4 > Discussions; Public Archive
PS
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote ---PS Wrote:
What gives you liberty is not having any government at all, so that the next time someone gathers an army, they can take you over and impose whatever kind of authority they what.
So tell me, please, what kind of authority do we have now?
Attributed to Voltaire, "If you wish to communicate first define your terms."
I define authority as the right to rule others.
Whence comes this (alleged) authority?
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote ---There is no right to rule others.
We rule ourselves. That was the entire point of classical liberalism.
But, if you reject self-rule, and the institutions to enforce it, you will be ruled by others, whether they have that right or not.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---The most famous case of anarchy promoted by proponents is Iceland, which briefly had an anarchic society with a polycentric legal system.
“So it IS possible”, they say.
“And how did it end?”
“Stupid statists took them over and ruled them!” *stomps foot*
Yep.
That’s WHY we establish a government to rule ourselves.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---In the most literal sense of the word, all classically liberal governments are anarchies: that is, “without rulers”.
We govern ourselves, and are not ruled at all.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---➽ We govern ourselves, and are not ruled at all.
I will assume you actually believe what you wrote, Because... Maybe you do.
Who, specifically, is this "We"?
I hereby, specifically refute that you and I are "We".
In the context of your statement about this alleged "We", I challenge your reification of the concept of "We".
⚠ "Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: "the map is not the territory"." ⛔
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote --- “we” is literally in the first sentence of the Constitution.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---➽ “we” is literally in the first sentence of the Constitution.
I apologize for typing my question too fast for you. I'll do it slower this time:
W - h - o,
s - p - e - c - i - f - i - c - a - l - l - y,
i - s
t - h - i - s
"W - e"?
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote ---Dale, did you bother to read the Constitution?
It answers that question.
Here, since you evidently don’t have the skill to Google a copy of the Constitution, I’ll explain.
It’s we “the people”, which means all of us.
The Constitution goes on to establish a representative government.
Do I need to explain what “representative” means, too?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---➽ Dale, did you bother to read the Constitution?
More so than you will know. Did you bother to read Lysander Spooner's NO TREASON?
➽ It’s we “the people”, which means all of us.
I understand that you believe your opinion is truth. However, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.
Did you bother to learn what reification is?
The writer of the preamble to the CONstitution presumed to speak for me as if I am part of that specific we 170 years before I was born. Please provide your evidence that I authorized the CONstitution's writers to speak for me.
➽ The Constitution goes on to establish a representative government.
Do I need to explain what “representative” means, too?
One topic at a time.
Third inquiry:
Who, specifically, is this "We"?
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote ---Dale, so you oppose the Constitution.
Got it.
No, the authors did not “presume to speak for you.”
They established an agnostic government in which all participate.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---➽ No, the authors did not “presume to speak for you.”
Thank you for admitting I am NOT part of that "We".
➽ They established an agnostic government in which all participate.
That's like saying slave owners established a government in which all participate.
The masters ruled the slaves and all participated.
What, specifically, do you mean by "government"?
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version