Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys  (Read 75783 times)

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2008, 08:16:32 pm »

In a sane world, everything is outside the government’s scope.

Here's where we start the pontificating... it depends on the type of government being spoken of ;)
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2008, 11:18:05 pm »

In a sane world, everything is outside the government’s scope.

Here's where we start the pontificating... it depends on the type of government being spoken of ;)

In a sane world, everything outside of protecting people against aggression—protecting their life, liberty, and property—is outside the government’s scope. Even minarchists can agree with that, correct?

Now show me how that’s possible without the government engaging in aggression itself. >:D
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #17 on: May 16, 2008, 07:49:56 am »

In a sane world, everything outside of protecting people against aggression—protecting their life, liberty, and property—is outside the government’s scope. Even minarchists can agree with that, correct?

Now show me how that’s possible without the government engaging in aggression itself. >:D

Oh, we could have an anarchic government.  It would have to be a government based upon unanimous consent.  If my neighbors and I get together and unanimously agree to certain rules for how we maintain our property and what uses it may and may not be put to, and set up a system to allow modification of those rules if needed, and to adjudicate claimed violations, that's a government.

As long as all members unanimously consented to the creation of that government, it's also an anarchy.

Anarchic governments are possible.  What's not possible is an anarchic State, because States are aggressive and try to force others to participate, who did not consent.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #18 on: May 16, 2008, 08:41:31 am »

I think Jeremy was looking for an explanation of the mechanism for enforcement of the agreement.
If Joe and I had a mutual agreement that I broke. I would be initiating fraud, so his enforcement would be a reaction... not an initiation.

Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #19 on: May 16, 2008, 10:35:25 am »

I think Jeremy was looking for an explanation of the mechanism for enforcement of the agreement.
If Joe and I had a mutual agreement that I broke. I would be initiating fraud, so his enforcement would be a reaction... not an initiation.

I'm pretty sure that Jeremy is aware of that.  I expect he was pointing out that the government, as currently constituted, is not run by unanimous consent, and would be initiating force against others to enforce its rules.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2008, 06:35:44 am »

Indeed. That’s why Menno coined the term authoritarian model of government. A voluntary model is possible.
Logged

Ward Griffiths

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1050
  • Canvas and Quicklime
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #21 on: May 17, 2008, 12:59:08 pm »

Indeed. That’s why Menno coined the term authoritarian model of government. A voluntary model is possible.

Not once there is a government.  After that happens the only thing voluntary is whether you pay your taxes before or after a session on the rack or waterboard.
Logged
--
Ward Griffiths    wdg3rd@comcast.net

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  (Denis Diderot)

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #22 on: May 17, 2008, 01:44:24 pm »

I think Jeremy was looking for an explanation of the mechanism for enforcement of the agreement.
If Joe and I had a mutual agreement that I broke. I would be initiating fraud, so his enforcement would be a reaction... not an initiation.

That wouldn't be fraud at all. Plenty of things might prevent someone from respecting a mutual agreement.

In the original call from J'raxis, I'm not sure what the "that" was referring to. So I'm not sure what is to be shown. But I reckon Maineshark is on the right track regarding government. There's an unfortunate trend to take "government" as an exclusive authoritarian body rather than just a "governing authority". And I can't speak for him/her, but I was speaking on government on multiple scales, i.e. schoolboard, hoa, etc.
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #23 on: May 17, 2008, 11:33:42 pm »

Indeed. That’s why Menno coined the term authoritarian model of government. A voluntary model is possible.

Not once there is a government.  After that happens the only thing voluntary is whether you pay your taxes before or after a session on the rack or waterboard.

Government simply means a body that governs: Guides, directs, controls, makes decisions, &c.. Such a body can be formed voluntarily. Every corporation, organization, association, &c., has a government, except they’re usually referred to as boards, and they’re completely voluntary: If you reject a decision they made, and provided you have no continuing contractual obligations, you can disassociation yourself from said organization at will.
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #24 on: May 17, 2008, 11:37:02 pm »

In the original call from J'raxis, I'm not sure what the "that" was referring to. So I'm not sure what is to be shown. But I reckon Maineshark is on the right track regarding government. There's an unfortunate trend to take "government" as an exclusive authoritarian body rather than just a "governing authority". And I can't speak for him/her, but I was speaking on government on multiple scales, i.e. schoolboard, hoa, etc.

That referred to the existence of a government without aggression, that is, I was trying to say:—

Now show me how [that’s] a government is possible without the government engaging in aggression itself. >:D

And yes, I was hoping to lead you down the “voluntary model of government” path.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #25 on: May 17, 2008, 11:55:30 pm »

In the original call from J'raxis, I'm not sure what the "that" was referring to. So I'm not sure what is to be shown. But I reckon Maineshark is on the right track regarding government. There's an unfortunate trend to take "government" as an exclusive authoritarian body rather than just a "governing authority". And I can't speak for him/her, but I was speaking on government on multiple scales, i.e. schoolboard, hoa, etc.

That referred to the existence of a government without aggression, that is, I was trying to say:—

Now show me how [that’s] a government is possible without the government engaging in aggression itself. >:D

And yes, I was hoping to lead you down the “voluntary model of government” path.

I read it and re-read it a few times and I didn't quite know what you were asking ;) But I think you did a fine job in the previous post. One might argue even our current system is mostly voluntary: most people choose to obey laws because many know the consequences of the standing threats if they do not comply. (I'm not saying that as my opion. I think we talked about the NAP before where it was claimed that mere threats were not aggressive.)
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 11:14:38 am by B.D. Ross »
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2008, 04:25:07 am »

Eh? I consider a threat of aggression to be a form of aggression, also.
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #27 on: May 18, 2008, 07:38:51 am »

Eh? I consider a threat of aggression to be a form of aggression, also.

as opposed to a promise of superior defense against the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Enjoy!

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #28 on: May 18, 2008, 12:10:26 pm »

One might argue even our current system is mostly voluntary: most people choose to obey laws because many know the consequences of the standing threats if they do not comply. (I'm not saying that as my opion. I think we talked about the NAP before where it was claimed that mere threats were not aggressive.)

Threats of force are force.

Whether force is aggressive or not depends on the order of the situation.

"Don't do X on your own property, to your own person, or I will use violence to stop you" is a threat of force if the subject of the statement does X, and an aggressive one, because it would be against someone who has not used force against the one making the threat.

"Stay off my land, or I will forcibly eject you" is a threat of force if the subject of the statement enters my land, but it is not an aggressive one, because the violence I might do in ejecting him would be in response to his violation of my rights.

If someone violates my rights, I have the moral option to use any level of force which I deem appropriate in order to terminate his violation and acquire restitution.  Whether there is some point at which I, personally, would say that the given violation is not sufficient to justify a given level of violence, is a personal aesthetic choice (eg, I am not likely to execute someone if he steals a candy bar from me and refuses to pay me restitution).  But I would certainly have a moral right to do so, and my force would not be aggressive, as he attacked me.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: South Carolina bill would ban sale of sex toys
« Reply #29 on: May 18, 2008, 02:24:35 pm »

One might argue even our current system is mostly voluntary: most people choose to obey laws because many know the consequences of the standing threats if they do not comply. (I'm not saying that as my opion. I think we talked about the NAP before where it was claimed that mere threats were not aggressive.)

Threats of force are force.

Whether force is aggressive or not depends on the order of the situation.

"Don't do X on your own property, to your own person, or I will use violence to stop you" is a threat of force if the subject of the statement does X, and an aggressive one, because it would be against someone who has not used force against the one making the threat.

"Stay off my land, or I will forcibly eject you" is a threat of force if the subject of the statement enters my land, but it is not an aggressive one, because the violence I might do in ejecting him would be in response to his violation of my rights.

If someone violates my rights, I have the moral option to use any level of force which I deem appropriate in order to terminate his violation and acquire restitution.  Whether there is some point at which I, personally, would say that the given violation is not sufficient to justify a given level of violence, is a personal aesthetic choice (eg, I am not likely to execute someone if he steals a candy bar from me and refuses to pay me restitution).  But I would certainly have a moral right to do so, and my force would not be aggressive, as he attacked me.

Joe
Just to clarify, I said threats of force are aggressive and that many property rights are threats of force.

When I read these posts I frequently see blanket phrases like "violation of my rights", "property rights", and "moral rights". These phrases alone mean almost nothing, and I see people frequently using them to internally justify nearly about any behavior they wish. For example:

One such property right, quiet enjoyment, is the right to be free from other people unreasonably interfering with your use of your real property (e.g. your neighbor llikes to play his stereo at 140 dB at 3:30 am). Tired of listening to Dethmetal at ungodly early hourse, you march over to his house, shoot him, and he dies. Perhaps this is not the best way to go about solving this dispute. But if you have a moral right, to do so, well, it's certainly a way to do it. 'Course, to do this you had to break into his house. Where, from his spouse's point of view, you're now "violating her rights", and she shoots you.

Or if I were to give a waitress a $20 bill, but she mistakenly believes it's a ten; and she only brings back change for the ten. If I think she's attempting to steal, perhaps she deserves to lose a few fingers.

Or imagine some settlers in the desert, where one makes a fairly large property claim to the one natural river feeding water into the area: "Everyone 'round here. This is my river and all the water in it belongs to me. If you take any water from it, I'll hafta shoot you. I'm not threatening you, and I'm not being aggressive. But if you touch my river, I'll kill you."

I cannot imagine the reasoning such an ambiguous "moral right" springs from that would allow a reasonable person to instantly and unilaterally escalate aggression to any level he "deems appropriate" if he even merely perceives the slightest of violations to his collection of property rights. While you may have the power to do these things, you would have no such "moral right" or "moral obligation".

As for the candy bar, unless you're made of candy bars and the child plucked one off of your arm, the child has not attacked you. He's only taken something that you claim is yours.

... how did we get so far away from dildos?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up