NoMoreRicers Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 This started out as me debating with a guy about how the Constitution is not a binding contract and then he used the 'Love it or Leave it' stance and here is our conversation afterwards. Tell me what you think. ME- "Does a man conscripted into the Navy against his will consent to his servitude by not jumping overboard? Unfortunately, you are not free to find your own ungoverned lands. For one, there are no 'ungoverned' lands. I own land that I bought but somehow the government still claims partial ownership over it and me. Also the U.S. will deny your renunciation of citizenship if you are solely leaving to avoid the taxes/government and even if granted, it's frequently a 10 year process. It seems to me that if you are going to use the "If you don't like it, then leave," argument, you are refuting the basic premise of property rights. If I have property rights to my land and house, why can somebody tell me to leave?" HIM- Ah, but see no one told you to leave. It is your choice that you are free to make. Granted, the ability to find ungoverned lands is nowhere near what it was back in 1690 when Locke wrote his philosophies. Also, with the abscence of ungoverned lands, you would have to imigrate to a governed land more of your liking, but you are free to make that choice and pursue what needs to be done to accomplish it. That or try to overthrow what you have now, assuming you can amass enough support to do so. I'm not "using" the "if you don't like it leave" argument, I'm "using" the "you have a right to make choices for your own life" arguement. You can choose what is acceptable to you. You can choose to put up with things you don't like or take steps to place yourself in a situation more to your liking. It's called liberty, and the only way a government can limit yours is if you choose to let it. By living within the boarders of a gvoernment and accepting the protections it gives you submit yourself to it's limitations on your liberty by choice. That's why Locke went so deep into the idea of a representitive republic, because the idea of an inherrant ruler or dictator was extrememly restrictive on it's populaces liberties. For example, if you read the link I posted for Locke, it explains his philosophy on the kind of government we have and how it should work. For a contrary opinion you would read The Leviathan by Hobbs. His phiosophy is one in support of inherrant rule (royal family) and his views on the state of natural law are more anarchist than Lockes. Really alot of this is hard to explain if you haven't read any of it. There are so many minor details that are used to "prove" this or that concept in the philosophies written. ME- So if I drive my Fiero through your front door and declare your house to be my new kingdom and I tell you that you have to wash, wax, and detail my Fiero 4 hours a day or I will send you down to the dungeons, is this legitimate? After all, you are free to move to a new home. HIM- No, because my home is contained within the lands governed by the government it's people set up. Now if you were to overthrow that government and form a new government that allowed such a thing, then yes. I in that case would exercise my choice to try to overthrow the new government you set up or move to somewhere with a government more to my liking. ME- Do you think might makes right? If not, what's the difference between might makes right and what you said above? HIM- Do I think might makes right? No. However under natural law, that is the case. That is the reason governments are formed, so the same rules apply to all no matter their might. ME- Me: I'm gonna take over your house and make you wash my fiero for 4 hours a day. Is this legitimate? You: No, because current government, but if you were to use might in order to create a new government, then yes. Me: Do you believe in might makes right. You: No but yes under natural law, which is why we have government, so that it can use might in order to make everyone do what it wants. Well, I guess this conversation is over. HIM- That's not what I said. I typed very clearly, "Do I think might makes right? No". I never said I beleived might makes right. I said under natural law, which is people living in nature without a government to govern them, you have natural law which is might makes right. It's that whole old saying "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". The wolves have the might, so the sheep is what's for dinner. With the abscence of a governed society to protect the weaker the mighty will rule, nautural law. Hence Lockes philosphy on government which is the basis for the government we have, a represenitive republic. He even descibed a governing system with 3 branches to check and balance each other. The branches he describes are alot like what we have, although one branch, the executive branch if i remember correctly, was named something else in his system. Also some of the powers he associated with different branches were swapped around to other branches, but on the whole the system he laid out in his philosophy is what we have. However, that is only part of his philosophy he wrote of in the second tretisie. The first part of it is a indepth explination of people living in nature without a government. How things work in such an instance is basically, might makes right. Each person is the executer of natural law, and one can only execute what is within their power. If they are to weak to seek justice for an action against them then they are a victim of might makes right aren't they? Your questions are not apt because we are not in a state of nature we are in a governed society. Because of that we all fall under the laws the government enforces until that government is no longer. So while that government is still in effect, no you can't drive your car into my house and claim it and make me wash your car 4 times a week. There is no law allowing that. If you want a law allowing that, then you need to either get the government to enact one, reevolt and overthrow the government setting up a new one that allows it or go find some ungoverned land and create a government there that allows it or keep it under natural law and be the mightiest so you can do whatever you please. Until you attempt and succed at any of those, you are still subject tot he laws of the land you live in wghich it's government enforces. Like I said, it's not something easy to grasp, especially if your not going to take the time to read it and attempt to understand what you read while looking at the drawn conclusions in it objectively. Locke described many situations and the outcomes of them under natural law. Does that make his philosophy right? No because as I said you can easily find decenting opinions on the state of nature from other philosophers such as Hobbs who viewed it as complete anarchy. But, our founding fathers put great stock into Lockes philosophy which is why I'm trying to explain it. It's obvious by the system of governemnt they created and the natural rights of men they cited that they gave Lockes phiosophy great weight. Edit: Wait, I'm reading some stuff to refresh my memory. I think I'm getting Hobbs philosophy on the state of nature mixed up with Lockes although not the government part. I think Locke was the one that beleived people living in the state of nature would treat each other as equals and could band together to punish any trangressors of the mutual respect of a person inherrant rights when violated if the victim couldn't punish the transgression on his own... Which is still might makes right as the might of the group is mightier than that of the transgressor, just Locke thinks the state of nature would be much more tranquil than Hobbs did.
DoubtingThomas Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 If he's comfortable saying that might is not right, but that might in the form of revolution is right, then he's not being honest and/or you have no basis for a rational discussion.
Brandon Buck _BB_ Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 I would say that you should suggest he read Spooner's papers on the Constitution and natural law but since he can't understand what he's already read, I'm sure that would only serve to add dirt and water to an existing mudhole. I wouldn't bother discussing anyhting else with this person. Ever.
Recommended Posts