"definitive Conclusion By Logic"

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Behunin+Feb 7 2004, 05:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Behunin @ Feb 7 2004, 05:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Feb 5 2004, 03:39 PM

You know what we really need is a forum for people to come and report their experiences with lawyers and cops.

I think it would be filled up with bad experiences so fast, they would have over-load problems.

No matter where we are, and no matter what kind of croud we are mingling with, when the topics of bad experiences with lawyers and cops comes up, everyone....and I do mean everyone....has a story or two or three or more to tell.

I think your correct, but I think it would be a very educational website, and a healing one too!

Maybe you and I should start one.........

I know nothing of how to start a websight....but if you do...I will help anyway I can! :)

[Cal]

Again you resort to ad homenin attacks. I address each "substantive" point you raise and you come back being non-responsive and hurling personal attacks. You have not shown where any of the points I have raised are incorrect.

You speak of a "complex society" and then talk about "forcibly" removing people. You are so closed off to new ideas you fail to see the flaws in your statements. I do not have to the time to point out all the flaws in that first paragraph.

First, in the act of trying to kill, maim, rob and rape, in a truly free society a potential victim may be armed (oh no, maybe even concealed!) and may defend themselves. However, after the fact such "perp" may be removed from society in a non-violent manner. There are alternatives to violence. Remember Ghandi?

I don't suggest a "government" doing anything but leaving people alone and getting real jobs. Normal people provide their services and products on a voluntary basis.

And this is where you have a problem. You attack me by comparing me to a "4 year old." Yet, at the heart of this, you believe a mere service, provided by men and women, should be provided on a compulsory basis. Apparently you cannot conceive of a service, provided by men and women, being provided and paid for on a voluntary basis. This appears to be your problem. You think coercion is necessary to provide a service. Why can't the same services, by the same people, be provided on a voluntary basis like other services?

Last, there are only two groups of men and women who provide their services on a compulsory basis: 1) gansters and 2) so-called "governments."

Very little in your response makes any sense:

1) I responded to your claim that the government has no business "forcing" people to behave a certain way by pointing out to you that the only way to deal will law breakers is to punish them! Absent punishment, law breakers would soon take over the world---in case you haven't noticed "the natural man is an enemy to god", and might I add to everyone else TOO"

2) Voluntary--what do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that law enforcement personnel are "forced" to work at their jobs? This is what I mean by "la la land". The last time I checked ANY government worker, or any worker ANYWHERE in the united states can walk off his job any time he wants, as a general rule (obviously a fireman, say, has a duty to do his job while he is commited to it)---but once you quit your job, who is "forcing" you to do it? Please, give me one example of some one performing a service on anything BUT a voluntary basis!

Talk about not addressing the issues--your diatribe about "voluntariness" is so vague and nebulous that, until you get more specific and define your terms, no one is going to be able to respond in a meaningful fashion. I have had to define your terms for you in order to even approach a logical response.

PS There is nothing ad homenin about this, all I'm asking you to do is explain yourself clearly and logically.

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 7 2004, 02:07 PM

Very little in your response makes any sense:

1) I responded to your claim that the government has no business "forcing" people to behave a certain way by pointing out to you that the only way to deal will law breakers is to punish them! Absent punishment, law breakers would soon take over the world---in case you haven't noticed "the natural man is an enemy to god", and might I add to everyone else TOO"

2) Voluntary--what do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that law enforcement personnel are "forced" to work at their jobs? This is what I mean by "la la land". The last time I checked ANY government worker, or any worker ANYWHERE in the united states can walk off his job any time he wants, as a general rule (obviously a fireman, say, has a duty to do his job while he is commited to it)---but once you quit your job, who is "forcing" you to do it? Please, give me one example of some one performing a service on anything BUT a voluntary basis!

Talk about not addressing the issues--your diatribe about "voluntariness" is so vague and nebulous that, until you get more specific and define your terms, no one is going to be able to respond in a meaningful fashion. I have had to define your terms for you in order to even approach a logical response.

PS There is nothing ad homenin about this, all I'm asking you to do is

1) You miss the point by going to the alleged "law breakers." The "government" forces their "services" on their pretended customers. Why don't you address that?

2) This appers to be a lawyer tactic (I get your little ploy, this isn't a court room though). But I will still respond for others reading this thread.

When I write voluntary, I mean the men and women DBA ("doing business as") a so-called "government" do not provide their "services" to their pretended customers (so-called "citizens" and "taxpayers") on a voluntary basis, it is compulsory. This means the customer has no choice whether he wants the service or not. He gets it and must pay for it. The customer is a customer not by his freely given consent, but by compulsion.

Go ahead and call this "diatribe" also; but I doubt you will address it directly. Or do you require me to first define each word such as government, men, women, service, voluntary, compulsion, business, and forcing?

As far as the "natural man," you are again way off base. The "natural man" is not limited to "law breakers." A "natural man" is someone who is carnal, sensual and devilish." Devilish is one who seeks to control others, remember the plan that was rejected? Carnal and sensual has to do with someone who serves his senses, he understands everything literally based on what he can see, hear etc. Why is he an enemy to God? Because faith, the first principal and ordinance of the Gospel, is "hope for things which are not seen..." Alma 32:21. Unless one is at the tree of life, which includes comprehending God (D&C 88:49), they are a "natural man."

[Guest Starsky]

As far as the "natural man," you are again way off base. The "natural man" is not limited to "law breakers." A "natural man" is someone who is carnal, sensual and devilish." Devilish is one who seeks to control others, remember the plan that was rejected? Carnal and sensual has to do with someone who serves his senses, he understands everything literally based on what he can see, hear etc. Why is he an enemy to God? Because faith, the first principal and ordinance of the Gospel, is "hope for things which are not seen..." Alma 32:21. Unless one is at the tree of life, which includes comprehending God (D&C 88:49), they are a "natural man."

Brilliantly expressed. Thank you.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Behunin+Feb 7 2004, 09:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Behunin @ Feb 7 2004, 09:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 7 2004, 02:07 PM

Very little in your response makes any sense:

1) I responded to your claim that the government has no business "forcing" people to behave a certain way by pointing out to you that the only way to deal will law breakers is to punish them! Absent punishment, law breakers would soon take over the world---in case you haven't noticed "the natural man is an enemy to god", and might I add to everyone else TOO"

2) Voluntary--what do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that law enforcement personnel are "forced" to work at their jobs? This is what I mean by "la la land". The last time I checked ANY government worker, or any worker ANYWHERE in the united states can walk off his job any time he wants, as a general rule (obviously a fireman, say, has a duty to do his job while he is commited to it)---but once you quit your job, who is "forcing" you to do it? Please, give me one example of some one performing a service on anything BUT a voluntary basis!

Talk about not addressing the issues--your diatribe about "voluntariness" is so vague and nebulous that, until you get more specific and define your terms, no one is going to be able to respond in a meaningful fashion. I have had to define your terms for you in order to even approach a logical response.

PS There is nothing ad homenin about this, all I'm asking you to do is

1) You miss the point by going to the alleged "law breakers." The "government" forces their "services" on their pretended customers. Why don't you address that?

2) This appers to be a lawyer tactic (I get your little ploy, this isn't a court room though). But I will still respond for others reading this thread.

When I write voluntary, I mean the men and women DBA ("doing business as") a so-called "government" do not provide their "services" to their pretended customers (so-called "citizens" and "taxpayers") on a voluntary basis, it is compulsory. This means the customer has no choice whether he wants the service or not. He gets it and must pay for it. The customer is a customer not by his freely given consent, but by compulsion.

Go ahead and call this "diatribe" also; but I doubt you will address it directly. Or do you require me to first define each word such as government, men, women, service, voluntary, compulsion, business, and forcing?

As far as the "natural man," you are again way off base. The "natural man" is not limited to "law breakers." A "natural man" is someone who is carnal, sensual and devilish." Devilish is one who seeks to control others, remember the plan that was rejected? Carnal and sensual has to do with someone who serves his senses, he understands everything literally based on what he can see, hear etc. Why is he an enemy to God? Because faith, the first principal and ordinance of the Gospel, is "hope for things which are not seen..." Alma 32:21. Unless one is at the tree of life, which includes comprehending God (D&C 88:49), they are a "natural man."

Beh---paraphrasing, "the government forces their services on its customers"--again, you must be more specific--give me an example that I can address. I'll guess at what you mean--let's say, income taxes. Yes, the government forces you to pay them. If you don't they take away your property, by force, if necessary. It an example of what you mean?

If you mean what I think you mean, I'm starting to think you live in a cabin in the mountains of Montana, and the nearest town is 40 miles away, and it has 10 people in it. Do you not actually understand that in a complex society, without government regulation, you have chaos and anarchy? It's as simple as traffic lights and stop signs. Sure nobody "likes" them, but without them, people get hurt. Are you suggesting we do without trafic lights, so you don't have to pay for them? If you and I don't pay for them, who should? The Chinese?

You don't like government services? You don't want to be a "customer"? Then don't let me catch you driving to work on roads the rest of us are perfectly will to PAY FOR? Who do you think you are, some kind of freeloader, who doesn't have to pay his share, who doesn't have to be a "customer" of the government, who gets all the benefits of governement, without paying for it. If you don't want to participate in government, and pay your way as a "customer", then.....

get off the roads, don't let me catch you calling the fire department when your house catches on fire; when a robber busts into your house, don't let me catch you calling the police; when your kid falls out of the tree and needs immediate paramedic attention, don't let me catch you calling the fire department paramedics, handle it yourself!

If you don't want to be a customer, and pay your taxes like the rest of us, then get the ______out of the country, WE DON'T LIKE FREELOADERS!

[Guest Starsky]

I do know the government doesn't give us enough of a voice....on a level where we don't have to quit our jobs just to run to and fro to make our voice heard.

We have had a bunch of horrible old fashioned street lamps installed around our city at a great cost to us all here. Our roads are in horrid disrepair and these lights are so low to the ground that they cause a glare for the drivers on the roads.

When we complained about them, we were told that they had a city counsel meeting where this was being discussed and we had a chance then to speak up...well it happened to be on the same night as teacher-parents night at schools...major games at the highschools and other things that would have cause a very low turn out.....not to mention it was not even posted or advertised in any local paper, or mailing.

It would have taken someone who did nothing but dog this city 24 hours a day to have any valid say so.

Our bigger government use our taxes to fund abortions.....we have written our congressman, and tried to keep abreast of ways we could fight this...but it all becomes a full time job.

[Cal]

So run for office and fix it all!

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 8 2004, 01:32 PM

So run for office and fix it all!

Yes of course. I can leave my family, and home and all the work I do, to go and fix all the crap these guys have done...

But, I am not a politition, and as such am vulnerable to their unethical practices...which means, I would not be able to be elected because of their tactics and mud slinging.

Not only that, if I was elected, they, being unethical, will nullify my works...

It is as Behunin stated....it is all compulsion through unethical means. The bully always wins because he has no conscience (or doesn't listen to it).

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 8 2004, 09:59 AM

Beh---paraphrasing, "the government forces their services on its customers"--again, you must be more specific--give me an example that I can address. I'll guess at what you mean--let's say, income taxes. Yes, the government forces you to pay them. If you don't they take away your property, by force, if necessary. It an example of what you mean?

If you mean what I think you mean, I'm starting to think you live in a cabin in the mountains of Montana, and the nearest town is 40 miles away, and it has 10 people in it. Do you not actually understand that in a complex society, without government regulation, you have chaos and anarchy? It's as simple as traffic lights and stop signs. Sure nobody "likes" them, but without them, people get hurt. Are you suggesting we do without trafic lights, so you don't have to pay for them? If you and I don't pay for them, who should? The Chinese?

You don't like government services? You don't want to be a "customer"? Then don't let me catch you driving to work on roads the rest of us are perfectly will to PAY FOR? Who do you think you are, some kind of freeloader, who doesn't have to pay his share, who doesn't have to be a "customer" of the government, who gets all the benefits of governement, without paying for it. If you don't want to participate in government, and pay your way as a "customer", then.....

get off the roads, don't let me catch you calling the fire department when your house catches on fire; when a robber busts into your house, don't let me catch you calling the police; when your kid falls out of the tree and needs immediate paramedic attention, don't let me catch you calling the fire department paramedics, handle it yourself!

If you don't want to be a customer, and pay your taxes like the rest of us, then get the ______out of the country, WE DON'T LIKE FREELOADERS!

Once again you deflect attention away from the issue. Are you capable of directly addressing an issue? Those tactics may be effective with other lawyers in a court room controlled by a lawyer, but you're not in a court room.

I have been specific, "government" is a group of men and women. These men and women claim to be "protecing life, liberty and property." This "service" is not provided on a voluntary, freely take it or leave it basis.

Traffic lights do not have to be provided on a compulsory basis. They can be paid for just as another other service and product. Can you explain why traffic lights are different from other products?

What will you do if you catch me on the roads? Will you shoot me in front of my kids? The fair share argument, give me a break. Do you realize you are supporting a service provided on a violent basis? I guess you see nothing wrong with the way the mafia does business. Don't like the service John Gotti is forcing on you and the neighborhood? Pay your fair share and move out. Don't let me catch you enjoying the benefit of a neighborhood even the police admit is made safer by the mob than the so-called "government."

Freeloader? Taxes are taken out of my paycheck every week. You don't like freeloaders, but you do seem to like people who take property by force under the guise of protection. They are the criminals. A freeloader is someone who gets something for nothing and that is "government." "Government" does not create value, it takes it, violently. And they have an army of apologists called lawyers to justify it.

You see, the "state" is the only service that comes with its own religion, it's called politics. And its followers (victims) ALWAYS respond emotionally when they feel it is being attacked. You probably justify a compulsory service because you personally profit from it.

[Cal]

Beh--you said: Traffic lights do not have to be provided on a compulsory basis. They can be paid for just as another other service and product. Can you explain why traffic lights are different from other products?

What the____are you talking about? Who is going to pay for them, if not the tax payer. By the way, has it ever dawned on you that the "government" is us? People, just like you and me, trying to make sure that society runs smoothly. No perfectly, but smoothly and with some fairness. How are traffic lights NOT paid for like any other product? THEY ARE. The city, county or state has a budget. It purchases the traffic lights from a PRIVATE company that makes them. How is that NOT like any other product purchase?

Beside the fact that you and I have no vote in how the Mafia operates, another massive difference between the government and the MAFIA is called DUE PROCESS. Do you know what that means? Look it up. It's a fundamental principle upon which all government action is taken. When the government takes something from you, like a traffic fine, or the IRS takes property for the payment of taxes, you have a RIGHT to a hearing and to state your case. SINCE WHEN DID THE MAFIA EVER HOLD A HEARING BEFORE IT TAKES SOMETHING FROM YOU, like you life.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

In a consensual form of government like a republic, the classical thinking is that the government's use of force and compulsion to enforce the laws is different from the force used by a gangster because the citizens are deemed to have consented to the laws and their enforcement. It's like in contract law -- if I make a contract to do something, and consent to enforcement of the contract against me if I don't perform, then I can't complain if I'm compelled to perform if I don't do it voluntarily. In that example, I've consented to have force used against me in a certain circumstance, and while it looks, at the time of my compelled performance, that I'm being made to do something against my will, if you go back to the original transaction, you would find that I'd freely agreed to the compulsion.

Now, I suppose I could set up a "contract" which expressly denied each party's right to sue. In that case, it wouldn't be an enforceable contract. Essentially, each party would simply be hoping that the other party was as good as his word. If someone didn't perform, what could be done? I could go out and put the nonperforming party in cement shoes and dump him in the river. That would signal to future contractors with me that breaking an agreement with me isn't a good idea. On the other hand, that's even worse than suing him. Aside from the fact that he's dead instead of just broke, he never consented to my using force against him.

I could also just refuse to do business with him anymore, and help the word get around that he's unreliable. In the long run, a chronic dealbreaker would find no one willing to do business with him, and go out of business. The problem is that the long run can be really, really long, and can't be calculated exactly. This form of enforcement has what economists call transaction costs that are higher than they have to be. In other words, if the rule was "buyer beware" and everyone had to rely on what they could learn about the reputation of each person they did business with, we'd waste great deals of time and money doing this research, which time could be spent more productively in getting things done. Think about how efficient it is not to have to think every time you go to the bank or the grocery store about whether you're going to be cheated.

The problem with applying this reasoning to a government context is that a person's consent to be governed is invariably imperfect. Even in a democratic government, where the majority generally rules, the people who are in the minority on an issue don't get their way. The theory is that they've consented to a system where they don't always get their way, and so when they occasionally don't, they've consented to that, too. In addition, in any large society, a person's individual consent tends to get diluted by the sheer number of voters. It's a far cry from Thomas Paine's hypothetical handful of primordial citizens hammering out each question under an oak tree.

The idea that legitimate governments can only govern by consent has been the leading idea in Western politics for over three hundred years. It's the central focus of the thinking of Cromwell, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Thomas Paine, and was the basis of the American Revolution (the idea being that the colonies' theoretical "consent" to be governed by the British crown was too attenuated to be taken seriously.) The democratic ideal is to make a person's consent to be governed as real as possible, while still preserving the order without which the transaction costs of society are so high as to be horribly inefficient. We're still trying to find the balance between the democratic ideal of rule by popular majorities and institutions (like the amendments to the Constitution and the courts) that are designed to prevent the enactment by popular majorities of measures that no minority could reasonably be deemed ever to consent to. I love this process, no matter how frustrating individual incidents of it can sometimes be (i.e. about half of what the Supreme Court does).

Note for Behunin -- I'm not sure how a society based on Gandhi's ideas of nonviolence could ever function. His system was only used successfully a couple of times, and in each case it was used to do away with unfair government practices -- not to actively govern. In addition, you can count on your fingers the number of times active nonviolence has been used successfully against any system but an English-speaking democracy. The system relies on the conscience of its target. It doesn't work when the target doesn't have a conscience, which is why Gandhi's suggestion that the British should let the Nazis take all of England they wanted and that the Jews should meet the Nazis' persecutions with nonviolence was singularly moronic and naive. In the real world, one has to assume that not everyone has a conscience that can successfully be appealed to.

[Cal]

PD--very nice post. thank you for being willing to spell it out that clearly. I guess I just don't have the patience. I'm afraid it probably went right over AFD's head though.

[Guest Starsky]

Note for Behunin -- I'm not sure how a society based on Gandhi's ideas of nonviolence could ever function. His system was only used successfully a couple of times, and in each case it was used to do away with unfair government practices -- not to actively govern. In addition, you can count on your fingers the number of times active nonviolence has been used successfully against any system but an English-speaking democracy. The system relies on the conscience of its target. It doesn't work when the target doesn't have a conscience, which is why Gandhi's suggestion that the British should let the Nazis take all of England they wanted and that the Jews should meet the Nazis' persecutions with nonviolence was singularly moronic and naive. In the real world, one has to assume that not everyone has a conscience that can successfully be appealed to.

This is only because we are on the earth, not in heaven...but it doesn't mean we aren't to try. We just must consider what we are up against....here where the demons have most of the power:

Ephes. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Of course, this is probably just going right over your heads...

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 9 2004, 01:51 PM

Note for Behunin -- I'm not sure how a society based on Gandhi's ideas of nonviolence could ever function. His system was only used successfully a couple of times, and in each case it was used to do away with unfair government practices -- not to actively govern. In addition, you can count on your fingers the number of times active nonviolence has been used successfully against any system but an English-speaking democracy. The system relies on the conscience of its target. It doesn't work when the target doesn't have a conscience, which is why Gandhi's suggestion that the British should let the Nazis take all of England they wanted and that the Jews should meet the Nazis' persecutions with nonviolence was singularly moronic and naive. In the real world, one has to assume that not everyone has a conscience that can successfully be appealed to.

This is only because we are on the earth, not in heaven...but it doesn't mean we aren't to try. We just must consider what we are up against....here where the demons have most of the power:

Ephes. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Of course, this is probably just going right over your heads...

Over our heads? Not at all. I think PD and I understand full well where you are coming from. You believe in a magical mystical world where things are as you WISH they were. We live in a world that actually exists.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 9 2004, 02:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 9 2004, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Feb 9 2004, 01:51 PM

Note for Behunin -- I'm not sure how a society based on Gandhi's ideas of nonviolence could ever function. His system was only used successfully a couple of times, and in each case it was used to do away with unfair government practices -- not to actively govern. In addition, you can count on your fingers the number of times active nonviolence has been used successfully against any system but an English-speaking democracy. The system relies on the conscience of its target. It doesn't work when the target doesn't have a conscience, which is why Gandhi's suggestion that the British should let the Nazis take all of England they wanted and that the Jews should meet the Nazis' persecutions with nonviolence was singularly moronic and naive. In the real world, one has to assume that not everyone has a conscience that can successfully be appealed to.

This is only because we are on the earth, not in heaven...but it doesn't mean we aren't to try. We just must consider what we are up against....here where the demons have most of the power:

Ephes. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Of course, this is probably just going right over your heads...

Over our heads? Not at all. I think PD and I understand full well where you are coming from. You believe in a magical mystical world where things are as you WISH they were. We live in a world that actually exists.

Like I said, its over your heads.

[Cal]

Peace--how can it be over my head? I was once right where you are--a TBM without a doubt in the world, never having questioned, just believing everything I was told. LIke you I assumed the nice warm fuzzy feelings meant that JS was credible, that the BoM was a true history of the native americans as Hebrews etc---but I'm not there anymore, thank God, and would never want to be. I now realize that nice warm fuzzy feelings come from a lot of sources, and are not necessarily from God. They can arize in our own minds and do so with frequency. NO--the path to truth is thru objective, scientific and thoughful consideration. I found myself a very comfortable middle ground---no more cognitive dissonance---no more calling black white---no more defending the indefensible.

Yes, the idea of the God YOU describe, does go over my head---on purpose. I don't want anything to do with THAT kind of God. The one that makes sinners out of gay people; the one that says that only mormons can go to the "best" heaven; the one that says that native americans are hebrews (black is white); the one that told JS to send missionaries to England so he could steal their wives; the one that killed everyone on earth in a flood because they had gotten a little rebelious or the one that says that the earth was created 7 thousand years ago, inspite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. No, MY God is a God of rationality and compasion, not one of judgement, irrationality and vengefulness.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Peace+Feb 9 2004, 02:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 9 2004, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 9 2004, 02:00 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Feb 9 2004, 01:51 PM

Note for Behunin -- I'm not sure how a society based on Gandhi's ideas of nonviolence could ever function. His system was only used successfully a couple of times, and in each case it was used to do away with unfair government practices -- not to actively govern. In addition, you can count on your fingers the number of times active nonviolence has been used successfully against any system but an English-speaking democracy. The system relies on the conscience of its target. It doesn't work when the target doesn't have a conscience, which is why Gandhi's suggestion that the British should let the Nazis take all of England they wanted and that the Jews should meet the Nazis' persecutions with nonviolence was singularly moronic and naive. In the real world, one has to assume that not everyone has a conscience that can successfully be appealed to.

This is only because we are on the earth, not in heaven...but it doesn't mean we aren't to try. We just must consider what we are up against....here where the demons have most of the power:

Ephes. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Of course, this is probably just going right over your heads...

Over our heads? Not at all. I think PD and I understand full well where you are coming from. You believe in a magical mystical world where things are as you WISH they were. We live in a world that actually exists.

Like I said, its over your heads.

I sooooooooo agree with you Peace. :) B)

[Jenda]

Cal, I am not sure from reading your posts that you believe in any God at all. You attack anyone who claims to believe in a God and refuse to answer questions where you are asked to describe the God you believe in. If you believed in a God, I would assume that you feel some pull towards believing in some concept of a society where all are equal, there are no homeless and poor, and which everyone treats each other with love and respect (a society which the Mormons/Restorationist religions call Zion.)

We all know the problems inherent in the government institutions of the different societies present here on the earth (kingdoms, communism, democracy, etc.), so maybe you could define just how you view that type of society. What it would look like, how it would be governed, how you would guarantee peace, etc.

I don't think it is fair of you to pick apart someone elses personal view without defining your own so we have the same advantage.

If you think your ideas are sooo much better than those presented here, I am all ears.

[Guest antishock82003]

Isn't that sweet? Hold to the rod!

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 9 2004, 04:05 PM

Isn't that sweet? Hold to the rod!

Yes, it is sweet, and definitely hold to the rod.

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Peace+Feb 9 2004, 05:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 9 2004, 05:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Feb 9 2004, 04:05 PM

Isn't that sweet?  Hold to the rod!

Yes, it is sweet, and definitely hold to the rod.

I bet you will...

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by antishock82003+Feb 9 2004, 05:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antishock82003 @ Feb 9 2004, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Peace@Feb 9 2004, 05:06 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Feb 9 2004, 04:05 PM

Isn't that sweet?  Hold to the rod!

Yes, it is sweet, and definitely hold to the rod.

I bet you will...

That is one bet I hope you win!

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 9 2004, 12:54 PM

Beh--you said: Traffic lights do not have to be provided on a compulsory basis. They can be paid for just as another other service and product. Can you explain why traffic lights are different from other products?

What the____are you talking about? Who is going to pay for them, if not the tax payer. By the way, has it ever dawned on you that the "government" is us? People, just like you and me, trying to make sure that society runs smoothly. No perfectly, but smoothly and with some fairness. How are traffic lights NOT paid for like any other product? THEY ARE. The city, county or state has a budget. It purchases the traffic lights from a PRIVATE company that makes them. How is that NOT like any other product purchase?

Beside the fact that you and I have no vote in how the Mafia operates, another massive difference between the government and the MAFIA is called DUE PROCESS. Do you know what that means? Look it up. It's a fundamental principle upon which all government action is taken. When the government takes something from you, like a traffic fine, or the IRS takes property for the payment of taxes, you have a RIGHT to a hearing and to state your case. SINCE WHEN DID THE MAFIA EVER HOLD A HEARING BEFORE IT TAKES SOMETHING FROM YOU, like you life.

Let's see, how do the men and women DBA a "government" get the money to pay for the traffic lights? It's called "taxation" the taking of property by force. Does one have a choice in being labeled a so-called "taxpayer" and then being fleeced? No. Real customers pay for services and products, look at Sears or Microsoft to confirm.

The "government" is not us. If it was then you could say no.

"Due process" really means nothing but public relations. A basic understanding of how "government" and "courts" work prove this.

Let's see, Mr. IRS man wants your house. Do you get a hearing first? No, pay first and bring a suit for a refund, it's called the "Anti-injunctive Tax Act" look it up in title 26 section 7421 of the US code. You can't even get a declaratory judgment in "tax" cases.

Think it matters that you get a hearing? Let's see, Mr. IRS man get paid by taking money by force. Mr. judge, how is he paid? That's right, out of the property Mr. IRS man takes by force. I see what is called a "conflict of interest" here.

Do you understand what a "confidence man" is?

People steal from each other, just because they claim to do it for your own good doesn't mean they are any less a robber.

Your mafia analogy is inapplicable; you have no vote as to whether you have a "government" controlling your life and property just as there is no vote to whether the mafia is in your neighborhood. it's called a false choice. Who cares if you can pick who controls your life and property? A slave is a slave because someone controls him. It is silly to think he's not a slave because he can pick a new master. I am going to end this with a quote from Lysander Spooner:

“If A were to go to B, a merchant, and say to him, ”Sir, I am a night-watchman, and I insist upon your employing me as such in protecting your property against burglars; and to enable me to do so more effectually, I insist upon your letting me tie your own hands and feet, so that you cannot interfere with me; and also upon your delivering up to me all your keys to your store, your safe, and to all your valuables; and that you authorize me to act solely and fully according to my own will, pleasure, and discretion in the matter; and I demand still further, that you shall give me an absolute guaranty that you will not hold me to any accountability whatever for anything I may do, or for anything that may happen to your goods while they are under my protection; and unless you comply with this proposal, I will now kill you on the spot,” —- if A were to say all this to B, B would naturally conclude that A himself was the most impudent and dangerous burglar that he (B) had to fear; and that if he (B) wished to secure his property against burglars, his best way would be to kill A in the first place, and then take his chances against all such other burglars as might come afterwards.” Lysander Spooner, Letter to Grover Cleveland.

[Behunin]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 9 2004, 02:23 PM

In a consensual form of government like a republic, the classical thinking is that the government's use of force and compulsion to enforce the laws is different from the force used by a gangster because the citizens are deemed to have consented to the laws and their enforcement.

Note for Behunin -- I'm not sure how a society based on Gandhi's ideas of nonviolence could ever function. His system was only used successfully a couple of times, and in each case it was used to do away with unfair government practices -- not to actively govern. In addition, you can count on your fingers the number of times active nonviolence has been used successfully against any system but an English-speaking democracy. The system relies on the conscience of its target. It doesn't work when the target doesn't have a conscience, which is why Gandhi's suggestion that the British should let the Nazis take all of England they wanted and that the Jews should meet the Nazis' persecutions with nonviolence was singularly moronic and naive. In the real world, one has to assume that not everyone has a conscience that can successfully be appealed to.

Who deems the "citizen" has consented? The men with the guns of course. The mafia can also assume their victims consented.

You mention contract. Well, "government" is supposed to have one function i.e., to protect life, liberty and property. However, no "government" has an enforceable duty to protect anyone or anything. This is why you cannot sue a police department for failing to protect you or your property, even for failing to respond to a 9/11 call.

You miss the point when you talk about having to "actively govern." The "governing" itself is the problem; men/women should not control other men/women. Control (govern) is not necessary to protect property.

You fail to see how a society based on consent can ever function? It functions every day, just look around. There are only two businesses in the world that do not operate on a mutual voluntary basis: 1) the mafia and 2) so-called "government."

I did not write of non-violence, I wrote about services being provided on a compulsory basis. I believe in self-defense. It is the initiation of force that is the problem. I do not agree with Ghandi's position about the nazi's, on the contrary, I agree with what the Jews did in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

[Guest curvette]

This thread seems to be hopelessly deadlocked. I never get used to listening to American citizens who are blatently Anti American. Something I meant to mention earlier in the thread is the fact that our late prophet Howard W Hunter was a lawyer as well. I wonder if he is considered unworthy.