Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Question for Kaz
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Question for Kaz (Read 822 times)
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5753
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Question for Kaz
Jun 19th, 2019 at 9:22am
Print Post  
Hey Kaz.  What does consent of the governed mean?
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Biq Man
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 427
Joined: Mar 17th, 2019
Re: Question for Kaz
Reply #1 - Jun 19th, 2019 at 2:49pm
Print Post  
I see you took the time to quote exactly Kaz' guidelines for how to ask him a question in a way that he will deign to answer it.

I hope you're not holding your breath.  Kaz' word is no better than the words of the kleptocrats of the Dems and the Reps.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43769
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Question for Kaz
Reply #2 - Jun 19th, 2019 at 6:04pm
Print Post  
When you talk to yourself, I have trouble figuring out which Little Red Sack is real...

Certainly one of you must know which of you is real? Which is it? Sacky Snack, or that other persona, the one the lizard familiarly calls "Burnsie"?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5753
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Question for Kaz
Reply #3 - Jun 20th, 2019 at 9:23am
Print Post  
Jeff, please.   

Kaz gave his word that if he were asked properly, he would tell us his definition of consent of the governed.  He has been asked properly and no one would doubt his good faith promise.

So let him answer.
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43769
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Question for Kaz
Reply #4 - Jun 20th, 2019 at 10:39am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jun 20th, 2019 at 9:23am:
Jeff, please.   

Kaz gave his word that if he were asked properly, he would tell us his definition of consent of the governed.  He has been asked properly and no one would doubt his good faith promise.

So let him answer.
I have some doubts about kaz's "good faith"...

No matter, I'm not stopping him from answering you here or elsewhere. Smiley
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10045
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Question for Kaz
Reply #5 - Jun 20th, 2019 at 10:55am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 6:43am:
From a practical measure, that isn't really possible.  If you don't have roads then you can't redistribute wealth.

But from a legitimacy standpoint, I don't know what was clear about my answer.  A government that is acting with the consent of the governed is legitimate, which just means it's acting with the consent of the governed.

Having spent so much time in Europe, I think they do have consent of the governed over there to redistribute wealth.  It's a small, non-violent, virtually silent percent indeed who object.  We're headed down the same path.

I'm just hoping to put it off past my lifetime.  I feel bad for my kids, but I don't see how we put it off past theirs.  The barbarians are at the gate and growing in their greedy numbers
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43769
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Question for Kaz
Reply #6 - Jun 20th, 2019 at 11:13am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 20th, 2019 at 10:55am:
I don't know what was clear about that answer either... "Consent is when you have consent" doesn't seem to clear anything up at all...
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10045
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Question for Kaz
Reply #7 - Jun 20th, 2019 at 11:17am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 20th, 2019 at 11:13am:
I don't know what was clear about that answer either... "Consent is when you have consent" doesn't seem to clear anything up at all...


He meant he doesn't know what wasn't clear about his answer, but he doesn't like me editing his text, so I don't, even for clarification.

You probably haven't noticed, but when one of you who hasn't pitched a shit fit about editing quotes makes a tiny mistake like that, I fix it for clarification.

Of course you'll jump on any little thing you can to nitpick, and in this case he sort of brought it on himself.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43769
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Question for Kaz
Reply #8 - Jun 20th, 2019 at 11:19am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 20th, 2019 at 11:17am:
He meant he doesn't know what wasn't clear about his answer, but he doesn't like me editing his text, so I don't, even for clarification.

You probably haven't noticed, but when one of you who hasn't pitched a shit fit about editing quotes makes a tiny mistake like that, I fix it for clarification.
Thanks for clearing that up. Smiley

Nevertheless, "Consent is when you have consent" doesn't actually say anything does it?

Neither does "A government is legitimate when it has consent, and governments that have consent are legitimate."


  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10045
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Question for Kaz
Reply #9 - Jun 20th, 2019 at 11:31am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 20th, 2019 at 11:19am:
Thanks for clearing that up. Smiley

Nevertheless, "Consent is when you have consent" doesn't actually say anything does it?


The most important thing I've learned about libertarians is that when you ask for clarification, they just call you stupid for not understanding it in the first place.

He'd already called me stupid for asking for clarification once, so by libertarian logic (again, this is the only argument you have) his answer must have been perfectly clear already.

The Opposition wrote on Feb 5th, 2019 at 11:07am:
All I try to do is debate honestly. I want to know where the government gets its power, and you throw sand if I ask you.

You behave like someone who knows his beliefs are contradictory and untenable, which saddens me because I believe libertarianism is valid and highly consistent.


kaz wrote on Feb 5th, 2019 at 4:24pm:
Opposition:  Where does government get its power?
kaz:  Legitimate government power comes from consent of the governed
Opposition:  But where does government get its power?
kaz:  Legitimate government power comes from consent of the governed
Opposition:  Not my question, my question is where does government get its power?
kaz:  Legitimate government power comes from consent of the governed
Opposition:  But my question is, where does government get its power?
kaz:  Legitimate government power comes from consent of the governed
Opposition:  But where?  Where does government get its power?
kaz:  Legitimate government power comes from consent of the governed
Opposition:  Hey, I'm only asking an honest question here


Jeff wrote on Feb 5th, 2019 at 2:30pm:
I get tired of answering the same questions over and over.

The legitimate power of the U.S. government is from the people, granted specifically (and limited) by the Constitution.


kaz wrote on Feb 6th, 2019 at 6:38am:
You have this thing where you either go to hyperbolic specificity or vagueness beyond meaning.

If the people consent, then the government is legitimate.  Legitimate means that it is acting under the authority of the people.

That does not mean that what the people want is just, good or proper.  Only that the government is acting on their authority.

And I know how terrible your memory is, so again, consent is not a majority vote.  It means there is no significant opposition sufficient to threaten the government's actions.  People do not in this country consent to redistribution of wealth, that is tyranny of the majority.  It is tearing us apart.  People do consent to roads.  Everyone consents to that.  Even burnsred who admits using roads even though it makes him a welfare queen


The Opposition wrote on Feb 5th, 2019 at 9:59pm:
So as long as the people consent to it, and the Constitution says its okay, the government can do anything?


Jeff wrote on Feb 6th, 2019 at 6:38am:
Once again, the government can only do things it is specifically empowered to do, and it is required to stay within the limits imposed on accomplishing those things.

The people consented to the system of government created by the Constitution and to the grant of the enumerated powers described in the Constitution so long as the limits are respected.

It is not a matter of the people consenting to each individual law enacted by Congress, and Congress may not "do anything" just because a majority of people currently think it's a grand idea. That would be democracy, law by the current mad fad capturing people's imaginations.



Jeff wrote on Feb 6th, 2019 at 6:42am:
kaz wrote on Feb 6th, 2019 at 6:38am:
The Opposition wrote on Feb 5th, 2019 at 9:59pm:
So as long as the people consent to it, and the Constitution says its okay, the government can do anything?


You have this thing where you either go to hyperbolic specificity or vagueness beyond meaning.

If the people consent, then the government is legitimate.  Legitimate means that it is acting under the authority of the people.

That does not mean that what the people want is just, good or proper.  Only that the government is acting on their authority.

And I know how terrible your memory is, so again, consent is not a majority vote.  It means there is no significant opposition sufficient to threaten the government's actions.  People do not in this country consent to redistribution of wealth, that is tyranny of the majority.  It is tearing us apart.  People do consent to roads.  Everyone consents to that.  Even burnsred who admits using roads even though it makes him a welfare queen


You said it better than I did, thanks.


If you remember, Jeff, you praised him for his answer last time.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Question for Kaz
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy