fayfreethinkers.com

Religious fundamentalists assert that "rights" come from their god. Unbelieving secularists often counter that they come from our founding documents. Both are wrong. In what I promise is an informative and thought provoking essay, SOVEREIGN RIGHTS, I debunk the notion that our founders were creating a Christian nation. It explains the classical liberal roots of our founders' thinking, the nature of our Republic, why it is not a Democracy, and the sovereign individual's place in our society. -Dave

See also FFRF's nontract on this topic.
These will be available at the Fayetteville Freethinker booth at Springfest '07 on April 21 on Dickson Street.

Questions for Dave about his Sovereign Rights essay:

Question 1: Earlier in the essay, you say you prefer competing governments.

Dave wrote:Pooling our resources to invest in infrastructure and public services that facilitate our mutual interests in protection, commerce, and amusement makes perfect sense; and I am willing to share in the expenses to the extent that I will use them. 
My natural preference would be to contract out such functions, to the greatest extent possible, to independent entrepreneurs who must win their contracts competitively, and thus provide their services as efficiently as possible with our available funds.

Later you reject sovereign individuals choosing governments according to their tastes and requirements, and suddenly seem to assume that there must be one supreme government, with only the choice of which candidates become "guardians" for that government. Can you give your reason for rejecting the multiple competing governments idea?

Question 2: You write,

Dave wrote:It is important to recognize that no one has the right to trespass on my property, or use it in any way without my permission.  No one has a right to confiscate my wealth or earnings, or force me to do anything I deem not in my best interest.  All attempts to do so, even under the color of law, are acts of aggression."

Are you saying that you recognize a right of the individual to stop paying taxes and start new governments?

Question 3: You write,

Dave wrote:The hierarchy of sovereign power in these United States goes thusly:  All rights and powers belong to sovereign individuals.  For the benefits of community, these sovereigns loan a small fraction of their power to their local county government, yet remain in the superior sovereign position as the employers of their county functionaries. ... For the same reasons, and by the same process, they loan to their State some of the limited power they received from their individual sovereigns. ... The States in turn, in an original free trade (think NAFTA) and mutual defense (think NATO) compact, formed a Union of autonomous countries (think EU), by passing a very small portion of the residual sovereign power they received from the counties on to an extremely limited, and exceedingly restrained, Federal Republic.

I can see how this "inverted pyramid" was the design idea of at least some of the founders. But don't you agree that in fact, in actuality, this doesn't remotely apply today?

Question 4: Do you think that the change in the US from bottom-up individual to county to state to State to its virtual opposite is an accident (of history, personalities, or whatever), or is there something in the nature of political power that might explain the apparent power-expansion process?


Unrelated question: Darrel and I have been discussing censorship in another thread. I do not consider it censorship to be banned from your site or you deleting my posts; Darrel apparently would consider it censorship. What you you think?

BTW, I have some commentary about the "Taxpayer" essay on your site. Would you like to hear it?

Bill,

Question 1: Suggesting that services should be contracted out to entrepreneurs does not imply that two or more concurrent suppliers makes any sense at all, much less "competing governments" on a local basis. For the same reasons that having two competing utility suppliers (electricity, water, gas, sewer, et al) would be grossly inefficient and problematic, having different competing agencies responsible for roads, fire, police, courts, etc. within the same jurisdiction seems inefficient and unworkable to me.

I'd have no problem with contracting out the whole business to the Mafia. They could do the job with more efficacy and evenhandedness for only 10% of our earnings, rather than the 50%+ that the current crop of thieves is costing us. I would view them as just a particularly efficient form of Voltaire's benevolent dictatorship, where they even take care of the necessary periodic assignations.

Question 2: Not exactly. In theory perhaps, but at this late date, if one acquires property that is already on the tax rolls of a particular local jurisdiction, I would think it immoral to avail oneself of any of the infrastructure of that jurisdiction without sharing in its upkeep, and perhaps repaying the bonds floated to build the infrastructure in the first place. Although I can get plenty of heartburn over how local governments choose to waste tax receipts, in principle I have less grief with property taxes than most other forms.

That paragraph was to set up the following one, where I make the point that while I may cooperate with a coercive agent out of prudence, I do not grant the premise that they have a legitimate mission just because they act on behalf of "society."

Question 3: I think I made the point that the corruption of the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, along with the Federal Reserve Act/system et al, has in fact changed the way our governments now operate at all levels, and the way Americans view their position in the hierarchy. So what? Ask you're local Sheriff if IRS agents can operate in his county without his permission.

Question 4: I thought I covered that. Power corrupts. Politicians are by nature power seekers. Most Americans are sheeple. Most politicians and most sheeple can be bought. There are damn few statesmen and too few individual sovereigns left. If the politicians care more about their careers than their country, and the sheeple care more about their security and amusements than their liberty, then we are on the downhill slide to tyranny, aren't we?

Censorship: I would view censorship as only something that a coercive power, i.e. government, could do. You have the right to stand on a street corner and call for the killing of all Narcs, and if the government were to shut you up, that would be censorship. You have the right to stand in your yard and do so, but I don't have to allow you to come on my property to do so. You have a right to say what you wish on your own website, and I have a right to establish the decorum I prefer for my own.

I left the links to your site there for any who wish to follow them. I was actually enjoying our debate, but eventually I just decided that the purpose of my forum is not to advocate or discuss anarchism on every thread. The advocating of killing Narcs who you have never met, and have done nothing personally to you, was over the top; and that sort of rhetoric has the opposite effect of winning converts to your cause, no matter how cogent your arguments otherwise might be.

Sure, if Darrel doesn't mind, start a new thread linked to my taxpayer piece and I will see what you have to say about it. -Dave

.

Question 1 follow up:

Dave wrote:Suggesting that services should be contracted out to entrepreneurs does not imply that two or more concurrent suppliers makes any sense at all, much less "competing governments" on a local basis. For the same reasons that having two competing utility suppliers (electricity, water, gas, sewer, et al) would be grossly inefficient and problematic, having different competing agencies responsible for roads, fire, police, courts, etc. within the same jurisdiction seems inefficient and unworkable to me.

Shouldn't it be up to the market - the interaction of free, sovereign individuals - to determine what is efficient, rather than decree of ruler-guardians? Also, shouldn't it be up to the market whether "roads, fire, police, courts, etc." services should be horizontally integrated into one single provider? After all, in many times and places those services were provided quite efficiently by separate firms.

Question 2 follow up:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that one is not obligated to pay arbitrarily high property taxes. Is that correct? Also, you seem to be saying that, if you have already paid your share of infrastructure costs, you may quit paying further tax, and start or join another government. Is this correct?

Question 3 follow up:
You seem to be trying to have it both ways here, Dave. You write that "the corruption of the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, along with the Federal Reserve Act/system et al, has in fact changed the way our governments now operate at all levels has been inverted to a top." This seems to agree that the "pyramid" has been inverted to top-down rulership. But then you immediately follow that with, "So what? Ask your local Sheriff if IRS agents can operate in his county without his permission." This makes it sound like you don't agree that the pyramid has been inverted.

Let me say that I don't agree with the implication of your comment about the local sheriff - that the federal agency would comply with the wishes of the sheriff. I've seen numerous cases of the fedgoons overriding local law. E.g. When I was living in San Francisco, federal DEA types closed down cannabis clubs against the wishes of the local police and district attorney. In the real world, the central government's FBI, DEA, Homeland Security, INS, and IRS routinely overrides local governments. Your example is remarkably unconvincing. Asking permission of the local sheriff is a mere formality. If the local sheriff denied permission for the FBI, DEA, or IRS agents to come into his county, the fedgoons would of course do it anyway. Your example would be more convincing if you could find a case where a sheriff refused permission to the IRS (and refused to collect for them), and the IRS subsequently did not bother the targeted resident within the county.

Question 4 follow up:
Your answer here seems pretty clear: "Power corrupts. Politicians are by nature power seekers." You seem to agree with me that growth in State power over time is a more-or-less inevitable invisible hand process, that the problem is the institution of State rather than personalities or historical accident. Yes, I agree that statist systems are, by their very nature, "on the downhill slide to tyranny." The logical conclusion, of course, is that we should create new "governments" of a type less subject to such natural corruption. Maybe you should reconsider the competing government idea, in conjunction with the less horizontal integration notion.