Sign in to follow this  
jts

I'm Allowed to Rob You!

Recommended Posts

If I give myself permission to rob you, do you have a problem with that?

video 9:59

I've already given myself permission to act in self defense. Do you have a problem with that?

--Brant

no time for a video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I give myself permission to rob you, do you have a problem with that?

video 9:59

I've already given myself permission to act in self defense. Do you have a problem with that?

--Brant

no time for a video

It's a snazzy video, worth making time to listen to. Do you act in self defence when government robs you and calls the robbery taxation and claims it has this right because someone scribbled something on some paper and called it the Constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I give myself permission to rob you, do you have a problem with that?

video 9:59

I've already given myself permission to act in self defense. Do you have a problem with that?

--Brant

no time for a video

It's a snazzy video, worth making time to listen to. Do you act in self defence when government robs you and calls the robbery taxation and claims it has this right because someone scribbled something on some paper and called it the Constitution?

The right to act is not the compulsion to act.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to act is not the compulsion to act.

--Brant

The point of the video is that government has no more right to rob you than I have. But most people don't see it that way. The government gets its 'right' to rob you (taxation) from something someone scribbled on a paper (Constitution). I can scribble on a paper too. What is the difference? The kind of ink? The number of people signing the paper? How official the paper looks? His point is taxation is robbery, and he makes that point in clear and entertaining way. I thought it was a snazzy video.

video 9:59

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to act is not the compulsion to act.

--Brant

The point of the video is that government has no more right to rob you than I have. But most people don't see it that way. The government gets its 'right' to rob you (taxation) from something someone scribbled on a paper (Constitution). I can scribble on a paper too. What is the difference? The kind of ink? The number of people signing the paper? How official the paper looks? His point is taxation is robbery, and he makes that point in clear and entertaining way. I thought it was a snazzy video.

video 9:59

I don't think the government has the right to rob me. Never have. Most people should watch the video.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A MORAL RIGHT TO TEAR UP THE CONSTITUTION? “The Right to Rob You” is a stolen concept.

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon, Fallacy of the “Stolen Concept:”

The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.

And from, “Maybe You’re Wrong,” The Objectivist Forum, April 1981, volume 9 by Leonard Peikoff:

Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts . . . .” Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless.

The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing.

end quote

An Anti Federalist like JTS might say, “By its nature Government must be able to wield its power without the consent of the people that it is wielding it against. If it had their consent it wouldn't need that power. That person may never have consented, and being born here and not leaving is hardly consent.”

That is a debatable point though I think the video is full of low brow stolen concepts or as Rand might say off camera, “bull shit.” Did all the immigrating occupants of Ayn Rand’s “Atlantis” consent to be there? Yes, unless there was a stowaway living on Midas Mulligan’s land, but that is a topic for another day. Did any children born there give their consent? No. But until they reached a “majority age” their right of consent was granted by their parents who are their guardians. After that initial agreement to establish a Government, would “implied consent” be moral?

George H. Smith author of the tongue in cheek title, “Atheism, Ayn Rand and other Heresies,” wrote:

Ayn Rand defends a consent doctrine in several of her essays, but she never explains how this consent should manifest itself - whether, for example, it must be explicit or merely tacit (as Locke believed). Nor does she explain precisely which rights are delegated to government and how they are transferred. Therefore, although Rand appears to fall within the social contract tradition (at least in a general way), it is unclear where she would stand on the nature and method of political consent. I sincerely hope that some of her minarchist followers can shed some light on this problem.”

end quote

And George continued with:

I agree with these critics. If we accept the premise that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and if we insist that these individuals must consent to be ruled by a government, and if we condemn as illegitimate all governments that rule without consent - then all governments, past and present, have been illegitimate.

end quote

That is where I disagree with JTS and George H. Smith and agree with Objectivism and perhaps I will go further than Rand. I think we DO give our consent, though it is not a *constant consent* as when we are stopped from doing something the government deems illegal but we think should be legal.

Just for fun, here is my own thinking about The Legitimate Sovereignty of The United States of America. Welcome to Atlantis or as we New Yorkers call it, Ellis Island! Here is some background on your new home. First we must look to the beginning. The Declaration of Independence, and The Preamble could have contained a logical, justification for the rights of men and women, of all colors and historically I wish it had. But instead, the status of both documents was trumpeted as axiomatic.

The Declaration of Independence Axiom:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

end of Axiom

The Preamble to the Constitution Axiom:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

end of Axiom

Therefore, I can rationally carry on that tradition by stating my United States of America Axiom (which I won’t bracket since I wrote it):

The United States of America already exists. It is a fact. All those who might have originally consented or declined to be part of The United States of America are dead. Ever since freedom from England was confirmed, we must now start at the mid-point of a legitimate, working, “State.” A “State,” like an axiom, is not so easily discarded.

end of Axiom

Article One: America exists, covering a certain geographical location. The right of consent to be governed is automatically given by anyone who continues to live here.

Article Two: America may at some point, disband as did older Empires or more recently The Soviet Union. Occasionally, a new state may be created, with the consent of the governed, extending the geographical boundaries of America. A territory may decline the invitation, as has Puerto Rico.

Article Three: An individual, within the geographical boundaries of The United States of America MAY NOT secede from The Union. While you live here, you give your consent to be governed and you will abide by the laws of the land. Forever.

Welcome to America! Ayn Rand did want to end compulsory taxation, as do I but only when it is feasible for The Constitution to continue to be the law of the land.

Peter Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

Makes sense to me - well explained. "Being there" (and staying there) is sufficient consent.

Existence (of a form of governance) precedes consciousness (one's choice.)

In the last resort, we vote with our feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer to OP: And I am allowed to maim you if you try to rob me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whYNOT wrote:

Makes sense to me - well explained. "Being there" (and staying there) is sufficient consent. Existence (of a form of governance) precedes consciousness (one's choice.) . . . In the last resort, we vote with our feet.

end quote

Thank you, Tony! I won’t speak of any other country’s Constitution but I will discuss the United State’s Constitution. Of course, describing our Preamble and The Constitution as axiomatic in my previous letter is kicking the can down the road. A Constitutional Convention needs to be convened to fix specific portions of the Constitution as mentioned by many Objectivists and others. That can be accomplished perhaps by Tea Party Republicans in the future, after one term of Mitt Romney.

Replying to what would keep the American Constitution going until the year 2500, Constitutional scholar, George H. Smith wrote:

First, the 1936 Supreme Court decision "United States v. Butler" would need to be overturned. This is where Alexander Hamilton's broad interpretation of the "general welfare" clause was explicitly adopted, thereby gutting the enumerated powers doctrine advocated by Jefferson and other strict constructionists . . . . Second, the Supreme Court would need to wake up to the fact that we have a Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

end quote

Now, as to the Philosophy of Objectivism; a further scholarly and philosophical evaluation is needed to form a more perfect Objectivism. Who that will come from I do not know, but reconciling Rand’s idea of EVENTUAL voluntary taxation or just “paying for services” is needed to keep America and Objectivism viable and beautiful for the next century. Whoever expands upon The Constitution and Objectivism could become a second generation “founding father,” like Ayn Rand or first generation founder, like Thomas Jefferson. Who has that greatness in them?

Hint: George H. Smith wrote:

Locke specifically justified government as a remedy for various "inconveniences" that would supposedly exist in an anarchistic state of nature; but, contrary to Hobbes, Locke viewed the state of nature as essentially peaceful and civilized . . . In "The Nature of Government," Rand predicts that a Hobbesian state of nature -- a war of every man against every man, in effect -- would ensue if "a society provided no organized protection against force . . . ." You cannot have it both ways. You cannot pick and choose those situations where implied consent applies and where it does not, based on whether you happen to agree with the specific provisions of a constitution. For if you have this right in regard to a new socialistic constitution, then I have this right in regard the old Constitution.

end quote

Ah! The worst case scenario thought experiment. So, we must take the concept of *consent* within George’s make-believe universe of facts and rules imposed as an absolutely logical fact and condition! If I say consent is valid in one instance then you insist it must be valid in all instances or the concept has no concrete truth to it.

That’s a fallacy. Is it the Fallacy of the stolen concept again? Yes, you do have the right to regard the old Constitution as invalid. Yes, I do have the right to deem, for instance, a socialist constitution as invalid. And I still have the right to regard the old Constitution as valid, because I do. I don’t recommend throwing yourself under the wheels of the Juggarnaut nor a reenactment of Guy Fawkes day.

It is intriguing to think of these worst case scenarios, just as it startles the complacent when they hear what is morally permissible during emergency ethics, however, consent is implied if the constitution establishing a government meets certain criteria such as:

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect human rights, which means: to protect him or her from physical violence, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance, as with crony capitalism; If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled . . . . and Ayn Rand insisted, “This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.”

You can think it; you can proselytize about it, but by not working to change it, you have limited options: consent, complacency, withdrawal, activism, rebellion, immigration or exile. And whatever your decision you must escape or accept the consequences.

Coming to America any time soon, Tony? I could trade a million Socialist, Obama voters for you, but saying I want them to go back to Africa is not politically correct. 8 -) My wife thinks I am naughty.

Peter Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just about finished with his first fiction novel so I looked to see what I have saved for RB and found this and snipped a piece for here. The entire essay is very good too. This is from the final conclusion.

Peter Taylor

Robert J. Bidinotto wrote in his essay, “The Contradiction in Anarchism:”

So, to borrow from Patrick Henry: I know not what course others may take; but as for me, I'll take my chances trying to create or reform one agency, rather than a host of "competitors," each backed by the likes of The 700 Club, the Islamic Jihad, good-ol'- boy bigots, Detroit street thugs, South L. A. rioters, graying New Dealers, animal rights activists, welfare rights activists, LaRouchies, Greenies, the GOP, the Democrats, United We Stand, the NRA, the Black Muslims, Libertarians for Life, the Association of Libertarian Feminists, atheists, Christian Scientists and god only knows.

Has it ever occurred to those who would so eagerly wed the gun with the dollar, why Ayn Rand argued for a separation between Force and Economics?

end quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this