vote your conscience not your wallet

cton2.forge

Active Member
Once again, this is merely an opinion, not a fact. Quotes from famous people may be fun, but they don't mean anything without real world data to back them up.
Did you read the rest of the post? Are numbers not data anymore? What exactly do you need to qualify as data these days? Have you read the Internal Revenue Code? Or can you tell me how many Laws there are? Cause nobody else can. The GAO has been working since 1980 to find out and still don't have an answer. In 1927 all the laws fit into one volume, now... not so much.

Longshanks, I expect better from you. 22prentwill just sees what they want, now you're just picking and choosing and ignoring the rest.

As far as the issue for this thread goes I really don't have a dog in the fight, but thousands and thousands of convoluted laws full of gibberish you need 50 years in law to 'interpret' is just ridiculous. KISS it, that's all I'm saying...
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
Yeah ok I can agree with the keeping it simple thing. 50,000 laws is a lot,

Though if someone actually went through them all I wonder how many you’d end up keeping? And how many of those are the base laws and not codes, regulations, acts etc?
 

cton2.forge

Active Member
But you haven’t yet given any evidence to support your point besides the quotes of past anarchists.
Thoreau was about as far from an anarchist as you can get. He wrote (and practiced!) Civil Disobedience to protest what he considered an unjust government(in protest of the institution of slavery). In order to try to change policy not completely do away with it. In fact, the original title was "The Rights and Duties of the Individual in Relation to Government."

But you haven’t yet given any evidence
Back at you buddy. I put in a bunch of numbers and stuff so you have....data....

And your statement that Somalia is a State of Anarchy is in fact False as they have a system of government, a federal parliamentary system (as jacked up as their situation is). But we do appreciate you throwing around your 'facts' and misrepresenting the words of other people on the Forums.

Thanks for playing!
 

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
Did you read the rest of the post? Are numbers not data anymore? What exactly do you need to qualify as data these days? Have you read the Internal Revenue Code? Or can you tell me how many Laws there are? Cause nobody else can. The GAO has been working since 1980 to find out and still don't have an answer. In 1927 all the laws fit into one volume, now... not so much.

Longshanks, I expect better from you. 22prentwill just sees what they want, now you're just picking and choosing and ignoring the rest.

As far as the issue for this thread goes I really don't have a dog in the fight, but thousands and thousands of convoluted laws full of gibberish you need 50 years in law to 'interpret' is just ridiculous. KISS it, that's all I'm saying...
Yes, I read the rest of the post. Those numbers by themselves do not in any way prove the veracity of Thoreau's quote. Several examples of "least" governments that function better would be a start. No, I have not read the Internal Revenue Code. (Relevance?) No, I cannot tell you how many laws there are. (Relevance?) I'm pretty sure the GAO has that on a back burner, so to speak. In other words, it's not in any way their main focus. In 1927 there were lynchings going on, financial sleight of hand that led to the Great Depression, unwise farming methods that led to the Dust Bowl, there was the Great Mississippi Flood that affected 10 states, and discrimination was not only rampant but actively supported by numerous states. In short, 1927 is a good example of a "least" government not serving its citizens very well at all.
 

cton2.forge

Active Member
Several examples of "least" governments that function better would be a start. No, I have not read the Internal Revenue Code. (Relevance?)
Relevance? 7500 pages is an example of too much governance. It's soooo long and convoluted that it is difficult to understand.

No, I cannot tell you how many laws there are. (Relevance?)
Relevance - there are a zillion laws, so many that literally no one knows how many laws there are. Classic over-governance. If literally everything is legislated....do I really need to beat this dead horse? And on the back burner!? Are you serious? For 29 years? They couldn't come up with an answer in 29 years? It's puzzling that no one knows how many laws there are, I mean absolutely mind-blowing.

Okay, okay you got me on 1927. But you have to appreciate that we've gone from a codified set of laws that fit into one book to a state that we have no clue just how many laws there are today (seriously, google it). The best upside to the highly partisan era we are in is that far fewer laws are passed. The bad news is that because of the atmosphere the new legislation is often even more complicated and 'padded' and can run in excess of 1,000 pages. There has to be a tipping point where we say enough is enough.

But, I digress. I once had an Honors English teacher who had a great reply for us when we asked how long our essays had to be. He said an essay should be like a dress - long enough to cover the subject but short enough to keep it interesting. I feel laws should be similar. They don't need to cover every aspect of life, just enough of them to cover the most important things.

BLUF - there are so many laws that we collectively don't know what they are. I'm not saying there should be no laws (which is what I feel like you think I'm saying) but there should be fewer laws that are easier to understand. Our tax code shouldn't be almost 8,000 pages (I could probably read and digest 50ish pages, but 8,000?). Fewer laws with more clarity and less words.

Are you suggesting we need yet more laws that are longer and wordier? Because I feel like that's where you're going with all this....
 

lannister the rich

Well-Known Member
Not to pile on to this, but I’m going to pile on to this...

Thoreau was an anarchist in a sense. He hated the US government and thought it was unjust because they allowed slavery. He would have preferred a government that stayed out of its people’s lives except in the cases of safety and security. Even at the time of Thoreau writing Civil Disobedience, the US government was not nearly as involved in the affairs of its governed as it is now. That being said, he was not the first to use the phrase “that government is best which governs least”. I believe the earliest person we’ve known to have said something along those lines was Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Thomas Jefferson was also someone who thought the government had no business in the affairs of its governed except in terms of their safety and security. Thing is about this quote is that the definition of a man at that time was white, male, and owned property.

I also argue that certain laws we have now wouldn’t qualify as safety and security, such as providing public education, mandating that a particular area of land cannot be built on or destroyed (national parks), fair trade and economy, I could go on. But all of which I am quite thankful for.
 
Last edited:

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting we need yet more laws that are longer and wordier? Because I feel like that's where you're going with all this....
Nice, putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying anything about number of laws. My point has nothing to do with that. My point is that no one has shown any real world data comparing nations with varying degrees of "least" to "most" governance and demonstrating in any way that "least" is superior to any other degree of governance. Number of laws may have some slight impact on the overall picture, but the number by itself has no context.
 

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
Interesting. I'm guessing you don't see how this refutes every other argument you make.
On the contrary ... I am free to do whatever I want in regards to my private property ... And I don’t need you to agree with that.

The Constitution doesn’t forbid the option of self-governing which includes how you govern your own property. Just like I don’t have a problem with Starbucks saying I cannot carry a firearm in their establishment ... It’s their property and if they don’t want my business I am sure someone else will sell me overpriced nasty coffee.
 
Last edited:

lannister the rich

Well-Known Member
So, who owns public property and federal lands? The government. Who’s to say the government can’t force you to leave your guns at the door (of your own home). Sure, you can do what you want on your private property just as much as the government can in theirs.

We can go a bit further and say that technically all property within the confines of the United States, regardless of public or private, is under the umbrella of the federal government. The 2nd and 4th amendment keep the government at bay here, but land is leased, not owned. Just try not paying property taxes and see what happens. You’ll be arrested and your land seized.
 

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
LOL
Okay, whatever you say. I see now that this isn't a serious discussion.
P.S.: Your hypocrisy is showing.
It’s not hypocracy to exercise my freedom. I am not asking the government to enforce my desires. I don’t require your agreement to exercise my liberties, and I am not taking a vote.

See ... When I choose to govern my private property, then I am the government there. As I have said over and over in this thread ... As the governing body in regards to my private property, I can do what Government does and limit freedoms. The 10th Admendment protects my right to do so.

Sorry you cannot find any way to argue with it.

Guess you do like being powerless over someone who can exercise their freedoms as they see fit and doesn’t need your approval.

Edit:
That’s also why big government Statists and Marxists are all the keen on the idea of private property in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
See ... When I choose to govern my private property, then I am the government there. As I have said over and over in this thread ... As the governing body in regards to my private property, I can do what Government does and limit freedoms. The 10th Admendment protects my right to do so..
Ok that’s a slippery argument right there

As the government of your own land you’re ok with taking away guns from everyone that’s not yourself.

As a citizen you’re not ok with the government taking away guns from everyone that’s not the government
 

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
Ok that’s a slippery argument right there

As the government of your own land you’re ok with taking away guns from everyone that’s not yourself.

As a citizen you’re not ok with the government taking away guns from everyone that’s not the government
Exactly. So her "belief" isn't absolute, it depends on whether it's her "freedom" being curtailed or someone else's. Which is why it's hypocrisy.
 

BlackSand the Sly

Well-Known Member
Ok that’s a slippery argument right there

As the government of your own land you’re ok with taking away guns from everyone that’s not yourself.

As a citizen you’re not ok with the government taking away guns from everyone that’s not the government
Thanks for understanding the basics.

But ... I don’t take their firearms or the right to own firearms away. I tell them, that they need to leave their firearms in their vechicle or at home until I am comfortable with them exercising their Constitutional liberties within the confines of my private property.

I am not removing their ability to purchase possess/own firearms. I am not asking the authorities/law to enforce my decisions. Heck, I am not even asking you to agree with it.

I am exercising my freedom to ... Govern ... My private property (as protected by the 10th Amendment).

At any point, someone restricted from carrying a firearm on my private property, can possibly gain the Priviledge (not right) to carry on my property.

Long story short ... I am not required to give a rat’s read about your freedoms in regards to my private property ... And you don’t have the ability to infringe on my liberty to govern it as I see fit. You cannot govern my private property and I am not required to allow you that privilege.
 

lannister the rich

Well-Known Member
Thanks for understanding the basics.

But ... I don’t take their firearms or the right to own firearms away. I tell them, that they need to leave their firearms in their vechicle or at home until I am comfortable with them exercising their Constitutional liberties within the confines of my private property.

I am not removing their ability to purchase possess/own firearms. I am not asking the authorities/law to enforce my decisions. Heck, I am not even asking you to agree with it.

I am exercising my freedom to ... Govern ... My private property (as protected by the 10th Amendment).

At any point, someone restricted from carrying a firearm on my private property, can possibly gain the Priviledge (not right) to carry on my property.
So, I ask again, who’s to say the government doesn’t ban the sale of firearms, but they ban the presence of them in public areas. Meaning, you can only keep your firearm in your home. By your logic, you should be OK with that.