I say the best possible government is the least possible government

Non-responsive. Why do you bother gainsaying if you can't illustrate how or why what I said was wrong?

Examples? If they're nonviolent what is the problem?

Apologies for the error. I intended to say the only enforcement option for the Tuatha was to ask them to comply with the ruling and shun them if they didn't.

Merely an example of the lack of governmental force exerted in a non state society that persisted for over 1000 years.

Is there a claim that these civic organizations do use violence or force to compel their members to comply with their rules?

So you're contending that a ruling elite that will inevitably include some people who are found wanting, is needed because some people will be found wanting?

 

Had you understood what you responded to, you wouldn't be asking such a silly question.

From Stalin forward, the Soviet Union was exerting such influence through propaganda outlets in the US; and if you don't think that's responsible in part for the determination of a great many "Americans" to impose socialism on this country under the pretext of saving Mommy Erf from anthropogenic global warming, they pilgrim, you don't think too good.

You can't be serious.

This says otherwise.

Of course they do, since any member who violates the rules egregiously enough is subject to expulsion.

Absolutely. Ideally said elite consists of the People, as would be the case in the US were the Constitution respected by Their servants who comprise the federal government.

 

We shouldn't, they are not even legal. None of the alphabet agencies of federal government are for that matter. In order for the Federal Government to have legal jurisdiction, it must be given that legal jurisdiction specifically in the Constitution of the United States. Please show me the paragraph in the Constitution in which the people bestowed the powers to the Federal Government to have jurisdiction over drugs or food? Spoiler.. you can't, they do not exist. Now go read the 10th amendment which restricts the powers of the Federal Government to only what powers the Constitution contains.

 

Again remember------------------smaller government cost less.

Big government is a black hole for taxpayer money, and it produces nothing of value.

 

My response merely pointed out that your response was an unsupported opinion; Essentially a waste of time and effort, so why do it? The world community of nations is effectively an anarchist system of peers that has no ruling body that can force any member to do any thing. Most of the time those entities manage to get along by negotiating and coming to agreements via treaties.

So propaganda outlets in the U.S. (CNN, Labor Unions, Leftist Political Parties, the public education system?) can shape opinion and that requires a group of people with a monopoly on the use for force to make the hoi polloi not succumb to the propaganda?

Of course I'm serious. How does nonviolent propaganda that is legal under the current government system justify government? What is the government doing to counter said propaganda, other than providing and enabling systems of delivery for it?

No, the Tuatha had no government body or group for the enforcement of a ruling. The people themselves enforced it. If you consider it government when a person defends his own property or person by ejecting a trespasser or shooting back at an assailant that is a pretty broad interpretation. This is essentially what happened in the Tuatha. An injured party would make a claim taken to the Brehon. The Brehon would make a ruling. The injured party would take action to enforce the ruling. If the guilty party refused to comply with the ruling the people of the Tuath would shun them until they complied with the ruling.

In the case of the Tuatha, shunning isn't expulsion, its a refusal to trade, deal or interact with the offender. The offender being outside the law of course did present the possibility of violence at the individual or family level as the injured party could take whatever action they wanted and the Tuath wouldn't defend the "outlaw".
Similarly, in the case of expulsion from a civic organization, the expulsion isn't the initiation of force, its the response to an encroachment by an unwanted individual. At the point that the ex-member is voted out of the club he's a trespasser and can be evicted. A person or group enforcing his own property rights isn't government and isn't a ruling elite with a monopoly on the use of force that is enforced by the membership of the organization, not any ruling elite.

On this we'll just have to disagree. Your "elites" are the scum of the earth that take no account of the Constitution and are your masters, not your servants.

 

which is why your response was idiotic.

That's nothing like a reasonable inference from anything I said, obviously.

Then your homework assignment is to figure out why your question is thunderously retarded.

Wow. You really think I'm stupid.

Doesn't matter.

Yes, the wiki article plainly contradicts your assertion.

Doesn't matter, as it was only enforceable in the first place because of the existence of the state, which in the case you describe consisted of the people.

Technically it isn't, but it is backed by the implied threat of force.

And if he doesn't want to leave, guess what happens.

Please, you didn't understand a word I said.

 

Based on the evidence.

I said there are and were examples of non-state societies in the world and gave several examples. Those examples stand. Your replies have been a thoroughly non-responsive waste of time.

Have a great day.

 

Of course we shouldn't.

 

Better yet, get rid of most of the Federal Government; especially the office of President. Eliminate most all Federal Law and let each State act as a nation in its own right. The Feds only provide for defense of the independent States, currency, and perhaps a few other critical functions. But all decisions in regards to Federal actions are made by the Congress.

 

Or, just break up the States entirely and be done with it. Amend the Constitution to allow secession.

 

Secession is constitutionally permitted

 

No, it's not. The last time States tried to secede, it started a civil war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

So to all of these pseudo conservatives who claim to support State's rights, now is your chance. Give each State the right to secession. Let's see how long the US lasts.

As far as I'm concerned, my State is being held hostage by a hostile government.

 

The attractive aspect of secession is that it is the dregs that want to abscond.

 

I want to secede. How do I wish to abscond?

 

I'd be curious to see what constitutional language you can provide that forbids any state from seceding.

 

Again from Jefferson, That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

And from the Preamble to the founding document, We the people of the US, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity....

 

Either way, you'll can just keep whining about it.

 

Yes. The founders provided for departments of War (defense), State, Treasury and Justice. The rest of it doesn't belong in federal government. It belongs in the states, the private sector or the trash can. Having the FDA and other unrelated functions belong in one of those three.

 

This is a stupid conversation. It starts with someone quoting Jefferson - who doesn't have any concept of what the founding principles were or what Jefferson meant in context. It then follows with someone claiming "more gov't" is better - and that Jefferson was full of it - but, this person also has no idea about the founding principles or what Jefferson meant in context.

From this mish mash of nonsense - the conversation proceeds as if this is some kind of black vs white - good vs evil paradigm - where it is either all or nothing - completely out of context with Jefferson.

All people on both sides of this fence love roads, infrastructure, clean drinking water, police protection, military and so on .... all of the above are provided by Gov't .. so it is complete nonsense to love all of the above and claim that less is better - when obviously they think otherwise.

On the other side - you have people who rail against war, abortion law, and various other things claiming "more Gov't is better".

Jefferson was not against roads and infrastructure .. what he was against was Gov't messing with individual liberty - this is what he likely meant by "less Gov't" in what ever context the poster is referring to (note that the context is not given so we don't actually know for sure).

Respect for individual liberty - such that individual liberty was put "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't is the principle on which this nation was founded. In this respect - Less Gov't is better than more.

Not that this does not apply to other things - but, that is another topic. What is nonsense is that this caveat applies to all things.

 

So your statement is bs. Better to whine than to make up lies about other people.

 

The reality is that, whatever your airy-fairy notions concerning governance, all the leading nations on earth have pragmatically arrived at the same paradigm: democratic integrations of capitalistic and social components that reward personal initiative and address the humanitarian values of the populace.

If you can cite a single, non-imaginary, nation whose system of government you prefer, please identify the planet you reference.

 

What lies are you imagining, and on what planet is your example of a government you approve of?