The Terrible Sweal

He brought murder on himself by exercising free speech? So, witnesses who testify against organized crime are bringing it on themselves too, I suppose? And homosexuals who march in gay pride parades are bringing gay-bashing on themselves? MS, I think you need to do a consistency check on your views here.

Worse still, they have (for obvious reasons) given up even trying to 'convince'. They merely assert, and when challenged, whine that people are 'disrespecting their beliefs'.

There's a problem with that point of view. You are purporting to place a positive obligation to do something on people who have done no wrong. You're not a child abuser are you? No? Well, then why aren't you out campaiging against child abuse? You're not a con-artist are you? No? How odd that you haven't built a website against grifters, then.

How is that? with all the military support we provide! LOL or is it our great diplomacy with our anti-american population and our anti-american national news agency. MS you are awsome! Don't be absurd. Canada and the US are very close allies. We are both members of NATO, and we are partners in NORAD. There is nothing to suggest that the bulk of the population of Canada, nor the CBC is anti-American, rightwing canards notwithstanding.

Start a war, Bankrupt the country, ... Oh, wait, you me what MORE damage could he do in the NEXT four years. Well, how about ... stack the supreme court and institute age-based slavery.

Not sorry, YET.

Now there is a meaningless piece of information if I ever heard it.

"Authority over oneself" is not authority, it is a rhetorical device to describe liberty. Authority proper arises only as between or among persons. The problem with anarchy is not (as is often suggested) the inability to acheive it. The problem is that no description of it can be formulated which is not merely a variation of either [a] social contract government or authoritarian rule.

If that's all there is to it, then no, it is not enough to support the desire of same-sex marriage opponents to have the law accord to their preferences. Civil marriage does not belong to any one person or group. To support a policy choice which will affect the interests of people broadly within the society, one must offer more than merely aesthetic interpretations.

You seem to want it both ways. You say on the one hand there is authority (albeit divided), then you describe a situation of no authority. Which ... proves my point. Anarchy is an impossibility. A fiction. A nullity.

Divided authority is still authority. That's not anarchy, it's just a different constitution.

Hugo, I've had it with your dilatory rhetorical contortions. Unable to sustain your positions by argument, you now resort to disingenuous mischaracterizations of my comments. You pretend I have said things I didn't say. You ignore explanations and counterpoints. You select elements of my comments and impute meanings to the selections which the totality of the comments does not support. You have rendered any further discussion with you completely worthless.

Why not? They had no single political authority and nobody had a monopoly over any good, including law and justice. Therefore anarchist. What do you mean by "no single political authority"? How could they have law if there was no authority? Government acts by coercion. That may be your definition, but it is faulty. No, consent will serve. It can be. What needs examination is why you would claim that voluntariness precludes government.

But it has existed, in Ireland, Iceland, Pennsylvania and so forth. Iceland is a great example, and existed in an anarchist state for three centuries before being destroyed by Norway. Those were not anarchist societies. Why? Is it not possible to act on a collective interest without coercing anybody? Coercing? What are you talking about?

It isn't there. First, tell me how you are repaying the whole of society (and as I said, taxes are not enough, because there are no guarantees that your tax money will reach the people who helped you in the proportions that they helped you). It is there, in the last several posts. I tire of this disingenuous pretense. Yes. THAT is what I said. Note how much it differs from what you said I said. No, I did not say that. You clearly have some trouble with the meaning of my statement (because you want it to say something other than what it says, I suspect). There are two mistakes in your formulation: First, taking unfair advantage of a dominant position is the problem I identified, not simply the existence of a dominant position. Second, it would be incorrect to characterize all government activity as participation in a market. Some, perhaps, but not all. I quoted you saying that right above. You quoted me, then distorted my meaning. Stop it. Now, this is the same argument. All we need to do is a little noun substitution: NOUN substitution is MEANING substitution. I.e. distortion. Are you merely here to play peurile rhetorical games? If so, be advised I am not interested. This is nonsense. What does it mean to 'leave a government'??? I have be discussing leaving a society, not leaving a government. What's with the slithering around these concepts, Hugo? Can't you talk a straight path? Anyway, that you feel a need for some other society to go is your problem. THIS society has no obligation to provide you with another option. If you go to the only barber in town and ask for a price he will not accept, you have not basis to insist simply because he's the only barber in town. It is, nevertheless, more than just the people carrying it on. And what is there to an institution beyond the people in it? Are you arguing that a mob is an institution? You said: I obviously did not say that, because you have seen fit to sub in your own words "[to government]" rather than consider mine. I don't have to justify the legitimacy of government at all. The legitimacy of society's right to insist you fulfill your obligations arises by your voluntary participation in taking the benefits. How can Canadian society make 'the rules' if it disagrees with itself on what those rules should be? Society does not disagree with itself. Whatever outcome society produces is the agreement. Individuals who dissent are not co-equal with the society they dissent from. Trade contracts, especially international ones. It enforced by boycott. Who enforces the boycott? I want to withdraw entirely. However, until you establish that the government is the legitimate authority over Canada, it is unjust to ask me to withdraw from the country. Withdrawal is YOUR choice. "Legitimate authority" is beside the point. You are in an agreement and you are bound by it to fulfill you part. If you will not, there is no reason for your counterparties to provide you your value.

The 'downfall' of anarchy is that it cannot exist. The moment there is a collectivity, there are collective interests. The moment anyone acts on collective interests there is government.

You are caught in exactly the same circular argument as Sweal. If I must move, it is because the government has legitimate jurisdiction. Again you revert to your tired double-barrel red-herring: On the one hand a vague and conveniently reductionist take on 'the government' as some free-standing self-generating entity, and on the other hand a fanciful concept of 'legitimate' jurisdiction or ownership. Society provides for a set of benefits and obligations. They are not severable. Taking the former, you become subject to the latter. If this arrangement is intolerable for you, you may withdraw entirely.

There is 'repaying'. In a restaurant, you get a benefit (food) and an obligation (paying the bill). You are telling me you get benefits, so to whom are you paying your obligations? It seems to me you are being deliberately obtuse. Re-read the thread for your answer. Once again, you will have to refresh my allegedly faulty memory, because I don't recall any such explanation. How can you have forgotten the entirety of this very thread??? I did not. Desist from false imputations please. You said that if I didn't like being forced to buy government services I should leave the country. This is the same argument, No, it is not the same at all. If you persist in claiming I am saying things which I am not saying at all, mistating and distorting my position, you in effect concede that you are incapable of meeting my actual arguments. Thank you. Where do criminals spring from, if not from society (since society is people)? Is criminal behaviour therefore justified? Why change the subject? Why not answer my question? Incapability. Is this not just splitting hairs? It seems more than that to me. In fact, as I said, it seems to be the basis on which you and I diverge. (At least it is the only divergence that explains the inability for you to address my points germanely.) More reductionism. A mob is not an institution, so there must be more to an institution than merely the people in it. Woud you PLEASE stop distorting my comments? But this is still a circular argument. You're saying so does not make it so. Where did I say that? Pretensions??? What pretensions??? One more time, what I say is this: Canadian society constitutes itself in certain ways. Individuals in Canada are free to leave if those ways do not suit them. Ergo we can conclude that those who have not left find those ways sufficiently suitable. This fabrication of 'legitimate pretensions' is yours, not mine and I have no call to be answerable for it. Who can make 'the rules' for Canadian society if not Canadian society itself? Your reasoning is fallacious: Set A is Canadian society and it comprises subsets including subset Z (those who do not recognize). Then you assert that the viewpoint of subset Z trumps any other. I don't think that is true. The Law Merchant was a court and was not backed by any government. What laws did it interpret and enforce? How did it enforce? Oh, government is much more than that. Government is, amongst other things, over 50% of the economy (I believe). Come on, please. Government may ACCOUNT FOR some proportion of economic activity, but to say it IS 50% of the economy is conceptually nonsensical in this discussion. Then you either believe that society is "breaking the rules" (your rules, if you are self-interested, or the rules that would correctly govern the situation, if you believe you have a unique perception), or you believe that your own objection is immoral (if you believe that society is right but you still disagree). You've just completely ignored what I said and simply restated your utterly wrong construction of my position. Do you want to have a discussion or a monologue?

The thing is, there does not seem to be any operational reality behind this belief (or at least none I have been able to get explained). What I'm trying to figure out is in what way does it cheapen or destroy the institution? Is it like a toney golf club? The club just 'won't be the same' if we let those people in ... Is there any more to the of 'harm to the institution' other than just that?

The first question is not irrelevant. If you are repaying such a vast, diverse and unindentifiable group as "society" I want to know how you think you are doing that. How is it relevant? There is no 'repaying'. There are reciprocal benefits and obligations. I'm losing patience with you, I'm afraid. I have already done so numerous times. No. And why not, exactly? Your extremely brief, insulting and uninsightful comments are not doing your argument any favours. I have already explained this to you several times as well. This comment is made in complete disregard for what I have said on the subject. It is as if I never spoke! I heard you, and I disagreed with you and I described why. I don't believe that I am. But according to you, nobody may leave his house or be free from his abuse until they have found another house-owner to take them in. I never said that. Nothing of the sort. What????? You heard me. Enough of the insulting, one-liner or one-word replies. Debate like an adult. So if I can't penetrate your convoluted, hastily composed rants, somehow I fail to be 'adult'??? Riiiiiight. Until I see some evidence from you that the two are not seperate I shall indeed. To me it is self-evident. Where else do you imagine government springs from, if it doesn't come from society? Well, there's part of the problem. You seem to see the government as a group of people. I see the government as an institution. I want you to justify the legitimacy of government to me. Until you can do that, the "like it or leave it" argument is moot. It is legitimate because people can leave, so when they don't the have consented to the conditions attached to staying. But can you give any reason why that statement is valid? This would be a government court. In the larger sense, there is no other kind of court. I think we are coming up against what in my opinion is your reductionist take on government. Government is more than the persons sitting in the cabinet. I disagree. Then what is your third alternative? My objection does not have to appeal to alternate rules. I could have a unique perception of a situation, or, I could be purely self-interested (which does not make it immoral).

1. Irrelevant. 2. Society, I said. 3. Who? The state initiates violence against your property in the form of taxation. Nonsense. Taxation is not violence. Are you paying attention or are you just dicking around? If I don't like the taxation in Canada I am free to leave. That's a dodge. It's not a dodge. :angry: Pay attention to the discussion or step off. No. Are you sure? 77% of the Canadian electorate did not consent to be governed by the Liberal Party, and yet here we are! If you insist on not paying attention to my comments and simply chanting your beliefs over and over again, this discussion will not go anywhere. The entire population of Canada consents to be governed by the government apparatus as set up by Canadian society. They consent by remaining rather than leaving. How can the next-door neighbour be a thief if he steals your TV and you are free to move house? What????? If it really is 'his' house, and he declares that persons who choose to live there are subject to his beatings, persons who choose to live there are implicitly consenting to his conditions. Are you still fallaciously separating government from society? I am indicating to you that government is merely the instrument of society and that in a free society your choice to remain is a choice to be subject to the rules that society selects. Canadian society is a voluntary association wherein the membership in the association requires acceptance of obligations to obtain the benefits it confers. You seem to believe that this quid pro quo is illegitimate, but you have been unable or unwilling to demonstrate a valid basis for that point of view. Explain how. For example, everyone in Canada, voter or not, citizen or not, can bring a constitutional case before the courts. What are they? The ones I have been refuting all along. Do you perhaps need to re-read the thread? Because you have said that society gets to make the rules. Society is comprised of the people in it and the institutions (rules) established among them. Just because it CAN establish a rule which invidiously harms me doesn't mean I have to LIKE that rule. I disagree. BTW, here is another one of those faulty assumptions of yours. Can you? Where are you going to go, exactly? That's my problem, not society's.

... If such is the case, you're indebted to pretty much everyone - how do you expect to pay them all? Don't say 'government' - it is not coincidental with 'people'. I don't quite grasp how debt comes into the picture. But let me try to answer what I think is at issue there ... We all have reciprocal obligations and benefits. As long as I am fulfilling my obligations, it remains in balance against my 'benefits account', if you will. Which state are you talking about? So far as I know, the state I live in does not 'initiate' violence. You said: Come off it. That's a far cry from 'railing against monopolies' as a general proposition. Government in free societies is no created by violence. It is created from the consent of the governed. I am not ignoring it at all. I addressed it at length in my last post. Perhaps you would care to reply rather than pretend I did not? Your reply was not responsive. You merely reasserted without any support the fallacious premise that government is coercive. You persist in ignoring the central problem with your position: How can it be coercive if you are free to leave? There are many people in society who are not in the employ of the government, nor do they have a voice in the role and policies of the government, "Employ"???? What relevance does that have? Anyway, everyone in Canada, even non-voters, is a participant in the role and policies of the government apparatus. I can't help but notice that your position is very sensitive to a set of highly refutable assumptions. People in Canada who truly disagree with the rest of society can depart. Those who do not depart evidently do not disagree to a fundamental extent. I don't! Whatever made you think I did? That seems to be the very essence of your position. ... In that case, one could not expect you to object if "society" ... decided to steal everything you owned. I really have a hard time understanding your comments. If society subjects me to invidious treatmen, e.g. depriving me of benefits it extends to others, why would I not object to that? Further, if I believe that a particular set of rules regarding property is the most beneficial for society as a whole, I may well object to using other rules as being bad policy. Fortunately, in a free country if those rules are really objectionable to me, I can depart and seek a place with rules that suit me better.

As I understood the case, the society would have abandoned 'spirituality' to the extent it deals with what is not observable/measureable/amenable to reasoned inquiry. Would that have an impact on morality? Yes, it would confine morality to reason-based ethics. Mental health? Well, that's harder. IF religion/spirituality in some cases is the only thing that can serve as a crutch for some people's mental health, then those people would suffer, I suppose. But I don't regard it as a sure bet that this IF actually obtains. Relationships? I don't see religion as being necessary to relationships. But isn't that what your hypothetical now supposes? That people have given up on it?

Well, I haven't used the healthcare system at all, for a start. Can I get that portion of my taxes back? But you certainly have used the health care system. The health care system keeps typhoid from threatening you and your relatives. The health care system fixed the broken leg the bus driver had so she could be there to pick you up. Hugo, your position seems to stand on a determination to be reductionist -- it's a foundation of sand. ?? I don't think I ever railed against monopoly. There are cases where it is the most efficient organizational choice. NO. You can leave. How many times can you ignore this point and pretend you are conversing with people? ... So, the government of Canada has the (dubious) right to tell me to desist using public property if I don't want to pay taxes, but as the vast majority of Canada is privately owned, by what right does the government insist I leave the entire country if I don't want to pay taxes, exactly? You persist in regarding 'the goverment' as something distinct from the society. The society establishes institutions including the benefits and obligations of its participants and the government which administers among them. How can you purport to exempt yourself from the obligations but expect society to continue to extend the benefits? "Property" arises out of the 'rules' society establishes to define it. Whatever those rules are, such is property. So, a society's rules cannot contradict a soceity's notion of property rights.

Okay, I can work with the hypothetical now. What sort of problems might there be ... a) articulating a common/shared view of what is right and what is wrong; addressing existential angst; c) facing personal mortality without being overwhelmed by despair; d) comforting the bereaved. I believe that a society as you describe would not have difficulty with (a). For (-(d) the society you describe would have to acknowledge that its methods do not produce conclusive answers. I don't see that there would be any necessary consequence to that admission.