fayfreethinkers.com

Switchblades are legally different from knives in general. The only reason I can think of is their association with gangs. Most of the places I've been, looked into, regulate carrying knives over 3.5 inches whether or not they are switchblades - as Darrel's link has shown some states regulate switchblades separately. I don't know why 3.5 inches is the magic number for carrying. That's quite deadly enough if used in a fight. It's considerably less than 3.5 inches from your skin to your heart, for example. However, household knives - kitchen knives - can be considerably longer than 3.5", are legal, and easy to get (they sell in Wal-Mart for heaven's sakes). Admittedly my butcher knife isn't as good at removing a hand coming through a window as my friend's father's army saber, but there's something about a few inches of steel penetrating a hand that seems to be a deterent.

Again, for when you are out and about, pepper spray works wonders - and a warm bottle of champagne, or any sparkling wine, when thrown, puts out schrapnel as deadly as a handgrenade (as well as making an excellent bludgeon - and just about as good as a knife for slashing once broken over the head or other body part of the attacker). The old coke bottles were heavy enough & the old coke had a strong enough charge to work just as well as a bottle of champagne - and as far as I've heard, nobody has restricted carrying around glass bottles of soda pop (if you can find one).

Hogeye> ...the verdict of some self-proclaimed "representatives" does not override man's mind.

Darrel> Incorrect. They are not self-proclaimed representatives but rather the duly appointed representatives of the people.

The are at most the representatives of the people who voted for them, a small minority of the total population. They are not representatives of non-voters or those who voted for someone else.

Furthermore, it is doubtful they represent even those who voted for them in any meaningful sense. They were simply the lesser of evils in the Tweedledee-Tweedledum electoral circus. The "representatives" are certainly not agents, since they cannot be recalled at will, nor need they vote according to the wishes of their voters on any given issue. Face it, having such a politician "representative" in no way implies consent by an individual.

Darrel wrote:If you are in possession of fully automatic weapons without the proper permits you are in violation of the law and may, and should, meet the same fate as Fincher.

That's like saying, 'If you deny the existence of God, by God's law you may, and should, burn in hell.' You offer blind faith, but no rational argument why people should forcibly deny others the right of self-defense.

Darrel wrote:The laws regarding the constitutionality of the governments ability to regulate gun ownership are well established and were considered "settled law" long before you were born.

The biblical laws regarding god are well established and were considered "settled law" long before you were born. Can you not see how your argument is essentially no different from religious fundamentalists? You are simply replacing "God" with "State" and "bible" with "constitution." You found your way out of the theist box; now find your way out of the statist box.

Sav wrote:I see a lot of irony when the accusation that the people's say is being subjugated by elected/appointed/approved officials is coming from a person who chooses not to vote.

Who has more justification for objecting to being "subjugated" - those who played the game causing it, or those who refused to play the game?

Darrel> Incorrect. They are not self-proclaimed representatives but rather the duly appointed representatives of the people.

Hogeye wrote:The are at most the representatives of the people who voted for them, a small minority of the total population.

DAR
Oh, voting is optional, feel free to not participate if you are personally opposed to representative government. Following the law however, is not optional (whether you vote or not).

That's like saying, 'If you deny the existence of God, by God's law you may, and should, burn in hell.'

DAR
It matters not one whit if someone says or believes that (just like it doesn't matter what you say or believe regarding the constitution). One of the differences is in the enforcement. No god, no hell, no enforcement. This is a very big difference. If there is a god, a hell, and enforcement, then one should most definitely be concerned about such things.

You offer blind faith, but no rational argument why people should forcibly deny others the right of self-defense.

DAR
Here is one: it's the law of the land. Remember, living in the US is voluntary. You can always move to Anarchia if you wish.
And do be careful not to distort the argument. Fincher is not being denied a right of self-defense. There is well established law supporting that. He was charged with having illegal fully automatic weapons.

The biblical laws regarding god are well established and were considered "settled law" long before you were born. Can you not see how your argument is essentially no different from religious fundamentalists?

DAR
I can certainly see how my argument is completely different. Biblical laws can be safely ignored (and usually should be) because:

a) no one has ever shown the existence of a godly writer of the "law" book never mind shown that this "god" does or should have any authority whatsoever.

b) After many centuries of miserable oppression the people have risen up, so to speak, and over ridden the "laws" of the Bible book. So there is (almost) no enforcement of these so called "laws." This has been a very good thing for humanity.

Sometimes people show up pretending to be enforcers of the "laws" in the Bible (priests) but we have had them on the run for a few centuries now, especially in the more advanced countries. They have been completely striped of any official power.
Also, quite contrary to the decrees of the ancient anonymous Bible, the "laws" do not represent the will of the governed. Ours do. That's a biggie. We have a very elborate (yet certainly imperfect) system by which the population comes together and elects representatives to establish laws of the land. After a long time and much precident, these laws become established, like the one that found Fincher guilty. The Bible "laws" have been superceded by a system much more favored by the populace. Perhaps a new system will supercede ours someday. But until then, this is the law of the land as established by our duly elected representatives.
Oh, and our system of government is responsive to the will of the people in that there are channels by which these laws may be changed (although it can be frustratingly slow). So do feel free to participate by working to change any laws that you don't like.

D.

PS: Working to strip the government of any right to regulate arms (because of a poorly worded 2nd amendment written for populace with single shot powder guns) would be a bit of a long shot at this point. Such an extreme position not only goes against well established "settled law" (and common sense) it also is not what a vast majority of "we the people," collectively, want.

Darrel wrote:Following the law however, is not optional.

??? Clearly counterfactual. Me, and 'most everyone I know, routinely ignore laws. Especially the stupid ones. But I think you meant to say that there is a risk (often miniscule) of being punished by the State.

Darrel> If you are in possession of fully automatic weapons without the proper permits you are in violation of the law and may, and should, meet the same fate as Fincher.

Hogeye> That's like saying, 'If you deny the existence of God, by God's law you may, and should, burn in hell.'

Darrel> One of the differences is in the enforcement. No god, no hell, no enforcement.

You missed my point. I was objecting to your normative claim ("should"), not the factual claim that there may be a risk of violence from the State. Do you really wish to defend your statement that someone who possesses firearms should be kidnapped by the State like Fincher was?

Hogeye> You offer blind faith, but no rational argument why people should forcibly deny others the right of self-defense.

Darrel> Here is one: it's the law of the land.

You're doing it again - confusing a normative claim with a factual claim. I do not deny that it is the law of the land. But now tell us why one should obey laws regardless of whether they are just. Blind faith in statist law? Some of us believe there are more important considerations than decrees by rulers. Freethinkers believe that one should not submit one's mind to others simply because of their position or obey laws simply because they are declared by some authority. Like I said, you seem to appeal to monopoly statist law the way theists appeal to holy books. You appeal to "representatives" and "democratic" ritual like they appeal to priests and holy ritual.

LaWood, I do recognize the difference between libertarianism and freethinking. But Darrel isn't using rational arguement here. A freethinker might attempt a utilitarian defense of gun control or various other tacts. Darrel wants to simply say God, er, the State sez so, and that proves the normative case. His approach is contrary to the spirit of freethinking. (To be fair, he does obliquely refer to consent, which has some rational possibilities.)

Hogeye wrote: Do you really wish to defend your statement that someone who possesses firearms should be kidnapped by the State like Fincher was?

DAR
Oh most definitely. You can't have fully automatic weapons unless you fill out the proper forms and have them approved by the government. I think that's a good sensible idea that has become established law not by some accident but rather extensive judicial precident (judges are representatives for the people too). Fincher probably wouldn't qualify but we won't know because he probably didn't even try to own these weapons in a legal manner.
And do be careful to not distort and spin the actual facts of the matter (I know this is difficult). We are all adults around here and this doesn't fool anyone. Fincher was not charged with simply "possessing firearms."

Hogeye> Freethinkers believe...

DAR
It seems to me that you always go off in the ditch when you pretend to purport what "Freethinkers believe...." In my experience Freethought is not about holding a particular belief but rather the method of attaining beliefs.
The freethinkers I have looked up to as good examples of fine individuals and representative of fine morals (Ingersoll etc.) have worked very hard to change oppressive laws they disagreed with but as I remember, they worked within the bounds of the law and encouraged others to do this as well. This seems like a good idea to me. The other method often results in you being "kidnapped by the state like Fincher was." Now if you are fighting for some great moral issue, like Nelson Mandela, then this may be effective in persuading the people to rise up and join your empathetic moral crusade. Fincher is unlikely to have much support outside of his small band.

There may have been the odd anarchist that prefers to operate outside the law, and they are free to play that game if it amuses them, but I don't think these ones have ever been taken very seriously in the past and I don't expect this to change in the future. I guess you could point to those who argued for the Independance of America and how this was in some sense operating outside of the law, but these were new people in a new land setting up a new representative government and "law of the land." So this would be a special case indeed.

If there were enough people in the country that thought it was so important to them to have unrestricted ownership of fully automatic weapons that masses of people broke the law and "just did it" (like Fincher) then it seems to me there would be enough people to just change the law itself and this would be the law of the land. I would have no problem with this. But there is not enough of these people, not even remotely. Years ago I went to two events where Fincher was there and others who have these eccentric ideas about guns etc. There were 11 people in attendance each time (the same 11). I encourage each of them to lobby their representatives if they wish to change the laws regarding unrestricted ownership of fully automatic weapons.

D.

If you don't like the laws, work to change them. That's what a "free" society is about - the laws can change, if the demand is great enough. (As opposed to a totalitarian society in which the laws change at the whim of the dictator.) While they are law, obey them. Large numbers of people living together require laws to prevent chaos and rule by thuggery. If you don't like that kind of society, you need to find a place to live with a much smaller population.

DAR
I hadn't followed this Fincher thing very closely but I was pretty sure that he had in some way been flaunting his gun violations. Here are some comments from the Morning News article that seem to confirm this.

***
Got What He wanted wrote on January 12, 2007 5:51 PM:

"Fincher chose to break the law. Fincher chose to advertise he was breaking the law. Pretty simple case. You break the law..you get convicted. He wanted to make his stand..now he has..now he has been convicted. Let him appeal...take it all the way to the Supreme Court..maybe it will get overturned. But for now...he's a convicted felon!! And he should be."

Common Sense wrote on January 12, 2007 6:00 PM:

"Gun laws help keep the wrong people from obtaining weapons. Fincher's main problem was that he would allegedly sell a full auto to anyone that wanted one - with no background check - then try to hide behind the "militia" and his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. He wanted a court battle and bragged about his weapons in the paper, in letters to the government, and on the Internet. He got the court battle and lost. That's the chance he took."

Common Sense wrote on January 12, 2007 8:26 PM:

"Joe: ...And if Fincher's intentions were to maintain all of the weapons at his armory; why did the paper say full autos were found at multiple locations across Arkansas and not just at the militia headquarters armory? And since you brought up the National Guard, you should call and ask whether they keep all of their weapons at the armory or if they let the guardsmen take them home at night. By the way, the NG conducts background checks before they let you join and carry a weapon."

DAR
What a bunch of silly bunnies. And what a waste. He'll probably get at least 2-3 years. That's what they offered him in a plea agreement which he declined.

This one which makes my point nicely and addresses again why, obviously, constitutional arguments were not allowed in:

Common Sense wrote on January 12, 2007 9:22 PM:

"Joe: The reason they weren't allowed to argue the constitution because the US Supreme Court has ruled that the NFA is constitutional in previous cases. A District Court judge cannot overturn that which the US Supreme Court has ruled valid. Otherwise people could just keep losing in lower courts all over the country and constantly appealing to the Supreme Court asking them to decide something they've already ruled on. Why don't you volunteer to be the next Fincher and see if you can do better.

Hogeye> Do you really wish to defend your statement that someone who possesses firearms should be kidnapped by the State like Fincher was?

Darrel> Oh most definitely. You can't have fully automatic weapons unless you fill out the proper forms and have them approved by the government.

Still ducking any rational response to the moral issue, and appealing to your God, the State.

Darrel wrote:In my experience Freethought is not about holding a particular belief but rather the method of attaining beliefs.

Exactly. The freethinking method is forming beliefs through conscientious reflection and rational inquiry rather than an appeal to authority or tradition. Yet you appeal to the authority of the State ("it's the law of the land") and tradition ("After a long time and much precident, these laws become established.") I'm still waiting for a rational argument as to why statist monopoly law should be obeyed.

From what little I've read of Ingersoll, he would agree with me that one has no moral obligation to obey a law one considers unjust. In a debate with two theists I read, Ingersol went even farther, saying that one could not submit one's mind to authority - that it was impossible and against the very nature of the mind and beliefs. Ingersol was not an anarchist, of course, but he would no doubt offer a rational basis for obeying or not obeying the law. Note also that if someone "works within the bounds of the law" that does not imply that they consider ignoring or evading the law to be morally wrong. More likely (e.g. in Ingersol's case) it is a tactical decision; they simply feel they will be more effective by opposing the law in a legal manner.

Barbara wrote:If you don't like the laws, work to change them.

That's one strategy. Another is to ignore and evade the law. IMO One can't effectively oppose organized crime by joining the mafia. Or as someone (Ingersol?) once said, one can't promote chastity by becoming a pimp. One can't oppose organized religion by joining a church. These are heuristics - there may be rare exceptions when becoming a "mole" might be effective.

Darrel wrote:I hadn't followed this Fincher thing very closely but I was pretty sure that he had in some way been flaunting his gun violations.

My take is that he sincerely thought that the right to bear arms prevailed, and would be ultimately supported by the State. (His mistake.) He made no secret about the militia or his arms. The Morning News did an article about the militia, where he openly diplayed the weapons in question. Some fedgoon saw the article and photo, and started the persecution. The rest is history.

Fincher is sincere, but made the same mistake as many tax resisters and most Constitutionalists: he expected the govt to abide by its own constitution and law. In fact, the State (through the State's judges) routinely interprets the law in its own favor (more power) and ignores its own law early and often. Fincher had a mistaken institutional analysis of the State. He should have been low-key and stayed below the government's radar.

Hogeye wrote: Still ducking any rational response to the moral issue, and appealing to your God, the State.

DAR
You tried to compare people following the duly created laws of the land to:

"'If you deny the existence of God, by God's law you may, and should, burn in hell.'"

I gave you several detailed and specific reasons why your analogy was in fact absurd. You can deal my responses or not. So far you have chosen not to.

...you appeal to the authority of the State ("it's the law of the land")

DAR
I am sorry you have confused the freethinker position regarding the truth/falsity of metaphysical claims, with a basic statement of fact regarding the undeniable authority of the state. You made the same mistake in your analogy, which I already responded to.

...and tradition ("After a long time and much precident, these laws become established.")

DAR
Again, a simple undeniable statement of fact and completely unanalogous to the freethinker definition which refers to accepting the truth of extraordinary and unverifiable religious claims upon a basis of tradition.
Along utilitarian lines am interested in what works, in the real world, for a great number of people. If you have a system that works better than representative government I am certainly open to examining it. Or at least I was for the first few moments I looked at your material, some time ago. Now I just roll my eyes like everyone else.

I'm still waiting for a rational argument as to why statist monopoly law should be obeyed.

DAR
For a very basic one that I haven't mentioned yet, you might ask your comrade Fincher. Suggestion: Don't use big words.

D.

Darrel wrote:You tried to compare people following the duly created laws of the land to: "If you deny the existence of God, by God's law you may, and should, burn in hell."

Incorrect. I was showing the parallel between the following statements:
A. If you are in possession of fully automatic weapons without the proper permits you should meet the same fate as Fincher.
B. If you deny the existence of God, by God's law you should burn in hell.

Instead of recognizing that both statement appeal to authority to justify the "should," you attempted to divert the discussion to enforcement issues, and when that didn't work, repeated your appeal to authority and added an appeal to tradition: "You can't have fully automatic weapons unless you fill out the proper forms and have them approved by the government. I think that's a good sensible idea that has become established law not by some accident but rather extensive judicial precident." As a freethinker, I wasn't impressed.

Darrel wrote:I am sorry you have confused the freethinker position regarding the truth/falsity of metaphysical claims, with a basic statement of fact regarding the undeniable authority of the state.

We are not discussing a statement of fact - we are discussing your normative claim. That's your statement using "should." The political authority of State is only relevant here if you are appealing to authority over man's mind, contrary to the fundamental tenant of freethinking. Appealing to "a long time and much precedent" is relevant only if you are, again, appealing to authority over man's mind. Please review the definition of freethinking you gave at the last meeting.

Always willing to educate, I'll now discuss different meanings of "authority." One type of authority is based on brute force. Another type is based on expertise or knowledge. A third type is based on jurisdiction over one's mind, e.g. choices, opinions, and beliefs. This third type has been called moral authority. It occurs to me that you might be equating the first and third types.

Examples: If someone hold a gun on you and demands, "Your money or your life," he has asserted coercive authority, but not moral authority. If someone convinces you that they know a lot about climatology, and as a result you accept their position on global warming, that is expertise authority but not moral authority. To surrender moral authority one has to obey or agree, not because of threat or acknowledgement of superior expertise, but because of who the authority is. Robert Paul Wolff, in In Defense of Anarchism (used as a philosophy text in some universities) explains the distinction like this:

Wolff wrote:Authority is the right to command, and correlatively, the right to be obeyed. It must be distinguished from power, which is the ability to compel compliance, either through the use or the threat of force. When I turn over my wallet to a thief who is holding me at gunpoint, I do so because the fate with which he threatens me is worse than the loss of money which I am made to suffer. I grant that he has power over me, but I would hardly suppose that he has authority, that is, that he has a right to demand my money and that I have an obligation to give it to him. When the government presents me with a bill for taxes, on the other hand, I pay it (normally) even though I do not wish to, and even if I think I can get away with not paying. It is, after all, the duly constituted government, and hence it has a right to tax me. It has authority over me. Sometimes, of course, I cheat the government, but even so, I acknowledge its authority, for who would speak of "cheating" a thief?

To claim authority is to claim the right to be obeyed.

...

An authoritative command must also be distinguished from a persuasive argument. When I am commanded to do something, I may choose to comply even though I am not being threatened, because I am brought to believe that it is something which I ought to do. If that is the case, then I am not, strictly speaking, obeying a command, but rather acknowledging the force of an argument or the rightness of a prescription.

In the essay linked above, Wolff goes on to discuss Kant's conception of moral autonomy, and describes anarchism in these terms.

Wolff wrote:Since the responsible man arrives at moral decisions which he expresses to himself in the form of imperatives, we may say that he gives laws to himself, or is self-legislating. In short, he is autonomous. As Kant argued, moral autonomy is a combination of freedom and responsibility; it is a submission to laws which one has made for oneself: The autonomous man, insofar as he is autonomous, is not subject to the will of another. He may do what an- other tells him, but not because he has been told to do it. He is therefore, in the political sense of the word, free.

...

The defining mark of the state is authority, the right to rule. The primary obligation of man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled. It would seem, then, that there can be no resolution of the conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the putative authority of the state. Insofar as a man fulfills his obligation to make himself the author of his decisions, he will resist the state's claim to have authority over him. That is to say, he will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of the state simply because they are the laws. In that sense, it would seem that anarchism is the only political doctrine consistent with the virtue of autonomy.

I hope all this helps you understand the difference between statist force-authority and the moral authority, and why simply claiming the State in fact has police power and related force-authority is not relevant to the question of whether the State has moral authority, i.e. whether a free person should surrender his mind and autonomy to Gods or dogma, States or statist law.

Finally, I offer an alternative definition of freethinking: the belief that there is no (moral) authority over the mind of man. This seems to cover succumbing to faith or tradition, and asserts the primacy of reason over the supernatural, per the standard definition.*


*That is, the broad standard definition, without the wimpy restriction to religion only.

Hogeye wrote:B. If you deny the existence of God, by God's law you should burn in hell.

Instead of recognizing that both statement appeal to authority to justify the "should,"...

DAR
What authority in your B?

A appeals to the (moral) authority of the State; B appeals to the (moral) authority of God.

Please study my previous post. Your question indicates that you still don't see the difference between force-authority (or "power" as Wolff calls it) and moral authority. Until you understand the difference, you will not be able to understand what I'm saying - you will continue to confuse the "is" of power with the "ought" of authority.

Hogeye wrote: B appeals to the (moral) authority of God.

DAR
What "(moral) authority" of what "God?"

Hogeye's 2nd quote from Wolff totally ignores the fact that an autonomous person can rationally and logically see the need for state authority to deal large numbers of people living together, and therefore decide to follow the law because it is the law, in support of that state. although Wolff said that about autonomy, Hogeye's earlier quote from Wolff about paying taxes to "the duly constituted government" thus "it has a right to tax me" supports my contention.

Hogeye wrote:A appeals to the (moral) authority of the State;

DAR
While you are struggling with defending your ridiculous analogy (by modifying your statement and going down some metaphysical rabbit trail)... when did I ever say the State has "moral authority?"

D.
-----------------
"Let me give you my definition of metaphysics, that is to say the science of the unknown, the science of guessing. Metaphysics is where two fools get together, and both say "Hence we infer." That is the science of metaphysics." --Ingersoll

Barbara, like Darrel you are equivocating authority qua power with authority qua the right to be obeyed (and associated duty to obey). Obviously, a legal system must exercise power. I do not dispute that. It is trivial. But Darrel asserted something quite different - that government has a right to be obeyed (subjects have a duty to obey.) This is indicated by his use of the word "should." Darrel, this answers your question - by using "should" you have made a claim about moral authority.

(BTW Barbara, Wolff's comment about taxation was only to illustrate the difference between power (aka force-authority) and moral authority. If you read his whole booklet, (or even just the essay linked) it is clear that he questions all government authority - moral authority per se.)

Do you (Barbara and Darrel) agree that there is a difference between the ability to wield force and the right to command (and associated duty to obey)? Assuming you do, then please avoid equivocating the two. "The need for state authority to deal large numbers of people living together" refers to the former, what I've been calling "force-authority" and Wolff calls "power." Similarly, Darrel's appeal to statist "law of the land" refers to force-authority. Obviously that does not address whether one should obey the State's laws or whether the State has a right to command. Pointing out the obvious fact that the State has police and guns and courts that can force obedience does not imply that one should obey.

If Darrel wants to take a position of moral skepticism, and call all reasoning about ethics a "metaphysical rabbit trail," that is fine (and another thread); but then to be consistent he must scrupulously avoid ethical statements such as you should obey the law. To be consistent and freethinking, he must either retract "you should meet the same fate as Fincher," or give some rationale besides authority/tradition to justify his normative claim.

DAR
If you want to play chess, you should follow the rules (otherwise no one will play with you). If you want to buy and sell in the US and use government money, you should pay your taxes, or you may face penalties and or prison (ask Hovind). Living and participating in the US is voluntary. Fincher (and Kent Hovind) chose to contract to participate in the game called US of A, and they chose to break the rules of that contract and will now face the consequences of their poor decisions. As they should. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

D.

Don't forget to answer my question:

"What "(moral) authority" of what "God?"

Darrel wrote:DAR
If you want to play chess, you should follow the rules (otherwise no one will play with you). If you want to buy and sell in the US and use government money, you should pay your taxes, or you may face penalties and or prison (ask Hovind). Living and participating in the US is voluntary. Fincher (and Kent Hovind) chose to contract to participate in the game called US of A, and they chose to break the rules of that contract and will now face the consequences of their poor decisions. As they should. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

DOUG
This is exactly what Socrates said in Plato's dialogue Crito.

Socrates asks us to imagine that the laws of Athens, personified, are talking to him.

Socrates:
Then the laws will say: "Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him.

Benjamin Jowett translation.

Darrel wrote:Don't forget to answer my question: "What "(moral) authority" of what "God?"

You know I'm an atheist and an anarchist. I believe that Gods and States have no moral authority.

I commend you for offering a rational argument for your claim that one should obey statist law. (That wasn't so hard, was it?) FYI the type of argument you offer is called a "contractarian" argument. If I may paraphrase: When one sits down at a chessboard with someone, one generally is making an implicit agreement to follow the rules of chess. (Generally - since there exists "fairy chess" variants using the same board and pieces.) Another example: When one goes into a restaurant and eats, one (generally) implicitly agrees to pay before one leaves. So (the argument goes) why can't we assume a similar implicit "contract" when one uses State-minted currency or occupies State-claimed space?

My answer: A valid contract must be specific, limited, unambiguous, and circumscribed. (Which is one reason selling oneself into slavery is dubious as a contract, or saying "I'd do anything for a kiss.") Simply buying or selling something does not imply any contract with rulers in Little Rock or Washington DC. Simply occupying space with your body doesn't seem to imply consenting to obligations of far-off entities either. If I use silver rounds minted at Sunshine Mint as a medium of exchange, that certainly does not constitute an agreement to pay tribute to Sunshine Mint. Sunshine sold the rounds into general circulation. Once they sell the rounds they produce, they obviously no longer own them - no longer have jurisdiction over them. The same, of course, goes for coins or paper produced in the US mint.

Suppose Scarface Extortion Gang comes to your house and demands tribute. Does that mean you should (in the ethical sense) pay them? Of course not! Their raw claim that you are on their turf has no moral import. The claim that by simply living there you have agreed to a contract with Scarface is ridiculous. The same, of course, goes for similar claims by the US State. You may decide to pay Scarface's (or the IRS's) knee-breakers, due to the force they threaten, but that does not imply that they have a right to get paid, or that you have a moral obligation to pay. Morally, the State is no different from any other extortion gang. (There is a non-moral difference. The State generally has pulled off what most extortion gangs can only dream of: victims so docile and brainwashed that they believe the gangs demands are legitimate! The State is basically an extortion gang with good PR.)

Back to the chess analogy; If I have my chess set out in a coffee house and someone sits down and says, "This was an available seat. I'm here to drink my coffee, not to play chess," then you cannot rightly claim that they agreed to play the game, hold a gun on them and demand they move. Similarly, you can't assume that Fincher or Hovind (or especially me, who openly announces that I don't play the statist game) consent to the game, any more than you can claim that people on Scarface's turf agree to submit to the demands of Scarface. Appealing to tradition, as we've noted, doesn't hack it. Maybe your grandaddy 'paid up' to Scarface, or long-dead white guys once wrote a paper, but of course that does not obligate any living person.

Claiming that someone has a contract with the state just by living their life is particularly ludicrous considering the limited and circumscibed condition for a valid contract. The State passes laws and regulations all the time. State regulations and laws are rather unlimited and open-ended. If someone agrees to play the statist game, does that mean that they are obligated to pay 10% of their produce? 50%? 99%? If the State passes a law conscripting you to fight in Iran, or drop bombs on civilians, are you obligated to do it? If the State passes a law forbidding criticism of the State (as Lincoln did) are you obligated to stop criticizing? If the State passes a law that you must give one eye and one lung to the Heath Dept. to help blind politicans and the destitute blind, are you morally obliged to submit?

I have shown that claims of a contract would apply just as validly to Scarface Extortion Agency as to a State. The State is nothing more than a glorified extortion gang. If you think otherwise, the onus is on you to show why it is not - that there are morally relevant reasons why it is so different that one is morally obligated to submit to its commands and pay its demanded tributes. Without, of course, appealing to brute power or tradition.

(Doug, luckily the ultra-subserviant Socrates, nor his authoritarian student Plato, has the last word in political theory. As Lord Action noted, they didn't even have a modern notion of freedom back in those days. I.e. freedom to them was being able to particpate in the State, as opposed to the modern idea of not being prevented from doing anything you are entitled to do. I suggest you update your political theory to Locke, or even better, Nozick, Rawls, and Rothbard.)

Hogeye wrote: My answer: A valid contract must be specific, limited, unambiguous, and circumscribed.

DOUG
Says who? By what authority do you make this pronouncement?

Hogeye wrote:(Doug, luckily the ultra-subserviant Socrates, nor his authoritarian student Plato, has the last word in political theory. As Lord Action noted, they didn't even have a modern notion of freedom back in those days. I.e. freedom to them was being able to particpate in the State, as opposed to the modern idea of not being prevented from doing anything you are entitled to do. I suggest you update your political theory to Locke, or even better, Nozick, Rawls, and Rothbard.)

Rawls would not endorse a contractarian view? I think he would...