Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Consent ***
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Consent *** (Read 265 times)
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6352
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #10 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 4:14pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:42pm:
I disagree 4 and 5 apply today in this age of free wealth redistribution.

You seriously think that Democrats accept the Trump presidency?

You seriously think fiscal conservatives accept the outcome of votes that strip us of our property?


You sure do.  You hand the property right over with hardly a peep.  You go to the polls and try to vote someone in who will steal less, but rarely does the most conservative of fiscal conservatives question the legitimacy of the government's right to take it.

Libertarians do.  Well, actually most "libertarians" don't.  Those of us who do call ourselves, "the libertarian wing of the libertarian party" to admit and lament that we are outnumbered by tax and spenders even in an organization called "The Libertarian Party."

Quote:
I agree we're not in full civil war, but the country is clearly fractured and people don't accept the outcome of elections they lose


You mean like they did in the past?  Did the Democrats accept the election of Nixon?  Of Bush 43?  Did cons accept the election of Clinton or Obama?  Did Republican accept the accession of Andrew Johnson.  No to all.  But they did not revolt or assassinate or riot. 

Did they consent to all those?  Yes, at least in the sense that they did not question or withdraw their consent from government as a whole.  They used constitutional means to try to get rid of them, but they did not revolt, assassinate or riot.

Your points one, two, four and five are based entirely on feelings, that people citizens are perceived to have because they do not express otherwise.  We are all able to communicate our feelings to a wider audience nowadays.  There are lots of complaints on mainstream media and social media these days, but very few claims that the government does not have consent.

If , as you claim, consent need not be affirmatively expressed to be valid, it is almost impossible to rationally argue that it does not exist unless there active measures being taken to get rid of the government you claim has no consent.

That is why I would argue that claiming that there is consent in the absence of an affirmative way to express it and measure that express and the absence of an available alternative to consenting is specious.



  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6352
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #11 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 4:19pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 4:02pm:
Yes, if "We the People of the United States" means US citizens, then words don't mean anything anymore ...

Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley

What a dumb ass.

And obviously women were citizens.  Why don't you get past your stupid shit and ask your question


Well, those women "citizens" did not vote on the new constitution.

The constitution lied like you do when it said, "we the people of the united states."  They did mean only the white male landowners, not "the people."

I never said anything about all the people of the world.  But the slaves and the women were people of the United States.

The women and the slaves were counted in the census, so the framers knew that they were lying.

But, go ahead.  Jeff up another new definition.


  

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

Minarchist

Posts: 10367
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #12 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 4:24pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 4:19pm:
Well, those women "citizens" did not vote on the new constitution.

The constitution lied like you do when it said, "we the people of the united states."  They did mean only the white male landowners, not "the people."

I never said anything about all the people of the world.  But the slaves and the women were people of the United States.

The women and the slaves were counted in the census, so the framers knew that they were lying.

But, go ahead.  Jeff up another new definition.




  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 10367
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #13 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 4:25pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 4:14pm:
You sure do.  You hand the property right over with hardly a peep.  You go to the polls and try to vote someone in who will steal less, but rarely does the most conservative of fiscal conservatives question the legitimacy of the government's right to take it.

Libertarians do.  Well, actually most "libertarians" don't.  Those of us who do call ourselves, "the libertarian wing of the libertarian party" to admit and lament that we are outnumbered by tax and spenders even in an organization called "The Libertarian Party."


You mean like they did in the past?  Did the Democrats accept the election of Nixon?  Of Bush 43?  Did cons accept the election of Clinton or Obama?  Did Republican accept the accession of Andrew Johnson.  No to all.  But they did not revolt or assassinate or riot. 

Did they consent to all those?  Yes, at least in the sense that they did not question or withdraw their consent from government as a whole.  They used constitutional means to try to get rid of them, but they did not revolt, assassinate or riot.

Your points one, two, four and five are based entirely on feelings, that people citizens are perceived to have because they do not express otherwise.  We are all able to communicate our feelings to a wider audience nowadays.  There are lots of complaints on mainstream media and social media these days, but very few claims that the government does not have consent.

If , as you claim, consent need not be affirmatively expressed to be valid, it is almost impossible to rationally argue that it does not exist unless there active measures being taken to get rid of the government you claim has no consent.

That is why I would argue that claiming that there is consent in the absence of an affirmative way to express it and measure that express and the absence of an available alternative to consenting is specious.





  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Industry
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 609
Joined: Jun 14th, 2019
Re: Consent ***
Reply #14 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 4:38pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 4:19pm:
But, go ahead.  Jeff up another new definition.


You're the one shifting definitions dummy.

And you're demanding all sorts of retarded crap like if you can't measure it with a measuring cup well it must be impossible to say if it even exists.

You got Big in your name you know some things are relative like an elephant is big I would literally say that and you would be like OMG you did not measure it in grams how can you say its big!!!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Biq Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1405
Joined: Mar 17th, 2019
Re: Consent ***
Reply #15 - Jan 9th, 2020 at 8:00pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 3:45pm:
None.  And it's irrelevant to consent, they weren't citizens.  I've told you repeatedly that consent doesn't make a government moral, it only makes it of the people.  The people meanings citizens.


How do you know they weren't citizens?

Was there a definition of "citizen" in the original constitution?

Where does it say that Jefferson was a citizen but not his sex slave?

Were indentured servants citizens?  What about free black?  What about free people with one eighth black ancestry?  What about Indians who lived in towns and paid taxes?  What about the black soldiers that fought on the American side of the revolution?

You made a bold claim; I'm sure you'll want to back it up.



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

Minarchist

Posts: 10367
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #16 - Jan 10th, 2020 at 7:54am
Print Post  
Little Biq Man wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 8:00pm:
How do you know they weren't citizens?

Was there a definition of "citizen" in the original constitution?

Where does it say that Jefferson was a citizen but not his sex slave?

Were indentured servants citizens?  What about free black?  What about free people with one eighth black ancestry?  What about Indians who lived in towns and paid taxes?  What about the black soldiers that fought on the American side of the revolution?

You made a bold claim; I'm sure you'll want to back it up.





You owned slaves, didn't you?   I mean, the most obsessive anti-smoker is an ex-smoker.   Everyone is against slavery, but you're still determined to run out in front of the parade, even though the parade went home a century and a half ago.

How many slaves did you own?

Kudos for regretting it BTW
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 53074
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Consent ***
Reply #17 - Jan 10th, 2020 at 8:00am
Print Post  
Little Biq Man wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 8:00pm:
How do you know they weren't citizens?

Was there a definition of "citizen" in the original constitution?


The individual states defined citizenship for themselves. When they joined the Union, citizens of each state became citizens of the United States.

And no, no slave state defined slaves as citizens.

  

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

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6352
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #18 - Jan 10th, 2020 at 9:31am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 10th, 2020 at 8:00am:
The individual states defined citizenship for themselves. When they joined the Union, citizens of each state became citizens of the United States.

And no, no slave state defined slaves as citizens.



So, you do not object to being called a "statist," since you consistenly favor the powers of states over the rights of individuals?

I take it you go along with Kaz' assertion that "the people" really means, "the citizens."

You believe that blacks in America were not people until the constitution was amended to say they were?

  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6352
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Consent ***
Reply #19 - Jan 10th, 2020 at 9:43am
Print Post  
Industry wrote on Jan 9th, 2020 at 4:38pm:
You're the one shifting definitions dummy.

And you're demanding all sorts of retarded crap like if you can't measure it with a measuring cup well it must be impossible to say if it even exists.

You got Big in your name you know some things are relative like an elephant is big I would literally say that and you would be like OMG you did not measure it in grams how can you say its big!!!


Are you saying consent is relative?

That makes sense, if that is what you are saying.  Are you asserting that, even though only a tiny fraction of the people of the United States had a say, that was relatively more than had a say under the King?

BTW, saying an elephant is big is a relative statement, true.  They are not as big as an argentinosaurus, or a blue whale, but it is the largest living land animal.  But those facts can be measured in grams, or kilograms more likely. 

You are saying that consent cannot be measured and therefore must either be pressumed unless the pressumption can be rebutted.  Since your premise is that, even if a government openly uses its guns to control citizens and enforce taxation, the presumption is that the people consent, it would be impossible to say that the people do not consent to government. 

In other words "the people consent to government," requires a special definition of "people" and presumption that you are correct that they consent.

You would be more honest to say that you believe that government is necessary, so consent is not an issue.

You were clever to title your post "consent," not "consent of the governed," which is the more common phrase.  You can deny blacks are people, but you cannot deny that whatever species you think they are, they were certainly governed under the constitution.


  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Consent ***
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy