Law, Legislation, and Civil Disobedience

We don't need civil disobedience, there is an easier way - elections.

But the vast majority of Americans keeps voting for the status quo over and over again.

I see 2 possible explanations:

a) They prefer the status quo
b) They are so dumb, that they repeatedly fall for some republican/democratic politican's promise

In either case though, they don't deserve freedom, to the contrary, they deserve exactly what they're getting.

We don't need civil disobedience, there is an easier way - elections.

But the vast majority of Americans keeps voting for the status quo over and over again.

I see 2 possible explanations:

a) They prefer the status quo
b) They are so dumb, that they repeatedly fall for some republican/democratic politican's promise

In either case though, they don't deserve freedom, to the contrary, they deserve exactly what they're getting.

partisan politics as usual, and again as usual Prof. Boudreaux only endorses the socially conservative republican line of thinking.

I know it was merely an example, but does he seem implicitly to endorse the concept of the "paradox of thrift"? He'd better not be, else I'll never read his blog again.

So Libertarians think laws should be suggestions? If you don't like the law you should be to disobey it without consequences? If Libertarians want to storm the White House and destroy the U.S. Government and their laws then they should expect the Government to put up one hell of a fight.

Gil,

Your comment is typical of those who are too knee jerk, enculturated, and reactionary to ever think things through in a free honest intellectual way. Conventional wisdom is good enough for you and your ilk. And, that is a pity, it really is.

Laws could be called suggestions if you like, or you can call them agreements just as easily. Why? Because law can not compel performance, not even natural law. Law is only an agreement to designate and standardize a punishment for an act commonly thought of as criminal or evil.

Law, Australia has laws, do you believe that I should observe and obey those laws? Why not? They are laws.

Oh, I see, I have no reason to obey those laws of a foreign country, eh? They are too distant maybe?

Law is not law to an individual who isn't within the jurisdiction of that law. Surely you must know that by now?

So what do we do? Look for law closer to me, maybe? How close? How am I to be placed under that jurisdiction? Can you do it, can Nancy Pelosi do it, can the local sheriff do it; can anyone do it without my agreement or voluntary participation in the organization that created the law and still call it freedom?

Why no they can't. That is why they call it slavery when a power captures a free individual and forces them into servitude, and call it imprisonment when they capture that individual and place him behind bars and curtail his movements and activities.

Now, we come to this question, one that everyone should be asking, is that corporate government in Washington D.C. that has long ago became a tyrant and raping the people a foreign government to us?

My answer is yes. Others may not have made it as far down the road as I have, but many will in the coming days, they surely will.

And, yes it is the duty of free people to cast off government, and yes it is instinctive and absolute that the government is going to fight back.

Final question, do you live on your feet or serve on your knees.

I have made my choice. I feel sorry for you and offer you knee pads.

Actually, if you only have to obey the laws of the juridiction then that's compatible with Libertarianism - he who owns the land makes the rules. By the way, how are you living differently from everyone else? You're 'free'? How so? Unless you've attained private land sovereignty then you're paying lip service to everyone and you're 'free' or 'enslaved' as much as anyone else.

What are commonly called laws are certainly more than suggestions, but they aren't really laws either. That is, they are not "Independently and sufficiently verified descriptions of a direct link between cause and effect of a phenomenon, deduced from experiments and/or observations." What are commonly called "laws" in politics are really just rules, made by those who rule.

Even the Constitution is really just a set of rules. What makes it unique is that it contains a set of prohibited behaviors, actions that the rulers who wrote this set of rules promised that they would not allow themselves to perform. Interesting idea, but it hasn't really panned out as the original set of rulers has been replaced over time with a less noble and more pragmatic breed.

So the choice available to the libertarian, one who would be liberated from the actions of exploitative rulers, are much the same as the choices available to the employee of an exploitative boss - quit, fight, or subvert.

All well and good as rhetoric goes, but the government is only doing what the government is allowed to do.

A point. It is capture if one is actively fighting back and resisting.

It is surrender if one volunteers or acquiesces.

If you (rhetorical you) don't know how the words capture, surrender, or free applies to you and why, then it is sad but true that you have a long way to go to reality.