No treason: The constitution of no authority!!!!

[Brass Magnet]

As to the premise that we consent, it is exactly what we do, everyday, by participating in the society enabled and protected by the words of the founders. Obviously there is an underlying assumption that by being here you agree, and I see the point that since I didn't sign it, I'm not a party to it, but how else do you perpetuate society. People born into utopia agree to live by certain rules or the anarchy will demand sanction against them. Government by another name.

Let's try this example. If you enter into a contract with; let's say, a mechanic to fix your car you are giving your consent for him or her to render said services for money. If the mechanic decides to perform other services without your consent that is a breach of contract. Conversly, if you took your car in to the guy for a brake job and it came back with no brakes on it at all he also didn't fufill his part of the bargain. Any court in the land should rightly award judgement to you.

Our forefathers entered into contract with the federal government that they created and that government most certainly has breached the contract on numerous occasions. But who screwed it up the most? I'll give you a hint, it was NOT the elected representatives. Not only did the government breach the contract, many of us do not consent nor did we have a chance to decide for ourselves.

Let's go back to the mechanic and use it as a correlation. Let's say your grandfather entered into a contract with the mechanic that legally binds he and his progeny to always have every car serviced with said mechanic and even if they didn't have a car should pay him what he would normally receive for fixing a car. Was that with your consent? Would any court agree that you could have consented and pass judgment in favor of the mechanic? This is the crux of the issue at hand.

 

[HandyHamlet]

I
I think consideration still needs to be made as to the ability of those who wish to live under no governance to be free from it, absent provable aggression on their part.

One, yes, where we could all take bong hits and hold hands and sing Kumbaya, or whatever it was that it was suggested earlier.

You are going to need it with your little Lord of the Flies fantasy. Hint. Look out for boulders.

A system of voluntary public insurance ought to be operated for the provision of protective services... This way so as to provide the freedom to, for example, pay a small regular monthly fee for fire protection, on an insurance model, as well as the freedom to -- having opted not to pay such a fee regularly -- pay for the actual cost of the service should it need to be rendered, as well as the freedom to call a private company on the day your house is set ablaze.

What you propose is nothing original and as history shows doesn't work.

 

[Brass Magnet]

What you propose is nothing original and as history shows doesn't work.

Cite?

Would you like to add something constructive to the debate that is backed up with facts or qualified with IMO?

 

[HandyHamlet]

Cite?

Would you like to add something constructive to the debate that is backed up with facts or qualified with IMO?

You are kidding right? No one ever heard of a fire plaque?

Wiki:

Fire insurance marks were lead or copper plaques embossed with the sign of the insurance company, and placed on the front of the insured building as a guide to the insurance company's fire brigade. They are common in the older areas of Britain's and America's cities and larger towns. They were used on the eighteenth and nineteenth century in the days before municipal fire services were formed.[1] The UK marks are called 'Fire insurance plaques' the first to use the mark was the Sun Fire Office before 1700.[2]

Really. Have none of you ever cracked a book? Or is this just one of those " What if Spartacus had a Piper Cup" threads and I didn't get it? If so I apologize.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Handy,
I was asking for a cite that proves Marshaul's ideas wouldn't work. Either you couldn't find a cite for that or you don't understand the point of our exercise. I think you may also not understand the point of the post, though I could be wrong.

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl81.htm


To James Madison Paris, Sep. 6, 1789

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.

Somebody else posted reference to this earlier I think.

So, is your signature a joke that I just don't get or is it you that hasn't "cracked a book"?

 

[HandyHamlet]

Handy,
I was asking for a cite that proves Marshaul's ideas wouldn't work. ?

I did. And it is not his idea.

Do you have an active fire plaque on the front door of your abode? Why not?

And yes it is a joke.

 

[Brass Magnet]

I did. And it is not his idea.

Do you have an active fire plaque on the front door of your abode? Why not?

And yes it is a joke.

Yay for logical fallacies!

Although his idea was similar, it's not the same and I don't read anywhere that they "failed" only that they morphed into today's private insurance companies. Even our municiple fire departments sometimes charge a fee for a fire call and we can add a rider to pay that fee to our homeowners insurance policies. I just bought a new policy and this was an option.

OK, I'm going to spit out the hook on this, back OT.

 

[nonameisgood]

So when my neighbor has a fire erupt in his backyard (as happened Sat night) and they ask for identifying information before responding (in this case "the house behind be at the southeast corner of X and Y"). A paid fire company would have not put out a fire which threatens my property, and LE would have no right to order it extinguished, even as it set my house ablaze. Nice. Anarchists say that my recourse is to "make" him pay for his tort, but would this not require violence by me or coercion by the state if he refuses?

I'm with the rubber ducky on this one, nothing recommended by marshaul is original, not that it would not work in some places. This is why government should be as local as necessary, so you can have rural paid services while I pay taxes for universal city services.

Paid fire companies are just a way for someone to make money, not necessarily the best way to provide services. And what about competition? Would we need three times as many stations and three sets of apparatus to assure competition? What about competitive collusion? Like the "independent" gas stations outside Orlando airport (charging $1/gal more than stations 4 blocks up the road)... Market improvement through competition doesn't work without free markets and real competition.

The US Constitution is not a contract between us and them, it is a statement of intent of self-rule. It only restricts the federal government, that for as long as the government claims authority it is bound by the document. It provides a mechanism for the federal government to police itself (check-balance) which may not be working right, as such things seldom do. The People and the several States still have the authority to revise or replace it in whole or in part. Just because it has momentum doesn't mean it can't be turned or stopped.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Holy Strawman.

Handy, props up a a strawman and attacks it; then nonameisgood beats on it as well.

So when my neighbor has a fire erupt in his backyard (as happened Sat night) and they ask for identifying information before responding (in this case "the house behind be at the southeast corner of X and Y"). A paid fire company would have not put out a fire which threatens my property, and LE would have no right to order it extinguished, even as it set my house ablaze. Nice. Anarchists say that my recourse is to "make" him pay for his tort, but would this not require violence by me or coercion by the state if he refuses?

I'm with the rubber ducky on this one, nothing recommended by marshaul is original, not that it would not work in some places. This is why government should be as local as necessary, so you can have rural paid services while I pay taxes for universal city services.

Paid fire companies are just a way for someone to make money, not necessarily the best way to provide services. And what about competition? Would we need three times as many stations and three sets of apparatus to assure competition? What about competitive collusion? Like the "independent" gas stations outside Orlando airport (charging $1/gal more than stations 4 blocks up the road)... Market improvement through competition doesn't work without free markets and real competition.

A system of voluntary public insurance ought to be operated for the provision of protective services. Also, I think that those services should be purchasable up-front for what they actually cost on a one-time basis. This way so as to provide the freedom to, for example, pay a small regular monthly fee for fire protection, on an insurance model, as well as the freedom to -- having opted not to pay such a fee regularly -- pay for the actual cost of the service should it need to be rendered, as well as the freedom to call a private company on the day your house is set ablaze. (The details of the issue of debt which would inevitably occur from the occasional inability to pay for one-time-basis public services are not relevant to the point at hand.)

Marshaul only said an option to pay for a private company otherwise it's voluntary public insurance for a government protective service. No one is talking about totally privatizing every single public service.

Strawman - To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

 

[HandyHamlet]

http://wpbradley.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/first-to-arrive-fought-the-fire/

As can well be imagined, feuds were common between the competing fire companies, Islander author T.W. Patterson relates memories from some of Victoria’s earliest fire fighters.

In those days…the name of the game was “first water” that is, the company which made the first splash of water on the fire won the right to fight it. At which time, according to the code of ethics, the other company was to bow out of the picture.

We offer the following reminiscences of a Victoria Fire Chief who, half a century ago, recalled one of the more memorable blazes he attended:

” I remember one night, a bitterly cold night it was, with the snow deep on the ground, It was in ’73. There was a big fire on Langley Street in a building owned by Dr. Matthews.

“The Tiger [Company] was the first to reach the conflagration and laid the hose down the street A few minutes later the Deluge arrived and attached to their engine. The men of the Tiger engine, infuriated at such an act, demanded that it should be taken from the Deluge and attached to their engine. The Deluge men refused. Then started such a fight as I’ve ever seen or participated in.

We went at it hammer and tongs stumbling about in the snow. Nobody thought of the fire. It burned itself out.

 

[nonameisgood]

Strawman v metaphor v example.
It was an example.

Buying "government insurance" is the same as paying taxes. If any of us could afford a lump sum payment large enough to support a fire department, it'd be fine, but in reality you'd be excluding 99% of people. It is optional, simply move outside a taxing authority jurisdiction.

As to the OP issues, I do not think you apply contract law to a situation like this unless you intend to kill it, which was Spooner's objective. And then, do you apply English common law or current (US) law? Arguing that the US government doesn't have authority to govern in a US court is really pure folly.

If I made these same arguments about a religion, how does that change it... The religion would simple say "it is what it is, and no matter what, He is the authority" without being able to prove that authority, show a signed contract, or even that one of the parties - the deity- exists.
---
As with anything done by a lawyer, it is BS from the start, BS in the end, and meaningless in between. (I had to say that, even though I do understand the concept of necessary evil. But isn't that what this whole thread is about?)

 

[CenTex]

It is not signed anywhere on the document itself... And Spooner goes into great detail about consent. And if anyone did consent to it they are all dead now!

It is "the" recognized document, along with the Bill of Rights, that binds this nation together. It has been that way since it was subscribed to by the official representatives of the thirteen colonies. Every state that has come into the Union has pledged allegiance to this "unsigned" document. The courts of the land recognize this "unsigned" document as the official document that all our laws are based on. BTW, who made Spooner the official spokesman for all Americans? It is my belief that most, if not all, the OCers here and everywhere in this country are supporters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is on these two documents that all our rights and freedoms are secured. If these two documents have no power to reign in terror from our leaders, we are a doomed populace.

 

[Citizen]

Good heavens! I turn my back for a few hours and y'all end up in a fight (restrained).

Lets keep things in perspective here.

The point of Spooner's essay was to undermine prosecution of Confederate officials after the Civil War.

The main applicability today of Spooner's essay is to recognize the lie underpining the Constitution and the fedgov--pretending authority based consent. That's all, just learn about the lie. Once you know the lie, you are no longer unknowingly susceptible to its effects. Overblown pro-Constitutional rhetoric doesn't trick you anymore--that sort of thing.

The biggest lesson I take from this thread discussion is that a number of people insist on others being governed. Since their arguments do not actually support consent in a genuine sense, what they are really arguing is force, not consent. And, supposedly it is pro-freedom guys arguing this. Now, that is a lesson I would have paid money to learn.

For the few consent-ers in this thread, I think you'll get more benefit if you discuss how the lie is used by government, society, etc., and ways to counter it and educate others.

 

[marshaul]

So when my neighbor has a fire erupt in his backyard (as happened Sat night) and they ask for identifying information before responding (in this case "the house behind be at the southeast corner of X and Y"). A paid fire company would have not put out a fire which threatens my property, and LE would have no right to order it extinguished, even as it set my house ablaze. Nice.

Actually, the state has done this very thing:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

Incidentally: a private company, on the other hand, might have every incentive to work something out. It might go something like this,

"Oooh, I'm sorry, looks like you didn't opt-in to our protection plan!"

"Oh my god!!! Well what do I have to pay to have a truck sent???"

"Well, the flat-rate truck roll fee is $975."

"FINE JUST PUT OUT THE FIRE!"

Privately run institutions aren't a magic bullet, and they come with problems of their own, in many cases likely insurmountable problems, but government is inherently no better. It has everything to do with incentives. I'm fine with using the government for certain things, provided it is run in an appropriate fashion. I've discussed quite a bit in this thread what I consider to be "appropriate".


However, as Brass Magnet reiterated, I never suggested privatizing fire protection. I suggested remodeling public fire protection along voluntary terms. Which leaves the possibility of folks electing to use a private service. All this would entail, in principle, is the obligatory tax being changed to a voluntary protection fee, with an option to promise to pay a much higher price for a one-time truck roll. Fees would be set accordingly. This really isn't even that much different from what they already have in rural Tennessee, except run on a less extortionate model.

 

[marshaul]

Buying "government insurance" is the same as paying taxes.

Nope. The difference is the voluntary nature. People would have to decide if they personally wish to spread their risk out. And the risk incurred by providing one-time truck rolls to folks who may default on the payment, and are unable to pay after ordered to do so by a court (don't forget we already have tax court in the current model), really isn't that huge. It can be absorbed into the cost of one-time fees for those who are able to pay.

Obviously, once a person has promised to pay a debt, they may be "coerced" into paying (if at all possible). The issue is the extortionate forcing of people into all these various protection "services". Much of our government's bloat would disappear if folks were controlling how their own "tax" moneys were spent.

 

[wolfeinstein]

Maybe if you watch this guy he will put a little sense back in you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKOTqRb5nvg
Stefan Molyneux

 

[HandyHamlet]

Privately run institutions aren't a magic bullet, and they come with problems of their own, in many cases likely insurmountable problems, but government is inherently no better.

Really? 'Cause I haven't seen competing fire stations physically fight each other for the right to collect a fee lately. Or stand around and watch houses burn to the ground because there is no insurance plaque affixed properly to the front of the building. (except for in Tenn)

It has everything to do with incentives. I'm fine with using the government for certain things, provided it is run in an appropriate fashion. I've discussed quite a bit in this thread what I consider to be "appropriate".

Where?

However, as Brass Magnet reiterated, I never suggested privatizing fire protection. I suggested remodeling public fire protection along voluntary terms. Which leaves the possibility of folks electing to use a private service. All this would entail, in principle, is the obligatory tax being changed to a voluntary protection fee, with an option to promise to pay a much higher price for a one-time truck roll. Fees would be set accordingly. This really isn't even that much different from what they already have in rural Tennessee, except run on a less extortionate model.

So you aren't suggesting privatizing fire protection. But you are suggesting it.
And the Tenn model does not work as proven this summer in a highly publicized indecent.

Unless your definition of "working" is having the fire dept stand around and watch things burn to the ground as the home owner pleads to no avail for help.



yawn...

 

[Citizen]

Holy smoke!! Today is spooner's birthday!!

We Spooner supporters have been asleep at the switch!

Today is Lysander Spooner's birthday!

See the third post down from the top at: http://www.volokh.com/

 

[marshaul]

Really? 'Cause I haven't seen competing fire stations physically fight each other for the right to collect a fee lately. Or stand around and watch houses burn to the ground because there is no insurance plaque affixed properly to the front of the building. (except for in Tenn)

First of all, is the Tennessee model private, or not?

I'll give you a hint, it's not.

Where?

Back on page 2.

So you aren't suggesting privatizing fire protection. But you are suggesting it.
And the Tenn model does not work as proven this summer in a highly publicized indecent.

Unless your definition of "working" is having the fire dept stand around and watch things burn to the ground as the home owner pleads to no avail for help.

This will be the last time I respond to your strawmen.

I am not suggesting privatizing fire protection. I merely rejected what I see as invalid criticisms of private models; failings which are no less a potential problem in a governmental model. I shouldn't have brought it up, as it allows some folks with selective reading to further pretend, since I even responded, that I want private fire protection. But as my own words unambiguously state, the ideas which you called "unoriginal" (I never said they were my own) are in reference to public fire protection. I have not called for private fire protection, and I have not waffled on the issue. Quote my words if you think you can show otherwise.

And I myself brought up that "highly publicized" Tennessee incident to show that government is not automatically perfect, in light of your irrelevant contention that private fire companies would stand around and let fires burn. I did so not to argue for private companies, but merely to point out that government-run services are not inherently without flaws, so that we may discuss how to begin operating them in a more voluntary, while still maintaining their utility.

Obviously, I wouldn't bring up such an incident, and then suggest we need to model our services on it directly.

Obviously, the Tennessee model has some flaws. Namely, there is no provision for folks to pay at cost on a one-time basis for a truck roll, in the event they forget or did not wish to pay the $75 fee. I've already articulated this point at least twice.

Now, are you going to address the positions I've taken, or are you going to continue to read one sentence in five and pretend that your rebuttals have anything to do with my posts? As I said, I will not continue to respond to strawmen. I've called you out on your use of them, with specific examples. The ball is in your court.

You've not been interested in this discussion from the beginning, however. Your contribution to this thread now consist of snark, and attacking strawmen. Bravo. What I wonder, is what about this discussion bothers you so much. You clearly feel the need to inject large amounts of snark, yet for some reason you are unable or unwilling to counter actual arguments made. Why are you so afraid to address actual arguments that have been made? And why, then, are you even concerned with this discussion at all?

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Now, are you going to address the positions I've taken, or are you going to continue to read one sentence in five and pretend that your rebuttals have anything to do with my posts? As I said, I will not continue to respond to strawmen. I've called you out on your use of them, with specific examples. The ball is in your court.

You've not been interested in this discussion from the beginning, however. Your contribution to this thread now consist of snark, and attacking strawmen. Bravo.

He was doing this with me earlier. When I asked him about making a genuine contribution, he declined.

I think it is pretty obvious from the tenor and lack of analysis in his posts that he really isn't interested in discussion. More likely just picking a fight, or maybe derives some personal satisfaction from annoying others. Either way, I quit paying attention to him a number of posts back.