Jardine,

I don't argue that paying tax and complying with law is voluntary. You are lying.

I argue that the state will not enforce obedience and submission to a person or philosophy; only to the law. Do you object to that?

I argue that the state stops using aggressive force at some contextual (but legally recognised) limit called what's "reasonable" or "excessive". That's certainly true of Britain (where I was born and where I watch more cop shows from than anywhere else) and I am under the impression that it is also true of Australia. If I am wrong, perhaps you could supply some evidence?

I will never renounce the need for the rule of law, and yes, I do consider your opposition to it extreme.

But however much I explain this, you accuse me of lying because my ENTIRE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY doesn't come down to threatening to attack, cage, shoot and rape people, and you prefer to go into your own strawman instead of my actual views.

The rule of law is not an extreme position – it's something that nearly all capitalists agree on. It enables states to create and maintain the conditions where society flourishes.

But we HAVE established that you have NO ETHICAL BASIS WHATSOEVER for your fake theory that rights are based in threatening to shoot, cage and rape people. HOWEVER there's a VERY STRONG ethical basis for the real theory that many rights can't be guaranteed without the state threatening to arrest people and cage them according to the law*, and that law enforcement requires at least some of the cops to be able to shoot people in self defence and the defence of others. As for rape, that's not justified under any circumstances, and even within prisons the state has a duty to enforce the law against it.

Unfortunately if you don't even recognise the need for the rule of law, I very much doubt I could explain to you why governments could be economically efficient at things.

*Except perhaps by corporal or capital punishment, but our society's moved on from that stage.

Aidan

You are arguing in a circle.

The question is *WHETHER* the laws you support are justified you fool, and your argument is THAT, they are.

According to your idiot theory, if the state legalised slavery, there could be no objection to enforcing it, because it would only be enforcing "the law". According to you, if a slave resisted the enforcement of the law, either
a) if he was forced, it wouldn't be slavery, or
b) it would be voluntary after the point at which the state considers its enforcement "excessive", which is never, because the state doesn't acknowledge any right to disobey its threats aka laws.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, the state's standard of what is "reasonable" and not "excessive" in the enforcement of the law, assumes that the subject does NOT have the right to disobey, whereas what you are defending is the proposition that you do NOT support the use of violence or threats.

So you're lying. You know perfectly well that the state does NOT abandon the enforcement of the policies you advocate, short of attacking people.

And therefore you are lying when you say that I claim that you say compliance with law is voluntary. Because you are arguing that, after the point at which the law considers "excessive", compliance is voluntary. YOU ARE LYING.

You do support attacking, violating, electrocuting, caging, and even killing people or causing them to be raped, as the underlying threat to force them into obedience with all the socialist policies you support, otherwise you would have renounced them when invited to.

What you should have done, when I proved that your beliefs are based on violence, is to ADMIT IT, you lying fool, not just try to keep squirming out of it be endless circular argument

Jardine, I thought you'd given up on this thread. But considering the stupidity and circularity of your arguments this time, you may as well have!

"The question is *WHETHER* the laws you support are justified you fool, and your argument is THAT, they are. "
Interesting goalpost shift there! You appear to have been arguing against the enforcement of laws in general, regardless of whether I support them or not.

"According to your idiot theory, if the state legalised slavery, there could be no objection to enforcing it"
WTF is that supposed to mean? I'm not in favour of curtailing objections to anything, but it would make far more sense to object to that law's existence than its enforcement. What I am in favour of curtailing is the states ability to contravene the universal declaration of human rights.

"As I have pointed out repeatedly, the state's standard of what is 'reasonable' and not 'excessive' in the enforcement of the law, assumes that the subject does NOT have the right to disobey, whereas what you are defending is the proposition that you do NOT support the use of violence or threats. "
And I subsequently clarified my position: I do support the power of arrest and detention for the purpose of law enforcement. I do not support the use of guns and tasers in law enforcement except in self defence or the defence of others. And I do not support the use or threat of rape under any circumstances.

Why do you still have so much trouble comprehending that? In your above scenario, even though the subject does not have a right to disobey, disobedience alone is not sufficient justification to shoot them, or even to threaten to do so. But letting a suspect flee does not constitute abandonment of enforcement. And because I'm not advocating abandonment of enforcement, your claim that I argue compliance is voluntary is untrue, and your claim that I'm lying is a lie.

Clarification to the above: When I said...
I do not support the use of guns and tasers in law enforcement except in self defence or the defence of others
...I meant against people. I'm not intrinsically opposed to shooting a lock or the tyres of a getaway vehicle, for example.

If you don't support the rule of law, maybe you could propose an alternative? But I'm certain you won't find one that's less violent.

Enforcement of laws is wrong, always wrong, if it hurts other(s) who never consented to be subject to that law.

Beginning at square #1, say there is person A and there is person Z and person A wants person Z to trim their banana trees and not wear a scarf, which person Z refuses.

So person A, knowing that he is not physically strong enough to push Z to the ground and extract the desired behaviour by violent threats, instead visits all the neighbours around.

Somehow or another, 'A' makes a pact with all persons B-Y of the surrounding area and that pact includes the establishment of a legal system and courts, etc.

Next 'A' proposes a law: "Everyone must trim their banana trees and nobody may wear a scarf - let there be an assembly and the majority shall decide whether this law is accepted. 'Z' should also vote in the assembly, in fact he must, drag him if he refuses.". The assembly takes place and since none of B-Y have banana trees or wear scarves, also since 'A' is really nice to them and distributes some free rum in the assembly, they say "why not" and the law is agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of 25 to 1.

Now, from a moral perspective, nothing ever permitted 'A', even if he could, to coerce 'Z' into trimming his bananas and not wearing a scarf. Neither did anything permitted 'A' to enter 'Z's property, trim his bananas and snatch away his scarf.

And the same could be said for 'B', and for 'C' and for 'D' all the way to 'Y': none of them had any right to do those things.

So what changed? the fact that A-Y decided among them to create a legal system means nothing outside that system. As 'Z' never consented to have anything to do with it, applying the law to him is very wrong and violent. No group can morally have more privileges than the sum of privileges enjoyed by its members and freely conferred by them on that group.

(continued...)

(...continued)

We must, however, differentiate between law-enforcement and self-defence:

In a second example, assume that scarves attract the kind of monkeys that spread Ebola and that those monkeys also like sitting on the tops of tall banana trees.

In this case, 'A' (and also 'B', 'C',...,'Y') have a right to do what is reasonably necessary to save themselves from Ebola, including the bringing-about of trimming A's banana trees and making him not wear scarves.

As they have such a right, they could confer that right on the group and have the group as a whole, or its representatives, come and do what's necessary so that 'Z's banana trees are trimmed and he doesn't wear scarves. They could for example forcibly trim his trees and confiscate his scarves. They could also hold 'Z' in detention for as long as the danger of Ebola exists, if they deem that he would otherwise continue to weave scarves for himself and nothing short of that would stop him.

What the group MAY NOT do, however, under any circumstance, is to enforce their law over 'Z'.
They may not trial him, judge him, condemn him, punish him or limit his freedoms any more or any longer than necessary to prevent him from weaving new scarves while the monkeys are potentially around to be attracted by those scarves.