On the other hand individuals and groups can hire their own police
and defense forces as well as do the job themself and they can hire
their own court services but both the accused and the plantiff have
right to a say so in picking the jury or judicial review but the way
judges and justices are picked should be changed in the federal and
state constitutions anyway, to have them appointed by polticans are
elected by a majority of voters is a clear conflict of interest for
justice.
If a state, county, town or land owner is not willing to pay
the membership fee they should secede but the right of secession
should be clearly speleed out in the federal and state constitution,
if the above does not pay the membership fee the federal or state,
county or local government should kick them out of the union thus a
land owner who refuse to pay his membership fee could still keep his
land but he would no longer be outside of the union. That is unless
other forms of revenue are chosen. Still the federal, state and
county government needs a way to kick lower governments out of the
union just as the lower governments need a clear cut right to leave
the union.--- In [email protected], "terry12622000"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <cottondrop@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think some of Paul's argument and some of the miniarchist
> > argument is very similar to some of the arguments Randy Barnett
> > although many anarchist fail at answering the arguments
correctly.
> > First off Barnett does not think of himself as a miniarchist
> because
> > he has endorsed a Constitutional Polycentric system he might be
> > thought of as an anarchist but like Rothbard and Hoppe he does
> beleve
> > in a order of law via natural law and natural rights, some
> Anarchist
> > believe in no order and I think that is the type Paul and
> miniarchist
> > have a real problem with. In fact those Anarchist who beleve in
> order
> > really can't be called
> > anarchist.
> > Barnett in his book on the constitution finds like I do
We
> > the people as the authority of the constitution, being
unsupportive
> by
> > evidence, in fact the evidence tends to disprove the theory, on
the
> other hand if a person acts they will be judged by
> > their actions, if people just went around enforcing conflicts
> > without any neutral as possible judge or jury we would have Hobbs
> law
> > of the jungle, the strong would prey on the weak, so a natural
law
> > and natural rights are necessary to
> > order.
> > Barnett basially says the federal government has the
authority
> to
> > act just as any other person or group has to enforce and judge
> > accused acts against natural rights but the federal government
is
> > limted even more than the average person or group by the
> constitution
> > which basically is a promise to the people ( not a contract
binding
> on the people and a contract between the states ( although I think
> evidence shows the federal government has broken that contract with
> the states and thus it is null and void)
> .
> > I would like to say further that the states are also
limited
> by
> > their constitution, the state and the federal government is
> > restricted to do things to those who did not give real consent
even
> > more so than private persons or private groups but the state or
> > federal government can act towards those who did not give real
> > consent if they are accused or have been found to violate natural
> > rights. On the other hand the federal or state government can not
> > force people who did not give real consent to pay taxes or fees
> > unless the person has been found to violate another persons
natural
> > rights then court costs and prison costs can be forced on that
> >
>
person.
> >
> > Barnett makes a few points that I don't think makes sense and
> one
> > of these has been argued by his crtics and him in the Journal Of
> > Libertarian STudies. From what I gather he says we have a duty to
> > obey the government if it is following the principles of natural
> law
> > thus if the government finds you guilty of violating someones
> natural
> > rights you have a duty to abide by the governments decesion. I
> don't
> > think so if in fact you did not violate someones rights, if in
fact
> > you know you did not do it, that you were framed you do not have
a
> > duty to obey but if the jury and appeals in fairness could only
> come
> > to the conclusion that you were guilty then it would be best for
> you
> > not to attack individuals who are only doing their honest duty
but
> if
> > you can escape you have a right to do so, understand that others
> can
> > only judge by the evidence presented to them so they have a duty
to
> > judge on that evidence. Yeah in some rare cases just duties
between
> > people can conflict with each
>
other.
>
> Outside of court cost, police cost and prison cost being payed
> by the convicted crimnal really the only consentual fees the
> government can apply is a service fee for voluntary users via
> contract insurance fees, property title fees, patent and copyright
> fees, incorporation fees and membership fees to state, county and
> local governments, possibly a voting fee would be consent if non
> voters could be on a jury and if juries were giving teir authority
> back to judge legistion, people could basically pay their taxes on
> election day, you know they would be low then but at present a poll
> tax is unconstitutional.--- In
> > [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp" <thomaslknapp@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Quoth Paul Ireland:
> > >
> > > > 1. The lines aren't "imaginary". They are real and tangible
> and
> > paid
> > > > for with blood.
> > >
> > > Hmmm ... I've traveled over a number of them and have never
seen
> > them.
> > > Furthermore, if someone paid for them, in blood or any other
> > currency,
> > > then it follows that they belong to the people who did the
paying
> > > and/or those people's heirs or assignees, not to the state.
> > >
> > > > 2. We the People gave the state control over those lines.
> > >
> > > I don't know who this "we" you're talking about consists of. As
> for
> > > myself, I was never asked to give the state control over those
> > lines,
> > > or over anything else, and quite likely would have declined if
I
> > _had_
> > > been asked, and have never assigned my power of attorney to
> anyone
> > who
> > > might have complied with such a request on my behalf.
> > >
> > > > 3. Markets have always referred to the buying and selling of
> > goods in
> > > > a particular area. This is true of any definition.
> > >
> > > I guess we're back to Paul Ireland as Humpty Dumpty: "When I
use a
> > > word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor
> > > less." Unfortunately for your argument, economists and political
> > > theorists have been using the word "market" to refer to an
> > > overarching, non-geographically, specific mechanism for many
> years,
> > > and it's unlikely that the rest of the world is going to flush
> > > everyone from Marx to Menger to Mises down the toilet just
> because
> > you
> > > demand that they do so in order to make your arguments work.
> > >
> > > > 4. The government was given control of the borders and
> > protection of
> > > > the markets when the government was created by "We the
people"
> > and as
> > > > long as we have a government (as long as there are people),
it
> > will
> > > > retain control of such.
> > > >
> > > > 5. See the U.S. Constitution.
> > >
> > > I wasn't alive, or in Philadelphia, in the 1780s when the
> government
> > > and the Constitution were created by a convention and ratified
by
> > some
> > > politicians. Nor have I received from my ancestors any
compelling
> > > instructions which would in any way make me responsible for, or
> > > responsible to, or bound by, that convention, those
politicians,
> or
> > > their quackings to each other.
> > >
> > > All of the above aside, the fact that something
> is "constitutional"
> > is
> > > irrelevant to whether or not it amounts to an initiation of
> force.
> > You
> > > claimed you had proven/would prove the latter, not just do a
piss-
> > poor
> > > job of trying to prove the former. Care to take another stab at
> it?
> > >
> > > Tom Knapp
> > >
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
