 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
To me the communication offered by Thomas Paine (or offered by anyone) is understandable from my power perspective as meaning voluntary association is society and involuntary association is evil.
So the concept of a necessary evil can be understood to be any actions done by any person whereby that person creates an involuntary association, or crime, where there is a criminal, and there is a victim.
There can be many criminals and many victims but we are individual beings with individual powers of will and therefore any case, of any connection, of any kind, can be accurately measured as an individual connection in time and space.
Zero-in on any example occurring anywhere between one and another living being in time and space, and know that specific example precisely.
A.
Society = voluntary connection = no involuntary connection
B.
Evil = involuntary connection = willful employment of individual power by one human being connecting to a targeted victim, and power is taken from the victim.
C.
Necessary evil = an otherwise voluntary employment of willpower by the victim is now made involuntary and instead of using power to make more power the victim has to willfully consume power in defense against crime that is perpetrated by the criminal.
That is how I read Thomas Paine.
I like this:
Tom Paine's Bones
Taking care:
Is it really true that every state of society is a blessing?
He (or she) who resorts to crime (creating an involuntary association) claims that society (voluntary association) is not a blessing, and that justifies the crime?
Is every society a blessing?
Those not blessed with voluntary association have no connection to anyone, by choice, or does that individual create an involuntary association because that person is not blessed by voluntary associations?
Is everyone in every society blessed?
Every involuntary connection to me, by definition, to me, is not a blessing, but a curse, to me. If I can disconnect, by definition, I will, and that proves the case of the connection being involuntary, to me. How much does it cost me to disconnect, and who do I make, who do I target, who do I cause, to have to pay the cost of disconnecting any involuntary association made upon me by someone else?
What about a miniority persecuted by a majority?
Why call a crime anything other than a crime; who benefits by that deception?
Is a society that does not value liberty a blessing?
Do you mean a list of names of people who think and act alike and their thoughts and actions qualify them to be in that category, and therefore society is not a single thing, not an entity unto itself, rather it is that list of names of all those people who voluntarily share those thoughts and actions?
Who does not value their own Liberty, and who does not value my Liberty, or yours, and if you know of one person, not valuing mine, or yours, how do you know, and is that person who does not value yours, or mine, an individual person, or is that individual person a thing called society?
The Negros were a society of slaves before the Civil war. Was society a blessing to them?
I can read what individual people wrote, and I can ask slaves today. I can go to the mirror and look at a slave, and I can ask that slave if "society" is a blessing to him.
Yes.
Voluntary associations, so far, without exception, are a blessing each time I voluntarily associate, because the connection is mutually agreed upon, each time, defining the meaning of society voluntarily.
Crime is another matter entirely, each time.
What does "Society in every state is a blessing" actually mean?
It means anything the volunteers agree upon so long as the volunteers are not volunteering to target, and injure, an innocent victim, employing deceit, threats, and violence upon the target, or in a word, so long as the "society" is not a false front covering up a crime in progress.
Then, I ask, is government in its best state a necessary evil? Really?
In reference to Tom Paine, that was written in 1776, and at that time there was also a Declaration of Independence, and the concepts within that declaration apply to slaves, or victims, having the power to avoid being slaves, and victims.
Use it or lose it?
Why are people forced into defense against injury by criminals?
Is it evil to be forced into defense against injury by criminals?
A pacifist may say yes, in fact, and I will not, ever, be evil, ever, so any crime upon me will be done to me, if I can find no way to avoid being injured, because I will not resort to deception, threats, or violence in defense against aggressive injury to me by a criminal?
I am not a pacifist. I think Tom Paine was wrong, at that time, but he was at the beginning of that Age of Reason, and Free Market Government was just beginning to work in America, so he may not have recognized the good of government, the good of voluntary government, the good of knowing how to minimize crime without having to resort to institutionalized deception, threats, or violence upon anyone other than criminals, and only in defense against criminals.
This is stepping into that area I call the Thin Blue Line; where no Law by Man can advocate evil, but a person understand that another person may resort to deception, threats, and violence in defense against a criminal perpetrating a crime upon that victim.
In other words, the Institution, or the Man Made Law, is strictly voluntary, never justifying any harm to any innocent person, and never prescribing, dictating, demanding, any harm to anyone, but allowing for the necessity of individual actions required in defense against harm by anyone.
When thinking returns to this path I return my focus of attention to my time spent in that Jury Box.
1.
Do not punish (harm) an innocent person.
2.
Do not abandon a victim to be harmed by a criminal.
How about this angle:
Man made Law aught to demand from individual people a request to step in between the criminal and the victim. The pacifists may all die, or take the injury instead of the victim. Millions of pacifists eventually wear out the criminal as the criminal intends to get to the targeted victim.
Millions of pacifists filling a seemingly bottomless pit of tortured and dead pacifists, to save the one targeted victim targeted by the one criminal, and each pacifist obeys Man Made Law, volunteering to step in between the one criminal and the one targeted victim targeted by the one criminal.
Man made Law does not punish someone who is not a pacifist, who steps in between the one Criminal, and the one Victim, and this non-pacifist, volunteer, resorts to deception, or threat, or violence in defense of self, and in defense of the one targeted victim.
Man made Law justifies the use of defensive injury to the criminal because no other action was reasonably possible, in that time, and in that place, it was either injury to the targeted victim or the criminal at that point, so the cause of the need for violence was caused by, charged to, held in account of, accurately judged to be the responsibility of, the criminal, and not the victim, and not the defender who volunteers to step in between the criminal and the victim.
I think it is possible that Sergey may be thinking similarly, but I've often been very wrong when trying to understand what someone else thinks.
Pacifists may do very good things on their way to a miserable death at the hands of very evil people.
Defenders who will employ deceit, threats, and violence in defense, may deter criminals since crime no longer pays so well.
How did Trial by Jury work when it worked in England according to Lysander Spooner's study?
I think it worked well, as reasonable people knew that crime did not pay well.
Unreasonable people were not volunteering to not be criminals, so they worked to make crime pay well, despite the effective defensive efforts, and what happened to them?
As I understand it, a criminal who would not pay the fine, not be subject to voluntarily showing up at a Trial by Jury, was then measured as being a person who was then outside of the Man made Law, by choice, the criminal chose to be outside the Man made Law, and as such anything that happens to that person outside that Man made Law, was not protected by those same Man made Laws.
In other words the criminal could be killed, like a Mad Dog is killed, by someone, and that person who kills that criminal, as if the criminal was not a person, as if the criminal was a Mad Dog, the person doing the killing, that person, was not seen as a criminal, in practice, in demonstrable fact, according to the records of what happened.
So, do you see, how that works?
Society, these people who volunteer to be in Juries, in that Man made Law POWER, in England, under Magna Carte, were not volunteering to agree to the institutionalized murder of people, since there was no Law that says, murder someone. No.
Not that, that was not an order, on paper, that says, hey, you, from now on you will be paid to kill these people right here.
No.
The idea was, hey, all these people who agree to these ideas, and these actions, agree to defend the country if it is invaded by an aggressive (criminal) army, and all these people agree to be judges of crimes on juries when they are picked randomly and asked to be on the jury.
12 people are then what they are, people, and just people, not gods, not perfect, and subject to error, and empowered to decide guilt or innocence, and empowered to invent any punishment within reason.
What was reasonable according to that Man made Law?
It turned out to be fines.
Hey you, you committed this crime, so pay this much to this person, and that person, here and here, and don't do it again, stupid, don't you know that crime does not pay here in England?
OK, says the criminal, I made that mistake, sure, and here is the fine.
Or, no, that was a crime, so I'm going to accuse the Jury, and the lying accuser of me, who falsely accused me of a crime, of injuring me, since I am innocent, so a new trial is within my power to process, since I am as due as anyone, in this Land, where common law is commonly due everyone.
Who says yes, or no, to any case of any accuser accusing someone of a crime, ever?
The Devil is in the details?
The point here is to point out these examples of where voluntary association is invented, produced, and maintained.
Fines.
Juries ended upon punishing convicted criminals by making the criminals pay fines.
Jails were elaborate markets where investors made millions of units of legal purchasing power because their power to purchase jails full of prisoners worked?
No.
People who roam the countryside like Mad Dogs, having no moral compunction whatsoever, may find a defender standing in between the Mad Dog and the next victim, with a pitch fork.
Does anyone know that dead guy?
I don't, how about you?
Why did you kill him Ned?
Well, he tortured and murdered 3 of my children and was working on the fourth, what did you expect me to do?
You didn't have to murder him did you?
Murder?
You call that murder?
What is the fine for murder these days?
You accusing me of murder Bill?
Not me, no, no, I'd end up paying the court fee on that one.
Does that make any sense?
I'm not saying Ned did the right thing. The wrong thing is obvious when 80% (or more) of the people in prison in this country are competitors in the drug business and the Monopoly Drug Cartel is the so called National Government.