Hello this is a debate that started in the "Founding Fathers Thread" I am discussing with Maxx and presumeable others... Like the FBI... My perspective of the morality of having a government vs the allowing the individual the maximum amount of freedom to make choices for themselves.
I am copying the last post from me to Maxx to pick up our conversation, please feel free to chime in.
Ahh but why Maxx?
I don't have to be a LaMOE to live by choice within the context of society, I work and make a means to trade with those who work and produce the items I desire. Trade is possible when two people agree on the value of each others labors and product. I teach and for that I earn Money, ( l see the contradiction, that money is controlled and distributed by the federal government but for now it is the system we have to work and a Rational Anarchist does not want the eradication of all government only the reduction to its primary parts, hence the rational part of the concept)I then trade that money for another mans labor, say rice in which he then trades for my services and so on in a macro scale.
Those engineers where not forced by a government to pursue the art of engineering and then to develop the techno wonders of our age, they worked collectively by individual choice. As for rule to society, but what standards are those rules set?
I wish you had responded to the upper half of my post about the nature of Government law and the "rights" in the constitution, more often I don't get many logical counters to my argument, I was hoping for one here.
We as individuals do not "Need" a government to live. But it is fair to say that a Government comes in handy for things like a military, a common method of trade like money and a structure that allows the individuals full control over who is in every leadership position. Rational Anarchist's recognize that not all people are able at this point to live completely free, either by training, laziness or nuance of birth and one cannot ask the population to simply dissolve the path of control overnight as Ron Paul would have us do, that would lead to violence and destruction. No this is gradual process and starts with the personal decision to choose to accept or reject every specific form of control as you come across it.
You may even do that now, ever speed? Are you rejecting that the government knows best the safe speed on the highway for the belief that you know that you, the individual can safely do 70 in 65? Why if you are certain that you can safely do 70 should you be threatened with suffering for not doing the 65 required by law? Are the blanket laws smarter and more capable then you as a thinking human being?
Or do this Maxx, Explain to me why we "Need" a set of rules. its an honest question and one we debate in class for about a week every semester.
---------- Post added at 14:50 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------
Originally Posted by Fragarach
THIS IS from WBDADDY on the other thread but its to good not bring over here.
Your comments about the absurdity of delineating rights protected by the constitution were exactly the reason why the Bill of Rights were ten amendments to the original constitution. The people who drafted the original document felt that those rights "went without saying", that the Constitution served no purpose other than to clearly define the scope of federal government, and they only added the Bill of Rights because numerous states refused to ratify the document if those rights were not clearly stated.
That said, the SCOTUS has betrayed the constitution time and again by expanding vague powers like the Interstate Commerce Clause to render the 10th amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) completely and utterly irrelevant, which is the greatest tragedy of the 20th century in America. It started with Wickard v. Filburn ( Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), which opened the floodgates to any conceivable federal regulation being upheld under the preponderance of the Chaos Theory interpretation.
Here's how it works: Some guy in Pocatello, Idaho smokes a joint he rolled from pot he grew in his backyard to relieve his chronic back pain. This, in turn, causes his primary care doctor in neighboring Malad City to not be able to prescribe him Norflex for that back pain, which the guy would therefore not get filled at the local pharmacy, which would then hurt the sales of the prescription drug distribution center in Ogden, UT (which supplies Malad City and Pocatello pharmacies). Because that distributor loses money because this guy smoked pot instead of taking Norflex, his smoking pot qualifies as interstate commerce, subject to regulation by the federal government.
Go ahead and laugh. Then read Wickard v. Filburn and let me know if you're still laughing.