well, actually your argument comes from an emotional place. Why would others feel the same way? There might be a lot of people who argue that government should be allowed to keep secrets so that the "enemies of the state" can not easily attack it.
They are welcome to do with their authority as they wish, as long as they leave mine be.
In whatever the case may be regarding the actions of government, insofar as they claim to exercise my authority absent my agreement, they are not exercising my authority at all, and therefore have abdicated their claim on my sovereignty.
This is the natural consequence of not having my agreement to act on my behalf. I have sovereign authority, and they do not have my agreement, therefore my sovereign authority remains my own.
Under what theory can they be considered to act on my behalf absent my agreement? I am unaware of one of legal effect.
Under what theory can they be considered to act on my behalf absent my agreement? I am unaware of one of legal effect.
Parenthood would bea common example.
What if you are really sad and really want to press that kms button and I want to stop you. I can not stop you so i am calling an ambulance to help you. I am forcefully interfering with your right to decide about life or death of yourself, are you OK with that?
No. In fact there is a death with dignity act, IIRC, in Oregon.
Are you ok with people living, and dying, as they see fit?
The Fatherland is not presumed to be my parent under any legal theory of which I am aware. Are you stating that that is the relationship between the citizens of a nation and the government?
no I am stating there is a relationship between people where naturally authority is given away from child to parent, without the child ever signing up for it. I literally mean parenthood.
Same for suicide. If my brother wants to kill himself in a moment of overwhelming sadness, I will protect him from himself (my brother has no severe depression, this is a theoretical example)
Sure, I am against most forms of state, you can read about it in detail in one of my last post. Funny thing is though that the contract between state and citizien is meant to be a social contract as well, but the auto-check on the checkmark at birth is a problem indeed and this (once good intended) contract got warped into the thing it should protect us from, an oppressive power.
I know of no better alternative to rearing young than parenthood, but this is not a legal theory which can apply to the state, on that I think we agree.
As to loving your brother, your feeling empowered to prevent their self harm is an act of love based on a personal relationship, and far more complex than mere law. I both completely support your intention to be beneficial to your loved ones, and remain, otherwise, unable to comment regarding that relationship.
But that does not address the right of persons to live and die as they choose. Oddly, having this last week been threatened with death (credibly), it is a topic I have been considering. Just as seeking to force death on another abrogates their right to life, so does seeking to prevent their suicide. In view of my lack of authority regarding you and your brother, I cannot have a say. I can say that were you to do so to me, I would object, as you have no authority over me.
I feel we are largely in agreement generally regarding state power, and that merely my arrogance caused you to desire to encourage me to limit my statements to those less grandiose and conceited. For this, I thank you. It is easy to be pompous writing, and it isn't a trait I wish to exemplify.
Clearly the world has been a dangerous place always, and the idea of a protective union of citizenry has great merit. Sadly, amongst the more dangerous phenomena is the con man, and state structures have been continually co-opted by such persons for their own benefits. Today we see a world marked by a quasi-global police state featuring a panopticon none of us can escape.
The fact that republics, and democratic forms of governance in general, depend on the consent of the citizenry as the source of their authority is therefore of critical import. Were this collective power not misused, there would be little point in discussing the source of it's authority. Since it clearly is abused, and I am not consulted, am not empowered to withdraw my support (taxes), and am considered to be a criminal should I take that and other actions to prevent the abuse of my sovereign authority, stating that I retain my sovereignty, because the state has not attained my agreement, is not unduly arrogant, nor (yet) a crime in America.
Only acting to effectuate my sovereign authority to rule myself is a criminal act, and therefore it would be unwise to do so absent community support that might suffice to protect that community from the corrupt state. After reading the post you linked, I reckon you and I could easily consider each other mutual support in that wise.
Edit: I want to clarify that the state cannot somehow legally assume the power of a parent over citizens, because the state legally draws it's power from the consent of the citizens, who therefore are presumed to have it, which children are not.
But that does not address the right of persons to live and die as they choose.
Just to be clear, if someone decides to die for a good reason, like when there is only 1 year to live and they will have a painful and uncomfortable life. I just wanted to give my examples to show it is hard to make it an absolute.
I feel we are largely in agreement generally regarding state power, and that merely my arrogance caused you to desire to encourage me to limit my statements to those less grandiose and conceited.
yes, I do think we would largely agree on todays problems and most likely even on many solutions. However it is no just that I want to dumb down political and philosophical debates in general, to make them more accessible, but I also think we often are hypocritical without noticing. Saying "there should be no laws other than those that directly protect live and property" on the other hand we say "Everything (Or at least money) has to be transparent". Do you see the contradiction?
There are many people who actually do not want to be transparent and I actually dislike all the talk about Orwell, because he is the reason why people love to get hysterical when talking about transparency vs privacy.
=p
It is known
well, actually your argument comes from an emotional place. Why would others feel the same way? There might be a lot of people who argue that government should be allowed to keep secrets so that the "enemies of the state" can not easily attack it.
They are welcome to do with their authority as they wish, as long as they leave mine be.
In whatever the case may be regarding the actions of government, insofar as they claim to exercise my authority absent my agreement, they are not exercising my authority at all, and therefore have abdicated their claim on my sovereignty.
This is the natural consequence of not having my agreement to act on my behalf. I have sovereign authority, and they do not have my agreement, therefore my sovereign authority remains my own.
Under what theory can they be considered to act on my behalf absent my agreement? I am unaware of one of legal effect.
Parenthood would bea common example.
What if you are really sad and really want to press that kms button and I want to stop you. I can not stop you so i am calling an ambulance to help you. I am forcefully interfering with your right to decide about life or death of yourself, are you OK with that?
No. In fact there is a death with dignity act, IIRC, in Oregon.
Are you ok with people living, and dying, as they see fit?
The Fatherland is not presumed to be my parent under any legal theory of which I am aware. Are you stating that that is the relationship between the citizens of a nation and the government?
no I am stating there is a relationship between people where naturally authority is given away from child to parent, without the child ever signing up for it. I literally mean parenthood.
Same for suicide. If my brother wants to kill himself in a moment of overwhelming sadness, I will protect him from himself (my brother has no severe depression, this is a theoretical example)
Sure, I am against most forms of state, you can read about it in detail in one of my last post. Funny thing is though that the contract between state and citizien is meant to be a social contract as well, but the auto-check on the checkmark at birth is a problem indeed and this (once good intended) contract got warped into the thing it should protect us from, an oppressive power.
I know of no better alternative to rearing young than parenthood, but this is not a legal theory which can apply to the state, on that I think we agree.
As to loving your brother, your feeling empowered to prevent their self harm is an act of love based on a personal relationship, and far more complex than mere law. I both completely support your intention to be beneficial to your loved ones, and remain, otherwise, unable to comment regarding that relationship.
But that does not address the right of persons to live and die as they choose. Oddly, having this last week been threatened with death (credibly), it is a topic I have been considering. Just as seeking to force death on another abrogates their right to life, so does seeking to prevent their suicide. In view of my lack of authority regarding you and your brother, I cannot have a say. I can say that were you to do so to me, I would object, as you have no authority over me.
I feel we are largely in agreement generally regarding state power, and that merely my arrogance caused you to desire to encourage me to limit my statements to those less grandiose and conceited. For this, I thank you. It is easy to be pompous writing, and it isn't a trait I wish to exemplify.
Clearly the world has been a dangerous place always, and the idea of a protective union of citizenry has great merit. Sadly, amongst the more dangerous phenomena is the con man, and state structures have been continually co-opted by such persons for their own benefits. Today we see a world marked by a quasi-global police state featuring a panopticon none of us can escape.
The fact that republics, and democratic forms of governance in general, depend on the consent of the citizenry as the source of their authority is therefore of critical import. Were this collective power not misused, there would be little point in discussing the source of it's authority. Since it clearly is abused, and I am not consulted, am not empowered to withdraw my support (taxes), and am considered to be a criminal should I take that and other actions to prevent the abuse of my sovereign authority, stating that I retain my sovereignty, because the state has not attained my agreement, is not unduly arrogant, nor (yet) a crime in America.
Only acting to effectuate my sovereign authority to rule myself is a criminal act, and therefore it would be unwise to do so absent community support that might suffice to protect that community from the corrupt state. After reading the post you linked, I reckon you and I could easily consider each other mutual support in that wise.
Edit: I want to clarify that the state cannot somehow legally assume the power of a parent over citizens, because the state legally draws it's power from the consent of the citizens, who therefore are presumed to have it, which children are not.
Just to be clear, if someone decides to die for a good reason, like when there is only 1 year to live and they will have a painful and uncomfortable life. I just wanted to give my examples to show it is hard to make it an absolute.
yes, I do think we would largely agree on todays problems and most likely even on many solutions. However it is no just that I want to dumb down political and philosophical debates in general, to make them more accessible, but I also think we often are hypocritical without noticing. Saying "there should be no laws other than those that directly protect live and property" on the other hand we say "Everything (Or at least money) has to be transparent". Do you see the contradiction?
There are many people who actually do not want to be transparent and I actually dislike all the talk about Orwell, because he is the reason why people love to get hysterical when talking about transparency vs privacy.