Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Is Limited Government an Oxymoron?

Expand Messages
  • Bob Wynman
    Randist Bo7b aka Bob Wynman WWP Email Member (bobalou@wynman.com) No, LIMITED GOVERNMENT is quite possible and quite necessessary for the operation of
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 31 11:30 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Randist Bo7b aka Bob Wynman WWP Email Member (bobalou@...) No, "LIMITED GOVERNMENT" is quite possible and quite necessessary for the operation of society, definitely NOT an oxy-moron IF PROPERLY DEFINED! It's the "government" of the voluntary society.

      "LIMITED STATE", of course, is IMPOSSIBLE & DEFINITELY AN OXYMORON.

      I use the word "State" when referring to "political government". The word "government", as properly used in our Declaration of Independence, referred to an organization with ONE function: the protection of private property. A rational, moral government could never be political (aka coercive), since property cannot be protected by plundering it. "Government" is a good and necessary requirement for a free society; the State is an unnecessary evil..

      Government -- "Any person or organization that sells products or services to protect property to which the owner of the property may voluntarily subscribe." (government by subscription)

      State -- "Any person or organization that claims to protect property by coercing the owner of the property to use and pay for its Services,' claiming Legality as justification." (government by conscription)

      Albert J. Nock mentioned that differentiation in his great 1935 book, "Our Enemy, the State" & Paine identified "government" vs. "society" in "Common Sense".


      Ben Doolin WWP Member (bd_doolin@...) Is limited Government an Oxymoron?


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI


      Doug Tozier WWP Email Member (tozierpatriot@...) Anyone who thinks that our present situation (17 trillion in debt if you go by the published numbers) is sustainable or manageable for another 237 years is nuts. How anything that is going on economically now is feasible for the foreseeable future makes no sense. If Jim and Stephen think that tweaking a document that isn't constraining the STATE now is going to make any difference I would love to read exactly what that would look like.

      The very fact that the USG is debating gun control shows that they have no regard for the limits set upon them by the founders. Most of what the USG does is without the consent of the people, otherwise, there would not even be any discussion about our "rights". But it seems obvious to me that Jim and Stephen, et. al. cannot conceive of a society where the government does not hold unlimited control on whatever aspects of their subjects live THEY deem appropriate.

      Therefore, it makes no sense to say that "we the people" can "limit" how much of that control is practiced by those with unlimited power and resources to impose their will on the people. How many examples of the above do we need to see that we have become victims/slaves/pawns, and why should we be willing to cede ANY control of our lives to bureaucrats or their heavily armed (dare I say ILL INTENTIONED) enforcers? What gives them any more right over me and my property than I, myself? THE MYTH OF AUTHORITY!

      Perhaps there are millions who are not capable of controlling themselves/caring for themselves... must all of us be punished with them?
    • Ben Doolin
      Ben Doolin WWP Member (bd_doolin@yahoo.com) In the video clip (search youtube.com for Is Government and Oxymoron - 28 Minutes)... Tom Woods and Doug Casey are
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 31 12:38 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Ben Doolin WWP Member (bd_doolin@...)
        In the video clip (search youtube.com for 'Is Government and Oxymoron - 28 Minutes)... Tom Woods and Doug Casey are using the 'common' meaning... which you define as 'the state'.  An interesting interview... explaining why.


        -ben


        Randist Bo7b aka Bob Wynman WWP Email Member (bobalou@...)
        No, "LIMITED
        GOVERNMENT" is quite possible and quite necessessary for the operation of
        society, definitely NOT an oxy-moron IF PROPERLY DEFINED!  It's the
        "government" of the voluntary society.
         
        "LIMITED STATE", of
        course, is IMPOSSIBLE & DEFINITELY AN OXYMORON.
         
        I use the word
        "State" when referring to "political government".  The word "government",
        as properly used in our Declaration of Independence, referred to an organization
        with ONE function:  the protection of private property.  A rational,
        moral government could never be political (aka coercive), since property cannot
        be protected by plundering it.  "Government" is a good and necessary
        requirement for a free society; the State is an unnecessary
        evil..
         
        Government -- "Any person or organization that sells
        products or services to protect property to which the owner of the property may
        voluntarily subscribe." (government by subscription)
         
        State -- "Any
        person or organization that claims to protect property by coercing the owner of
        the property to use and pay for its Services,' claiming Legality as
        justification." (government by conscription)
         
        Albert J. Nock
        mentioned that differentiation in his great 1935 book, "Our Enemy, the State"
        & Paine identified "government" vs. "society" in "Common Sense".
         

        ----- Original Message -----
        >From: Ben Doolin
        >To: SpaceLand@yahoogroups.com
        >Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 10:43 AM
        >Subject: Re: [SpaceLand] "There is nothing wrong with THE Constitution"!!?!
        >

        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Is limited Government an Oxymoron?
        >
        >
        >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI
        >
        >
        >
        Doug Tozier WWP Email Member (tozierpatriot@...) Anyone who thinks that our present situation (17 trillion in debt if you go by the published numbers) is sustainable or manageable for another 237 years is nuts. How anything that is going on economically now is feasible for the foreseeable future makes no sense. If Jim and Stephen think that tweaking a document that isn't constraining the STATE now is going to make any difference I would love to read exactly what that would look like.
        >
        >The
        very fact that the USG is debating gun control shows that they have no regard
        for the limits set upon them by the founders. Most of what the USG does is
        without the consent of the people, otherwise, there would not even be any
        discussion about our "rights". But it seems obvious to me that Jim and
        Stephen, et. al. cannot conceive of a society where the government does not
        hold unlimited control on whatever aspects of their subjects live THEY deem
        appropriate.
        >
        >Therefore, it makes no sense to say that "we the people"
        can "limit" how much of that control is practiced by those with unlimited
        power and resources to impose their will on the people. How many examples of
        the above do we need to see that we have become victims/slaves/pawns, and why
        should we be willing to cede ANY control of our lives to bureaucrats or their
        heavily armed (dare I say ILL INTENTIONED) enforcers? What gives them any more
        right over me and my property than I, myself? THE MYTH OF
        AUTHORITY!
        >
        >Perhaps there are millions who are not capable of
        controlling themselves/caring for themselves... must all of us be punished
        with them?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.