I believe that the natural lawyers who came up with this concept (Locke et al), and the American Founders who used it (Jefferson et al), did the best they could for their moment in history.
We know better now, so we can move on, while at the same time respecting and thanking them for their contribution in moving the ball downfield. They knew that consent was essential. They just weren't ready for a system that completely respects it.
Oh, they did a FANTASTIC job...far better than they could have ever imagined....but one of the prices of freedom is vigilance...another is responsibility...we, who desire freedom, must be ever vigilant for those who would curtail it, and it is our responsibility to ensure that A) the people know what is happening, and B) encouraging a freedom based society whenever possible...(much as Paine did with "common sense")
Well, the constitution was a good start...adding term limits (two terms in the house, one in the senate) would help prevent the beltway mentality...ENFORCING the tenth amendment is key here....if the federal government exercises the powers granted to it in the constitution, and NOTHING ELSE, (and talking about the "welfare clause" is grounds for being drawn and quartered) We have a decent basis for government...the society, itself, MUST be responsibility based...there is a reason Franklin said "our constitution is fit for a moral, christian society and no other"...I honestly don't see christianity as necessary, but the society itself MUST have a strong moral and ethical spine, or it is doomed to failure (see late 20th century america)it comes down to this: if you cannot master yourself, you do not deserve, nor can you handle freedom...if you cannot control yourself, someone else MUST, or the result is absolute chaos....and THIS is the biggest problem in our current society...far bigger than government overreach, sad to say...
Economically, it would be of a free market capitalism...lazzez faire style....or you grant the government the ability to choose winners and losers....and we've seen where that goes...
As for local alws, if there is no victim, there can be no crime...
All of these things are good and would constitute definite improvements. All are things I myself have advocated in the past.
But there is a problem. There is a set of principles that underlie all of this—principles that animate both you and me. These classical-liberal principles have certain implications, and ultimately, the centrality of consent is foremost among them. If individuals are not secure in their person, property, and liberty from nonconsensual incursions, then the principles are violated. And unfortunately, even the excellent improvements/reforms you propose do not solve this fundamental problem. Government remains an initiator of violence against peaceful people, and a trespasser of their persons, properties, and liberties.
We tend to deify the Founders, but they were just men with lives as short as the rest of ours. Brilliant men, but men, who were also products of their moment in time. They were on the right track, but they did not know how to fully and correctly actuate their principles.
They did the best they could in their moment in time, and with the amount of progress that classical liberalism had made to that point. It is up to us to take the baton and carry it further down the track.
The dichotomy here is between the conservative view (government can be kept limited, it is possible to return to the Founders' 'original vision') and the anarchist view that no government can be kept limited and no form of involuntary governance is morally permissible.
I am of the latter view, obviously. But I was once of the former, and I understand why people are there. We just have to convince them to move to the next step. To follow their own principles to their logical conclusions!
In fact, that was the moment in the video where I put down the string lights, rewound the video a few frames, and played it again.
The video doesn't call it a Hobson's Choice, but that's what it is. It's not that much different from extortion or ransom demands. It's the act of putting people into no-win scenarios and calling it "choice."
Some great points here, truth is supported by reason. Logic and reason are the only sure paths to truth. In this post the logical fallacies are made plain regarding every common justification for the unjust system under which we have for so long endured. The time has come to acknowledge the truth and take a new path.
True, no judgment on the laggards, they have a right to spend as long enjoying the "fruits of ignorance" as long as they choose. Such have no power over the awakening soul, and nothing can stop the ideas whose time has come. We have been there, done that and are ready to move on.
Bear in mind: If your logic and reason are flawless, yet there is an error in your presumptions, your answer will also be in error....make sure to check your presumptions...
Absolutely! That is why so much current "science" is junk. It's the failure to think holistically, contextually, to observe carefully and employ intuition to give you clues to things you may have missed. It may be simple, but truth is actually pretty complex and interlocking. If you over look a factor your results are going to be less than effective and productive. Oh, and I will add there is also the effect of the observer almost never taken into account, intention, state of consciousness of the observer makes a lot more difference in results than credited in my view. You might think of it as a hierarchy of laws, just as the law of aerodynamics can override the law of gravity, there are spiritual laws that are superior to the material laws which most scientists overlook.
Thank you, Christopher for finding this and posting it. I read Michael Huemer's "The Problem of Political Authority" some years ago and had since forgotten the name of both author and book title. While it's a great book, it's quite pricey on Amazon. For my money, "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose is the one that should be read by everyone. Affordable and packs a punch!
I still have yet to read "The Most Dangerous Superstition."
I am already thoroughly convinced of its underlying premise and justification. Do you think, at this point, I will get much new out of it? Or is it more to convince the unconvinced?
I don't even consent to the whole psychopathic legal/governmafia system, standing on higher ground - on Ethical ground under the three Laws of Ethics (the foundation of Common Law) ONLY.
I do not create controversy by refusing - I will be happy to be subject to Their system if They prove I am subject/in Their jurisdiction. Without My consent, there is no proof.
And in this moneyed world, I deal with that whole mess under duress ONLY.
I've long supported and appreciated The Academy of Ideas, those two Canuck brothers are articulate, interesting and I very seldom find fault with their arguments and conclusions.
However in this case, why yes we should obey government, at least to the extent necessary to keep us out of jail or keep us off an erase with prejudice list. In other words as I've noted before; give unto Caesar -but as niggardly as possible!
Can we change governance, make it moral? A look around at the thousands or governments local as well as nations today also as historical records (Folks have forever tried changing them.) suggests not.
However Cook's distributed nation wherein you treat me right, I'll treat you right, a handshake's a contract. You and I trade apples and oranges but we'll let the governments trade rocks with each other if it makes them happy. We may occasionally have to grab a forelock and bend a knee, playacting to stay free but in general the government is best ignored.
Who is John Galt? DamedifIknow but I do know where to find him and it ain't in D.C., city halls or state capitals.
Don’t disagree with the video, except that using moral reasoning to establish validity for the argument is problematic. Whose morals? Those established by consensus, majority rule? Christianity has established original sin, and thereby eternal punishment by decree. There is no opting out. You accept the solution, or you are doomed. Of course I can choose not to accept the premise, but that doesn’t change the Christian position. I can choose to not accept the premise of government authority, but that doesn’t change government’s assertion that it is legitimate and has control.
"except that using moral reasoning to establish validity for the argument is problematic."
—But don't we do that too? We hold that individual consent is the fundamental unit of moral concern. That no one may rightly damage, take, encroach, subjugate, initiate coercive force upon, or fraudulently usurp the person, property, or liberty of another. Isn't that based in moral reasoning?
"I can choose to not accept the premise of government authority, but that doesn't change goverment's assertion that it is legitimate and has control."
That's the paradox, isn't it? The individual has no say over the collective will. Because the vast majority have been "educated" to believe that another human or a group of humans has authority (the right to rule) over them and that they (and YOU and I)must obey, people who believe in voluntary association are kind of stuck with it. The positive aspect, IMO, is that those collective morals evolve, and that at some point in the not too distant future the concept of involuntary rulership will be seen to be as ludicrous as "the divine right of kings."Our job is to keep the faith and spread the word.
"In the not too distant future the concept of involuntary rulership will be seen to be as ludicrous as "the divine right of kings."Our job is to keep the faith and spread the word."
I do not exist and was not born to be bowing down to some idiot government. Just because there are people running a government does not mean they are somehow our rulers. Most of these people are pure dumbheads that will lead you to the cliff and then push you off into the abyss. They are that sadistic and psychotic.
We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness; that to defend these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their only just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any institution becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right and the duty of the people to throw down such tyranny and establish better means to secure their future happiness.
You are free to have perverse and irrational views on what is "government" but I do not share your views. Tyranny is not government, it is unjust, and it is absent consent.
Christopher and other Libertarians/Voluntaryists here interested in freedom and taking responsibility for it.
I note you mentioned The Academy of Ideas below in the comments.
I have been making use of their videos for many years so I hope you and your readers here along with their family and friends will join us this weekend on the first of fifty of their videos:
The Philosophy of Responsible Freedom
Free & Freeing, Online & Ongoing, Adventure in the Academy of Ideas
Having read only the first lines of your reply, let me say this: disagreement is fundamental to the persuit of the truth...If you think I have gone astray, PLEASE point it out...I may agree, I may disagree, but, at any rate, it will give me another perspective from which to view things, and thus, is very welcomed...now to read the rest of your reply ;)
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." ― Robert A. Heinlein
YESSSSSS. It begins in the mind. Then in the actions. The fact that we are not free de jure (yet) is no reason not to become freer in the mind, and in every area possible.
Academy of Ideas does great work! I can't recall where I first found their video essays, but I've followed them for a few years on Odysee, and then learned they had a Substack, too: https://theacademyofideas.substack.com/
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" -some old guy...
I believe that the natural lawyers who came up with this concept (Locke et al), and the American Founders who used it (Jefferson et al), did the best they could for their moment in history.
We know better now, so we can move on, while at the same time respecting and thanking them for their contribution in moving the ball downfield. They knew that consent was essential. They just weren't ready for a system that completely respects it.
Oh, they did a FANTASTIC job...far better than they could have ever imagined....but one of the prices of freedom is vigilance...another is responsibility...we, who desire freedom, must be ever vigilant for those who would curtail it, and it is our responsibility to ensure that A) the people know what is happening, and B) encouraging a freedom based society whenever possible...(much as Paine did with "common sense")
What does a freedom-based society look like? How would it function?
Well, the constitution was a good start...adding term limits (two terms in the house, one in the senate) would help prevent the beltway mentality...ENFORCING the tenth amendment is key here....if the federal government exercises the powers granted to it in the constitution, and NOTHING ELSE, (and talking about the "welfare clause" is grounds for being drawn and quartered) We have a decent basis for government...the society, itself, MUST be responsibility based...there is a reason Franklin said "our constitution is fit for a moral, christian society and no other"...I honestly don't see christianity as necessary, but the society itself MUST have a strong moral and ethical spine, or it is doomed to failure (see late 20th century america)it comes down to this: if you cannot master yourself, you do not deserve, nor can you handle freedom...if you cannot control yourself, someone else MUST, or the result is absolute chaos....and THIS is the biggest problem in our current society...far bigger than government overreach, sad to say...
Economically, it would be of a free market capitalism...lazzez faire style....or you grant the government the ability to choose winners and losers....and we've seen where that goes...
As for local alws, if there is no victim, there can be no crime...
All of these things are good and would constitute definite improvements. All are things I myself have advocated in the past.
But there is a problem. There is a set of principles that underlie all of this—principles that animate both you and me. These classical-liberal principles have certain implications, and ultimately, the centrality of consent is foremost among them. If individuals are not secure in their person, property, and liberty from nonconsensual incursions, then the principles are violated. And unfortunately, even the excellent improvements/reforms you propose do not solve this fundamental problem. Government remains an initiator of violence against peaceful people, and a trespasser of their persons, properties, and liberties.
We tend to deify the Founders, but they were just men with lives as short as the rest of ours. Brilliant men, but men, who were also products of their moment in time. They were on the right track, but they did not know how to fully and correctly actuate their principles.
They did the best they could in their moment in time, and with the amount of progress that classical liberalism had made to that point. It is up to us to take the baton and carry it further down the track.
That was the intent of the constitution, after all….
@eric tollefson
Thomas Jefferson was in his 20s when he wrote those words in the U S Declaration of Independence.
Yeah, but he's nearing 300 now, and therefore, old ;)
People should not obey their government. Government should obey its people.
If such were the case, it could no longer be defined as "government."
"We the people" is the greatest con job ever conceived.
🔥
The dichotomy here is between the conservative view (government can be kept limited, it is possible to return to the Founders' 'original vision') and the anarchist view that no government can be kept limited and no form of involuntary governance is morally permissible.
I am of the latter view, obviously. But I was once of the former, and I understand why people are there. We just have to convince them to move to the next step. To follow their own principles to their logical conclusions!
I'm not quite there just yet....were people, in general, more enlightened, I would be....I am a minarchist with strong ancap leanings...
Have you heard the "famous" libertarian joke?
Q: What's the difference between a minarchist and an ancap?
A: About six months.
🤣
What can I do to shorten that time? 🤣
Bring back a basically ethical society?
See my question on your other comment :-)
Thanks for this post. Living here in Portland, Oregon, the articulated argument against socialized consent through Mere Presence is helpful.
Right on.
In fact, that was the moment in the video where I put down the string lights, rewound the video a few frames, and played it again.
The video doesn't call it a Hobson's Choice, but that's what it is. It's not that much different from extortion or ransom demands. It's the act of putting people into no-win scenarios and calling it "choice."
Some great points here, truth is supported by reason. Logic and reason are the only sure paths to truth. In this post the logical fallacies are made plain regarding every common justification for the unjust system under which we have for so long endured. The time has come to acknowledge the truth and take a new path.
And for those of us who have done so to move on, and not wait for everyone else to catch up. Because "everyone" never will.
True, no judgment on the laggards, they have a right to spend as long enjoying the "fruits of ignorance" as long as they choose. Such have no power over the awakening soul, and nothing can stop the ideas whose time has come. We have been there, done that and are ready to move on.
💯
Bear in mind: If your logic and reason are flawless, yet there is an error in your presumptions, your answer will also be in error....make sure to check your presumptions...
Absolutely! That is why so much current "science" is junk. It's the failure to think holistically, contextually, to observe carefully and employ intuition to give you clues to things you may have missed. It may be simple, but truth is actually pretty complex and interlocking. If you over look a factor your results are going to be less than effective and productive. Oh, and I will add there is also the effect of the observer almost never taken into account, intention, state of consciousness of the observer makes a lot more difference in results than credited in my view. You might think of it as a hierarchy of laws, just as the law of aerodynamics can override the law of gravity, there are spiritual laws that are superior to the material laws which most scientists overlook.
Thank you, Christopher for finding this and posting it. I read Michael Huemer's "The Problem of Political Authority" some years ago and had since forgotten the name of both author and book title. While it's a great book, it's quite pricey on Amazon. For my money, "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose is the one that should be read by everyone. Affordable and packs a punch!
I still have yet to read "The Most Dangerous Superstition."
I am already thoroughly convinced of its underlying premise and justification. Do you think, at this point, I will get much new out of it? Or is it more to convince the unconvinced?
I read the title and said, "No!" LOL! Good piece!
I don't even consent to the whole psychopathic legal/governmafia system, standing on higher ground - on Ethical ground under the three Laws of Ethics (the foundation of Common Law) ONLY.
I do not create controversy by refusing - I will be happy to be subject to Their system if They prove I am subject/in Their jurisdiction. Without My consent, there is no proof.
And in this moneyed world, I deal with that whole mess under duress ONLY.
Join Me as a Sovereign Here on Ethical Ground (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/join-me-as-a-sovereign-here-on-ethical
Yes. The extent to which we submit can only be judged in terms of the degree to which we are attempting to protect ourselves from their violence.
I've long supported and appreciated The Academy of Ideas, those two Canuck brothers are articulate, interesting and I very seldom find fault with their arguments and conclusions.
However in this case, why yes we should obey government, at least to the extent necessary to keep us out of jail or keep us off an erase with prejudice list. In other words as I've noted before; give unto Caesar -but as niggardly as possible!
Can we change governance, make it moral? A look around at the thousands or governments local as well as nations today also as historical records (Folks have forever tried changing them.) suggests not.
However Cook's distributed nation wherein you treat me right, I'll treat you right, a handshake's a contract. You and I trade apples and oranges but we'll let the governments trade rocks with each other if it makes them happy. We may occasionally have to grab a forelock and bend a knee, playacting to stay free but in general the government is best ignored.
Who is John Galt? DamedifIknow but I do know where to find him and it ain't in D.C., city halls or state capitals.
And once we number in the millions, we might not have to bend the knee quite as much ;-)
Don’t disagree with the video, except that using moral reasoning to establish validity for the argument is problematic. Whose morals? Those established by consensus, majority rule? Christianity has established original sin, and thereby eternal punishment by decree. There is no opting out. You accept the solution, or you are doomed. Of course I can choose not to accept the premise, but that doesn’t change the Christian position. I can choose to not accept the premise of government authority, but that doesn’t change government’s assertion that it is legitimate and has control.
"except that using moral reasoning to establish validity for the argument is problematic."
—But don't we do that too? We hold that individual consent is the fundamental unit of moral concern. That no one may rightly damage, take, encroach, subjugate, initiate coercive force upon, or fraudulently usurp the person, property, or liberty of another. Isn't that based in moral reasoning?
I would like to better understand what you mean.
"I can choose to not accept the premise of government authority, but that doesn't change goverment's assertion that it is legitimate and has control."
That's the paradox, isn't it? The individual has no say over the collective will. Because the vast majority have been "educated" to believe that another human or a group of humans has authority (the right to rule) over them and that they (and YOU and I)must obey, people who believe in voluntary association are kind of stuck with it. The positive aspect, IMO, is that those collective morals evolve, and that at some point in the not too distant future the concept of involuntary rulership will be seen to be as ludicrous as "the divine right of kings."Our job is to keep the faith and spread the word.
"In the not too distant future the concept of involuntary rulership will be seen to be as ludicrous as "the divine right of kings."Our job is to keep the faith and spread the word."
—🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
I do not exist and was not born to be bowing down to some idiot government. Just because there are people running a government does not mean they are somehow our rulers. Most of these people are pure dumbheads that will lead you to the cliff and then push you off into the abyss. They are that sadistic and psychotic.
Before we can escape them de jure, we must begin by escaping them de facto. And that begins in our minds and moves outward from there.
I do not obey. I do not consent. It is not government because there is no consent.
I got no gazebo an' it's breakin' my heart
But I found the saviour and that's where I start.
It is government precisely because there is no consent. If there was a true, voluntary consent, it would no longer be government.
We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness; that to defend these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their only just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any institution becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right and the duty of the people to throw down such tyranny and establish better means to secure their future happiness.
You are free to have perverse and irrational views on what is "government" but I do not share your views. Tyranny is not government, it is unjust, and it is absent consent.
I think you guys are saying the same thing in a different way.
Christopher and other Libertarians/Voluntaryists here interested in freedom and taking responsibility for it.
I note you mentioned The Academy of Ideas below in the comments.
I have been making use of their videos for many years so I hope you and your readers here along with their family and friends will join us this weekend on the first of fifty of their videos:
The Philosophy of Responsible Freedom
Free & Freeing, Online & Ongoing, Adventure in the Academy of Ideas
https://responsiblyfree.substack.com/p/the-philosophy-of-responsible-freedom
“The aim of life can only be to increase the sum of freedom and responsibility to be found in every man in the world.” Albert Camus
Email Jack: responsiblyfree@protonmail.com
Having read only the first lines of your reply, let me say this: disagreement is fundamental to the persuit of the truth...If you think I have gone astray, PLEASE point it out...I may agree, I may disagree, but, at any rate, it will give me another perspective from which to view things, and thus, is very welcomed...now to read the rest of your reply ;)
Right on, hombre.
Read the transcript: Thanks! Loved having your good summaries up first, too. This is important work, Christopher. Merry Preparatory Christmas!
Thanks, Fell!
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." ― Robert A. Heinlein
YESSSSSS. It begins in the mind. Then in the actions. The fact that we are not free de jure (yet) is no reason not to become freer in the mind, and in every area possible.
You may take my life, but you cannot take my freedom...
🔥
Academy of Ideas does great work! I can't recall where I first found their video essays, but I've followed them for a few years on Odysee, and then learned they had a Substack, too: https://theacademyofideas.substack.com/
I did not know that; subbed; thanks!
but many a king on his first class throne,
if he wants to call his crown his own,
must manage to get through,
more dirty work than ever I shall do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH4IuO55U9I
Perfect!
I occasionally bellow "For I am a pirate king" at the top of my lungs in the kitchen.
My wife says I'm gay for singing musicals.
I tell her to bite me.
Then we laugh.
It's a thing we do.
It’s a wonderful song. Thank you for providing an excuse to share it.
And thank you for sharing.