Forum whore
No I don't think he is.
I actually see the stand Akzle is trying to make with the approach he describes. What he does not mention is the average police officer will not take too kindly to said approach and one would have to be prepared to accept the consequences of taking that line.
We can argue the legitimacy of it all until the sun turns to cheese, the reality is, once committed to checking you out the average plod is not going to let it go just because you say "yeah, nah"
Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but how many times you have your breath taken away
Just faidin away!
GOD - Akzle? ......... What have I missed here?
KB's Chief Cats
pretty much.Originally Posted by Ulsterkiwi
Anarchic Wild Child
Yeah .. but you're approach has no consistency ...
'Rights' depends on a legitimate authority to grant these ... they are a legal fiction and so rely on an executive authority to grant them .. (don't give me that God shit)
So you can't use 'rights' to challenge the legislative authority embodied in police officers by standing on "rights" ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
KB's Chief Cats
interesting misuse of language.
god is a pretty legitimate authority.
The Crown, is not.
god given (given, not granted) rights dont come with Ts and Cs.
The Crowns, (granted, not given) do.
The only authority any of them have is CONsent. The only authority policx enforcement officers have is legislated.
Company rules only apply to company employees...
Anarchic Wild Child
Yeah - it was a bit messy.
No, I'm sorry God does not exist. So s/he cannot provide legitimate executive authority ...god is a pretty legitimate authority.
The Crown, is not.
god given (given, not granted) rights dont come with Ts and Cs.
The Crowns, (granted, not given) do.
The only authority any of them have is CONsent. The only authority policx enforcement officers have is legislated.
Company rules only apply to company employees...
Legitimation of any Government is through the will of the people ...
And 'rights' only exist as a legal fiction, recognized by the people-legitimated Government. The whole of human history shows that 'rights' have to be fought for. There is nothing self-evident about 'rights'. It's a socially constructed fiction.
Try telling a man drowning at sea 10 miles off the coast that he has a "right to life". The cause and effect universe will never recognize those 'rights'.
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Aio ki te Aorangi
"Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do"
or perhaps
or perhaps
One rule, pun intended, for them, no defense for us?
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
Anarchic Wild Child
"Some watery tart distributing swords is no mandate for executive authority" (Monty Python .. )
See, in France in 1789, there was a king, Appointed by the Pope and supposedly with the power of your "God".
However, the people rebelled and killed the king .. either with the blessing of the God who appointed the King OR while the God stood by and did nothing OR proof that God did not appoint that King OR evidence that God does not exist .. (and a few combinations to youtr taste)
The subsequent Government (after about 10 years) eventually ruled by the will of the people ..
The British Constitutional Monarchy comes from a line of Kings appointed by the Pope (and by inference the God) until 'enry - who defied the pope and broke the power of the church over the Government. Now the constitutional monarch is powerless but remains as a figurehead because of the will of the people (which us republicans would be quite happy to change ..) If we boot her out as Queen do you really think God is going to step in a stop us???
It can be arued that the change from FPP election system in Godzone to MMP was a withdrawal of legitimation for a Government out of control (the neo-liberal so-called Labour Government of the 1980s) and a relegitimation as a proportional representative Government. No God involved in that one either ..
People legitimate Governments . sometimes Governments claim God as their legitimation - but it's a false move based on a non-existent being, and a population control technique (do what I say or God will punish you ... )
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Forum whore
the conflict between ideals and reality becomes very circular innit?
I really do have time for and understand what Mashman and Akzle are making a stand on. In the ideal world, power or authority should only be legitimised by our informed consent.
Where that falls down is when people wish to exist in a society. Here it gets awkward for Akzle because he wants to opt out of said society. Thats understandable, because society determines the rules which he must live by and refuses him the option to not recognise rules which he has not consented to. (correct me if I am wrong here)
The other problem is a rule which is aiming to protect individuals, such as, do not kill people or do not steal their shit or whatever. Some unscrupulous shit wants my stuff, he steals it and then says he cannot be held to account for that because he did not give his consent to be ruled by the laws now being enforced. Just an example but hopefully you get the idea. Its called "cherry picking" in the vernacular.
The ideal scenario I absolutely buy into but at best its a reductionist outlook on how life happens. Societal living will require compromise and accepting some things which you neither like or agree with.
Have had this out with Akzle before, can't see either winning as its unwinnable. The reality is the circumstances for the ideal to happen will never happen, purely and simply because they involve people and people are essentially non-perfect beings.
Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but how many times you have your breath taken away
God's Evil Twin
But also why should anyone abide but crown rules when they themselves ignore them?
Science Is But An Organized System Of Ignorance"Pornography: The thing with billions of views that nobody watches" - WhiteManBehindADesk
KB's Chief Cats
dealt with belowwhat a sad view of your fellow man. the reality is you've been indoctrinated into a "the matrix" like society - the world as you've been told it is, is a lie, to blind you from the truth.The ideal scenario I absolutely buy into but at best its a reductionist outlook on how life happens. Societal living will require compromise and accepting some things which you neither like or agree with.
Have had this out with Akzle before, can't see either winning as its unwinnable. The reality is the circumstances for the ideal to happen will never happen, purely and simply because they involve people and people are essentially non-perfect beings.
every single one of us has the capacity to change this, today and all days forward. i somehow, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, belive that humans are sentient, intelligent beings capable of great things. there's just some jew fuckery holding them all back.
>80% of the planets human population believe in some form of god.
are your balls that big that you can say the majority of people are wrong?
(mine are, but not about the god thing.)
dafuqs a nigga doing 10 miles to sea? the ocean gives no fucks. that's one of those "laws of god"
see the maxim "no man is above the law" is the simplest form - you go 10 miles into the fucken ocean and can't get home, you gonna die - it doesn't matter the size of your bank account, your social status, your employment, the color of you skin or your ancestry... that applies to every man, woman and child on the planet - it's a law.
whereas, under legislation, you're a black teenager and rob a dairy of 400$ worth of smokes - that's 4 years jail.
you're a white guy who defrauds millions of people out of more millions of dollars - you're bailed to your second yacht in the bahamas.
that's not law. it doesn't apply equally.
rights, as a legal fiction, exist with responsibilities, ie, the "right" to drive comes with the "responsibility" to not travel in excess of the posted limit. the "right" to free speech comes with the responsibility to accept history as written, and to not offend any cunt (unless they're muslim, in which case offending them is a-ok)
as someone who reserves the right to self determination, i accept - i have the right to do whatever the fuck i want, but i have the responsibility not to fuck up anyone elses day.
while there may be some less scrupulous, the "rights" and responsibilities imposed by society have no fucking effect on them. your shit's still getting robbed. despite the policy, and despite the gang of policy enforcers.
Anarchic Wild Child
Yes. The majority of people are wrong. Deluded by the system that needs a "higher authority" to appeal to o enforce their own wishes. There is no God.
I do get most of what you are saying ...dafuqs a nigga doing 10 miles to sea? the ocean gives no fucks. that's one of those "laws of god"
see the maxim "no man is above the law" is the simplest form - you go 10 miles into the fucken ocean and can't get home, you gonna die - it doesn't matter the size of your bank account, your social status, your employment, the color of you skin or your ancestry... that applies to every man, woman and child on the planet - it's a law.
whereas, under legislation, you're a black teenager and rob a dairy of 400$ worth of smokes - that's 4 years jail.
you're a white guy who defrauds millions of people out of more millions of dollars - you're bailed to your second yacht in the bahamas.
that's not law. it doesn't apply equally.
rights, as a legal fiction, exist with responsibilities, ie, the "right" to drive comes with the "responsibility" to not travel in excess of the posted limit. the "right" to free speech comes with the responsibility to accept history as written, and to not offend any cunt (unless they're muslim, in which case offending them is a-ok)
as someone who reserves the right to self determination, i accept - i have the right to do whatever the fuck i want, but i have the responsibility not to fuck up anyone elses day.
while there may be some less scrupulous, the "rights" and responsibilities imposed by society have no fucking effect on them. your shit's still getting robbed. despite the policy, and despite the gang of policy enforcers.
I disagree that you have the 'right' to do whatever you feel like. You are free to do whatever you feel like (subtle but important difference) but you also must accept responsibility for, and the consequences of, your actions.
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Aio ki te Aorangi
The cycle is counted in millennia. History repeating etc...
I accept that I am morally obliged to be a responsible member towards all members of what is commonly referred to as society. If I commit a morally questionable act, then by all means try me for it. However, until the vast majority of the public have individually voted on laws that have absolutely nothing to do with morality, why should I recognise those laws? How can you claim that they are the laws of society, when everyone has not been asked whether they agree with it becoming a law? I'm keen to see that happen.
The ideal scenario is a single decision away and is much closer than you can possibly imagine (in the grand scale of things). Give people a chance to not be a cunt and they won't be.
KB's Chief Cats
bold claim. not one that can be proved either way.
(the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence)
again. that's lawyer-jewing words, which i'm all in favor of.I disagree that you have the 'right' to do whatever you feel like. You are free to do whatever you feel like (subtle but important difference) but you also must accept responsibility for, and the consequences of, your actions.
and i do accept responsibility. 100%.
just not by legislated measures.
is the "harm" i do travellling at 140km/h equivalent to $120 to "society"
(but actually, to the consolidated fund for a new fleet of 7 series BMWs and shit. while most niggaz have to get they ass on a fuckin bus if they can't afford a car.)
i submit that it is not!
Forum whore
Yes it is sad, I do think however that its a pragmatic view.
Like you I reckon humanity to be capable of great things. What you aspire to is honourable, I would say even possible. What I think is sad is that if achieved, it would only take one bad bugger to ruin it all. The Judeo-Christian story tells us that is exactly what happened. Humanity was created and existed without all the things you have identified as objectionable. In fact, things were perfect. Someone decided that wasn't enough, they wanted more and since then humanity has been caught in the cycle of screwed-upness. I don't care what your religion is, that seems to me a pretty plausible explanation for what has happened to us as a species. I see no reason why it should not happen again, as Mashy explains, the cycle has occurred over millennia.
Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but how many times you have your breath taken away
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks