Government is against the law. Prove me wrong statist scum

Government is against the law. Prove me wrong statist scum

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland
arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/before-babies-even-babble-or-roll-theyre-primed-to-be-superhero-fans/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Cowards.

>DEBATE ME
>'no'

It is if it operates without the consent of the governed.

>people living in anarchy just raping and killing each other all day
>one day somebody has the brilliant idea to gather up the smartest, strongest or most trustworthy people and let them tell everybody what to do
>everybody gets ordered to refrain from doing certain things that would piss others off. Decide to call these orders LAWS, because it sounds cool
>things suddenly improve, people live happily, life is easier
OP then comes along
>hurr durr fuck da gubment

Government is based in the idea that there are rightful rulers who can rule over others with force. The individual has never had the right (moral law) to initiate force on peaceful people. Therefore, they can not delegate this right to someone else. Government is inherently immoral, criminal, and illegitimate.

>Government is against the law. Prove me wrong statist scum
Well if they are against then wouldn't they just fuck all people on benefits over and pocket the cash for themselves.

Pic related is the sole exception

Much more murder is committed on behalf of "authority" than by private individuals

>gather up the smartest, strongest or most trustworthy people and let them tell everybody what to do
Such governments have precisely been the worst throughout time and have waged the most destructive wars in history with the most raping and Killing etc

Is that not what government does? You think tax dollars are spent carefully and virtuously?

>fuck all people on benefits over and pocket the cash for themselves.
Government keeps 2/3rd of the money that goes towards benefits.
They give the scraps needed to keep people dependent yet living just well enough to keep said people passive

Government exists because natural law doesn't exist. Prove me wrong.

You can't. There is no natural law. Nature is organic and survival of the fittest. Good luck proving a natural law exists pleb.

Explain what natural law is because I have a stinking suspicion that you can't and just made that sentence as an empty assertion

define harm

There is an objective truth that initiating force on peaceful people is wrong. Slavery has been legal, but it has always been wrong. Murder has been legal, but it has always been wrong. Fuck your moral relativism

Prove that natural law exists first.

Prove that gravity exists

Anything that infringes on the rights of an individual

Freedom is inherently opposed to government

>Much more murder is committed on behalf of "authority" than by private individuals
Yes, that's true. We DO have less murder from civilians than from authority because there are fucking laws preventing civilians from killing each other.
If some people are too fucking stupid to stop killing, then they get put the fuck down.
That's true. And we managed to wage those wars and not just straight up massacre each other because we some semblance of order.

With governments and rulers, we managed to advance as a species, provide a place for scientists to study and invent shit, provide protection to common people who would not make it without it, create vast sources of food and fresh water and create beauty, never before seen.
The down side is war and a few dead niggers(of any race) here and there. That's it. No genocide and starvation like in Africa, no starvation due to unregulated farming and hunting leading to dwindling food sources, no families being killed and looted in the night.

Gravity has consequences, "natural law" does not.

>That's true. And we managed to wage those wars and not just straight up massacre each other because we some semblance of order.
You just refuted your claim that government is what stops this violence.
> With governments and rulers, we managed to advance as a species, provide a place for scientists to study and invent shit, provide protection to common people who would not make it without it, create vast sources of food and fresh water and create beauty, never before seen.
Government has never been able to do those things to anywhere near the degree people trading freely do. The biggest examples of governments trying to do these things have lead to the worse famines in all of human history in the USSR and China.
At the very very best government can aid in protection of people doing these things.
> No genocide and starvation like in Africa, no starvation due to unregulated farming and hunting leading to dwindling food sources, no families being killed and looted in the night.
The worst off all of those things have happened directly by government action.

The single biggest non natural cause of death over the last 100 years has been democide people murdered by their own governments or starved to death due to futile attempts at government centralized planning.

>fucking laws preventing civilians from killing each other.
I forgot those tidbit
Laws don't prevent these things from happening. People who wish to murder still murder. Laws only punish people after the fact.

The massive reduction in crime in the west is due to economic advancement largely and almost exclusively due to the rise of globalized capitalistic trade which and the furthering of the division of labor etc etc if I have to explain these things you shouldn't be having this discussion.

Man made laws PREVENT murder? Pretty sure the police just show up after you're dead and write a report, possibly catch the guy.

Murder is already immoral and wrong, not a right (natural law).

Really? Let's see how long you can go breaking moral laws (murder, theft, etc) and have it not catch up to you. Just like gravity. This truth is inherent to creation.

That's because in doing so you're also breaking man-made laws, which have consequences.

>You just refuted your claim that government is what stops this violence.
Violence will always fucking exists. The difference lies in weather it's between two soldiers on the front lines, or between Jamal's gang and your wife, since there's nobody to protect her(no, you don't qualify as protection, maybe as bait).
>Government has never been able to do those things to anywhere near the degree people trading freely do.
The reason people are able to do it is because they have an environment that allows them to do that in, without the threat of death or starvation.
>At the very very best government can aid in protection of people doing these things.
See? You can do it too if you try!
>The worst off all of those things have happened directly by government action.
If you're too incompetent to pick a government that does the things it's meant to protect you from, then maybe you deserve to suffer.

Nice meme dude. Anyone with a brain knows we are a very social species with the capacity for empathy, so we came up with mutually understood rules of 'don't fuck each other over.' Later people would come into power to enforce those as laws--and individuals would certainly be tyrannical in many cases--but government isn't inherently bad. Anarchy would be great if there were only 50-100 million people, divided into small communities or whatever, but there's no way it could work in today's society. It would be a hellscape for all involved.

according to the bible you are correct.
until the almighty rule of the of the Christ we have to deal with the antichrist and his government.

You know there's people who've killed hundreds, playing golf and fucking prostitutes right now, right?

If you're seriously talking about karma, or divine punishment, forget it. There will never be anything like that in the universe.
Mainly because the universe doesn't care weather you live or die.

I'd say natural law exist like math does. It doesn't physically exist, it's self consistent though. I have no problem accepting natural law in the same way.

So, without the magical man made laws, you think you could murder someone or steal from someone and they wouldn't respond to your initiated force? Do you think you could go out into buttfuck nowhere Africa where there is essentially no government , murder someone from a village and not have the villagers kill you? Lol good luck

If I have enough people with me, sure.

You clearly do not understand. We did not "come up" with rules. These moral rights / natural laws are inherent to creation.

So you're immoral act is suddenly transmuted to moral because you have enough people with you? Moral relativism is satanic

We weren't talking about morals. Keep up with your own conversation. We're talking about laws.

And those people are able to do that because they represent "authority" or are tied in closely to the ruling class and are above man made "law".

Morals = natural rights/laws. You're confusing "legal" and "lawful". This is called obfuscation and it's one of the main ways government controls it's subjects minds.

Government creates the law dummy
>Natural laws apply on all matter and non matter substances in the universe but have nothing to do with the nature of human kind
>Natural laws cannot be completely understood but only loosely approximated because nothing is relative and everything is uncertain to a certain degree

Get the fuck out

Government creates what is "legal", the universe creates what is LAWFUL. murder and theft have been immoral/wrong/unlawful before government said so.

Mark Passio, is that you?

>Is that not what government does?
Is that what government is?

Digits confirm!

Why not just have just enough government to enforce contracts, maintain infrastructure, and defend borders, and leave the rest to the states?

Haha I've watched a lot of Marks work as you can tell. BTW nice get

According to Natural Law, what are an individual's rights?

any rights that are negative, ie

the right to liberty
right to property
right to life

Negative?

>breaking man-made laws, which have consequences.
which suffer the demands of reckoning.

Yet, license is granted to do something that would otherwise be illegal.

Rights are what is RIGHT.

you have the right to do or have anything so long as it doesn't take away something from someone else

a positive right would be the right to food and housing... food has to come from some other person's labor, for example

Gotcha, thanks!

The only true borders are personal property borders. If you don't have a welfare state you don't need to worry about people coming in to do nothing and take advantage.

Government is against what law?

In theory, I would agree with what you or Mark talk about. Unfortunately I don't see it working in practice.

The closest working example that I can think of is Liberland, but it's only a micronation. If it were scaled up, the problems that come with society would be scaled up with it, imo.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland

Natural law. The objective truth that it is wrong to coercively control another humans life (slavery).

Of course government is "legal"... anything they say is legal is legal. Mass murder (war)? Legal. Mass theft (taxation)? Legal.

The main confusion being exposed in this thread is that most people mistake authority for truth rather than truth as authority.

Arguing for the presence of some kind of "natural law" that (as far as we know) exists only in the minds of a single species is self-centered and ludacris.

>the next phase of ancap

This is getting spicy

another Passio disciple, nice.

Wow. In the same thread. This is legendary boys let's go for 1k likes.

>people mistake authority for truth rather than truth as authority

Bump

>in order in order
>Rights that do not exist

This image is retarded.

Take them to court then.

>Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favor of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn. A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test.

Natural law is inherent to consciousness/ existence / the universe itself. I didn't DECIDE murder is wrong, MURDER IS WRONG.

The full redpill is that the only Natural Law in existence, is to survive.

Period.

Those who do, are rewarded. Those who don't, are forgotten.

Rights that dont exist as in, you can never RIGHTfully initiate force on a peaceful person, so how can you legitimately delegate that right THAT DOES NOT EXIST to the government?

>There is an objective truth that initiating force on peaceful people is wrong. Slavery has been legal, but it has always been wrong. Murder has been legal, but it has always been wrong. Fuck your moral relativism

Pseudoscience

Nice try, Satan.

Mark Passio is sick.

Sick wit da logic

How can you _not_ do something to something that does _not_ exist?

Go back to /x/

So you're saying you can rightfully murder a peaceful person? Lol

Mark Passio is some good red pill stuff.

Yes, obviously I realize IT HAS BEEN DONE, the argument is that it is illegitimate, It has been JUSTIFIED.

Define murder
Define peaceful
Define person

I'm sorry user, it's a tough pill to swallow.

It doesn't mean we can't make things better, but it IS the governing law of the nature of the universe.

Free will is an illusion, you are and always will be, governed and limited by your impulses and perception.

Nothing more, nothing less.

This is a true red pill thread. Not MAGA cult worship

>Prove that gravity exists
It doesn't exist. "Gravity" in terms of existing is nothing but an abstract concept that gets reified as if it referred to an object.

Is this a troll?
Murder = killing
Peaceful = non-threatening, hasn't initiated force
Person = human being, flesh and blood body

It seems to be natural to sacrifice your life for your beloved ones apparently

This

I understand it's abstract. But fact is that if you jump off a cliff than you're going to fall. And if you murder someone or steal from someone, you're going to get your ass beat or killed. Denying this is like saying you can keep putting your hand on a hot pan without getting burned

Because that allows "you" to survive.

The only thing that separates you and me, in regards to the grand scheme, is our line.

Sacrificing your life allows you to survive? Lolwut.

So what separates us is that I have principles, you dont.

"They'd win because they say so" ....
Strong argument.

No you don't.

You have a want to be righteous.

Your "virtuosity" is a learned behavior.

I'm sorry that you can't deal with the fact that the only thing that truly matters in this life, is the survival of your line.

Nope. This collectivist garbage is nothing but a clever strategy to survive.

woahsoedgybro

Name one time in history that a people have been rightfully enslaved.

Wrong.

arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/before-babies-even-babble-or-roll-theyre-primed-to-be-superhero-fans/

Valid point and much appreciation for the thread, i'll read it later

Are you refering to individuals, humans, animals in general or all beings actually?

I definately lack the knowledge about the behaviour of animals in general to argue, but i'm certain there've been many actions based on 'feelings/instincts' or whatever you'd call it to protect others and even risk dying just in favor of the being not to receive any harm

Then again you could be right and it's all about survival of the fittest at any cost but that leads to the question, is 'spirituality' a meme or is there any kind of non visible connection? Ants seem to be such an example, but in general i lack the knowledge about this, as mentioned before and could argue on my subjective point of view only, which might or might not be influenced/wishful thinking

Additionally i'd add, i held up to the opinion that you'll try to survive at any cost BUT the better your circumstances and secure your life is the more peaceful you interact with others and even protect other endangered ones when your survival is secured

Atleast that's the way i'd try to explain the behaviour of humans and some animals i noticed

Except that's wrong you faggot.
The -ment suffix is from the latin suffix -mentum, and is used to turn verbs into nouns.

Investment
Invest, v. + -ment, Investment

Embankment
Embank, v. + -ment, Embankment

Judgment

Judge, v. + -ment, Judgment

Argument
Argue, v. + -ment, Argument

Government
Govern, v. + -ment, Government

You moron.

ITT: people who think rights come from government, and aren't inherent to creation. Aka people who worship government as God.

There's a lot of arguments over the etymology. But that's not really relevant to the argument

>philosophers claim God doesn't exist then try to make laws based on the ponderings of men
>"natural law" which is already a joke is arguably the best thing they've come up with

Pitiful.

Because "philosophers* is a collective, Right? No difference of opinions within the individuals. I'd personally argue God is life force intelligence

RED PILL ZONE

I'm fucking sick and tired of people mewling on about "their rights."

The entire concept of "natural rights" is bullshit. Nature doesn't care about you, or your country, or human race, or anything else. Nature cares about survival, and that's it.

The only force that could, conceivably, give such a thing as "rights," is God. So if you're an atheist, then, "universal rights" are clearly nonsense, since nature has no self-awareness.

But even if you do believe in God, a belief in "human rights" or whatever is still highly suspect. Rights were invented about 300 years ago by a bunch of self-important "enlightenment" faggots. Before we had rights, we had something much better. Something which gave all the protections that "rights" do, but without their cringy self-entitlement: morals.