Ep1429 said:

Enlil said:

Ep1429 said:

Not entirely true.  For a law to be a law, it must remain unchanging.  Socialist banana republics are the ones where the government can change the law at whim to make your legal behavior into something criminal and then prosecute you for it.

No game can be played when the rules as written don't matter and can be changed.

---

Laws change in the U.S. every day, bro.  The government can change the laws at any time.

---

Not true. Laws require an act of Congress, and Congress rarely acts.

Regulations issued by government agencies change every day, but they are not laws, merely political dictates.

Proof: The only change to our Constitution was the end of Prohibition. The Constitution Can be added to vía amendments, but the laws laid down there rarely change once written.

It’s still legal to marry your sister in like 13 states. I live in a dry county where you aren’t allowed to buy alcohol, despite prohibition being struck down a hundred years ago.

Our actual laws do not change often.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Near Dylan said:

Are you really arguing that the acceptance of authority and accepting that, while you are an individual, you are part of something greater than just yourself, and agree to keep in line in exchange for protection, is equal to 'not being ready for individual freedom'?

---

I think acceptance of authority is likely to be incompatible with individual freedom; doesn't acceptance of authority require one to submit to it over individual desire?

Furthermore, when you depend on an external authority to solve your problems, you don't build the necessary skills to handle them directly. For example, dependance on the police means that many people are unable and/or unwilling to protect themselves beyond dialing 911. Many of these people would be unable and/or unwilling to live without the "protection" of police authority. These people would rather live within the limitations to individual freedom such authority brings (as seen by a very long history of corrupt, abusive, and violent authorities that vastly exceeds any individual crime), than give up the comforting myth of state protection.

This is what I mean by "not being ready for individual freedom".

Near Dylan said:

So either everyone is free to do whatever the fuck we want whenever the fuck we want it, or we have no individual freedom or autonomy?

---

Things are not so absolute. Individual autonomy is an important metric to consider, but not the be-all-end-all. Everyone doing whatever the fuck they want would obviously be detrimental to personal freedom. There is a balance required. Individuality can only flourish where equality of access to the conditions of existence is the social reality. My main argument is that the power dynamic when deciding this balance should be horizontal, not hierarchical.

Near Dylan said:

You wont last in a stateless anarchic community, where it wont be the government oppressing you, but whoever you're the closest to with the biggest gun.

---

It would seem that the government currently is the closest thing to me with the biggest gun, and I've lasted so far despite dedicating myself to a confrontational existence.

---

Ep1429 said:

Near Dylan said:

As Enlil said. "Ideal"? As in perfect? Of course not. But what do you want to do, have state governments be replaced with county governments? County with city? City with neighborhood? There has to be some cut-off. States is a fair one.

---

Why not the individual?  I believe that’s more fair than a state level government ruling over you.

---

Enlil said:

Ep1429 said:

Enlil said:

Ep1429 said:

Not entirely true.  For a law to be a law, it must remain unchanging.  Socialist banana republics are the ones where the government can change the law at whim to make your legal behavior into something criminal and then prosecute you for it.

No game can be played when the rules as written don't matter and can be changed.

---

Laws change in the U.S. every day, bro.  The government can change the laws at any time.

---

Not true. Laws require an act of Congress, and Congress rarely acts.

Regulations issued by government agencies change every day, but they are not laws, merely political dictates.

Proof: The only change to our Constitution was the end of Prohibition. The Constitution Can be added to vía amendments, but the laws laid down there rarely change once written.

It’s still legal to marry your sister in like 13 states. I live in a dry county where you aren’t allowed to buy alcohol, despite prohibition being struck down a hundred years ago.

Our actual laws do not change often.

---

You're simply wrong.  Congress is but one legislative body. Most laws are not passed by Congress.

---

Enlil said:

Ep1429 said:

Near Dylan said:

As Enlil said. "Ideal"? As in perfect? Of course not. But what do you want to do, have state governments be replaced with county governments? County with city? City with neighborhood? There has to be some cut-off. States is a fair one.

---

Why not the individual?  I believe that’s more fair than a state level government ruling over you.

---

Stupid idea. If each individual decided his/her laws, the weak would be slaves to the strong.

---

Near Dylan said:

You cant say the same for your "the best government is one that doesnt govern at all" argument. That is naïve edgy 13 year old pseud philosophy.

---

Ep1429 said:

Enlil said:

Ep1429 said:

Near Dylan said:

As Enlil said. "Ideal"? As in perfect? Of course not. But what do you want to do, have state governments be replaced with county governments? County with city? City with neighborhood? There has to be some cut-off. States is a fair one.

---

Why not the individual?  I believe that’s more fair than a state level government ruling over you.

---

Stupid idea. If each individual decided his/her laws, the weak would be slaves to the strong.

---

And that would be different how?  You’re still the bitch of the rich under capitalism and socialism.

---

Enlil said:

In california alone,  there were over 1000 new laws enacted this year.  That's 3 per day on average.

---

Enlil said:

Spoken like a man who has never seen a real slave.

---

Enlil said:

Law is changed by the passage of a new law. Making a distinction is ignorant as fuck. Repeal is just an act of law to repeal a current law.

---

Near Dylan said:

I argue too much with hippies on here. The profile picture and sig should've given me a hint as to your grasp on reality around you.

---

Ep1429 said:

1) An oligarchy rules by force. The law is replaced by the whim of the oligarchs. The perfect example of this is a monarchy. The king is merely the figurehead of a group of barons and earls who rule, and the law is whatever the king wills at the moment.

2) A Democracy is not a system of government. It is a temporary period of mob rule that always ends with the People being ruled by oligarchs who promise to stop the suffering. No different than anarchy.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

shivas.wisdom said:

Why stop at the state level, instead of pushing for autonomy at the municipal level?

Many states are essentially the size of countries; even if the problem may be less than what exists at the federal level, shouldn't we expect a similar lack of representation from central state governments as we currently experience from the central federal government?

---

I don't think so. The difference in views from Kansas to California are much more profound, than within California. Another bonus is that in states, laws can be implemented via ballot measures. If we had something like that on the Federal level, we would already have single payer.

---

Ep1429 said:

Enlil said:

Spoken like a man who has never seen a real slave.

---

You are a real slave. You’re just better treated.

What made a slave?  A slave master who told them to do as ordered or die. That’s a government. The monopoly on force.

How were slaves treated?  They got a 100% income tax working on the “government’s land”, and lived in “government housing”, ate food provided by their “government“...

When you want to get married, do you have to ask your mother’s permission, or the government’s?

A marriage license is required, is it not?

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Bigbadwooof said:

shivas.wisdom said:

Why stop at the state level, instead of pushing for autonomy at the municipal level?

Many states are essentially the size of countries; even if the problem may be less than what exists at the federal level, shouldn't we expect a similar lack of representation from central state governments as we currently experience from the central federal government?

---

I don't think so. The difference in views from Kansas to California are much more profound, than within California. Another bonus is that in states, laws can be implemented via ballot measures. If we had something like that on the Federal level, we would already have single payer.

---

Similar as in 'of the same nature', not similar in severity.

The difference between Kansas and California is significant, and makes a central government unable to properly address the variety of issues. The differences within California may be less, but don't we still see similar out of touch government at the state level? For example, state governments forcing unwanted resource extraction projects onto unwilling communities (like the Dakota Access Pipeline).

Do you think the states, as they currently are, is the best way to divide up the United States; or is this just the way things ended up and it won't be easy to change so just live with it?

The ballot measure is significant, as that is something approaching direct, rather than representative, government.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Bigbadwooof said:

shivas.wisdom said:

Why stop at the state level, instead of pushing for autonomy at the municipal level?

Many states are essentially the size of countries; even if the problem may be less than what exists at the federal level, shouldn't we expect a similar lack of representation from central state governments as we currently experience from the central federal government?

---

I don't think so. The difference in views from Kansas to California are much more profound, than within California. Another bonus is that in states, laws can be implemented via ballot measures. If we had something like that on the Federal level, we would already have single payer.

---

Similar as in 'of the same nature', not similar in severity.

The difference between Kansas and California is significant, and makes a central government unable to properly address the variety of issues. The differences within California may be less, but don't we still see similar out of touch government at the state level? For example, state governments forcing unwanted resource extraction projects onto unwilling communities (like the Dakota Access Pipeline).

Do you think the states, as they currently are, is the best way to divide up the United States; or is this just the way things ended up and it won't be easy to change so just live with it?

The ballot measure is significant, as that is something approaching direct, rather than representative, government.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Near Dylan said:

You cant say the same for your "the best government is one that doesnt govern at all" argument. That is naïve edgy 13 year old pseud philosophy.

---

That quote comes from the highly influential essay 'Civil Disobedience' by the respected American philosopher Henry David Thoreau; but sure just dismiss it as a "naïve edgy 13 year old pseud philosophy" if that helps you avoid actually engaging with the argument.

---