That "balanced environment" is what the Founders attempted to put in place with the Constitution, and it was almost immediately hobbled by the Twelfth Amendment. In the end, the only thing that can constrain one from using force is someone else saying "no". And that takes moral courage that few have.

Man is what man is. But in a proper, balanced environment, no man with any kind of lust for power or any other faults is very much of a threat above what a simple criminal represents. Only through the catalyst of the government can that little evil become great evil. Whom could Hitler have hurt had it not been for the Government? Or any other despot?

I am obliged to nothing and nobody.
you'll just have to really surf thru my
http://no-ruler.net/
I might say that I don't expect you to "get it" for weeks, if ever.
Truly Free people will have a natural system while being responsible for themselves and no other.

I am beginning to see a pattern here in Dean's posts. And I commiserate with many of the sentiments.

While I truly do not disagree with the statements that government is based upon force to carry out it's objectives, I would ask this question: Is it truly impossible for an organized society to control its chosen form of government to carry out a rational and agreed upon objective?

I understand Dean's points of objection that government is force. But I also understand and am in line with George Washington's observation that government is a force akin to fire that is an essential thing of great use, but if out of control is dangerous.

I think at this point that Dean is obliged to weigh in on this matter with a solution other than government that would define the best principles of human interaction.

Dean, in his well meaning innocence, fails to acknowledge that the Declaration of Independence is one of the founding documents. It is actually the beginning definition of the supreme law of the land.

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -Declaration of Independence 1776

Great reply.

That makes no never-mind. Once the Constitution was written and ratified it became the "supreme law"; all the rest is merely history from days gone by. While many good words were emitted and of course interesting, none of it is "the law".

I agree. I take the good stuff, and ignore the bad. Maybe he just needed more education in the subject.

That depends what you mean by the word government. I am not trying to be pedantic here, but to suggest an alternative.

Government, in a broader meaning of protection and dispute-resolution services, is necessary in some form for everyone who isn't such a great fighter that he thinks he can go it alone. But those services, like all others, ought to be competitive industries as far as they can be without creating permanent warfare.

But "the government," in its now-conventional meaning of one big monolithic organization to which subjection is compulsory, is something we'd all be better off without.

LeFevre said some good things ... but I don't recommend him as a role model. He was pacifist first and libertarian second, and did not support a right to use force to defend property.

Most of it did make it into the Declaration of Independence, and much of it came from Locke's Two Treatises of Government.

The two should be read side by side. Indeed, the whole middle (grievances) section of the Declaration was an attempt to show the world that our situation at the time met Locke's tests and so gave us the right of revolution.

The threat must be understood in order for the control to be maintained. The threat is always there but it is not until that threat is ignored, forgotten or not understood that the control is lost.

One only has to look at the present administration and its flagrant unconstitutional actions to recognize the fragility affecting our Republic. Ayn Rand recognized this in her warning.

Small wonder then, that every government, or rulership by some other moniker, has Failed!
All of such hold the power of Force over all others. It's a lousy scheme!

Presently? No, I can't think of one. There have been some in the past. Not perfect, but pretty good. England under Oliver Cromwell after the English civil war comes to mind. But the same pattern always prevails...some ambitious characters come along and want more power than they've got.

I am looking into this. thanks, esceptico!

Can you name any government which IS controlled?
Governments control, always by Force.

Yep, but tis the Rulers who lust for that power, and we can't help but notice how they get it!

Good comment. If only such had made it into the Constitution in some absolute manner!

Ayn Rand got a whole lot right, and that quote is perhaps the biggest and best!

He must have been up to speed on what happens. It sure has happened here.

hear, hear! -- j

This is a paraphrase of LeFavre.