Wayne Fincher/Trial by Jury

[Dardedar]

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.

DAR
No, not of course. The state does have jurisdiction over it's currency. It's one of the rules of the game that you actively, freely, and no doubt daily, chose to participate in. You might not like that, but it is indeed the case.

Suppose Scarface Extortion Gang comes to your house and demands tribute. Does that mean you should (in the ethical sense) pay them?

DAR
Thankfully we don't have anarchy where such gangs would rule the land. This gang has no power, no jurisdiction because instead we have a situation much more preferrable and conducive to well being and the pursuit of happyness: representative government, duly elected and responsive to the will of the people. Your analogy fails.

Of course not! Their [extortion gang] raw claim that you are on their turf has no moral import.

DAR
Right. Unelected lawless thugs only interested theft and greed. No comparison.

The claim that by simply living there you have agreed to a contract with Scarface is ridiculous.

DAR
No, I disagree with that as well. If pirates had taken hold of an island and you had the choice of staying and being under their rule, or leaving, if you freely chose to stay, then you are in on the contract.

...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,...

DAR
I don't even need to assume. I know. There is no question whatsoever that Fincher, Hovind and you are up to your eyeballs in playing the game called USA. You use government money? Check. Drive on the roads? Check. Own property, reside, have an address, use public property, use the library, drink city water, flush the toilet when you are done? It matters not one whit what you "pronounce." It matters what you do. And what you do is play the game. Bigtime. Participation is completely volluntary. Once you participate, following the rules, is not.

any more than you can claim that people on Scarface's turf agree to submit to the demands of Scarface.

DAR
If they have the option of leaving, and chose to stay, then they are in.

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.

DAR
a) No one claimed that
b) you do much more to participate in the game than "live your life" as I have shown above

If someone agrees to play the statist game, does that mean that they are obligated to pay 10% of their produce? 50%? 99%?

DAR
Yes. If you agree to play the game then you agree to follow the rules. If the people, via their representatives decide that 99% is going to be the rate, then that's what it is. The people getting what they want tends to be a good feedback mechanism that tends to produce good results. If they don't like it they can leave the game or petition the government to change the rules. I think about 50 years ago there was a tax bracket that approached 80-90% for the extremely wealthy. This has since be changed. "We the people" didn't want it anymore.

If the State passes a law conscripting you to fight in Iran, or drop bombs on civilians, are you obligated to do it?

DAR
No. If you are opposed to this, cease to participate in the game. Go to Canada. If that is not allowed, there is CO status, non-combat roles and/or jail.

If the State passes a law forbidding criticism of the State (as Lincoln did) are you obligated to stop criticizing?

DAR
Because we talking about the rather innocuous issue of sound vibrations coming out of a mouth (and this is clearly constitutionally protected so no doubt it didn't last very long), I would suggest to not criticize in such a way that you get arrested unless you are into that sort of thing (as Hovind and Fincher are). If this state of affairs didn't change, work to legally have it changed, or take the option of leaving the game area. Participation is volluntary.

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?

DAR
If that rule is a deal breaker for you, then quit the game. Fortunately, free people would never allow such a rule. Got anything more absurd? I don't doubt that if a situation of anarchy existed, there would be places where such behavior would go on.

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

DAR
Extortion gangs are unelected thugs that do not represent the will of the governed and are not responsive to the needs of the people. Being a pragmatist I am against them because the end result is a very bad situation unconducive to a good and healthy life for the greatest number of people. If extortion gangs were better then representative government at providing a good and healthy life for the greatest number of people, I would be for them.

D.

[Doug]

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.

DOUG
It's not. In Arkansas, you can't carry a knife if you intend to use it as a weapon. That is a crime.

However, you can carry a gun that you intend to use as a weapon, and it is not a crime.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The nice thing about knives is they are multi-purpose objects. Even a switchblade can be used as a box cutter. Can that knife I'm taking to the potluck be used as a weapon? Sure it can. Is that the way I intend to use it? No, of course not - but I could if the need arose. There's not a darned thing you can do with a gun that isn't weapon related. (Target practice for what?) OK, OK - you can use it as a bludgeon if they are close enough and you run out of ammo (and a bludgeon is a weapon). But you can use a hammer as a bludgeon AND nail down boards with it. Guns - at least handguns and missile launchers, etc - don't belong in a simple life.

[Hogeye]

Hogeye> A valid contract must be specific, limited, unambiguous, and circumscribed.

Doug> Says who? By what authority do you make this pronouncement?

Virtually every legal and philosophical writer who has considered the issue. A contract is not an open-ended obligation changeable at the whim of one party.

Some of Darrel's claims are so frivolous that they're not worth answering. E.g. That the state still owns currency after it sells it. (Contradicting the definition of "sell.") He ducks the whole issue of how the State "represents" people who don't vote, or vote for the losing side, or are stuck with a Tweedledee-Tweedledum choice neither of which represents their wishes. He simply repeats his catechism - blind faith in the State and its alleged responsiveness to the "will of the people." (As if a collective can have a will or people all agree!) He allows that thugs have interests, but denys that politicians have interests! Finally, he says Fincher and I consent whether we agree or not!! (Contradicting the definition of consent.) Faith is a funny thing; it can turn the most intelligent person's mind into mush. He even goes so far as to claim that, if 50.0001% of voters vote to plunder 99% of people's productions, that everyone is morally obligated to pay! Extermination of minorities is okay by this view. All it takes to justify, by his standards, is a majority vote. The Holocaust justified! He adds that if you are not willing to surrender an eye or lung to the State on demand, you should move.

I think he's made my case for the non-authority of the State very nicely.


I've nominated Wayne Fincher for Omni's "Peace and Justice Hero Award." One other person I know of is also nominating Wayne.

[Doug]

Hogeye> A valid contract must be specific, limited, unambiguous, and circumscribed.

Doug> Says who? By what authority do you make this pronouncement?

Virtually every legal and philosophical writer who has considered the issue. A contract is not an open-ended obligation changeable at the whim of one party.

DOUG
OK, show why anyone should accept your contract. And who enforces it, since you don't believe in a State?

[Dardedar]

Some of Darrel's claims are so frivolous that they're not worth answering. E.g. That the state still owns currency after it sells it. (Contradicting the definition of "sell.")

DAR
I didn't say the state "still owns" US currency, I said they have jurisdiction over it, as they obviously do (try carrying a couple 10's of thousands in cash across the border, or making duplicates). Likewise, I own my land but the state still has jurisdiction over it should I use it for a criminal enterprise or in a manner incompatible with the health of my neighbors.
The rest is just a jumble of childish, blatant misrepresentations and caricatures of what I claimed. Why should I try to communicate when there is not even an attempt to converse honestly?

D.

[Hogeye]

Ownership of something is jurisdiction over it. I'd be trying to recant, too, if I'd said such things as you did!

[Dardedar]

Ownership of something is jurisdiction over it.

DAR
Assbackwards. Jurisdiction does not require ownership. I am sorry the complex words "ownership" and "jurisdiction" have confused you. Perhaps you can only understand words as absolutes. That's unfortunate and not doubt leads to a lot of your confused conclusions. Obviously I have learned it is useless to hold your hand and take the time to teach you how they apply and that these words are often used in a less than absolute sense.

I'd be trying to recant, too, if I'd said such things as you did!

DAR
Showing that you misquoted my claim and my position, is not recanting.

D.

[Hogeye]

You are confusing legal jurisdiction (which has to do with territory over which a court has say) with jurisdiction over a thing (which has to do with disposition over it, i.e. ownership.)

Your rather absurd claim was that, simply by using dollars as a medium of exchange, someone agrees to be ruled by the US State. This clearly doesn't apply to foreigners who use dollars; neither does it apply to people the US claims as citizen-serfs. Switching to the legal meaning of the term is, of course, a red herring.

[Dardedar]

You are confusing legal jurisdiction (which has to do with territory over which a court has say) with jurisdiction over a thing (which has to do with disposition over it, i.e. ownership.)

DAR
I said "jurisdiction," you inaccurately said my claim was "ownership." And you want to pretend that I am the one that is confused? Not quite.

Your rather absurd claim was that, simply by using dollars as a medium of exchange, someone agrees to be ruled by the US State.

DAR
Obviously, if you are using US currency to buy and sell you are playing the game called US of A. The rules that go along with that game include paying the tax man. And it doesn't matter if you "pronounce" that you don't live in the US but rather "Jesus-land" (Hovind), or "Full-Auto" land (Fincher) or Ozarkia land (Hogeye). The judge just writes down on his little legal form that you are in fact a visitor from "La la land" and then he says NEXT! As he should.

D.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Oops, almost missed this howler:

This clearly doesn't apply to foreigners who use dollars;...

DAR
It does when they are buying and selling on US soil!

Try it and see.

Besides, neither you, nor Fincher, nor Hovind are foreigners. And you are playing the game in the US. What's that about red herrings?

Try and have a foreigner try to take $20,000 US cash across the border without doing a lot of s'plain'in. The state has jurisdiction, not ownership. There is a difference. Please make a note of it. Course, if you are a crook, there are rules that allow one to lead to the other.

D.

[Hogeye]

Darrel> If you are using US currency to buy and sell you are playing the game called US of A.

Hogeye> This clearly doesn't apply to foreigners who use dollars...

Darrel> It does when they are buying and selling on US soil!

Okay, so now you admit that using US dollars does not imply consent to play the game. Now we're back to your other claim that simply existing on US-claimed turf implies consent. But I've already refuted that - it has no more validity than claims of other extortion gangs.

Sure, extortion gangs such as State can claim jurisdiction, and perhaps even use violence to "support" their claim. But the question is whether they have a right to enforce such claims (and there is a moral obligation to obey.) You still have trouble distinguishing ethical statements from factual questions regarding the use of brute force. We are discussing the ethical question. I do not dispute that the US State, and other States and extortion gangs, often use violence to get their way.

[Doug]

Okay, so now you admit that using US dollars does not imply consent to play the game. Now we're back to your other claim that simply existing on US-claimed turf implies consent. But I've already refuted that - it has no more validity than claims of other extortion gangs...States and extortion gangs, often use violence to get their way.

DOUG
a. Using U.S. dollars implies that you recognize the legitimacy of the state issuing the dollars. Compare that with the current state of using confederate money.
b. You have not refuted the claim that living in the U.S. implies consent. It does. You use the resources, you should help pay for them unless you are destitute. Otherwise you are a "freeloader."

[Dardedar]

DOUG
a. Using U.S. dollars implies that you recognize the legitimacy of the state issuing the dollars.

DAR
Right. If you don't want to be governed by the rules involving US currency, don't use the currency. Participation is voluntary. The state has jurisdiction over it's currency.
Similarly, if you don't want to be governed by traffic rules, don't drive a vehicle on the state road. I own my vehicle, but the state has jurisdiction when I licence it and drive it on the state road.
Hogeye voluntarily chooses to participate in all of these things, so he is as I said, up to his eyeballs in playing the game and entirely without excuse when he pretends otherwise.

You use the resources, you should help pay for them unless you are destitute. Otherwise you are a "freeloader."

DAR
Another term might be parasite. Libertarian/anarcho freeloaders living parasitically on the successes of the government system while "pronouncing" they do otherwise.

D.

[Dardedar]

Okay, so now you admit that using US dollars does not imply consent to play the game.

DAR
No. There is the limitation in jurisidiction in that if people choose to use US currency to trade in another land, this would be outside of US jurisdiction (unless perhaps there is an arrangement with this country).

Now we're back to your other claim that simply existing on US-claimed turf implies consent.

DAR
I never claimed that. You do much more than "simply exist" in the US. You actively, daily, voluntarily choose to particiate. Did you flush your potty this morning or go poop in the backyard like a good consistent anarchist would? Thought so. You like that tax funded sewer system. And you like your potty flushed nice and clean with government approved and funded state regulated water too. So you're in. Now pay your taxes (if you produce anything) and follow the rules. If you aren't going to, then at least sit quietly at home and keep quiet. No good making a big production like Hovind and Fincher. Then you will just cost us all more money as we have to have you completely taken care of by the state in the big house.

D.

[Hogeye]

a. Using U.S. dollars implies that you recognize the legitimacy of the state issuing the dollars.

False. Using a medium of exchange simply means you chose to make a trade. It implies that you recognize a customary medium of exchange. It does not in any way imply consent to being ruled by others. Similarly, using silver rounds produced by Sunshine Mint does not imply that you consent to being ruled by the owners of Sunshine Mint.

Regarding (b): Using resources is a part of living . It certainly doesn't imply consent to being ruled. Nor does freeloading imply consent to be ruled.

Libertarian/anarcho freeloaders living parasitically on the successes of the government system while "pronouncing" they do otherwise.

The State uses aggression to take over and monopolize roads, courts, broadcast media, defense systems, land, etc. and then claims that, simply by using these unjustly captured goods and services, everyone agrees to be ruled. Anarchists, and libertarians in general, disagree. According to the statist "logic," someone who lives in a "company town" consents to pay the monopoly prices in the company store, and to abide by all edicts of the bosses, even if the company's land and property was taken by force and competition is annihilated by violence.

It's not consent if one doesn't agree; yet statists claim it's consent whether one agrees or not. Very convenient for the rulers, but a clear contradiction of the very meaning of "consent."

[Doug]

a. Using U.S. dollars implies that you recognize the legitimacy of the state issuing the dollars.

False. Using a medium of exchange simply means you chose to make a trade. It implies that you recognize a customary medium of exchange. It does not in any way imply consent to being ruled by others. Similarly, using silver rounds produced by Sunshine Mint does not imply that you consent to being ruled by the owners of Sunshine Mint.

DOUG
No one has in any way suggested that using money implies that you consent to be "ruled by others." No one rules in the U.S., despite your claims to the contrary, Hogeye.

However, using U.S. dollars DOES show that you agree that the state is issuing legitimate currency, or else you would not accept it.

You said it yourself: you make a trade. Why trade something legitimate for something that is not legitimate?

And why do you accept U.S. dollars in exchange for silver rounds?

[Dardedar]

The State uses aggression to take over and monopolize roads,...

DAR
Actually, we have the government build the vast majority of the roads and they are owned collectively by the people, via the state. You're welcome.

Another obvious example, is how you contradict your beliefs every time you come in here via Al Gore's invention: the government built internet. The examples of your participation in and recognition of the legitimacy of the state are like all of the rest of us players, nearly endless (quite contrary to your protestations and "pronouncements"). It's not what you say, it's what you do.

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Interesting that, by some folks views, it is expected that if you walk into Kinkos and use their equipment, you will of course pay for that use before you walk out the door. It's part of the understood contract with Kinkos. But if you use the government-built streets, or the library, or the internet and are expected to pay for it via taxes - that's robbery, because there is no understood contract regarding that.

[Hogeye]

We have the government build the vast majority of the roads and they are owned collectively by the people.

Another irrational statist article of faith. FYI: ownership = right of dispostion over something; possession with the right to transfer possession to others. Clearly the State owns all but a few private roads.

Yes, Government Did Invent the Internet, But the Market Made It Glorious. Had it remained in govt control it would probably be used by only the military and a few govt researchers.

Good message, Barbara. I referred to a similar argument using restaurants earlier. Thanks for the opportunity to answer it. The Kinko's (or restaurant) argument rests on these premises:

1) That Kinko's is the legitimate owner of the space in question.
2) That customers agree to standard capitalist conventions regarding duty to pay.
3) That customers are not forced, by e.g. monopoly privilege, to patronize Kinkos.

All three premises fail when applied to the State.

1) The legitimacy of the State's ownership over "everything" (their turf) is contested. It contradicts private ownership (such as Kinko's ownership, or private home ownership.) Furthermore, the State gained its turf by conquest rather than the principles of distributive justice - homesteading and voluntary trade.

2) Anarchists (and many libertarians) don't agree with the convention of paying taxes. We see it as nothing more than legalized robbery. Remember that Lysander Spooner quote I read?

3) The State claims a territorial monopoly over it's turf, and forces competing court, police, and road companies out of business (or into a subordinate role, existing only at the whim of rulers so long as protection money is paid.)