Franc's 210$ USA Challenge

I will give a Market Anarchist t-shirt from my store (plus 210$ worth of pledges so far) to any statist who can prove that the United States of America exists as a legitimate entity.

PLEASE NOTE that you do not have to prove that government does not exist. That is not what the Challenge is about. For the sake of the Challenge, you may assume that the government exists (but not that it is legitimate).

I define legitimate as the following statement from the Declaration of Independence:
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
A legitimate entity of governance, therefore, must derive its powers from the consent of the governed.

I will answer all contenders here, but official entries must be posted on my message board thread, given that a moderator may be appointed to judge the Challenge. Until then I will judge it.

Welcome to the best store for market anarchist stuff. We have the best logos and the best prices. Now you can help take down the state and promote the joys of the market in style!

You're such a whore, Franc!

Quote

Welcome to the best store for market anarchist stuff. We have the best logos and the best prices. Now you can help take down the state and promote the joys of the market in style!

You're such a whore, Franc!

QFT


Whore.

After a pledge by a friend of mine, the challenge award is now 60$. (50$ plus the t-shirt)

Thanks to the pledge of a valuable custom made bra by a female member, the award is now worth 180$ (50$ in cash and 130$ worth of items).

Sounds like a challenge to me!

With the addition of a signed Gorbachev picture, the pot is now 210 dollars' worth. So get to your arguments!

We like the moon
coz it is close to us
we like the moooon!
but not as much as a spoon
'cause that's more use for eating soup
and a fork isn't very useful for that
unless it has got many vegetables
and then you might be better off with a
chop-stick
unlike the moon
it is up in the sky
it's up there very high
but not as high
as maybe
digibles or zeppelins
or lightbulbs
and maybe clouds
and puffins also I think maybe
they go quite high too


maybe not as high as the moon
coz the moon is very high
we like the moon
the moon is very useful everyone
everybody like the moon
because it light up the sky at night
and it lovely
and it makes the tide go and we like it
but not as much as cheese
we really like cheese
we like zeppelins
we really like them
and we like kelp and we like moose
and we like deer and we like marmots
and we like all the fluffy animals
we really like the moon

Do you mean the United States in general, or in its current incarnation under the Bush administration?

Can't I just get five bucks or so for proving that it ISN'T a legitimate government entity?  I'd only need like two paragraphs...

I'll attempt to do it in 500 words or less.

Can't I just get five bucks or so for proving that it ISN'T a legitimate government entity?  I'd only need like two paragraphs...

I'll attempt to do it in 500 words or less.

*shrugs

Since anyone can do that, it's not much of a challenge now is it?

I suppose not.

I can prove that the constitution is unconstitutional. 

I just want a free t-shirt. Can I get a free t-shirt if I declare my undying love for you Francy?

I suppose not.

I can prove that the constitution is unconstitutional.

How so?

The governed pledged its consent in 1772 when the deceleration of independence was drafted and signed by members and leaders of the states. After the Revolutionary War there was a large public outcry to make George Washington its new ruler and king. This tells me that the governed inherently desired a a government, or at least a structure of some form.

Ultimately, Washington turned down the power of king betrothed to him and pursued a structure of government more in line with the Ancient Greeks - consisting of a democratic process of elections and a consortium congress designed to groupthink policies and agendas. Whether this was a mistake is uncertain. Of course the Ancient Greeks believed that fruit flies could spontaneously emerge from rotting meat and that the earth was a sphere - adopting their system of government could be just as disastrous to a country as adopting their system of medicine.

Regardless, Americans of all stripe and heritage fought for freedom in the Revolutionary war - laying down their lives and the lives of their children for the right to govern themselves. The whole of America could have easily saved themselves a lot of grief and trouble by submitting to European rule like the colonies before them.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was so nearly an Anarchist that he uttered the famous aphorism, "The best government is that which governs the least." The Declaration of Independence is so nearly an Anarchist document that there is probably not an Anarchist on earth, except the few Nietzscheans, who would reject its fundamental underlying logic. For example: That all men are equal in rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; That governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; That whenever any government becomes destructive to the above rights, it is the right and duty of those who have formed it, the people, to take whatever measures may be necessary to secure their own safety and happiness, even to its complete abolition. In other words, the logic of the Declaration is that the individual is sovereign and supreme where he has his true rights, and the government only his tool, which he has made and has a right, therefore, to unmake at his pleasure.

"Individual Sovereignty" became one of the fundamental American watchwords and the whole of Anarchism is logically included in it. So too, all Anarchism is logically contained in the doctrine that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. No Anarchist has any logical objection to a government to which all its members consent; only he carries the logic one step further and says that if the individual withdraws his consent, in that moment the just power of the government over him ceases. So too, all Anarchism is logically contained in the statement that the right of every man to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in his own inoffensive way, is rightfully inalienable. Therefore the American principles are profoundly Anarchistic and the logic of Anarchism is absolutely American.

Almost original, and then...

http://www.zetetics.com/mac/blog/00000949.html

Again, this essay may be circulated freely as long as credit and a link are provided

Are you the author of this quote, Tom?  If not, it's plagiarism.

I still love you, Tom.

Tom Bishop, that's all true enough, but the Declaration of Independence alone does not establish the existence of the "United States of America." Indeed, it does not even declare the name "United State of America" or a specific territory. It is just... a declaration of independence. I doubt you would say it was consented upon by everyone who then lived on what we call the territory of the "United States," so I don't see how you're using this as proof of consent. It's a fine document, as far as it goes, though.

Due to these problems, I have to declare your attempt a failure.

Quote from: Mongrelman... Or so I'm told... on May 18, 2007, 05:57:49 PM

I suppose not.

I can prove that the constitution is unconstitutional.

How so?

1.   The Constitution of the United States of America, in and of itself, is unconstitutional.  "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."  This should imply that the governed have the power to overrule any decision of the government, or else the government is not getting its power from the governed.  Now, with the Constitution being a federal document that cannot simply be edited without the approval of each body of the government, the power is not being derived from the governed; it is being taken from them.  A universal law of the land that cannot be edited by sole will of the citizens is in direct contradiction with the phrase “from the consent of the governed.”  The voters may choose who gets into office and who is found in the Senate and House of representatives, but in doing that, they are submitting their will to the will of Congress.  The very existence of a document that states laws which the people have no control over is unlawful by the standards of the document.
So, essentially, since we cannot change the laws of the constitution without the approval of the government, it is a law for the people that may not necessarily be agreed on by the people.
2.   If, under bizarre and random circumstances, a vote was passed with a 100% majority, and the law passed was later found to be unconstitutional, the popular vote of the entire country could be overruled with a 2/3 majority agreement of Supreme Court.  This further demonstrates that the constitution is not in the hands of the citizens but in the hands of the government. 

In conclusion, a legitimate government is not only non existent, but realistically impossible. 

I agree with the substance of what you said, but there's one little problem. The quote you gave, and which I gave also in my Challenge, is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution itself.

I agree with the substance of what you said, but there's one little problem. The quote you gave, and which I gave also in my Challenge, is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution itself.

There I go again, getting federal documents mixed up.  My sincerest apologies.  I try not to get so involved in politics that I'm memorizing the fine details of a country I don't enjoy living in.  Very well, the constitution violates principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence.  In any case, the system is hardly legitimate by your standards.

Well, yes. That's the point of the Challenge. Many statists still hold to that belief but it falls apart easily when you probe them about it, and it seems pretty important to me for them to realize that.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

All right, Francy, I decided to take you up on this challenge.  Let's examine the fragment of the Declaration of Independence you chose to single out.

"Governments are instituted among Men...".  Well, we allow women of course, but I think we can all agree that for the last century or so "Men" as used in this sense is most often used to describe both sexes equally.  It's how we kept our old laws intact while still including women in the process.

"...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".  Given that we do elect our leaders into office, therefore giving our consent for their just powers, I fail to see how this condition is not satisfied.

When do I get my award?

The award will prove as illusionary as the "Republic of Canada."   No such named government exists.  The name of the country is simply "Canada". one word, no modifiers. 

Flatty, I was just waiting for someone to bring out the old "voting is consent" argument. Thank you for bringing it up.

You have, unfortunately, not presented a clear argument as to how you go from "we elect our leaders" to "the United States of America exists." Even if your former point was proven, it would not prove the latter, unless you can mount a logical argument on how to go from one to the other.

My friends and I could make up an organization  (such as, say, "Canadians for Global Warming") and start a mock vote for a leader, but existence of the vote does not mean the organization must exist. Even worse, we could beat up other people and make a vote on who gets to dictate the intensity and nature of subsequent beatings, but that would not make us an organization either- just a bunch of criminals deciding how to beat up someone.

Your argument also fails to fulfill the consent burden of proof, for many reasons, including the following:

* Voting in itself is not proof of a consensual action. As Spooner eloquently notes in No Treason, voting is elicited under duress (if you don't vote, other people will take your rights away from you, instead of you taking their rights away from them), and as such cannot be consensual by any legal or moral definition.


* Even if voting was consensual, it could not represent consent, since there is no option to vote AGAINST the "United States of America." All votes implicitly support the system in place, because they are votes for one candidate against another.

* Even if both points above were true, vote turnouts to federal elections are less than 50%. Ergo, voting can only represent consent of at best 50% of all those who are supposedly in the territory of the "United States of America."

I'm afraid that, unless you post answers to these points or otherwise prove your case, your submission is rejected.

The award will prove as illusionary as the "Republic of Canada."   No such named government exists.  The name of the country is simply "Canada". one word, no modifiers. 

1. The award is not illusory. It has been pledged by myself and other credible individuals. Of course, you don't have a guarantee that we will furnish it, but such is life. I'm not gonna pay a notary to write this up.

2. The Republic of Canada did exist. I'm afraid you are not quite up to your Canadian history there.

And I'm afraid you aren't up on your verb tenses.

And I'm afraid you aren't up on your verb tenses.

Nice of you to bash a non-english speaker for his not completely perfect use of english, jackass.

LOL 

* Voting in itself is not proof of a consensual action. As Spooner eloquently notes in No Treason, voting is elicited under duress (if you don't vote, other people will take your rights away from you, instead of you taking their rights away from them), and as such cannot be consensual by any legal or moral definition.

I disagree.  Under any process of government said to be by the people, some form of voting would be necessary, whether for an official or for the institution of a law.  Since this is a necessary condition of such a government, you can't also use it as proof that such a government does not exist.

* Even if voting was consensual, it could not represent consent, since there is no option to vote AGAINST the "United States of America." All votes implicitly support the system in place, because they are votes for one candidate against another.

To allow one to vote against the state such as you describe (such as, I guess, to vote to not have a President?  ), one would be opening the door to anarchy, which you know very well is essentially the absence of government!  Again, it's a necessary condition of government.

* Even if both points above were true, vote turnouts to federal elections are less than 50%. Ergo, voting can only represent consent of at best 50% of all those who are supposedly in the territory of the "United States of America."

Kind of contradicts your assertion that we feel coerced to vote, doesn't it?  I mean, if we're being coerced, why aren't more of us voting?  It doesn't matter anyway.  We all have the option to vote, and that is what is important, under your requirement.

I don't expect you to ever give in, Franc.  That's cool.  But on this particular point you're wrong, and I showed you why, and I will feel cheated if I do not get my reward.

I disagree.  Under any process of government said to be by the people, some form of voting would be necessary, whether for an official or for the institution of a law.  Since this is a necessary condition of such a government, you can't also use it as proof that such a government does not exist.

1. I am not asking you to prove that "the government" exists, so your rebuttal is completely irrelevant. Depending on your definition of "government," I may very well agree. I definitely agree that the ruling class exists, and that their organized coercion exists, and that's all one needs to define a government. Rather, I am asking you to prove that the "United States of America" exists and is legitimate. A very different question than "does a government exist."

In case you didn't notice, the Challenge ITSELF is called the USA Challenge, not the Government Challenge! If I wanted proof of a government I would have called it the Government Challenge!

2. If I understand it correctly, your argument is not even valid. It seems to be: voting proves that government exists because voting is a necessary prerequisite for government. That's like saying: human life proves that god exists because if god existed he would have created human life. It's a circular argument.

To allow one to vote against the state such as you describe (such as, I guess, to vote to not have a President?  ), one would be opening the door to anarchy, which you know very well is essentially the absence of government!  Again, it's a necessary condition of government.

See rebuttals 1 and 2 above.

Kind of contradicts your assertion that we feel coerced to vote, doesn't it?  I mean, if we're being coerced, why aren't more of us voting?  It doesn't matter anyway.  We all have the option to vote, and that is what is important, under your requirement.

Now you are moving the goalposts. First you said voting was consent. Now you are saying that the OPTION TO VOTE is consent. You just shot your own argument in the foot!

Start over again and argue why the OPTION TO VOTE is consent, if that is your contention. Stop pussyfooting.

I don't expect you to ever give in, Franc.

Give in to what? You have basically admitted that you have not even addressed the Challenge question, which is about the "United States of America," NOT "government." So why should I consider you a serious challenger?

Start over and address the actual Challenge question.

But on this particular point you're wrong, and I showed you why

I have never contended that governments do not exist. So you have not "shown me wrong" on anything yet. You're welcome to try though.

and I will feel cheated if I do not get my reward.

A reward which, in accordance with the rules of the Challenge, you have yet to earn.