cream. You can have commie anarchists pitted against libertarian anarchists with dozens of other anarchist types in the audience.

 

This article is purt good for listing various kinds--

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Edited February 20, 2014 by Lester Weevils

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

I like Franklin's quote...democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner....liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

 

I think our republican form of government (the one the constitution guarantees to the states) is the best balanced option there is. What I find wrong with current government is that we seem to be slipping further into a pure democracy combined with an ever increasingly powerful central federal government which seems to be getting more authoritarian as time progresses. 

 

The initial intention, if I remember correctly, was to have a weak central government with just enough contractual (constitutional) "glue" to hold many strong states together while not overpowering them.

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

I also think that we, as a society in general, are confusing tolerance for freedom and liberty. I would offer that things like gay marriage, legalizing marijuana, etc, are not really increases in freedom, especially when we see ongoing curtailments of freedoms actually identified in the bill of rights becoming more restricted as time goes on.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

a: absence of government . b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

 

That's all the definition I need to see. Chuck ain't looking for that.

[Chucktshoes]

a: absence of government . b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

 

That's all the definition I need to see. Chuck ain't looking for that.

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.

 

 

 

“Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.” 
― Robert Higgs

 

 

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. 

 

 

Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.

John Adams

The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.

Thomas Jefferson

 

Just to throw this in as a bonus, make what you will of these quotes from Jefferson and Adams.

 

 

The happiness of society is the end of government.

John Adams

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson

Edited February 21, 2014 by Chucktshoes