TexasCHLforum.com

wil

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:19 pm
I'm pretty sure that these folks are just trying to get attention. But for the sake of argument, let's consider the "legitimacy" of their new government in the context of the Declaration of Independence (I'm assuming you mean the US one, not the Texas one).

The underlying premise, borrowed from Locke's 3rd Treatise on Government, is that people are born free with all rights and freedoms, including but not limited to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (or Ownership of Private Property per Locke). Governments are established by people to protect these rights, drawing their just power from the consent of the governed, and that if any form of government becomes destructive of the very rights for which it was established, then it is the obligation of the people to overthrow that government and replace it with a new one. The declaration also states that it is prudent to not overthrow a long established government without good reason, and you really should lay out your reasons for doing such an extreme thing. I think these are pretty straight forward concepts. Let's consider these in the context of the CHAZ "nation":

1. Do they have the consent of the governed? Well, that specific area of Seattle is extremely liberal (even by Seattle standards). So I would guess that the majority of the people living there, are in fact, supportive of these folks. Of course, this point can easily be settled by having an election. If the people living in that area do, in fact, like the idea of forming a separate government that better secures their rights and freedoms, then I think it is very hard to argue that the new government would be "illegitimate". I think you might be saying that a government is never legitimate until that consent is formally given through a majority vote. So maybe we call this one an "incomplete" for now?

2. Have they laid out their list of grievances? I think we have to say "yes" here, even if we think the complaints are non-sensical and a bit ridiculous. I'm pretty sure King George didn't much appreciate the grievances of the British colonists who refused to pay taxes to recoup the costs of defending them from native attacks, among other things.

3. The CHAZ "government" doesn't really seem to have its act together since they apparently gave away all their food. But competence is not a requirement for a legitimate government. If it was then there wouldn't be hardly any legitimate governments in existence.

4. The governments I live under (city, state, and federal) all require me to pay them to conduct business, earn an income, buy anything, and even just to own my house. Such payments are not always "extortion". I think the distinction between "extortion" and "taxes" in this case is dependant upon first determining whether the government in question is legitimate. The mere charging of such fees is not evidence of illegitimacy.

5. I have not heard of them taking utilities without paying for them. Am I missing something here?

Are you seriously trying to sell this as some kind've legitimate argument, that these people are somehow comparable to the Founders of this country?

Is what I wrote the truth?

yes or no?

wil

a bonafide model or precedent? NO.
not on any basis whatsoever.

anything and everything they are doing is in direct violation of the private property rights of the individuals living within that area for starters. and achieved that via having the illegitimate political power to engage in violence, not the proper use of force, to do what they've done.

absolutely no basis of personal responsibility in accordance with basic natural law or private property rights.

1. shaking down businesses for "donations" for "safety and security" Properly referred to as extortion.

2. set up their own so-called "police"? where is the basis for their authority? Ours was originally built on this critical part "drawing thier just power FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED" when did the people living there consent?
They didn't, they are being forced under threat of armed violence, basically a means of empowerment.

3. begging for food at day two, how about practising bonafide autonomy and taking responsibility for themselves?
ie: get off their butts and work for it like a lot of the rest of us do.
Evidently when they are now forced into taking their own medicine, that being the so-called 'equitable sharing' of resources, they don't like it when it's themselves that have to do the sharing. If they believe in so-called
'sharing' when then are they complaining about the homeless taking the food? and where is the compassion they supposedly have for the plight of the homeless?
Typical of the moral cowardice of the left, so long as others bear the burden or the responsibility, they preach about "fairness" when they have to shoulder the responsibility, they complain the loudest. And plead to others to handle their responsibilities.

4. electricity and water, are they paying for those services? No, walked in and took the product of other peoples labor under threat of violence, properly referred to as theft and/or extortion.

They've taken that area owing solely to having achieved the non-legitimate political power to do so, the local authorities wrongfully allowed them to do what they've done owing to political considerations.

If there is anything to be gleaned from this, the political power they've achieved, what that means, and how they did so, is what should be taken away from this as it will be practised elsewhere.

Add edit: a bonafide basis for political autonomy? Go read the Declaration of Independence, there is the proper model of a legitimate basis of autonomy given the natural law and civil rights which inherently stem from bonafide natural law.
As well as the proper basis for legitimate authority and the rights of the individual in the face of abuse of that authority.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 2 matches

Re: The independant nation of CHAZ

Re: The independant nation of CHAZ