The No State Project

[marc stevens]

I spoke with Wes today and should be getting a copy of the last show very soon. Maybe someone can record tomorrow's show?

[sagas4]

I'm sure Darren's OCD would require him to do so however, in case he has a laps into normality I am currently attempting to set up Audacity to do just that for tomorrow morning.

I'm running out of disk space so I have another 1/2 terrabyte on order to stick in the raid array. ;D

[sagas4]

All,

I recorded the NSP Show 03/Feb/2007 . Right click the link and select save as to download, or simply click the link to listen.

Note: I was not on this one We're still waiting for Wes to get Mark 27/Jan/2007

[NonEntity]

My personal thanks to you for that, Sagas!

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

I officially hand over the Uber-OCD crown to Sagas

Gladly, btw... I'm not a morning person at all ;D

[tru2form]

Onya dude

[learnin2]

Definetly! Great episode Marc and Sagas!

[eye2i2hear]

Marc,
In light of recent topic discussion on TNSP, ie "the stated purpose of government is to protect individual rights", I found this excerpt from Herbert Spencer relevant (setting aside the issue of whether there is or is not a Constitutional "contract"/covenant for now):

Under whatever circumstances, or for whatever ends, a number of men cooperate, it is held that if difference of opinion arises among them, justice requires that the will of the greater number shall be executed rather than that of the smaller number; and this rule is supposed to be uniformly applicable, be the question at issue what it may. So confirmed is this conviction, and so little have the ethics of the matter been considered, that to most this mere suggestion of a doubt will cause some astonishment. Yet it needs but a brief analysis to show that the opinion is little better than a political superstition. Instances may readily be selected which prove, by reductio ad absurdum, that the right of a majority is a purely conditional right, valid only within specific

[/b] [ie ethical/moral] limits. Let us take a few. Suppose that at the general meeting of some philanthropic association, it was resolved that in addition to relieving distress the association should employ home-missionaries to preach down popery. Might the subscriptions of Catholics, who had joined the body with charitable views, be rightfully used for this end? Suppose that of the members of a book-club, the greater number, thinking that under existing circumstances rifle-practice was more important than reading, should decide to change the purpose of their union, and to apply the funds in hand for the purchase of powder, ball, and targets. Would the rest be bound by this decision? Suppose that under the excitement of news from Australia, the majority of a Freehold Land Society should determine, not simply to start in a body for the gold-diggings, but to use their accumulated capital to provide outfits. Would this appropriation of property be just to the minority? and must these join the expedition? Scarcely anyone would venture an affirmative answer even to the first of these questions; much less to the others. And why? Because everyone must perceive that by uniting himself with others, no man can equitably be betrayed into acts utterly foreign to the purpose for which he joined them. Each of these supposed minorities would properly reply to those seeking to coerce them: 'We combined with you for a defined object; we gave money and time for the furtherance of that object; on all questions thence arising we tacitly agreed to conform to the will of the greater number; but we did not agree to conform on any other questions. If you induce us to join you by professing a certain end, and then undertake some other end of which we were not apprised, you obtain our support under false pretences; you exceed the expressed or understood compact to which we committed ourselves; and we are no longer bound by your decisions.' Clearly this is the only rational interpretation of the matter. The general principle underlying the right government of every incorporated body, is, that its members contract with one another severally to submit to the will of the majority in all matters concerning the fulfilment of the objects for which they are incorporated; but in no others. To this extent only can the contract hold. For as it is implied in the very nature of a contract, that those entering into it must know what they contract to do; and as those who unite with others for a specified object, cannot contemplate all the unspecified objects which it is hypothetically possible for the union to undertake; it follows that the contract entered into cannot extend to such unspecified objects. And if there exists no expressed or understood contract between the union and its members respecting unspecified objects, then for the majority to coerce the minority into undertaking them, is nothing less than gross tyranny.[/color][/size][/quote][/center]
Herbert Spencer, in The Great Political Superstition
(ties in nicely with sagas4's "tomato garden" parable approach as well, no?!)

[NonEntity]

Excellent quote. It reminds me so much ot Butler Shaffer's thesis regarding institutions. That they are formed for a specific purpose and having completed their task they should be disolved, but what almost always happens is that they then become purposes of their own, finding no end of things to do to justify their continuance, thus totally turning themselves on their heads and becoming destructive where they were conceived for the opposite reason.

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

nonentity said:

Excellent quote.

Excellent understatement!

Seriously -- I'm taking that quote, adding "So please tell me, sir/madam, what is the purpose of the government in which you claim to be a delegated representative?" and send it to every MP, MLA, and local councilor (perhaps to some "special interest groups" as well -- M.A.D.D. comes to mind )

- - -
HERE it is as an HTML -- Distribute! Mail! Share! CHALLENGE THE COLLECTIVIST PRESUMPTIONS! ;D

[NonEntity]

Yeah. Good luck with that Darren. :-( I can hear the pig chorus practicing for the concert already!

- NonE

[marc stevens]

I would love to see the responses, it would make a great article. I am going to make some more calls about why there is government. Maybe I'll make some calls to Australia.

[Darren Dirt]

admin said:

I would love to see the responses, it would make a great article. I am going to make some more calls about why there is government. Maybe I'll make some calls to Australia.

I'll confirm that mailing to "my" "representatives" doesn't cost me a postage stamp, otherwise I'll use email (although then it would be most likely ignored.) I figure the shotgun approach, I might get a handful of non-formletter responses. Who knows...


Here's the thing, folks. The "state" says we are all incompetent children in her (its? their?) eyes so as a result (perhaps to show how ridiculous that presumption is) we SHOULD act like children.

And what is the one-word question that kids always ask as they are growing up (I presume around junior high they realize it's pointless due to the empty or circular answers they keep getting, hence the blindless acceptance of all the one-sided myths that they are brainwashed to believe as true...)

Y

[eye2i2hear]

fyc as well...

you might include this... in asking about the "declaratory" source?

clue/hint: It's Stated specifically as "governments are instituted among men..." and equally Stated as when "destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people... to abolish it..."


oh, and a "Reader's Digest Increase Your Word Power" moment here:

"abolish" synonyms = "to make void; annul; nullify; revoke"
["nullify" = "to render invalid; to deprive of legal force"]
["annul": 1395, from L.L. annullare "to make to nothing," from L. a- "to" + nullum "nothing"]

F. abolir, L. abolere, aboletum; ab "to not" + olere "to grow"

thus, "ab" means "to not" + "olish" "grow" = "to not grow"
how does Government "grow"?
read my lips: taxes!!!
how is it "abolish"ed then (as by Declaratory, Stated right)?

thus, include a copy of the ("sacred") "founding father's" Declaration of Independence~perhaps with the quotes taken from it above highlighted~

[Darren Dirt]

Nah, too much for a "busy politician" to digest, let alone respond to Plus I'm in The Great White North, so no 2nd amendment, no property rights, no "harm" necessary for a criminal charge to be valid, etc. etc.

I feel a spiritual kinship with the ideas expressed in the "Declaration of Independence" (as I should, since most of it was essentially ripped off of Paine's sharp wit) but was born "in" a Socialist Utopia, what can ya do...