In a message dated 7/1/2006 9:07:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
ozarkheretic@... writes:

I am not a political science expert, but it seems to me that you are
simply ignoring the fact that the American state is a continuation
of the America created when the colonies formed the union. A
constitution was adopted, which divided power between the federal
government and the states. Certain rights referred to as
inalienable rights were recognized in the Constitution for special
protection. A Bill of Rights was incorporated into the Constitution
by amendments. The people through their representatives agreed to
those terms of government. You seem to believe that subsequent
generations are not bound by the actions taken by their ancestors.
For example,you seem to be saying that if the legislature passed a
law to curtail pollution of water ways before you were born, then
after you were born if you thought dumping waste products into the
rivers was acceptable, you should not be bound by the pollution law
because you did not have the opportunity to participate in the
making of the law. Is that correct?


That depends on who owns the river. In any case, the basic principle is
right - my ancestors cannot make agreements that bind me. Neither can someone
claiming to be my representative without my consent.

>If you are my neighbor and you commit a crime, I can report the
>matter to the police and ask them to take proper action against
>you. Of course, no one can force you to move from your home because
>you have committed a crime. Unless you may have committed some crime
>which would require an offender to move from his home because of
>special circumstances. E.g. adults who commit sexual offenses
>against minors. I am not sure of the details of those repercussions
>but I think such offenders are not allowed to live in proximity to
>secondary schools, for example.

I don't know what you're getting at here.

>Some thinkers believe that without government life for people
>becomes nasty and brutish. Thugs intimidate people and make their
>lives miserable. The state protects law-abiding people from having
>to deal with such miscreants. That is one reason people form
>governments.

Some people believe lots of things. Others point out that plenty of people
have nasty, brutish lives with government. Stupid thugs may prefer the MO
you describe, but smarter ones do more enterprising things, like forming or
getting to run states.

>Let's you and I and the participants in this discussion group
>decided to go to an uninhabitated island to live for an extended
>period of time. Let's agree that no country or state had any
>jurisdiction over the island. Wouldn't we have to adopt some rules
>or laws to govern how we lived and to provide a method for us to
>settle dispute and conflicts that we probably would have? What
>would you say to the group in support of "anarachy"?

You're talking about a small group where each member consents to the rules,
and I have no objection. I will object if you go on to say that the members
of the CoercivePsychiatry mailing list are also to be bound by them.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]