Log in

View Full Version : A statement



ContrarianLemming
28th July 2010, 04:50
Laws become meaningless when people agree not to be bound by them, rights are never intrinsic nor inherent, they are entirely human contructs. The state is even less then that, it is a fiction, a word we choose to apply to various groups we may perceive as being seperate from us, they are not however, though we have succesfully been deceived into thinking that the state is this institution it isn't. The "state" exists only out of popular consent, as do private property rights, if it comes that such rights are no longer part of popular consent or manufactored consent, then they are moot. The "state" does not protect property rights, popular consent does, police do, only because we, or they, agree to it in the "legitimate monopoly on violence" for you cannot run a coal mine without machine guns. The state is a fiction, no more meaningful then the idea that if there is no state, the firemen will no longer put out fires and the cells will no longer hold criminals.
It is a lie.

A man is born with bondage around his legs, and his has great difficulty moving, but he can still sort of shimmy along, never able to make a full stride. None of the police or politicians tell him he can simply take off the bondage, he doesn't realize it's hampering his movement. Eventually he is even told that without the bondage, he could not walk at all, that it is in fact the bondage which allows him to move, that without it he would die or be killed. His boss and politicians tell him this, who also wear the bondage, but are completely convinced that it allows them to walk. After awhile the man wants to defend his binds, fearful of ever losing them, he will even kill and die for them, never wanting to lose the everlasting comfort and stability.

The state, property rights, these fears and lies, perhaps deep seated in the idea that if.. I can't remember a time when things where different, then obviously things will always be this way. And if I can easilly remember a murder, then they must be common.

That is all.

Stephen Colbert
28th July 2010, 04:53
So I'm going to memorize this and when someone says something is unconstitutional I will read off this and play this song in the background:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9vrfEoc8_g

ContrarianLemming
28th July 2010, 05:01
So I'm going to memorize this and when someone says something is unconstitutional I will read off this and play this song in the background:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9vrfEoc8_g

How inspiring :p

leftace53
28th July 2010, 05:07
"legitimate monopoly on violence"

My last poli sci teacher did one thing correctly, and that was using this definition for the state. I think most of us can agree on your points that no law or other methods of current society is inherent, and only exists because people are constantly told that this is the way it is and we can't change it. It was a fun statement to read, and you sir, are a baller. :thumbup1:

Adi Shankara
28th July 2010, 08:53
So I'm going to memorize this and when someone says something is unconstitutional I will read off this and play this song in the background:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9vrfEoc8_g

lol stole my idea where I used star-wars music for a thread about radical Christians fearful of nuclear weapons from god:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1808177&postcount=2

:P

LimitedIdeology
29th July 2010, 02:43
I think one of my skepticisms towards the legitimacy of any state is due to Weber's conception of the "Monopoly on violence". Who gives the state that right? Who decides right or wrong? Apparently, those who have the most guns.

A historical example: After the American Revolutionary War, the Whiskey Rebellion was fought over the same principles (Nationalized government, unfair taxation, unfair land deals). It was put down, in force, by George Washington.

Isn't is sad to realize that such morality flows from the barrel of a gun.