"In both situations a motorist has a gun pointed at them, and the person holding the gun yells, "GET OUT OF THE CAR!" In the first case, the gun holder is a car-jacker. In the second, the gun holder is a cop."
This is incorrect, in that a car-jacker means to steal your property. Whereas the police officer is not trying to do that. but is trying to follow the law. Car jackers do not adhere to that rule. [A car-jacker] pulling you over is in no way the same as an officer pulling you over.
Minor nit, pedantic A-hole here. Assumption and scenario is both motorists already at a stop.This is the first friction in our thinking. To me the demand at gunpoint is exactly the same. You do not agree.
This is where you and I get to do some serious head butting.
I find I must put the definition of extortion on the table.
Extortion is "
Do what we tell you to do, Or we will hurt you."
Those words, all by themselves, are irrefutable.
Extortion is a crime. Those words should be irrefutable, and they are... Until I specify a certain group of people as the ones doing the extorting.
As soon as I identify that government actors are the ones doing the extorting, the definition of extortion suddenly becomes a fact to be refuted. I can only forgive them for
They know not what they do. As soon as I present the truth of what they do, I can no longer forgive them for they have become an enemy with ignorant, but nevertheless,
bad intent.
Whereas the police officer is ... trying to follow the law.
I am assuming arguendo; that is, I am assuming for the sake of discussion - argument, that the purpose and intent of the law is to protect humans from harm.
When I merge this to the reality of extortion, The law then becomes;
You will be harmed in order to protect people from harm if you do not do obey.How many people have been harmed by government protecting them from the harm of using drugs; drinking unpasteurized milk; having a burned out tail light; or having an expired vehicle registration sticker? That reality changes law to
You will be harmed in order to protect YOU from harm if you do not do obey.I'll just drop this quote in passing: "
Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime."
So as to move on, my last comment on law is: "
Law is a politician's opinion."
By what authority do politicians get the right to make their opinions
Do what we tell you or we will hurt you? A.K.A.
Comply or die?
Which leads to the point you made. Is authority extortion? There are cases where this can be made. But on the whole is this true? I think not.
You are arguing that authority is not extortion. The acts of (alleged) authority that uses extortion is extortion. How does this (alleged) authority get a right to use extortion?
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of YDOM.
YDOM is You Don't Own Me.YDOM is A self-evident truth.To argue otherwise is to argue that humans are not created with equal rights.
If
You Don't Own Me, then You don't have authority over me. Neither do politicians known as Legislators, Executives, nor Judges. No government officer, employee, or elected official was created with authority over me, you, or anybody else.
Thus, government's alleged authority is all provably bogus, Of which I expect to be challenged on, based upon some unexamined assumptions. Which, when it is posited, I will address.
Getting back to what you provided in support of your claim that authority is not extortion.
Fear of authority keeps the vast majority in line.
This
authority does not exist.
Fear of something
will keep the vast majority in line. Per your words, fear of arrest
will keep the vast majority in line.
What then is this "arrest"? Is this arrest not the harm of having your life interrupted? Is this arrest not the harm of having your freedom of movement curtailed? Is this arrest not the "
or we'll hurt you" because you didn't obey some opinionated dictates of legislative politicians?
Many people in my life have said something to the theme of "I would do this, but I would be arrested."
Emphasis mine.
"
This" is a nebulous generality. As such it does no good as a representative example of the specific behavior the actor is in fear of doing.
Let me parse that as I read it so that you can see how I think about that in light of what I've previously presented in this post...
"I would buy and smoke marijuana, but I would be arrested." "I would install a fence around my yard without tyrant's permission, but I would be arrested." "I would refuse to pay the extortion called taxation, but I would be arrested."
Make no mistake, government WILL harm people over victimless crimes.
I do NOT agree that humans need an extortionate band of criminals harming them in order to protect them from other criminals that MIGHT do them harm.
