Leaving The Sacred United States Is Horrible, Citizen

[Aloysius]

I think it's the "free men" that are peaceful, sovereign citizen folks are a whole other story perhaps... I really only know what I see in youtube videos though, where they go to court and do crazy hijinks and it's usually over random traffic things where they refuse to have license and registration and all that... those are mostly amusing, I wasn't trying to refer to any of the violent types, I haven't heard too much about such things.

[Nihil Obstat]

I think it's the "free men" that are peaceful, sovereign citizen folks are a whole other story perhaps... I really only know what I see in youtube videos though, where they go to court and do crazy hijinks and it's usually over random traffic things where they refuse to have license and registration and all that... those are mostly amusing, I wasn't trying to refer to any of the violent types, I haven't heard too much about such things.

Oh, I thought they were mostly the same group.

But yeah, I have seen a few videos of them. One where a guy is up in traffic court and decides when the judge recesses that the judge has "abandoned the courtroom", which apparently means that everyone gets off the hook.

[Aloysius]

hahaha yeah they treat it like "maritime law" and consider the judge to have "abandoned ship" lol

 

ultimately all that presents a problem for your assertion that individuals should get to secede, though, territorial authorities have every right to assert sovereign authority over people like sovereign citizens especially (I view the freemen as more harmless as I think they are explicitly peaceful characters), to safeguard the rights of everyone.  that's the just position of a government, to forcefully stop one individual from infringing upon another individual's rights, so it's not so easy that any given individual can "opt out" and therefore be outside of jurisdiction.  I think the freemen people do recognize themselves as being bound by "common law" though, which they would recognize the authority of law enforcement to enforce, so that solves it somehow... but individual household secession?  I disagree with it, I believe in territorial sovereignty under particular conditions for particular purposes and I don't think there is a right to individualism per se in the modernist sense, no one has the right to opt out of society or its authority.

[Nihil Obstat]

I am being glib more than anything else when I mention household secession. :P Certainly everybody is bound by some sort of common law, if they intend to live in association with anyone else. That is simply a feature of the reality of co-existing with other people who have rights. But I do wish that the law were more of a free association between people living in communities, rather than a big stick used to beat down everyone to varying degrees.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Aloysius]

You might be interested in the direction I've been thinking, I've been thinking in terms that there should be overlapping competitive jurisdictions in which individuals can choose between different competing authorities as the protectors of rights... if you're charged by some authority other than the one you have freely voluntarily joined, you can have the backing of the authority that you are a part of.  sort of like if you get in trouble overseas and you have the right to get help from the US Embassy.  those authorities would negotiate between themselves how to fund all the things going on within any given area, and what particular way to tax the people under their jurisdictions.  you'd have competing forms of taxation and all that within your local area.  something like that which preserves sovereignty and authority but also allows for a degree of voluntaryist negotiation would be quite an interesting experiment in freedom.

 

anyway, back to the topic, state legislatures can un-ratify the constitution the same way they ratified it :smokey:

[Winchester]

Spooner was right.

[Nihil Obstat]

You might be interested in the direction I've been thinking, I've been thinking in terms that there should be overlapping competitive jurisdictions in which individuals can choose between different competing authorities as the protectors of rights... if you're charged by some authority other than the one you have freely voluntarily joined, you can have the backing of the authority that you are a part of.  sort of like if you get in trouble overseas and you have the right to get help from the US Embassy.  those authorities would negotiate between themselves how to fund all the things going on within any given area, and what particular way to tax the people under their jurisdictions.  you'd have competing forms of taxation and all that within your local area.  something like that which preserves sovereignty and authority but also allows for a degree of voluntaryist negotiation would be quite an interesting experiment in freedom.

 

anyway, back to the topic, state legislatures can un-ratify the constitution the same way they ratified it :smokey:

Absolutely, I think that is excellent. Btw have you ever read this neat little essay?

[Socrates]

Who is Mark Shea?  And why should anyone take him seriously?

 

Because he's got a BLOG.

 

. . . on THE INTERNET!

 

 

Duh!

[Aloysius]

interesting.  I'm not really an anarcho-capitalist though, the competing local authorities I speak of would be republican forms of government with coercive authority, while taking away the monopoly part of it, I don't suggest the endless proliferation of authorities like some free market of private 'governments'.  It would have to be a relatively democratic criteria by which the competing authorities were formed, the governments should be public not private.  I'm not looking to leave authority in the hands of corporations and private entities, there needs to be a general framework under which the competing authorities become established.  I don't have all the details worked out, but I am decidedly against anarcho capitalism despite that articles rosy picture of the wild west (which is helpful to my ideas, to be sure, but not fully compatible)

[Nihil Obstat]

interesting.  I'm not really an anarcho-capitalist though, the competing local authorities I speak of would be republican forms of government with coercive authority, while taking away the monopoly part of it, I don't suggest the endless proliferation of authorities like some free market of private 'governments'.  It would have to be a relatively democratic criteria by which the competing authorities were formed, the governments should be public not private.  I'm not looking to leave authority in the hands of corporations and private entities, there needs to be a general framework under which the competing authorities become established.  I don't have all the details worked out, but I am decidedly against anarcho capitalism despite that articles rosy picture of the wild west (which is helpful to my ideas, to be sure, but not fully compatible)

I try not to let myself be bound by what is considered anarcho-capitalist orthodoxy. I just want a perfect utopia based on my every whim, which may or may not be well thought out. Is that so much to ask?

[Winchester]

Democratic means is just might makes right. It's mob rule, nothing more.

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html#ref

[Era Might]

interesting.  I'm not really an anarcho-capitalist though, the competing local authorities I speak of would be republican forms of government with coercive authority, while taking away the monopoly part of it, I don't suggest the endless proliferation of authorities like some free market of private 'governments'.  It would have to be a relatively democratic criteria by which the competing authorities were formed, the governments should be public not private.  I'm not looking to leave authority in the hands of corporations and private entities, there needs to be a general framework under which the competing authorities become established.  I don't have all the details worked out, but I am decidedly against anarcho capitalism despite that articles rosy picture of the wild west (which is helpful to my ideas, to be sure, but not fully compatible)

 

There's a book by William Cavanaugh called "Migrations of the Holy" where he talks about the overlapping and co-existing authorities that existed before the modern state came into existince. I haven't read the book but he discusses it in part three of this podcast series:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/books/2012/05/after-atheism-ideas-explores-new-perspectives-on-god-and-religion.html

 

The founders of the American republic were frank about the religious character they wanted to give to the new state. Ben Franklin called for "a cult" of the nation. Thomas Jefferson suggested preserving mementos that would function, he said, "like the relics of the saints." They would "help nourish devotion to this holy body of the union." A few years later the leaders of the French Revolution would try to deify reason, with temples and festivals dedicated to this new god. These are examples of what William Cavanaugh calls Migrations of the Holy. That's the title of a new book in which he argues that what we now call religion is often just a distraction from the real objects of our devotion and the ends for which we're really prepared to make sacrifices. William Cavanaugh takes up these issues in Part 3 of After Atheism.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Era Might

[Era Might]

And from the book description in the link above:

 

Whether one thinks that "religion" continues to fade or has made a comeback in the contemporary world, there is a common notion that "religion" went away somewhere, at least in the West. But William Cavanaugh argues that religious fervor never left -- it has only migrated toward a new object of worship. In Migrations of the Holy he examines the disconcerting modern transfer of sacred devotion from the church to the nation-state.

In these chapters Cavanaugh cautions readers to be wary of a rigid separation of religion and politics that boxes in the church and sends citizens instead to the state for hope, comfort, and salvation as they navigate the risks and pains of mortal life. When nationality becomes the primary source of identity and belonging, he warns, the state becomes the god and idol of its own religion, the language of nationalism becomes a liturgy, and devotees willingly sacrifice their lives to serve and defend their country.

Cavanaugh urges Christians to resist this form of idolatry, to unthink the inevitability of the nation-state and its dreary party politics, to embrace radical forms of political pluralism that privilege local communities -- and to cling to an incarnational theology that weaves itself seamlessly and tangibly into all aspects of daily life and culture.

Read more about the book in a blog post by Cavanaugh on EerdWord.

[Aloysius]

Democratic means is just might makes right. It's mob rule, nothing more.

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html#ref

which is why it doesn't in and of itself legitimize authority.  a monarch could be just as legitimate as a democratically elected government, a democratically elected government can be just as illegitimate as a tyrannical dictator.  it all depends upon whether they are acting based upon just principles.  I recognize a theoretical authority based upon enforcing justice.  Any acts of a government I see as legitimately enforcing justice, I assent to and support.  Any acts I do not see as doing so, I protest against and oppose them.  When it comes down to unjust laws being enforced, I make a calculated decision between peaceful resistance or compliance under duress depending upon how important it is.

 

I fully understand the argument against democracy as a legitimizing force, but I still support having a democratic element to a Republican form of government.  the mere fact of it being democratic does not make its actions legitimate, the democratic element is a tool through which I can peacefully attempt to influence it.  I don't view my participation in the democratic process as any kind of assent to the actions of the government, though, I fully reject the idea that by voting and participating I am legitimating the system.  I understand that the popular mythos is that our government derives its authority from the fact that it has a democratic element to it; I reject that mythos, I view democratic elements of the process as tools not as the basis upon which the government stands.  60% of the American people didn't vote for Barack Obama OR Mitt Romney, that does not factor into their legitimacy or illegitimacy.  

[Nihil Obstat]

And from the book description in the link above:

Based on that description, I think I would very much enjoy that book.