It does only have one meaning. And there is no "social contract." Please stop using this term as if it denotes a real thing. Why do you assert that just being born into an area grants the group authority over the newly born individual? There is no logical basis for that line of thought.

Ah...but those are "rights" that NO ONE has under Natural Law. We don't have the right to kill other individuals regardless of any "social contract." We can logically deduce this because we live - therefore we have a right to life. We do not live to be killed by others, therefore we must respect their right to life as well. Nor do we have the right to "take whatever we wish." We have a right to our property and labor by its creation. We have a right to what we create. We do not have the right to take by force from others, as we would not want to allow others to take by force from us.

Wrong. Stealing is taking money or property by force or threat of force, period. Ultimately, you are responsible for your own self-protection. The police can't save you, they can only catch a criminal after the crime has been committed. That's why we all have the right to own a weapon for self-defense. If you're confronted by a rapist on the street, and he pulls a knife on you, do you think the police will arrive in time to save you? No. Which is why I carry a gun. I'll give that rapist something to think about when he pulls out his knife.

As for law enforcement, a private system would be possible, but as Thomas Jefferson proved, you can repeal all taxes and still have plenty of money from tariff revenue to fund law enforcement and the court system.

You're the one with the fallacious reasoning, my friend - you just said above "governments benefit and protect us" - blanket statement - I just disproved it.

Refute the following:

IS GOVERNMENT A SOLUTION TO ANYTHING?

People often debate or argue about the "role of government." But there is a basic argument that is almost always overlooked. It is a very simple argument:

* If you examine anything being "done by government," you will find human beings doing whatever is being done. They may also use equipment and machinery, but the most important work is done by individual human beings. If you go to a school, you will not find any "government" that runs the school. You will find a principal, a number of administrative people, and several teachers - all individual human beings. No matter what government monopoly you examine, for example a police station, you will find that the important work is done by individual human beings. If you visit a military installation, or a court, or a jail, or a veterans hospital, or a road being built, you will find individual human beings doing the work.
* The fact that these human beings call themselves "government," does not imbue them with magical powers to do their jobs better than those individuals who do not call themselves "government."
* Furthermore, the fact that certain individuals organize themselves into an institution called "government," does not imbue them with magical powers to do their jobs better than those individuals who do not so organize themselves.
* In general, people who don't call themselves "government," can do anything humans can do, at least as well as people who call themselves "government."

Is there any evidence that just because people call themselves "government," or they organize themselves into an institution called "government," they can do their jobs better?

IDOLATRY

In Man and Superman George Bernard Shaw wrote, "Government is the organization of idolatry." The dictionary defines "idol" as:

* A representation or symbol of worship;
* A false god;
* A pretender or impostor;
* An object of passionate devotion;
* A false conception or fallacy.

An idolater is a worshipper of idols. Idolatry is the phenomenon of worshipping idols. What do we call the belief in the "magical power" of government? What about the belief that because people call themselves "government" - or they organize themselves into an institution called "government" - therefore they have "magical powers" to perform miracles? Superstition, perhaps?

WE NEED PLANNING, COORDINATION, AND MANAGING

Certain "communal" activities need to be performed. For example, in a city certain things need to planned, coordinated, and managed. If you go to any city, you will find some human beings doing just this. They may use computers and other equipment, but the essential planning, coordination, and managing is always done by human beings. If you visit a large company, you will find the same thing. We absolutely do need planning, coordination, and managing. We have it. People do it.

DO WE ALSO NEED COERCION, VIOLENCE, AND MONOPOLIES?

Generally, the people who call themselves "government" operate on a different basis from that of the people who don't call themselves "government." The following assumptions seem to underlie the behavior of the people who call themselves "government":

* We are the only ones qualified to do the things we do; therefore we must have a monopoly to do the things we do and no one else may do them.
* In particular, we must be the only ones who have a monopoly on legalized violence.
* Because we are so highly qualified, we can't persuade people to do what we want; therefore we must use coercion, violence, and armed police to force them to follow our orders.
* Because we are so highly qualified, we can't persuade people to pay for our wonderful services; therefore we must use coercion, violence, and armed police to force them to pay.
* Because we do our jobs so well, we must use coercion, violence, and armed police to force people to not compete with us.
* Some of our friends (who don't call themselves "government") are uniquely qualified to do the things they do (like doctors and other special-interest groups); therefore we grant them monopolies (licences), so they don't have to compete with unqualified quacks in a free market. Guess what this will do to medical costs - and the licence fees and campaign contributions we'll be able to collect!

Governments utilize coercive power, the power of violence, the power that stems from the barrel of a gun, power over or against people, government power at the expense of individual power. Government is organized violence. Governments, over time, tend to do their utmost to eliminate individual power. With a few exceptions, governments do not solve problems, they create them.

THE WEAKEST ARGUMENT FOR GOVERNMENT

If we don't have government there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.

Answer 1: How do you know? Answer 2: Such a list almost always consists of problems we already suffer from - in other words, if we have government there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.

The people who call themselves "government" need such problems in order to justify their jobs. It is in their interest to create such problems and make them worse. The worse the problems, the bigger the bureaucratic empires they create, the more money they get, the more power they obtain, the more people they control.

The bigger the government, the greater the problems. A politician like Bush may say that he will reduce government and lower taxes because he thinks it will help him get re-elected. In practice Bush has greatly increased his own bureaucratic empire. His administration has expanded government regulation with abandon. He promised, "Read my lips, no new taxes," and then raised taxes. Under Bush, deficit spending has ballooned out of control.

PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED BY PEOPLE, NOT BY GOVERNMENTS.

Once you realize that governments consist of people, and that whatever is being done is done by individual human beings - even though they may use machines and equipment - then it becomes embarrassingly obvious that only people can solve problems. The entire notion that government can or should do anything becomes quite absurd.

In their book Breakthrough Thinking, Gerald Nadler and Shozo Hibino write that "an organization, as a collective body, can't approach a problem." They have a section on "political and governmental horrors." They indicate that politics and government "are the graveyards of misbegotten problem solving." Politicians and bureaucrats have three basic types of "solutions":

* Pass a law.
* Throw money at the problem.
* Appoint a committee to study the problem.

In terms of problem-solving methodology, all three types are at best inefficient.

I would go further and suggest that as soon as people call themselves "government," there is a considerable probability that they acquire some kind of "magical power in reverse" - they somehow become less able to solve problems. Nadler and Hibino say that, "Government is operated mainly by bureaucrats, and bureaucrats' classic criterion in decision making is not fulfillment of project purposes but protection of their jobs."

Some people say government is a fecal alchemist - everything they touch turns into feces.

GOOD PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT

There are good people in government who produce worthwhile results. These valuable results are produced, not because the good people call themselves "government," but because they are good, competent, skillful people. If these people were to leave government - stop calling themselves "government" - I expect they would be able to produce even better results.

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua9.shtml

It is special, as it is a uniquely possessed by government.

A corporation can't put anyone out of business in a free market without the assistance of the government. This is why Standard Oil had to go to the government to reduce it's competition - because new oil suppliers sprang up and started offering cheaper prices and took a greater market share away from Rockefeller. It's all here:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap7.html

That wasn't my point. My point is that you're going to see more corporate crime if you have more corruption in government. And you will not be able to pursue corporate crime as well if you have corruption in government.

In which case it would be the fault of the corporation...

Were governments involved in large part by providing weapons and soldiers and money? Yes. They were a huge part of all these conflicts. The Jews were killed in WW2 because of their ethnicity, but they were killed by a GOVERNMENT.

How did their "social contract" become invalid???? I thought you said the social contract wasn't a contract, therefore how can it become invalid?

Key word there is "except" - therefore that statement doesn't refute anything.

You have full knowledge of a government's policies before you're 18????? I don't know anyone that well-informed. I'm still learning about my government's policies. And the more I learn, the more I don't like. You don't receive an education in the public fool system - you receive indoctrination for the most part.

Sorry, but majority rule cannot be the logical basis of political action. If everyone in your neighborhood votes that you should be the neighborhood slave, is that acceptable to you? Of course not, BECAUSE YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. The majority does not have the right to deprive a minority of rights, and the smallest minority is the individual.

Well, I guess it's good we can agree on something.


Well, if you're uncertain about a precious metals standard, but you agree with my military views, then you should definitely read the following:

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials...ein103104.html

Happy to oblige.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer