Private Social Media Platform

JAB, you are naive. Do you really think there could be a society without either a government or an autocratic ruler? That has never existed in the history of humanity. The real question is - what kind of rule doe we want to have? Galt's Gulch is a fantasy. If we don't a government built upon democratic principles, there will always be someone who takes control and makes the rules for himself. In that case, you can forget about freedom, equality, and fair play. All that anti-government ranting ignores the realities of human society. It is childish to say "we don't need no stinkin' gubmint!" What we need is good government.

In my opinion, the first pillar of good government is democracy, and the idea that all people should have an equal voice.

The second pillar is having a constitution that sets out how the government should function, and is inviolable by any office or person in the government, no matter what position they hold.

The third pillar is a system of checks and balances - the separate and co-equal branches of government that keep the others from going out of control.

Fourth is the idea that nobody should be able to benefit personally from their position in government.

Fifth is the idea that nobody is above the law.

Now, I don't claim that we meet those ideals. But some come far closer than others. Some want to strengthen and uphold them, and strive for better government. Trump doesn't abide by any of those things, and he has openly declared his contempt for democracy (he wants to be a dictator) and the constitution (which he says he wants to abolish).

As for egalitarianism in Spain, I assume you are aware that Franco became dictator in 1936, and he maintained peace in the country by aligning himself with fascist Germany and Italy. There may have been some groups in Spain trying to evade Franco's rule, but they didn't win.

"do you see us ever being able to meet those pillars? And if so, how"
I don't know if we can ever achieve it, but at least we can work toward improvement of our government. The key is those final two pillars that I mentioned. This is where we fall short, and it is the reason we have people like you who are against government. We have congressmen passing legislation that favors certain factions, and profiting from it. We have judges taking bribes to make rulings that serve their benefactors. We have presidents using force to coerce the course of events. Isn't this precisely why you hate government? But government itself isn't the problem. We need to have strict rules on what people in government can do, and enforce them. Then our government will work for the benefit of the people, as it should.

You have a jaded view of humanity. You can't believe that government can be beneficial. You believe the people in government are always out for themselves. But it all depends on who we put in charge. Some governments are better than others. In general, the modern European governments are better than ours in America. Why? Because they are more oriented toward the needs of the people. They believe that people can work together for the common benefit. In America, we revere individualism and strength. 'Social' is a dirty word. We tend to elect people who project personal strength and work for the benefit themselves and their friends, at the cost of compassion and concern for the well-being of those who are most in need of support. The American psychology produces the government we have.

You are extremely jaded. You advocate Ayn Rand's all-for-myself society, where everyone is left to their own devices, and nobody tells you what to do. But that is a recipe for conflict, hardship and chaos. Galt's Gulch is a fantasy.

So are you one of those "sovereign citizens"? Entrenched in a compound with your guns, ready to kill anyone who crosses your path? With no regard for civil society or its laws?

I was simply asking the question - because you seem to have the same opinions that those guys have.

That doesn't really answer the question. I assume you know what I mean by the term sovereign citizen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
Is that what you are?
I don't claim any right to rule you. I do claim, as Thomas Jefferson did, that the rights and freedoms we have don't extend to trampling on the rights of others. And that the duly elected government has the authority to pass legislation, to provide for the general welfare, to protect our rights, and to enforce the law.

So you are being deliberately obtuse, or you didn't bother to look at the description of the modern sovereign citizen movement.

"I asked you to admit or deny that you and I are equals in that neither of us have a Right-to-Rule the other."
- You don't listen very well. I already talked about that. I agreed.

"I am NOT interested in listening to you or the Federal government call me a terrorist."
- So that's the answer to my question. I would suggest that you go back to your anpropaganda site and commiserate with your fellow sov-cits.

"I find it interesting that stating my lack of interest in being called a terrorist somehow provided you with a reason to assume I am a terrorist."
- You said that article was calling you a terrorist. It is therefore reasonable to assume that you think it refers to you. Otherwise, you would have no reason to think that you were being called a terrorist. Anyone with half a brain would draw the same conclusion. By the way, it says that only some of them are. That's true.

"you don't want to deal with the actual meaning of the word "sovereign"."
- I know how to use a dictionary.

"Claim #𝟠 No human has an innate Right-to-Rule any other human."
- What is this? Your manifesto? In a democracy, governmental authorities exist by the consent of the people, regardless of how you want to spin it.

"Please admit or deny this claim."
- I'm not here to help you give voice to your twisted anti-government propaganda.

You're not the first right-wing extremist who thinks he's smarter than the rest of the world that I've dealt with. In a democracy, we grant governmental authority by the consent of the people. Your convoluted logic doesn't change the reality. It's a selfish, juvenile, and anti-social attitude that says "You're not the boss of me, and I refuse to live by any rules imposed by your gubmint." If you don't want to live in a democracy, then get out.

How childish can you be? I live in a country that has a constitution, and I respect it because that's what allows people to live and cooperate together in a functional society. I understand that without it, there would be either a despot calling the shots for everyone, or utter chaos. It's not perfect. I recognize the shortcomings we have, but I'd rather work within our constitutional framework to try to make it better, than to just allow a bunch of selfish anti-social nuts to have their way. I don't want any part of your fantasy society because I know enough about human behavior and history to realize that it wouldn't work the way you think, and it wouldn't make life pleasant for most of us.

You think you haven't been brainwashed by all that anti-gov propaganda? It has never worked. It isn't going to work just because you swallow it.

It is a lie that government must be bad.

History shows that there has always been either a government or an autocratic ruler. Take your choice.

There are plenty of ignorant people who believe all kinds of things. Like all this anti-government propaganda. It appears that you have been suckered in. I don't buy it. I know people who would be dead if that didn't have support from our government. There are millions of Americans who rely on the government for various things. We have police protection. We have public education. We have national defense. We have social security, transportation systems, healthcare, food and drug safety, consumer protections, and plenty of other things that are provided either wholly or partially by our government. I really don't care if a band of ignorant jack-asses don't like it. They are welcome to find another place where they can live without all those things. But don't try to take it away from me.

I'm stopping with this now.

I don't have a right to rule you. And our government does not rule anybody. You're saying things that have no basis in reality. In some countries (like North Korea), you would be right. But not in the US. Also, in the US, none of the rule is forced. You are completely free to renounce your citizenship and leave. As for the social contract, it is the Constitution, the laws that are subject to it, and court rulings that provide clarity on these matters.

It is my right to do anything I am capable of doing that I want to do unless I sacrifice that right in exchange for something else (like safety and public services) by participating as a member of society.

What you're describing about being shot is an extremely rare event. And when something inappropriate does happen like that, the police are held accountable for their actions.

Government will take your home and lock you up as it should if you violate the laws. It's entitled to that. Maybe you have reading comprehension problems, but I said I do not have the right to tell you how to live. I don't rule you. As for leaving the land, I am all for making passports free. But if you want one, I will cover the cost so long as you renounce your citizenship and leave for at least the next three years. It must be scary living in your warped little mind.

I don't get to choose a ruler. The premise of your entire problem is simply wrong. I have not ever had a ruler over me. As for these 'natural rights', where are they written? What are they specifically and who determined what they are? To me, natural rights can only be the ability to do anything that I am capable of doing. That includes killing, stealing, etc... But because I'm a member of society, I willfully (every day I wake up here) choose to sacrifice those rights for safety and services.

So then you would agree that it's my right to do whatever I want, right? That includes to kill and steal and enslave, right?

Well where does it say that those things aren't my right? Who is determining these things? Are you saying that it's not a lion's right to kill the gazelle? So they either have to act outside of their rights or die off as a species?

And who determines that your definition of right applies? For instance, it's my right to enslave someone in a world without government because that might be something I want to do. It might be your right to resist, but only one of us will win. It's my right to violate your self-professed right because maybe I don't agree that your right offsets mine. Maybe I don't even believe you have the same natural rights as I do. Morality is also subjective. Maybe to me, it is immoral for you to deny me my right to enslave you. Natural rights are whatever a person wants to do that they can do. To think that everybody will just agree with your narrow definition of what is right is folly. As for the lion and the gazelle, I don't see any evidence why they wouldn't own themselves. I would argue that they do because they seem to be sentient and they seem to have individualized personalities.