The idea of objective "law" is the root issue of centralized power. Only by recognizing the individual as the supreme ruler of oneself can an emergent "from the ground up" system develop.
It is like a frog in a pot of hot water: turn up the temperature a degree every few minutes. This fact is one of the reasons such a backlash of constitutionalism is growing these days. A 200 year old checks and balance system has no more natural authority than a dictatorship.
Gravity is an objective law. Supply and demand is an objective law. Marginal utility is an objective law. Property is an objective concept, although not fully understood or properly defined by most people.
I would say that the idea of the social contract is the root of centralized power, but I like the way you think.
Ah, yes. I understand what you mean. I was approaching it inductively, and was thinking of "legal" as law in context. I apologize for taking so long to respond, I have been not been on youtube nearly 3 weeks.
Dear BJA, I give you a rigorous argument on agnostic theism/deism. When it comes to growth of Federal power, we click. I like the optimistic comments on the relative risks we would run, regarding [lack of protection by hard state power from foreign aggression] VERSUS [oppressive internal exercise of federal power OR risk of external attack provoked by foreign adventurism]. But, I recall the attempt (1861-65) to establish competitive governments in continental America was unsuccessful. x andrea
The war between the states was not an attempt to establish competitive governments so much as it was an effort to secede and establish a smaller, regional monopoly government. It was a step in the right direction, IMO, as many governments that each rule 1 person only would be ideal.
The key issue is geography. Truly competitive governments would have no geographically exclusive areas of operation.
How about " the war to prevent southern secession"? "the war of Northern aggression? the war against the Tenth Amendment? take your pick, but with a name like Billy Joe, you can't think that I'd be insulted by being called a hillbilly.
Given that you are so rational, would you care to define logical intersection in terms of union and negation? How about union in terms of intersection and negation?
Don't you already have two or more governments? (Democrat/Republican) not concurrently though... no I think it is democracy that's at fault here. I don't think it can be 'fixed'. Also multiple gov. will be tempted to collude-voters will be denied the facts/education and populist govt.(by election) is no guarantee of good gov.The Swiss are armed to the teeth(all military trained with weapons in the house) and federal...maybe something to consider?
In America, the words "government" and the "state" are often used synonymously because our head of government is the head of state. Sorry for the confusion.
I agree with you on all counts, but this video was targeted toward those who are locked in the statist/democracy paradigm. Actually what I am proposing amounts to three or more non-state entities performing what are now considered some state functions. It's just another way to look at anarchocapitalism.
The idea of objective "law" is the root issue of centralized power. Only by recognizing the individual as the supreme ruler of oneself can an emergent "from the ground up" system develop.
It is like a frog in a pot of hot water: turn up the temperature a degree every few minutes. This fact is one of the reasons such a backlash of constitutionalism is growing these days. A 200 year old checks and balance system has no more natural authority than a dictatorship.
TruthHidden 3 years ago
Gravity is an objective law. Supply and demand is an objective law. Marginal utility is an objective law. Property is an objective concept, although not fully understood or properly defined by most people.
I would say that the idea of the social contract is the root of centralized power, but I like the way you think.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
Ah, yes. I understand what you mean. I was approaching it inductively, and was thinking of "legal" as law in context. I apologize for taking so long to respond, I have been not been on youtube nearly 3 weeks.
TruthHidden 3 years ago
Dear BJA, I give you a rigorous argument on agnostic theism/deism. When it comes to growth of Federal power, we click. I like the optimistic comments on the relative risks we would run, regarding [lack of protection by hard state power from foreign aggression] VERSUS [oppressive internal exercise of federal power OR risk of external attack provoked by foreign adventurism]. But, I recall the attempt (1861-65) to establish competitive governments in continental America was unsuccessful. x andrea
andreaandrewmilne 3 years ago
The war between the states was not an attempt to establish competitive governments so much as it was an effort to secede and establish a smaller, regional monopoly government. It was a step in the right direction, IMO, as many governments that each rule 1 person only would be ideal.
The key issue is geography. Truly competitive governments would have no geographically exclusive areas of operation.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
What kind of hillbilly still calls the Civil War the "War Between the States?"
hitchwatch 3 years ago
How about " the war to prevent southern secession"? "the war of Northern aggression? the war against the Tenth Amendment? take your pick, but with a name like Billy Joe, you can't think that I'd be insulted by being called a hillbilly.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
How about "the war against the hillbillies?"
condellwatch 3 years ago
That's not bad.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
Given that you are so rational, would you care to define logical intersection in terms of union and negation? How about union in terms of intersection and negation?
condellwatch 3 years ago
no, I wouldn't.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
haha. I found this video funny. Humorous for truth and technical merits. :)
Interesting food for thought too.
Sepero1 3 years ago
Don't you already have two or more governments? (Democrat/Republican) not concurrently though... no I think it is democracy that's at fault here. I don't think it can be 'fixed'. Also multiple gov. will be tempted to collude-voters will be denied the facts/education and populist govt.(by election) is no guarantee of good gov.The Swiss are armed to the teeth(all military trained with weapons in the house) and federal...maybe something to consider?
HOLLNAIER 3 years ago
In America, the words "government" and the "state" are often used synonymously because our head of government is the head of state. Sorry for the confusion.
I agree with you on all counts, but this video was targeted toward those who are locked in the statist/democracy paradigm. Actually what I am proposing amounts to three or more non-state entities performing what are now considered some state functions. It's just another way to look at anarchocapitalism.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
ok its bad but we can not riot because if we do the govement will take away more of r rights :)
lucklyclover58 3 years ago
you remind me of tom arnold.
you ever get that?
junior00bacon00chee 3 years ago
That's it. I'm going on a diet.
billyjoeallen 3 years ago
billy for president :p
altargirl89 3 years ago
I doubt I'd get elected on a platform of firing the entire executive branch and pardoning all federal prisoners, but thanks!
billyjoeallen 3 years ago