Violent Revolution

[Locke]

The longer I live in the U.S. the more I notice that Americans will take or absorb anything that comes to them. I'm sure some of you said "damn straight" and "that's right" but I didn't mean that statement as a compliment. I don't mean that you get what you want, I mean that our governement and the global community does what it wants to individuals in this country and we just keep taking it; Like the small kid on the playground when the bully beats him up every day. I don't mean that America is the small kid on the playground, that wouldn't make any sense, what I mean is that Americans once stood up and demanded rights they wanted and deserved, no longer is that american spirit instilled in her children.

I watch day after day as men, women, and children of every race, creed and color forfeit what is rightfully theirs. No one in this country cares enough about anything other then the car in their driveway and the bills on their dinning room table to stand up and demand what is rightfully theirs. and it sickens me to see such a great spirit, such a great tradition lost to time as the American society dies day by day.

If I had the power I would call for revolution the likes of which this world has never seen. People from all over the world conferging on one place to claim their freedom from the oppression of others. Not just Europeans or Asians, Not Africans or Americans but people from all walks of life from all over the globe seeking to unite in one cause. To secure freedom for every living soul on the face of the planet. A Global Government that doesn't govern but simply protects. But this will not come by way of talking, No Hegemony could ever come out of talking. It will sadly require the blood of soldiers fighting for countries they do not want to follow and the blood of men who wish to grasp at the last shreds of personal power. I say it will not be easy and generation after us will not understand why it was done but someday, maybe years from now, maybe hundreds of years from now it must be done or the human race will never last on this world or any other.

[FreedomFirst]

Agreed, to an extent. I've always said that Americans won't fight back against abusive government until it starts dragging people out in the streets and shooting them. We're like the frogs in the cooking water, not noticing that it keeps getting hotter.

It's amazing to think that the founders of this country started the Boston Tea Party over a tax that today would be ignored. Makes me sick. It also makes me think that maybe all of America isn't ready for freedom anymore. That's why I moved to New Hampshire as a part of the Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org).

[Anarchist]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Locke,)
A Global Government that doesn't govern but simply protects. But this will not come by way of talking, No Hegemony could ever come out of talking. It will sadly require the blood of soldiers fighting for countries they do not want to follow and the blood of men who wish to grasp at the last shreds of personal power. I say it will not be easy and generation after us will not understand why it was done but someday, maybe years from now, maybe hundreds of years from now it must be done or the human race will never last on this world or any other.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

A "global government" that doesn't "govern." How are you going to go about "limiting" this "government?"

[Locke]

It is a quandry, I will give you that. But how does one limit any governement; the power of the people. It does depend on the people never becoming as apathetic as they are today in the U.S. and complete transparancy on the part of the government, but it could be done with only a system of courts and no other governemental agencies. but yes, it is rather dificult to imagine and I see where your disbelieve comes from, I simply have higher hopes for human reason then maybe I should

[Anarchist]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Locke,)
It is a quandry, I will give you that. But how does one limit any governement; the power of the people. It does depend on the people never becoming as apathetic as they are today in the U.S. and complete transparancy on the part of the government, but it could be done with only a system of courts and no other governemental agencies. but yes, it is rather dificult to imagine and I see where your disbelieve comes from, I simply have higher hopes for human reason then maybe I should<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You're right. It is a quandary; one without any positive resolution. For now I'll dispense with my usual bitching about the use of the word "government" (something that doesn't exist) so I won't confuse anyone just yet. You want an organization powerful enough to protect you from a billion red chinese (or any other foreign bogeyman of your preference) but NOT powerful enough to kick your own ass or violate your rights. This just isn't possible. For this imaginary agency to correct every perceived wrong in the world and to stop "the bad guys", it needs absolute power. If it can be "limited" then it's not "government."

I can already hear the protests about the US constitution from some people; and sorry. The US constitution is a glorfied piece of Charmin double ply. It has not once stopped a bullet, a tank, or someone's rights from being infringed. Nor does this magical piece of paper grant rights. It's just a piece of paper. Some say that this document grants freedom to "the pee-puhl" (depending on which magical forumula you're using to determine who "the people" are) as if slavery were a naturally resulting human condition, which is absurd.

Another complaint I hear often is about "voter apathy." "If you don't vote, you can't complain." I don't know how many times an authoritarian will get away with using this bit of hackneyed, highschool civics class propaganda during an argument; it's flatout crap. Firstly, I can't think of anything more apathetic than walking into a "Secret Booth" to press a button once every four years. What worse is actually thinking that your one measly vote makes any difference. Even the "Value" of a vote is unequal to votes in other states. After that, you've got the electoral college overriding the popular vote, so you're really just wasting your time. Since you're the one who's consenting for the politicians to steal your money and order you around, YOU don't have the right to complain (going by statist logic, since I recognize that you can withdraw your consent at any time, "legally binding documents" be damned).

On top of all this, the entire basis of voting is stupid. (Now I'll get to the "government" part) A "government" would need "authority" (the RIGHT to rule other people) in order to exist, the result of it's non-existence being *gasp* anarchy. Now, instead of writing a twenty paragraph diatribe about this, I'll just ask a question and let it go from here:

IF this "right to rule other people" (authority) exists, WHERE did the politicians get it?

[james?]

Yeah, violent revolution really appeals to me, too. I'm optimistic, but I don't think its gonna happen. And I don't think Americans will ever do anything about this creeping oppressiveness. Our school system is replicative of society: unnecessary anaylsis of our ability to complete worthless tasks. America's youth is raised among this, and their developing views are quietly contorted until they break and flow with an eerie unquestioned acceptance of this legislated mindlessness.

It might be soon when any capable, questioning mind is so bent from any practical, libertarious logic that we will be faced with a one-sided, secreted battle between people and state.

[Anarchist]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (james?,)
Our school system is replicative of society: unnecessary anaylsis of our ability to complete worthless tasks. America's youth is raised among this, and their developing views are quietly contorted until they break and flow with an eerie unquestioned acceptance of this legislated mindlessness.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Good point. When you took "government" class in highschool, did the teacher open up the first day with a discussion topic on whether or not the politicians have the right to you and everyone else? Of course not. You're just supposed to accept it, because "that's the way it is." Without even bothering to examine the basic (and loony) premises of "government," the teacher burns past GO and collects $200 without having to explain any of it. He then goes on to discuss "the proper role of 'government' or 'democracy'" while the students bovinely accept it all as a given part of reality (either that or they snooze through most of it, which is what I did).

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (FreedomFirst,)
It's amazing to think that the founders of this country started the Boston Tea Party over a tax that today would be ignored.  Makes me sick.  It also makes me think that maybe all of America isn't ready for freedom anymore.  That's why I moved to New Hampshire as a part of the Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

FreedomFirst, the Boston Tea Party was not to protest the tea tax so much as to protest "taxation without representation". One of the ideals of the founders of our country was that all citizens could speak with a voice. In this time, the colonists on the east coast were actually some of the lowest taxed denizens of the British Empire. At the same time, they had also just had a war fought on their behalf by the British, and it only seemed reasonable to the British to place a light tax upon them to pay for some of the expense. Taxation is not an infringment on our rights, but is in fact very necessary for our government to provide very necessary services such as police, fire, K-12 education, a military to defend the country (not here to argue about the nature of it though), social services, and countless other services. As citizens of this nation our solution should not be revolution, but instead to support positive reform within our country.

Locke himself saw revolution as one of the last options in reform. "Against anarchy, Locke saw his job as one who must defend government as an institution. Locke's object was to insist not only that the public welfare was the test of good government and the basis for properly imposing obligations on the citizens of a country; but, also, that the public welfare made government necessary."-Quoted from
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biograph...sophy/Locke.htm.

Of course, I understand that you are not John Locke. However, I felt to point out his opinions to you if you were going to follow his tag.

[Anarchist]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Elias,)
Taxation is not an infringment on our rights, but is in fact very necessary for our government to provide very necessary services such as police, fire, K-12 education, a military to defend the country (not here to argue about the nature of it though), social services, and countless other services. As citizens of this nation our solution should not be revolution, but instead to support positive reform within our country.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Taxation is a forced exaction of money from a person or group of persons. A sister word to "exaction" is "extortion" which is a form of aggrevated theft: "Give us your money or we will ___________." <---fill in the blank. I had no idea that theft was necessary for "government" (an imaginary agency) to provide police (who are under no "legal obligation" to protect the individual), fire (some of which are already privately operated without the need for state sponsored theft, just like some police/security services), K-12 education (which isn't worth a damn), a military (which transforms you into an indirect target for the opposing gang, regardless of your actual affiliation or lack thereof), social services (like welfare, medicaid and socialist security, which are basically transfer of wealth schemes and/or slush funds), and countless other services, what ever those are.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Elias,)
Locke himself saw revolution as one of the last options in reform. "Against anarchy, Locke saw his job as one who must defend government as an institution. Locke's object was to insist not only that the public welfare was the test of good government and the basis for properly imposing obligations on the citizens of a country; but, also, that the public welfare made government necessary."-Quoted from
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biograph...sophy/Locke.htm.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Personally, I think Locke (not you from the forum, Locke) was a twit. Notwithstanding the absurdity of his "social contract" idea, how the hell does someone IMPOSE an obligation (which is a self-imposed duty) on another person?

[Anarchist]

From: (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Social contract?
Date: 14 May 92 08:53:22 GMT

We've all heard of the "Social Contract" -- the unwritten agreement between individuals and "society" (i.e. the government.) The following is an attempt to write down, once and for all, just what the contract is that we've all supposedly agreed to.

SOCIAL CONTRACT
between an individual and the United States Government

WHEREAS I wish to reside on the North American continent, and WHEREAS the United States Government controls the area of the continent on which I wish to reside, and WHEREAS tacit or implied contracts are vague and therefore unenforceable,

I agree to the following terms:

SECTION 1: I will surrender a percentage of my property to the Government. The actual percentage will be determined by the Government and will be subject to change at any time. The amount to be surrendered may be based on my income, the value of my property, the value of my purchases, or any other criteria the Government chooses. To aid the Government in determining the percentage, I will apply for a Government identification number that I will use in all my major financial transactions.

SECTION 2: Should the Government demand it, I will surrender my liberty for a period of time determined by the government and typically no shorter than two years. During that time, I will serve the Government in any way it chooses, including military service in which I may be called upon to sacrifice my life.

SECTION 3: I will limit my behavior as demanded by the government. I will consume only those drugs permitted by the Government. I will limit my sexual activities to those permitted by the Government. I will forsake religious beliefs that conflict with the Government's determination of propriety. More limits may be imposed at any time.

SECTION 4: In consideration for the above, the Government will permit me to find employment, subject to limits that will be determined by the Government. These limits may restrict my choice of career or the wages I may accept.

SECTION 5: The Government will permit me to reside in the area of North America which it controls. Also, the Government will permit me to speak freely, subject to limits determined by the Government's Congress and Supreme Court.

SECTION 6: The Government will attempt to protect my life and my claim to the property it has allowed me to keep. I agree not to hold the Government liable if it fails to protect me or my property.

SECTION 7: The Government will offer various services to me. The nature and extent of these services will be determined by the Government and are subject to change at any time.

SECTION 8: The Government will determine whether I may vote for certain Government officials. The influence of my vote will vary inversely with the number of voters, and I understand that it typically will be minuscule. I agree not to hold any elected Government officials liable for acting against my best interests or for breaking promises, even if those promises motivated me to vote for them.

SECTION 9: I agree that the Government may hold me fully liable if I fail to abide by the above terms. In that event, the Government may confiscate any property that I have not previously surrendered to it, and may imprison me for a period of time to be determined by the Government. I also agree that the Government may alter the terms of this contract at any time.

_____________________________
signature

_____________________________
date

Copyright 1989 by Robert E. Alexander.
May be distributed freely.

[james?]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Elias,)
Taxation is not an infringment on our rights, but is in fact very necessary for our government to provide very necessary services such as police, fire, K-12 education, a military to defend the country (not here to argue about the nature of it though), social services, and countless other services.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Those who govern are not God. They are not responsible for every fucking facet of my well-being, and in the end they are no more capable than I in determining my existence.

I don't see why you find it the government's job to endlessly punish, protect, educate, and parent its citizens. I guess you could call it a solution, but it opposes every natural aspect of a free society in that it does not allow competition.

An ideal police force would be one that protects our basic rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), and does nothing more. In actuality, our police force's major purpose is to punish. And for what do they punish? "Crimes". However, the definition of crime has been twisted beyond calculation. There is the true definition in where it is only definable as the infringement of a peer's rights, and there is the false, accepted definition in where committing a crime is committing any act, however private, that is offbeat with legislated social norms. If I spark up a joint in my own home, who's rights am I infringing upon?

We need social services that are unrelated, and completely unrestrained from government influence. Police forces need to be competing companies, so that each can truly please their customers. The only reason you'd have contact with your police force is when they would be necessary protect you from infringements upon your basic freedoms, and the only reason you'd have contact with another's police is if you had infringed upon another's basic freedoms.

Police are meant to protect, nothing more.

[white rice]

Good times will always breed apathy. Having one global power to serve the interests of a diverse and multicultural earth an unheard challenge. Freedom and protection is relative. What you're calling for could also be applied to facism, authoritarianism, or the New World Order.

War will bring out the worst of men, and it will force the idealists to compromise more and more to reach a greater consensus (more allies) or an uneasy truce.

1984 came from a very simple fear.

[PeterAngelo]

I spent a few hours at the Federal Court Building in Tampa researching some cases at the clerks office.

The security was a gas - like an airport. The marshalls came up to the clerks office to check me out. I am pretty well known in Tampa - my "Bin Laden is Moses Reborn" has been read by all my "judge" friends.

I had fun with the marshalls. They are mostly retired New York cops and we are kindrid spirits. One of my bong screens set off the scanner. I didn't know it was in that pocket. When I pulled it out I said, "a screen, now how did that get there?"

The marshall looked at me and said, "What are you doing with a screen?"

"Who me?, I said. "I have no idea what you mean."

He smiled at me and all the other guys (six marshalls) laughed with us. It is good to be with a lawfirm in a Federal Building and be one of the boys. I told them it was good to have them guard me - I need it. Good old boys - for sure.

There was an individual - with a foreign accent - asking the clerk for some help understanding the process.

She told him she was not allowed to give any advice. He was livid. He said he didn't want to cause any trouble but the "system" was ridiculous and if you are not a lawyer - it is impossible to access the courts.

GOOD GUESS.

While I and my brother got all the help we needed from the same clerks - he watched and waited.

We noticed twenty years ago that full citizenship - and legitimacy - only comes by being an official part of the government. Lawyers are certainly that.

If my brother-the -lawyer, and I did not have legal educations, and membership in the BAR, we would have been as helpless and frustrated as that man.

He said that the case he was working on meant his livleyhood, and his families prosperity. He is doomed without VERY EXPENSIVE legal representation (especially in federal cases).

It seems to me that the whole voting process, the real meaning of being a "citizen", means being an active party member (DEM or REP), politician lawyer, or some kind of police agent (FBI - CIA - etc.).

Unless you are a member of the bureaucracy - you are a "foreigner".

That is how it really is.

Get a legal education - for your own survival and your familie's.

Even if you are a beach bum, or a brain surgeon - a legal education is a must for self-protection and membership into the US - GOVERNMENT!

I do a lot of unofficial reporting to the local papers when I run across something interesting. I have a degree in mass Communications and am a trained photo-journalist.

The following report is being followed up by the Tampa Tribune. It builds my case that the release of violent criminals, and the drug trade, are control mechanisms used by the ruling elite to keep a big police force "necessary" - when it really isn't.

I spoke to a Clearwater (Florida) Police detective (Keishe Bradley) today and heard some astonishing news. It seems that Florida not only has a heroin epidemic, we also have a meth-amphetamine epidemic that is being aided and abetted by the police themselves.

She told me that the police do not bust local meth labs because;

1) Under federal rules the police have to bring in OSHA experts to properly dispose of the chemicals.

2) The danger of causing an explosion when storming a meth lab located in a residential neighborhood is too great to take a chance on lawsuits and “collateral damage.”

The end result is that the combined epidemics of meth - amphetamine, and heroin are causing a lot of death and destruction. It is another effective control mechanism for a frustrated and powerless populace.

Instead of the cops actively stopping the drug trade, they are using it as a means of population control. We end up killing each other, making the courts and police stronger by helping to keep the drug culture in business.

I wrote a lot about the time I spent working at Customs Clearance and Dispatch in Miami several years ago. The customs officer in charge of “guarding” the warehouse personally handled the container of heroin that arrived every week. It is true – I was there and worked with him.

The media (local) has never even hinted at this deliberate (and suspicious) decision by law authorities to NOT bust meth – labs.

I will send this to several local print and TV personalities I know and see if the story can be made more “mainstream.”

These policies are not accidental. The drug “war” is a war against us. The deliberate criminalization of substances that frustrated, angry people use to kill their pain is a guaranteed way of building up a police state and having the “sheep” kill themselves, and each other.

It makes work for lawyers, and justifies more and more prisons to hold minorities and political prisoners.

It is a brilliant improvement in the traditional police state. Instead of police and soldiers doing the shooting and killing directly – they promote policies that lead to the people committing self-genocide.

Incredible – it really is working.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anarchist,)
Taxation is a forced exaction of money from a person or group of persons. A sister word to "exaction" is "extortion" which is a form of aggrevated theft: "Give us your money or we will ___________." <---fill in the blank. I had no idea that theft was necessary for "government" (an imaginary agency) to provide police (who are under no "legal obligation" to protect the individual), fire (some of which are already privately operated without the need for state sponsored theft, just like some police/security services), K-12 education (which isn't worth a damn), a military (which transforms you into an indirect target for the opposing gang, regardless of your actual affiliation or lack thereof), social services (like welfare, medicaid and socialist security, which are basically transfer of wealth schemes and/or slush funds), and countless other services, what ever those are.?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Anarchist, I would argue on the other hand that these services provided by the government provide a good deal to the common good of humanity. The definition of tax in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes. Taxation itself is a forced payment. However in a true democracy, like the one which Locke advocated, the taxes are decided upon by the people. Therefore, the taxes are spent on the common good rather than the theft which you claim. Exaction and extortion are similiar words, however with different connotations and meanings. Both have a similiar effects, however through very different methods. In the case of taxation, we have a tax that has been voted on by the people being paid for by the people. Now the tax must be returned for the common good. Therefore, we have public services. I will give some examples of services that are best run through the state. There are private security forces. However, these typically operate to protect a single institution. If these private forces were given free reign over an area, under what you propose you realize that you are advocating a police force mandated by its employer, not the average person. Therefore, you could very easily see a police force used to suppress a population, and oppression could rise as the wealthy hire their own "police" forces to impose their rule. At current moment, the state police force handles most incidents, with private forces providing security at installations such as stores or corporate facilities. In contrast of private police/security forces which are responsible to their employer, you have the state-run police force. As the state is representative of and responsible for its citizens, then its police force is also responsible to maintain peace and order within the populace. A state-run police force in the democracy working for the common good is an improvement over the private police/security force responsible only to its employer. There are very few private fire services (none that I know of), although private EMS (Emergency Medical Services) are common. However, private EMS services are once again dedicated to their customers, not those who can't afford high prices. On a second note, in my area which has developed an effective state-run EMS system, the state-run EMS system has continually proven itself to be a more capable medical service than private companies. In most locations around the country, this has proven the case. K-12 education although imperfect is a strong note to add to government. It has provided a basis for solid primary education, and once again allowed opportunities to all instead of merely those who could afford them. Public education has been a principle of western culture since the classical era (although it lapsed during the medieval period). These services are provided to the masses through a government whose mandate is to serve its citizens. By privatizing these necessary services, you create an atmosphere in which corruption will increase the gulf between the wealthy and the common man. Power does not corrupt. We are all inherently somewhat corrupt. However, through power our corruption manifests itself. In allowing unabated power to the wealthy, you allow the risk of a return to absolute power.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anarchist,)

Personally, I think Locke (not you from the forum, Locke) was a twit. Notwithstanding the absurdity of his "social contract" idea, how the hell does someone IMPOSE an obligation (which is a self-imposed duty) on another person?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

The idea of the social contract was that a people (plural) would impose obligations on itself. Thence, it could cooperate for the common good of itself. This was Locke's concept of a government; one that doesn't work for itself, but instead is dedicated to providing for its citizens. You do not impose an obligation on another person. Instead, you and the other person both impose the obligation on yourselves, and as a whole work in cooperation to accomplish a common goal.

[james?]

Very intesting points, however I don't agree with the war on drugs in the first place. What right has any official to prevent me from using substances, however unsafe they are? Freedom is choice.

[james?]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Elias,)
Anarchist, I would argue on the other hand that these services provided by the government provide a good deal to the common good of humanity.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

But there is no common good! Don't you understand that?! For ever positive there is a negative. There is no definite positive. What's good for the whole isn't good for the individual, and what's good for the individual isn't good for the whole.

[Anarchist]

Quote by: Elias, Anarchist, I would argue on the other hand that these services provided by the government provide a good deal to the common good of humanity. The definition of tax in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes. Taxation itself is a forced payment. However in a true democracy, like the one which Locke advocated, the taxes are decided upon by the people.

"a charge usually of money imposes by authority on persons or property for public purposes"

WHere do the politicians get the "right" to demand money under threat of imprisonment? Don't say "the people," either. That amounts to "everyone has the right to steal from everyone else" which obviously doesn't follow. Taxes are decided upon by "the people" eh? Who ARE "the people?" The last time I checked, YOU weren't the one deciding tax policy. THe politicians are. They are not your servants. They are the ones issuing the orders, not you. No amount of "democracy" gobbledegook is going to change that.

Quote by: Elias, Therefore, the taxes are spent on the common good rather than the theft which you claim. Exaction and extortion are similiar words, however with different connotations and meanings. Both have a similiar effects, however through very different methods. In the case of taxation, we have a tax that has been voted on by the people being paid for by the people. Now the tax must be returned for the common good. Therefore, we have public services.

You're under the loony impression that a great deal of the stolen tax loot won't be siphoned off into the pockets of politicians or wasted on stupid pet projects that the state is so fond of. Regardless, theft is still wrong, even if the thief gives a little back. Even IF the result of all that tax spending resulted in "common good," it still doesn't justify the method of aquiring funds. It also doesn't matter if "the people" vote to tax everyone else. A million times zero is still zero. You can't conjure up a "right to steal" no matter how many people vote on it. I'd like you to give me the calculation you're using to determine who "the people" are. I keep hearing this "the people" junk, but not one person has told me what it consists of.

"The tax MUST be returned for the common good." Says who?! You? Are YOU the one making laws and enforcing them with threats?

[quote=Elias,]
I will give some examples of services that are best run through the state. There are private security forces. However, these typically operate to protect a single institution.{/QUOTE]

Like the US military?

Quote by: Elias, If these private forces were given free reign over an area, under what you propose you realize that you are advocating a police force mandated by its employer, not the average person.

Again, you must think you have the politicians under your thumb. "mandated by the employer, not the average person" I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. How is the "mandated by the employer" situation ANY different from what's happening now? Just substitute "employer" with "politician."

Quote by: Elias, Therefore, you could very easily see a police force used to suppress a population, and oppression could rise as the wealthy hire their own "police" forces to impose their rule.

How is that different from what happens now?

[quote=Elias,]At current moment, the state police force handles most incidents, with private forces providing security at installations such as stores or corporate facilities. In contrast of private police/security forces which are responsible to their employer, you have the state-run police force. As the state is representative of and responsible for its citizens, then its police force is also responsible to maintain peace and order within the populace. {/QUOTE]

No wonder "government" ends up acting like a schizophrenic. You're telling me that a few politicians are "representing" the interests of millions of people? That's outrageous.

Quote by: Elias, A state-run police force in the democracy working for the common good is an improvement over the private police/security force responsible only to its employer.

Why is that? What makes them any different (other than the private forces are legitmate and the state forces are funded by extortion)?

Quote by: Elias, There are very few private fire services (none that I know of), although private EMS (Emergency Medical Services) are common. However, private EMS services are once again dedicated to their customers, not those who can't afford high prices. On a second note, in my area which has developed an effective state-run EMS system, the state-run EMS system has continually proven itself to be a more capable medical service than private companies.

I've been picked up by a private EMS ambulance after a car accident. They didn't ask for my insurance card before they picked me up. In fact, they didn't ask for anything. They just took me to the hospital. It seemed to me that the private EMS service was just as efficient as the extortion funded state service.

Quote by: Elias, In most locations around the country, this has proven the case.

How do you know?

Quote by: Elias, K-12 education although imperfect is a strong note to add to government. It has provided a basis for solid primary education, and once again allowed opportunities to all instead of merely those who could afford them. Public education has been a principle of western culture since the classical era (although it lapsed during the medieval period). These services are provided to the masses through a government whose mandate is to serve its citizens.

I still don't see how paying for another person's half-assed public education is justification for theft.

Quote by: Elias, By privatizing these necessary services, you create an atmosphere in which corruption will increase the gulf between the wealthy and the common man. Power does not corrupt. We are all inherently somewhat corrupt. However, through power our corruption manifests itself. In allowing unabated power to the wealthy, you allow the risk of a return to absolute power.

Again...how is that any different from what's happening now?

Quote by: Elias, The idea of the social contract was that a people (plural) would impose obligations on itself.

TRANSLATION: The idea of a social contract was that some people would use force to make people ante up their cash so they can pay for _____________ which may or may not be a waste of money.

Quote by: Elias, Thence, it could cooperate for the common good of itself. This was Locke's concept of a government; one that doesn't work for itself, but instead is dedicated to providing for its citizens. You do not impose an obligation on another person. Instead, you and the other person both impose the obligation on yourselves, and as a whole work in cooperation to accomplish a common goal.

What's the common goal in mind? Getting fleeced? Aaaak...

[FreedomFirst]

You're right, the BTP was a fight against taxation without representation, but more specifically it was a direct result of the implementation of the tea tax. And I would agree with you that taxation is necessary. On an ideological level I can talk about how our society can function on excise taxes and user fees, but for practical purposes I'll just talk about how we should replace our income tax with a FairTax (www.fairtax.org) which would enable us to keep all federal services (though many are unconstitutional).

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

FreedomFirst, the Boston Tea Party was not to protest the tea tax so much as to protest "taxation without representation". One of the ideals of the founders of our country was that all citizens could speak with a voice. In this time, the colonists on the east coast were actually some of the lowest taxed denizens of the British Empire. At the same time, they had also just had a war fought on their behalf by the British, and it only seemed reasonable to the British to place a light tax upon them to pay for some of the expense. Taxation is not an infringment on our rights, but is in fact very necessary for our government to provide very necessary services such as police, fire, K-12 education, a military to defend the country (not here to argue about the nature of it though), social services, and countless other services. As citizens of this nation our solution should not be revolution, but instead to support positive reform within our country...(Ed: Continued but not quoted)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

[Locke]

I began this thread hoping to hear arguments for and against Violent revolt in today's society, not mianderings of the idiotic from the Boston Tea Party to lectures on my Tag.

I understand the argument that a Global government has the power to become oprressive, but so does these here United States and so I simply argue that a Global Government organized with no other power then to enforce property rights and control the use of WMD's in small skermishes has the most potential to begin the people of this world thinking as a global society and stop acting like primates who feel the need to chalk off their area of the world with an imaginary line drawn in the sand.

I don't expect this to happen in my lifetime as I am sure that people will continue to be as territorial as they have always been, but how many theorists were able to see their ideal governments come to pass?

[FreedomFirst]

Locke, the problem is that you need to walk well into the danger zone to create a global government and manage to arrange things so that this government has very little power. I find that regional, decentralized governments are a more effective way to preserve liberty. IMHO nothing good can come from a centralization of power.