Greetings to all (Dale Eastman)

[Cpt Banjo]

It's not that government can NOT exercise powers that are denied to individuals, governments do that all the time. It's that government SHOULD NOT exercise powers that are denied to individuals.

As I suspected, Eastman wants to debate morality or political philosophy, not the law.

Incidentally, Mr. E, you've still not said what you mean by "authority".

[The Observer]

So if "the people" are three wolves and a lamb, and the collective will of the people is to have lamb chops for dinner, according to Mr. Observer, that consensus grants legitimacy to have lamb chops for dinner.

Your analogy is illogical. In order for your analogy to be comarable to our political reality, all members of the "people" should be the same in terms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Lambs would never seek to be included in a collective with wolves for the purpose of organizing a government, so your analogy fails. A better analogy would attempt to explain how four wolves can agree to form a wolf pack in order to be the most efficient at hunting, if three want to pursue lambs and one wolf wants to sit down and pick his nose. For the sake of the lives of the three wolves, if they need a fourth hunter to survive, do the 3 wolves have the right to compel the 4th wolf to hunt with them, if they form a collective pack and give the pack the authority and power to compel the 4th wolf?

[Joey Smith]

The real question is why these folks stay in the U.S. -- nothing stops them from leaving?

Why does somebody like Dale Eastman who Hates America so much bother to stick around? Is it stupidity or just laziness?

Costa Rica calls . . .

[Pottapaug1938]

The real question is why these folks stay in the U.S. -- nothing stops them from leaving?

Why does somebody like Dale Eastman who Hates America so much bother to stick around? Is it stupidity or just laziness?

Costa Rica calls . . .

... or Somalia. I have it on good authority that the purview of the IRS does not extend that far; and it's an open question whether ANY taxing authority exists there.

[Famspear]

Yeah, maybe Mr. Eastman will volunteer to move to Somalia and work for the Internal Revenue Service -- in charge of their office in Somalia. I'm thinking of the IRS office in Somalia that handles enforcement of the law on U.S. federal income taxes imposed on Somali citizens who are, for U.S. purposes, nonresident aliens subject to the U.S. individual income tax imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 1 by way of section 2(d), to the extent provided in sections 871 or 877, as applicable......

[jg]

It's not that government can NOT exercise powers that are denied to individuals, governments do that all the time. It's that government SHOULD NOT exercise powers that are denied to individuals.

The power to enact laws is given to the legislature even though that power is not possessed by the individuals (or even by the collective group of individuals). The legislative power is excercised by the government, as it should be.

For background, please see http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.txt

Sec. 134. THE great end of men's entering into society, being the enjoyment
of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means
of that being the laws established in that society; the first and
fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the
legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to
govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society, and
(as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it. This
legislative is not only the supreme power of the common-wealth, but sacred
and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it; nor
can any edict of any body else, in what form soever conceived, or by what
power soever backed, have the force and obligation of a law, which has not
its sanction from that legislative which the public has chosen and
appointed: for without this the law could not have that, which is absolutely
necessary to its being a law,* the consent of the society, over whom no body
can have a power to make laws, but by their own consent, and by authority
received from them; and therefore all the obedience, which by the most
solemn ties any one can be obliged to pay, ultimately terminates in this
supreme power, and is directed by those laws which it enacts: nor can any
oaths to any foreign power whatsoever, or any domestic subordinate power,
discharge any member of the society from his obedience to the legislative,
acting pursuant to their trust; nor oblige him to any obedience contrary to
the laws so enacted, or farther than they do allow; it being ridiculous to
imagine one can be tied ultimately to obey any power in the society, which
is not the supreme.

(* The lawful power of making laws to command whole politic societies of
men, belonging so properly unto the same intire societies, that for any
prince or potentate of what kind soever upon earth, to exercise the same of
himself, and not by express commission immediately and personally received
from God, or else by authority derived at the first from their consent, upon
whose persons they impose laws, it is no better than mere tyranny. Laws they
are not therefore which public approbation hath not made so. Hooker's Eccl.
Pol. l. i. sect. 10. Of this point therefore we are to note, that sith men
naturally have no full and perfect power to command whole politic multitudes
of men, therefore utterly without our consent, we could in such sort be at
no man's commandment living. And to be commanded we do consent, when that
society, whereof we be a part, hath at any time before consented, without
revoking the same after by the like universal agreement.

Laws therefore human, of what kind so ever, are available by consent. Ibid.)

[Mr. Eastman]

My original question was, Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? Like authority to steal or authority to tax?

And my question is, What makes you think that the authority of individuals is comparable to the authority of governments?

http://www.isil.org/resources/philosoph ... nglish.swf

[wserra]

Ohh. Political philosophy by flash video. Imagine the Federalist Papers on youtube.

Incapable of original thought, eh?

[Paul]

Doesn't anyone get tired of arguing on the shallow, unthinking level Eastman at which started this whole debate? Individuals don't give government authority over others that the individuals don't possess themselves -- they give the government authority over themselves in a fair exchange for others also giving the government authority over themselves.

The easiest example is in taxation, where the government takes your property. What does it mean to say that something is your property? That you can use it as you wish and keep someone else from using it? What if that someone else is bigger than you are? Or just claims that it is his property? It's not really your property if your rights depend on your personal ability to fight off others or on the altruism of others. Basically, your rights aren't worth anything unless society agrees to enforce them. But what gives you the right to demand that I (or the courts or the police or anyone else) enforce your property rights? The fair exchange is that I give you the right to call on me to enforce your rights in exchange for you giving me the right to call on you. And, if we want to be efficient about it, we get together and pay the biggest, baddest dude around to actually do the enforcing, and even to do the collecting of the tax to pay him.

That's government at its most bare, lack of frills, basics. And it is NOT dependent on me giving that bad dude authority over you, but both of us giving him authority over ourselves in exchange for protection of our rights. An argument over whether government has been given too much authority, or is going beyond what it was given, is legitimate, if unresolvable. But if you want to argue that you have no obligation to pay for the protection or other benefits, first forgo the benefits, which basically means go away.

[Famspear]

.....What does it mean to say that something is your property? That you can use it as you wish and keep someone else from using it? What if that someone else is bigger than you are? Or just claims that it is his property? It's not really your property if your rights depend on your personal ability to fight off others or on the altruism of others. Basically, your rights aren't worth anything unless society agrees to enforce them......

This is a kernel of truth that escapes a lot of people. Property, in a certain legal sense, is "an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1095 (5th ed. 1979) (italics added). In the absence of protection by the government, I do not have a property right in the legal sense.

If my only protection with respect to the house and land where I live is that I have a bigger gun (and a meaner and more determined disposition) than the bad guy who wants to oust me from the land, then I do not have a property right in the legal sense. I may have what some would call a "natural right".

The purpose of government is to secure natural rights by creating (among other things) legal rights. Natural rights may be said to exist in the absence of government. Legal rights, by contrast, are an aspect of a society that has a government, and legal rights exist only to the extent recognized by government.

EDIT: From something I read somewhere.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights [i.e., to secure these Natural Rights], Governments are instituted among Men....

(italics added).

Again, Natural rights, in some sense, may exist without the existence or protection of a government. Legal rights (whether property rights or other kinds of rights) exist only in contemplation of government, and only to the extent recognized and protected by government.

[Dr. Caligari]

Again, Natural rights, in some sense, may exist without the existence or protection of a government. Legal rights (whether property rights or other kinds of rights) exist only in contemplation of government, and only to the extent recognized and protected by government.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote (I do not have the quote handy) that personal property exists under the law of nature--you have the right to possess that which you can carry on your person; but real property-- the ability to lock the door of your house and expect that the contents will still be there when you return-- can only exist in an organized society, and is therefore subject to the rules of that society.

[Imalawman]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights [i.e., to secure these Natural Rights], Governments are instituted among Men....

(italics added).

Again, Natural rights, in some sense, may exist without the existence or protection of a government. Legal rights (whether property rights or other kinds of rights) exist only in contemplation of government, and only to the extent recognized and protected by government.

I surprise a lot of people when I say that I disagree with the founding fathers that all men are created with equal unalienable rights. I know what this statement is saying - that all men should be free to exist with equal rights. But people are not created with rights - there is no basic "right". "rights" are enforceable and granted by an entity that is greater than the individual. We can talk about what ought to be a right, but those are morals, not rights granted to individuals.

[Paul]

You mean they are really "endowed by their creator" rather than inherent? Where did you ever get that idea?

[Randall]

Some of us are more endowed than others. So much for equality.

[wserra]

Doesn't anyone get tired of arguing on the shallow, unthinking level Eastman at which started this whole debate?

Some of us have never done that. Some of us believe that, until the guy actually states a proposition and tries to defend it, his sophistry merits only derision.

[Famspear]

Doesn't anyone get tired of arguing on the shallow, unthinking level Eastman at which started this whole debate?

Some of us have never done that. Some of us believe that, until the guy actually states a proposition and tries to defend it, his sophistry merits only derision.

Yes, Mr. Eastman opens the thread with a question, hoping (apparently) that those who respond will do so on his terms, according to his unstated agenda. He receives responses, some of which are humorous, some of which are technical, none of which really serve his purpose. Then, he receives more responses which undercut or reject the underlying philosophical theory in which he apparently believes -- which is apparently that somehow society does not have the right to impose a federal income tax on him without his personal consent. I say "apparently," because Mr. Eastman does seem reluctant to state a firm position -- possibly out of fear that he will then be called upon to defend it.

His most recent post, in response to a question from a Quatloos regular, consisted not of his own explanation of what his position is, but rather consisted of a link to a video at a web site for the "International Society for Individual Liberty."

(yaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnn......)

[Imalawman]

Doesn't anyone get tired of arguing on the shallow, unthinking level Eastman at which started this whole debate?

Some of us have never done that. Some of us believe that, until the guy actually states a proposition and tries to defend it, his sophistry merits only derision.

Isn't that why we're on here - to engage in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents?

[webhick]

Doesn't anyone get tired of arguing on the shallow, unthinking level Eastman at which started this whole debate?

Some of us have never done that. Some of us believe that, until the guy actually states a proposition and tries to defend it, his sophistry merits only derision.

Isn't that why we're on here - to engage in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents?

I thought it was for the tickle fights.... I'm so disappointed. I brought my special tickle-brandistock for the occasion.

[LPC]

My original question was, Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess? Like authority to steal or authority to tax?

And my question is, What makes you think that the authority of individuals is comparable to the authority of governments?

http://www.isil.org/resources/philosoph ... nglish.swf

Automated intellectual drivel is still intellectual drivel.

And, just so you know who you're dealing with, I'm Quaker. We talk to God. God talks back. And we talk about the difference between spirit-led revelation and self-serving crap.

And God tells me that what you're posting is self-serving crap.

[LPC]

Some of us believe that, until the guy actually states a proposition and tries to defend it, his sophistry merits only derision.

I plead guilty to that.