[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27187#msg27187 date=1264429475]
ya, its in introduction and zholzapfel, the other one i have there. thanks!
[/quote]
All set.
thinkliberty,
by he do you mean me? Also, define statist, anarchist, volunteerist…there are many individual opinions on the definition of each and varying levels and like to know where the person is comming from when they mention them.
Also, corruption is a very broad statement so im going to get specific about it. By corruption I mean the Supreme court justices colaberating to a premeditated end to a case brought to them. They can only judge cases that make it to the court (which most do not). So if a case is to be heard, the Judges would have to get together and get opinionated about the matter, before they hear it and all or mostly agree on those opinions and decide conciously with communication to the others, that no matter what the arguement, they will interpret the case based on the constitution a certain way. IF this happens (which did in California state supreme court (which is different than federal supreme court (a higher one))), their decision will be subject to the collective individual interpretation of the constitution by each person in the State (in this case) or national citizen. They have the right at that point to change the law in accordance with the ideals based on the origional ideals of the country (which i believe this check is the most powerful of all the checks and balences (the one of the public individual(public individual meaning in the political or voting sense))).
From there, there is only a positive outcome to a negative source (the origional decision). Never has the public voted consistantly to pass laws or ammend judgements in a negative sense. Because of this the average rate of change is positive which results in exponential growth of freedom/values against immoral acts by those only wishing to get what they want for whatever purpose (to be seen as a negative).
Professors teach what they know or think they know, which dosnt always mean their right. No matter what source derived, trust but verify and source your own opininions from there (if you wish).
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27186#msg27186 date=1264429339]
Ttii, you said. Can you give an example of what you mean by impeding someone else's ability to live freely?
My rights only extend as far as the next person's, as they say. I have no right to initiate force or fraud against another person, or their property. I would say that the person who initiates force or fraud is at fault, and the other has a right to respond defensively, with the minimum necessary level of force.
An example of what I mean by impeding someone else’s ability to live freely is a matter of perception of actions and how negatively a person or a group of people perceive your action to be vs. you not seeing any problem with it. You do not need a government for this “discrimination” to occur, it happens naturally. As I said before, if you smoke “the pot” in front of my kid (this is seen negatively by society (defined society is a group of individual people with different life experience through which a natural agreement/disagreements, along with factions occur)), you will be punished in some form by the parent, group of parents and/or concerned individuals or a representitive of the group used to deflate the “mob mentality” which is much more dangerous than the punishment which could be inflicted by the mob. One who disagrees with the mob mentality vs. the individual representitive (being the safer rout) should do some research into “mob mentality”.
[/quote]
The person smoking pot has a right to do so – it's their body, and their land, or the land of someone who permits them to smoke pot. If you don't like it, get off their land. If they're on land where the owner does not permit them to smoke pot, then you can call the owner and evict them.
You have no right to dictate what another person may do on their own land, with their own property, including their own body.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27186#msg27186 date=1264429339]
On that note, it is not true that the “concept” of “people” or “a people” does not exist. A group of people acts MUCH differently than an individual acting/thinking alone. This change in reality from the individual to the group indicates a different entity, not physically but metiforically, much like a corporation is a metaphorical entity.
[/quote]
Corporations also don't exist. The concept, like that of "a people" may modify the behavior of individuals – but they're still individuals.
The problem is, many of the policies of government are blatently immoral. That's why many invent language to refer to all people in the singular – "a people". When the majority of those people then express an opinion, they refer to it as the opinion of "the people". That way, they can pretend that it's a unanimous opinion. In reality it's not. The reality is, taxation, for example, is literally one group of people obtaining money from another group by blatent extortion and threats of violence.
Many use false and misleading langauge to delude themselves into believing it's something it's not.
I feel you keep missing my main point – perhaps this will illustrate it – please do let me know what you think:
Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. My first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and propose that our constitution will give us the power to steal from our neighbor. The motion passes by two thirds majority (or, more likely, it's unanimous, if the neighbor didn't show up), which of course is binding. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.
Do you believe this scenario is any different, or more moral, than common theft?
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27186#msg27186 date=1264429339]
I define powers as those powers government is “given” to them by the group of individuals that choose to live in that government.
[/quote]
How exactly does one choose to "live in" a government? Please say you're not going to argue that living in the United States constitutes consent to the government. The government does not own the land, and they have no right to force everyone living on it to pay them, or obey their arbitrary whim.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27186#msg27186 date=1264429339]
They do not naturally have any rights not given, literally, every day by that group of individual people. I’m using “group of individual people” as a specific phrase, because 1 person can change the law.
[/quote]
They do not have any rights peroid, beyond those of a normal individual. Individuals cannot "give" rights anyway. Even if 9/10 of the people want to forcibly extract money from the remaining tenth, they have no right to do so, and they could not pass that right to a government.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27186#msg27186 date=1264429339]
And on that note, you said that “So, the nine men and women of the supreme court have a lot of power. That doesn't prove anything.”
They have 0 power. The only thing they can do, IF, a case makes it to them, is to hear the case and interpret the constitution.
[/quote]
Yes, and all Stalin could do is speak words. Thing is, if people did not obey his words, his henchmen would hurt those people. It's the same with the Supreme Court. If they say local governments can steal your land at gunpoint and give it to private businesses, as they did in the Kelo decision, by gum your land is going to be taken from you.
The henchmen have to listen for it to work. That's true of any dictatorship. The dictator doesn't actually run around with a sword himself, you know.
What I'm saying is, the henchmen should stop listening. Theft is theft, kidnapping is kidnapping, and assault is assault, whether a man in a funny dress told you to do it or not. Theft is also still theft even if a man in a powered wig in Philadelphia told you to do it.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27186#msg27186 date=1264429339]
Of course there is the argument of judicial fiat, which can definitely occur (which happens rarely). If that happens, all that happens is a change in the law to not allow the fiat to be legal. How does that happen? A call by the people or an individual. Also you stated that the supreme court is appointed by a president….yes…only when the seat opens and the seat is for life. This means the members of the supreme court are not effected by the election process and have different views because they span many presidencies and along with them, their views of the constitution.
[/quote]
Great, so we've got a little lifetime dictatorship thrown into the mix. That makes it all better.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27186#msg27186 date=1264429339]
Which brings me to what you said about the president being elected by the majority. That’s not true as well. He or she is elected by the electoral college, not by the people.
[/quote]
And the EC is elected by …
You're missing the point. If 90% of the people in this country wanted something, they could get it in four years at most. They just elect all state reps, national reps, and the president, and hold a constitutional convention. They could have a constitutional amendment dictating that the remaining 10% must hop on one foot and sing yankee doodle when the moon is full, if they wanted. Or, they could enslave them.
The delusion comes when we believe this process determines moral legitimacy. If a person votes for tax money to be used to subsidize them, the act is morally equivalent to hiring someone to break into their neighbor's house and steal their TV. And, the cop who eventually shows up at the tax protester's house with a gun and an eviction notice is morally no different than the hired thief himself.
Would you consider it morally ok to show up with a gun at your neighbor's door, demanding cash, if you found out he was smoking pot, had started a business without asking your permission, or had constructed his house in a manner you considered unsafe? Of course not. So why would you hire someone to do it for you?
Popular opinion does not change the fact that the rightful property of a peaceful person is being extorted from them on threat of violence. If it's theft when 2 men take the property of 1 by force, the moral situation is no different when 200 million take the property of 100 million.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27186#msg27186 date=1264429339]
Example is GW, not elected by the people, but by the EC. What you said about us being a combination of a constitutional republic, democracy and an oligarcy…ive heard before…from my American federal government professor. I distinctly disagreed with her as will I you. Yes, perception changes over time and it has, many people think what you are saying is true. In reality, we are a republic. A nation based on Laws, which are based on original ideals that the country was based on, which is said in the federalist papers, DoI, the constitution, letters by Franklin and the actions of John Adams in defense of those who committed the boston massicar.
[/quote]
These original ideas you speak of were immoral. They were a lot better than the basis of any other government to that point, and were a great leap forward for liberty, but they were still fundamentally wrong. Just for starters, article 1 section 8 condones theft. It's right there in black and white. Within a few short years of the constitution being written, Washington was using aggressive violence against peaceful people, simply because they tried to trade alcohol without paying him a cut.
He didn't own the land, he didn't own the people, and he didn't own the alcohol. It was none of his business.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27186#msg27186 date=1264429339]
Specifically, what I am stating, is the country is based on the original ideals, which guide the law, which is what we are ruled by….not the government. Thus, we are a republic.
[/quote]
What happens when the majority, including the majority in government, simply decide to ignore the constitution? For example, suppose in a moment of anti-middle eastern fervor, they decided to outlaw Islam. That's a clear violation of the first amendment. But, the congress passes the law, the president signs it, and the supreme court says it's ok, because the constitution is a "living document", and we can't be too strict about it. They didn't have to deal with Islam in those days, after all.
Would you say in that circumstance that the government is still a republic?
What good is the constitution, if it is ignored?
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27186#msg27186 date=1264429339]
No other country in history, was based on ideals, not rome or Athens, nobody and we are a nation that pushes the boundries of freedom contantly
[/quote]
Are you kidding me? The government has become far more oppressive since its founding. Our liberties are being eroded on a continual basis. They rebelled against a few percent tax on stamps, and tea, and now we have more than 50% of our income confiscated by the government.
Here's what Madison had to say about the "welfare clause", during his debate on the Cod Fishery bill, of 1792:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare"
Well, good thing none of that has happened.
Here's John Quincy Adams on America's foreign policy: "She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force… She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit…"
Whoops.
Here's Jackson on the Federal Bank (the second one – the first was killed by Jefferson):
"I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the Bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out and, by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out."
He also said this:
"It is maintained by some that the bank is a means of executing the constitutional power “to coin money and regulate the value thereof.” Congress have established a mint to coin money and passed laws to regulate the value thereof. The money so coined, with its value so regulated, and such foreign coins as Congress may adopt are the only currency known to the Constitution. But if they have other power to regulate the currency, it was conferred to be exercised by themselves, and not to be transferred to a corporation. If the bank be established for that purpose, with a charter unalterable without its consent, Congress have parted with their power for a term of years, during which the Constitution is a dead letter. It is neither necessary nor proper to transfer its legislative power to such a bank, and therefore unconstitutional."
His tombstone says, "I killed the bank".
Good thing it stayed dead. Now we don't have to worry about them "ruining" more families, or demanding money on threat of financial calamity … oh wait.
I wonder what these guys think of the welfare state, and government debt?
No pecuniary consideration is more urgent, than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable.
- George Washington
I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
-Thomas Jefferson
I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."
- Colonel David Crockett
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
- Thomas Jefferson
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
- James Madison
“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”
- President Franklin Pierce
“We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute.”
- Thomas Paine
Hmm. Madison, what do you have to say about this. Any ideas why our current government seems to be so far from the original ideal?
"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes."
Any other thoughts?
"Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents."
So, you're saying the potential danger is in the majority abusing the rights of the minority? Interesting.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27186#msg27186 date=1264429339]
, which also makes the country great. Because its human nature, not the nature of government (being only a concept created by people) to want to live free and assert their freedom over others (which is what you and I are commonly against). In this country and only this country, we all have the right to join that tug of war.
[/quote]
"Assert their freedom over others" is Orwellian nonsense. Freedom is the lack of aggressive violence being foisted upon you. It's impossible to "assert" it "over" others.
Winning a tug of war doesn't give one the right to abuse the rights of the losers, or steal from them, and neither does an election.
This sick tug of war, in which the loser gets his/her rights violated, needs to end. I don't want to be the abuser or the abused. The participants in this game need to take personal responsibility for their immoral actions, and start respecting the personal and property rights of other men – as they would in their personal lives.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27186#msg27186 date=1264429339]
You said “What happens when the court is corrupt – and enforces immoral laws? What happens when the thief goes to court, and the court forces the victim to pay the thief?”
A corrupt supreme court would be very VERY hard to accomplish, because they are so far different in their interpretation of law and life experiences.
Please define/give an example of “the court forces the victim to pay the thief”.
[/quote]
You haven't harmed anyone, are simply living in your home that you acquired by the fruit of your labor. Some stranger sends you a demand for money. After you don't pay, they send more and more threatening letters. Finally, they send armed thugs to your house to kick you out of it, and steal it from you. You don't want to leave your home, so they drag you to court.
The judge lets the thief keep your house, and instead sends you to jail.
Oh, by the way, the thief calls himself a "tax collector" for what that's worth.
Or, how about this: You haven't harmed anyone, and are simply living your life. You notice that you're pretty handy with scissors, and your neighbors like it when you cut their hair, so you start a business, charging half of what most salons charge. Both you and the customers are happy. Some stranger shows up one day, saying that you can't cut hair without asking his permission first, and demanding you pay him money. You ignore him, so he drags you to court. The judge makes you pay the man even more, and even sends you to jail for a short time.
Third scenario: You haven't harmed anyone, and are peacefully living your life. A letter arrives in the mail one day demanding that you put your life on hold, and go join a war that you find immoral. Preposterous. They make a number of threats against you – but you know that slavery was ended a long time ago – people cannot be owned anymore. Innocent people can no longer be kidnapped and put into forced labor, against their will, on threat of violence. You ignore the increasingly threatening letters – especially since you find the war they are discussing to be absolutely immoral – killing in it would be akin to murder, in your view.
Eventually, the police come to drag you to court. Unbelievably, instead of going after the extortionists, and wannabe slaveholders, the judge sentences you to many years in jail, for not submitting to their demands.
Apparently, you conclude, the extortionist, the judge, and the cops all believe they do indeed own you
[quote][/quote]The person smoking pot has a right to do so – it's their body, and their land, or the land of someone who permits them to smoke pot. If you don't like it, get off their land. If they're on land where the owner does not permit them to smoke pot, then you can call the owner and evict them.
You have no right to dictate what another person may do on their own land, with their own property, including their own body.
It may be that persons body and their land (if its their land, to me, everything is hunkey dory at that point) or the land of someone who permits them to do whatever they want without harming another person. However, there are many different definitions and viewpoints of harm.
Also you said, If you dont like it…get off their land. test this. Go into a resteraunt (that allows regualar smoking) and light up a doobie. See what the manager says/does. They will usually ask you to leave…even if its just confrontational behavior. Unless you know them or have talked to them and they previously allowed you to do the action. Do this on a park bench. The city dosnt own it…the citizens do through ownership from taxes in which the government has been placed as the manager. If you sit down and light up a doobie and a cop (current respresentitive of the laws passed by governnent and allowed to stand by the people, thus the "manager" equivelant). sees you, by those laws passed and allowed to stand he has been given the right by the community to act according to those laws. It sounds like up there, the local laws are more lenient because of the higher population of those who take advantage of concious citizenship (california being another example).
If this is true, and the laws are allowed to stand by each individual, and your statement of if you dont like it, get off their land, does that mean your going to go to canada…to the embassy…renounce your citizenship…and live without a country?..legally, true divorce from the state.
[quote]What happens when the majority, including the majority in government, simply decide to ignore the constitution? For example, suppose in a moment of anti-middle eastern fervor, they decided to outlaw Islam. That's a clear violation of the first amendment. But, the congress passes the law, the president signs it, and the supreme court says it's ok, because the constitution is a "living document", and we can't be too strict about it. They didn't have to deal with Islam in those days, after all.
Would you say in that circumstance that the government is still a republic?
What good is the constitution, if it is ignored?[/quote]
IF this occurs, the case is taken to the supreme court, which MUST abbide by the laws in the constitution and when found they are not in accordance, they are thus thrown out.
Wait and see this happen with the Health Care Bill if passed as it stands (which it most likely won't now)
[quote]How exactly does one choose to "live in" a government? Please say you're not going to argue that living in the United States constitutes consent to the government. The government does not own the land, and they have no right to force everyone living on it to pay them, or obey their arbitrary whim.
[/quote]
"live in" a government means living in the bounds of geographical lines agreed by neighboring nations as a single nation governed by which laws it decides are theirs (moreso a soverign government than any other which EU is not). As it stands as a law ALLOWED to stand by the inaction of the people governed, living within the United States constitutes consent to the LAWS…not GOVERNMENT…its very important for me that you see the seperation between the two. We are a nation governed by laws…NOT the government. Laws can be changed, a government represents the personal, emotional side of a nation, which has ALWAYS been negative and they have always failed when governed by people.
All of your arguements are based on concepts of immoral acts by a mystical majority. When the minority has the right to usurp the majority rule and either does not act, acts to little or just dosnt know to act…who is the more immoral…to me the ones who fail to usurp injustices…
[quote][quote]Are you kidding me? The government has become far more oppressive since its founding. Our liberties are being eroded on a continual basis. They rebelled against a few percent tax on stamps, and tea, and now we have more than 50% of our income confiscated by the government.
[/quote][/quote]
Well…only about 50% of the pop. even pays taxes, on the other 50 or so % the taxes paid are really a no interest loan to the government, which still dosnt relaly fly with me.
Your scenario for prop tax and business…
lol for business…there are ways around paying taxes…see Mental Flosss IKEA edition.
There are MANY resons to have and not to have prop taxes. Either way, the gov needs money to do basic jobs like protect citizens from interal and external threats. How do they get it? or do you want a confederacy again…didnt work the first time.
Im also very famiiar with the whisky rebellion…I grew up in pittsburgh. All I can say about the stuff that happened after we won the war is old habits die hard and MANY citizens still had a BIG fear of government in general which is why they were pissed about the taxes and whatnot. Things were handled poorly throughout American history, things were also done right eventually. But at the core of it all, we have made the right decisions eventually. Which is a product of our country being led by LAWS, not government.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27298#msg27298 date=1264529889]
IF this occurs, the case is taken to the supreme court, which MUST abbide by the laws in the constitution and when found they are not in accordance, they are thus thrown out.
[/quote]
How could a Supreme Court that MUST abide by the Constitution ever reach different conclusions over time (e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York, Hoyt v. Florida, etc.)?
[quote author=gibson042 link=topic=2347.msg27300#msg27300 date=1264531761]
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27298#msg27298 date=1264529889]
IF this occurs, the case is taken to the supreme court, which MUST abbide by the laws in the constitution and when found they are not in accordance, they are thus thrown out.
[/quote]
How could a Supreme Court that MUST abide by the Constitution ever reach different conclusions over time (e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York, Hoyt v. Florida, etc.)?
[/quote]
The interpretation of law is the duty of the collective supreme court (speaking of federal specifically) which over a long period of time evolves with the views of the newer elected appointer into decisions combined with the previous years elected appointers. In the case of the supreme court, the appointees come from appointments of elected individuals from a span of 1 to 30 years (maybe more). Because they are appointed by the elected individuals AND are not subject to political opinion, their opinions vary, thus many of the age groups and ideals oof (more importantly i think) different eras influence the interpretation of the law as wel as the precidents that currently exist (moreso an influence than anything else). Because the decisions are voted on by the SC AND views span generations, an an agreement on an arguement based on the law and precident will equal (most of the time) the most approperate decision. (i only say most of the time because humans are not infalliable)
So zholzapfel, you admit that the meaning of the Constitution is subject to deliberation by men and women appointed to the Supreme Court by presidents elected by the electoral college in representation of the people who voted. They are accountable to no one, and can freely rely upon interpretations that differ wildly from precedents and/or the actual document text. Despite this, you personally believe that "the country is based on the original ideals, which guide the law, which is what we are ruled by….not the government." This question bears repeating:
[quote author=ttie link=topic=2347.msg27253#msg27253 date=1264489964]What good is the constitution, if it is ignored?[/quote]
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27296#msg27296 date=1264529449]
It may be that persons body and their land (if its their land, to me, everything is hunkey dory at that point) or the land of someone who permits them to do whatever they want without harming another person. However, there are many different definitions and viewpoints of harm.
[/quote]
Harm is an actual attack on your person or property. Seeing someone doing something you don't like is not harm. Under that definition, I am authorized to use violence whenever I please, against anyone I please, simply because I don't like how they look. It's beyond absurd.
I'm glad we agree that a person has a right to smoke pot on their property, or the property of someone who permits them.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27296#msg27296 date=1264529449]
Also you said, If you dont like it…get off their land. test this. Go into a resteraunt (that allows regualar smoking) and light up a doobie. See what the manager says/does. They will usually ask you to leave…even if its just confrontational behavior. Unless you know them or have talked to them and they previously allowed you to do the action.
[/quote]
Exactly right – and they have a right to kick me out if they want, because it's their restaurant, which they obtained by voluntary trade. Conversely, if they decide they don't mind pot smoke, and let me stay, people who don't like it have a right to go somewhere else. They don't have a right to force them to change their policy.
(It's just an example, of course, I don't actually smoke pot)
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27296#msg27296 date=1264529449]
Do this on a park bench. The city dosnt own it…the citizens do through ownership from taxes in which the government has been placed as the manager.
[/quote]
Nice euphamisms. Here's what really happens: The government sends me threatening letters every year, extorting money from me. If I don't pay, they send goons to my house to steal it.
The park bench is stolen property – the government does not own it, any more than Al Capone legitimately owned his property.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27296#msg27296 date=1264529449]
If you sit down and light up a doobie and a cop (current respresentitive of the laws passed by governnent and allowed to stand by the people, thus the "manager" equivelant). sees you, by those laws passed and allowed to stand he has been given the right by the community to act according to those laws. It sounds like up there, the local laws are more lenient because of the higher population of those who take advantage of concious citizenship (california being another example).
[/quote]
Actually, I'm sitting on a park bench that was paid for with my stolen money. Effectively, I personally own it, and would have the right to smoke pot on it if I wanted. If the government wants to own the park bench, perhaps they should get real jobs, produce something of value, and voluntarily trade for it – you know, the way those of us who are not thieves obtain property.
If a group of people want to own it, no matter how numerous, they should hold a collection among themselves, and pay for it with their own money. If they steal my property to pay for it, they lose the right to set rules for its use.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27296#msg27296 date=1264529449]
If this is true, and the laws are allowed to stand by each individual, and your statement of if you dont like it, get off their land, does that mean your going to go to canada…to the embassy…renounce your citizenship…and live without a country?..legally, true divorce from the state.
[/quote]
The government does not own the country, nor do they own my land. I own my land, and have a right to stay on it without paying their goon squad. Nice try though. 
You still haven't answered my question. Please do – here, I'll repost:
Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. My first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and propose that our constitution will permit us to steal from our neighbor. The motion passes by two thirds majority (or, more likely, it's unanimous, if the neighbor didn't show up), which of course is binding. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.
Do you believe this scenario is any different, or more moral, than common theft?
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27299#msg27299 date=1264530992]
[quote]How exactly does one choose to "live in" a government? Please say you're not going to argue that living in the United States constitutes consent to the government. The government does not own the land, and they have no right to force everyone living on it to pay them, or obey their arbitrary whim.
[/quote]
"live in" a government means living in the bounds of geographical lines agreed by neighboring nations as a single nation governed by which laws it decides are theirs (moreso a soverign government than any other which EU is not). As it stands as a law ALLOWED to stand by the inaction of the people governed, living within the United States constitutes consent to the LAWS…not GOVERNMENT…
[/quote]
On what basis does it constitute consent? The government does not own the land, nor does the "majority", and neither did those who wrote the constitution. They have no right to force their arbitrary will on everyone who lives here.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27299#msg27299 date=1264530992]
its very important for me that you see the seperation between the two. We are a nation governed by laws…NOT the government. Laws can be changed, a government represents the personal, emotional side of a nation, which has ALWAYS been negative and they have always failed when governed by people.
[/quote]
The people in government make the laws. If I'm being forced to obey the law, then I'm being forced to obey the people who make the law.
Not that either is acceptable anyway.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27299#msg27299 date=1264530992]
All of your arguements are based on concepts of immoral acts by a mystical majority. When the minority has the right to usurp the majority rule and either does not act, acts to little or just dosnt know to act…who is the more immoral…to me the ones who fail to usurp injustices…
[/quote]
What on earth do you mean by "usurp injustice"? What is this action you refer to by the minority?
In any case, those who commit injustice are acting immorally, period. That seems pretty obvious to me.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27299#msg27299 date=1264530992]
[quote][quote]Are you kidding me? The government has become far more oppressive since its founding. Our liberties are being eroded on a continual basis. They rebelled against a few percent tax on stamps, and tea, and now we have more than 50% of our income confiscated by the government.
[/quote][/quote]
Well…only about 50% of the pop. even pays taxes, on the other 50 or so % the taxes paid are really a no interest loan to the government, which still dosnt relaly fly with me.
Your scenario for prop tax and business…
lol for business…there are ways around paying taxes…see Mental Flosss IKEA edition.
There are MANY resons to have and not to have prop taxes. Either way, the gov needs money to do basic jobs like protect citizens from interal and external threats. How do they get it? or do you want a confederacy again…didnt work the first time.
[/quote]
I suggest they operate like every other respectable organization, and obtain money voluntarily. Nokia doesn't send everyone threatening letters every year, demanding cash, and then dole out cell phones. If they did, and everyone were forced to buy Nokia whether they liked it or not, on threat of jail, the cell phones would probably still weigh as much as bricks and have a battery life of five minutes.
Free choice, besides being the only moral approach, encourages innovation, rather than stagnation, corruption, and waste – which is what we have now in practically every bloated government alphabet soup bureaucracy, and government program.
People need and want protection, and they'd be happy to pay for it. I'd happily subscribe to fire coverage, as is, and if the police cleaned up their act, and stopped prosecuting victimless crimes, I'd subscribe to them too. This provides accountability – if the police or fire become abusive, or wasteful, I can choose an alternative agency.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27299#msg27299 date=1264530992]
Im also very famiiar with the whisky rebellion…I grew up in pittsburgh. All I can say about the stuff that happened after we won the war is old habits die hard and MANY citizens still had a BIG fear of government in general which is why they were pissed about the taxes and whatnot.
[/quote]
They should have remained wary, and stayed pissed. Perhaps we would not be living under the monstrosity we have today.
Nothing's changed. People are still thrown in cages, and have their houses stolen from them if they don't pay the government. If they don't like the government coming in and doing these things, and they resist, they are shot.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27299#msg27299 date=1264530992]
Things were handled poorly throughout American history, things were also done right eventually.
[/quote]
They've gotten worse and worse. The government has gotten larger and larger, to the point where it's hardly recognizable as what was originally proposed in the constitution. You can hardly sneeze anymore without asking permission of a bureaucrat. I'd rather have King George back than what we have now.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27299#msg27299 date=1264530992]
But at the core of it all, we have made the right decisions eventually. Which is a product of our country being led by LAWS, not government.
[/quote]
This seems nonsensical. The government makes the laws. It's like saying, "Good thing we don't live under the dictatorship of Stalin, but are only ruled by the words that come out of his mouth".
[quote author=ttie link=topic=2347.msg27306#msg27306 date=1264542550]
The government has gotten larger and larger, to the point where it's hardly recognizable as what was originally proposed in the constitution. You can hardly sneeze anymore without asking permission of a bureaucrat. I'd rather have King George back than what we have now.
[/quote]
Isn't it amazing to think of how radical Common Sense was when it advocated abandoning monarchy? Many people today seem to consider theirselves—and everyone else—to be part of government, and take personal offense at calls to stop imposing it upon everyone within reach. Thomas Paine & company had it easy by comparison.
[quote author=gibson042 link=topic=2347.msg27303#msg27303 date=1264539187]
So zholzapfel, you admit that the meaning of the Constitution is subject to deliberation by men and women appointed to the Supreme Court by presidents elected by the electoral college in representation of the people who voted. They are accountable to no one, and can freely rely upon interpretations that differ wildly from precedents and/or the actual document text. Despite this, you personally believe that "the country is based on the original ideals, which guide the law, which is what we are ruled by….not the government." This question bears repeating:
[quote author=ttie link=topic=2347.msg27253#msg27253 date=1264489964]What good is the constitution, if it is ignored?[/quote]
[/quote]
I absolutely admit the meaning of the Constitution is subject to deliberation by men and women appointed to the supreme court by presidents elected by the electorial college in representation of the people who voted in addition to the candidate they believe is best qualified to lead the Uniited States Government. Have you studied law? Do you understand the many variations and implications of the word "is" as opposed to "a" in a legal document? Dont feel bad, most people dont and dont care…the people who do and do care are allowed to be members of the court (the reason why I seperate the distinction is because you DONT need a law degree or experience to be appointed to supreme court) You really believe the members of the judicial system are accountable to no one (supreme court specifically)? They are subject to the citizens of the country. We, you and i, can overrule decisions they make. No, its not easy, but its not easy getting to the supreme court either. I "admit" all this because who will say what the origional intent of parts of the constitution meant in a specific context (case). You?
[quote]Harm is an actual attack on your person or property. Seeing someone doing something you don't like is not harm. Under that definition, I am authorized to use violence whenever I please, against anyone I please, simply because I don't like how they look. It's beyond absurd.
I'm glad we agree that a person has a right to smoke pot on their property, or the property of someone who permits them.
[/quote]
Is harm really an actual attack on your person or property? Yell fire in a crowded auditoriem and see what happens. Or have a BIG SALE first come first serve with no security. people tend to die…is it the persons fault for yelling fire? or each individuals fault for trying to save their own lives? Should the store be at fault for death or injury or for each person who entered the building which trampled the person? Your arguement is very much based on intent, how do you suppose the people funded by a weak government will be tried and convicted…by public opinion?
[quote]Nice euphamisms. Here's what really happens: The government sends me threatening letters every year, extorting money from me. If I don't pay, they send goons to my house to steal it.
The park bench is stolen property – the government does not own it, any more than Al Capone legitimately owned his property.
[/quote
There are ways to manage property that is not managed by government (because collectivly the people locally or fedrally own it). Tolls, Advertising, other income generating ideas and associations through "dues" like Home Owner Associations HOA's. When I look at the alternatives like, paying tolls everywhere and looking at advertising everywhere…HOA's…a corporation buys a bunch of land and builds houses on it…with a lake and a playground…nice and pretty. EVERY home buying situation would be now like this. I buy a home and am forced to pay dues…dues…taxes…whatever. If i dont pay dues, i am under contract and if i am in violation for a time…They get their private police to boot me…if i resist…hmm…there is a similarity here isnt there! A free market would be no better in some situations, better in others and worse in others as you can see…
I brough up pot cuz its a sore subject with a lot of people…i dont either but i dont agree with why it was origionally banned and why it still is today…racism (mexicans) and international treaty
On what basis does it constitute consent? The government does not own the land, nor does the "majority", and neither did those who wrote the constitution. They have no right to force their arbitrary will on everyone who lives here.
It was brought into the U.S. code from the US immigration act of 1950something.
The people in government make the laws. If I'm being forced to obey the law, then I'm being forced to obey the people who make the law.
Not that either is acceptable anyway.
You allow it to stand and don’t follow the rules to engage the law at its own terms to change it…if you do though, even to “free” others you are bound to negatively effect someone by changing it or eliminating it, so that would also mean you are ruling them by negating the law. Equally immoral if not more. The concept of inaction vs. action as what is more or less moral.
What on earth do you mean by "usurp injustice"? What is this action you refer to by the minority?
Overcome/prevent/destroy/not allow/fight against/do what you can to do all of that
In any case, those who commit injustice are acting immorally, period. That seems pretty obvious to me.
Agreed, its also a matter of perspective.
They've gotten worse and worse. The government has gotten larger and larger, to the point where it's hardly recognizable as what was originally proposed in the constitution. You can hardly sneeze anymore without asking permission of a bureaucrat. I'd rather have King George back than what we have now.
You can, just move to the UK. Are you angelican (religion) because that’s the countries official religion. Oh, living in London? Be prepared to be monitored all the time. Maybe sweeden is better? Engineer right? Say you get paid 200k and your speeding in your nice car…on the wrong side of the road. Well then, your ticket is not a fixed amount, it’s based on a percentage of your wealth! Which the government there has 100percent access to. Yikes!
Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. My first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and propose that our constitution will permit us to steal from our neighbor. The motion passes by two thirds majority (or, more likely, it's unanimous, if the neighbor didn't show up), which of course is binding. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.
Ive actually answered this before. The motion cant pass by 2/3 majority because no rules during the constitutional convention were defined to create a country in which the 3rd was automatically included. Also, if that did happen and it is the same as our government, fundamentally, they couldn’t do anything. The 3rd has the right to press charges in case of assult. Has the right to press charges, take it to a court based on specific rules that were previously and fairly determined. Or if they take this person to court, When those rules are followed the case will be thrown out. Why? The 1 or 2 person is judge, the 2 or 1 person is jury (assuming these are the only 3 on earth). By the fair rules (the ones we are familiar with today), the 3rd has the right to an impartial jury….1 or 2 is not impartial thus do not fit the rules and case is thrown out. Judge is person 1 or 2 so a judge cannot try a case they are presenting…case thrown out.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27431#msg27431 date=1264649871]
[quote author=gibson042 link=topic=2347.msg27303#msg27303 date=1264539187]
So zholzapfel, you admit that the meaning of the Constitution is subject to deliberation by men and women appointed to the Supreme Court by presidents elected by the electoral college in representation of the people who voted. They are accountable to no one, and can freely rely upon interpretations that differ wildly from precedents and/or the actual document text. Despite this, you personally believe that "the country is based on the original ideals, which guide the law, which is what we are ruled by….not the government." This question bears repeating:
[quote author=ttie link=topic=2347.msg27253#msg27253 date=1264489964]What good is the constitution, if it is ignored?[/quote]
[/quote]
I absolutely admit the meaning of the Constitution is subject to deliberation by men and women appointed to the supreme court by presidents elected by the electorial college in representation of the people who voted in addition to the candidate they believe is best qualified to lead the Uniited States Government.[/quote]
So … drumroll … majority rule.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27431#msg27431 date=1264649871]
Have you studied law? Do you understand the many variations and implications of the word "is" as opposed to "a" in a legal document? Dont feel bad, most people dont and dont care…the people who do and do care are allowed to be members of the court
[/quote]
Yes, it all depends on what the meaning of the word is, is. I'm so glad we have such educated members of the judiciary. Otherwise I'd have no idea that "congress shall make no law restricting" really means, "congress shall make lots of laws restricting", that "shall not be infringed" really means, "shall not be infringed unless the judges think it's a reasonable infringement", that "The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects … shall not be violated", really means "The government can search anyone at any time, without a warrant, as long as their chasing those nasty terrorists or they have another good reason", that "nor shall any person be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" really means, "hold those journalists Japanese alleged terrorists as long as you want, Mr. President. Habeus corpus? What's that crazy latin your speakin'". I'd have no idea that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." meant, "Go ahead, steal private property and give it to private developers!" I was amazed to learn that in secret ink, underneath the sixth amendment, they must have scrawled "this was written on opposite day".
Especially surprising is the courts' apparent belief that the founders, after writing "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", all suffered major coronaries and died on the spot. They had really intended to continue, "but then, all powers are delegated to the United States by the Constitution anyway, because we think you should interpret "general welfare" to mean "go ahead and do whatever the hell you want to do". See, we would never know this if we did not have such well educated people on the bench.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27431#msg27431 date=1264649871]
(the reason why I seperate the distinction is because you DONT need a law degree or experience to be appointed to supreme court) You really believe the members of the judicial system are accountable to no one (supreme court specifically)? They are subject to the citizens of the country. We, you and i, can overrule decisions they make. No, its not easy, but its not easy getting to the supreme court either. I "admit" all this because who will say what the origional intent of parts of the constitution meant in a specific context (case). You?
[/quote]
Well, what do you think Mr. Jefferson? Is the constitution intended to be a document totally unreadable by the average man, and should we just rely on whatever a judge says it means, or should we interpret it for ourselves?
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
Letter to Abigail Adams (1804).
"You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Letter to William Charles Jarvis (1820).
If the constitution is not written in plain english, to be understood by all, and used to hold the government accountable, but instead can only be interpreted by a few select lawyers, it is useless. It makes these lawyers into despots. They can make the document say whatever they want it to say, and we must all submit to their will. Even without twisting the language, the original constitution was written with such vague and general language that it can be used to justify whatever the government wants to do anyway.
The constitution was always a weak tool for restraining government. Today, it is practically useless. There is no constitutional authorization for 95% of what they do, and it doesn't even slow them down. The government does what it wants, period. The only restraint on them is what we will let them get away with.
My main point, however, is that fundamentally, our formation of government, and the constitution itself, is immoral. It permits theft, right in article 1 section 8.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27432#msg27432 date=1264650269]
[quote]Harm is an actual attack on your person or property. Seeing someone doing something you don't like is not harm. Under that definition, I am authorized to use violence whenever I please, against anyone I please, simply because I don't like how they look. It's beyond absurd.
I'm glad we agree that a person has a right to smoke pot on their property, or the property of someone who permits them.
[/quote]
Is harm really an actual attack on your person or property? Yell fire in a crowded auditoriem and see what happens. Or have a BIG SALE first come first serve with no security. people tend to die…is it the persons fault for yelling fire? or each individuals fault for trying to save their own lives?
[/quote]
I would say the person who yelled fire should make restitution for the harm he has caused.
I certainly recognize that we need such a thing as security.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27432#msg27432 date=1264650269]
Should the store be at fault for death or injury or for each person who entered the building which trampled the person?
[/quote]
If they were grossly negligent, perhaps.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27432#msg27432 date=1264650269]
Your arguement is very much based on intent, how do you suppose the people funded by a weak government will be tried and convicted…by public opinion?
[/quote]
I think people will hire protection agencies, which will fulfill many of the roles police do now. If there is a dispute between people – one accuses another of theft, for example, the protection agency of the alleged perpetrator, and that of the victim, would use a court of arbitration designated for disputes between them, with alternate courts to be used for appeal. Representation could be provided by the protection agency, and additional representation hired by the individuals involved.
Here's a book which outlines some of the ideas on the topic (I'm not a big fan of the first couple chapters – feel free to skip to what looks interesting, if you want): http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
There are ways to manage property that is not managed by government (because collectivly the people locally or fedrally own it).
[/quote]
No, they don't own it. The "collective" people locally or federally did not voluntarily collect and use the fruit of their labor to purchase the property. Their property was taken from them by force.
Ultimately, public property should be sold, and the proceeds returned to taxpayers.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
Tolls, Advertising, other income generating ideas and associations through "dues" like Home Owner Associations HOA's. When I look at the alternatives like, paying tolls
[/quote]
Given modern technology, tolls aren't arduous. You can pay them at 70 mph. Alternately, you could pay a flat subscription rate. Or, you could contribute to a charity which would buy up roads and allow anyone to use them, free and clear.
Extorting money and land from neighbors to pay for roads is not an acceptable alternative. Your neighbor has the right to choose what roads he will pay for, and use, if any.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
everywhere and looking at advertising everywhere
[/quote]
For me, it would depend on how much advertising there was. I think on a large freeway I might prefer advertising, but on smaller roads, I'd certainly just want to pay a flat subscription fee, and enjoy the scenery.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
…HOA's…a corporation buys a bunch of land and builds houses on it…with a lake and a playground…nice and pretty.
[/quote]
Well, for one thing, corporations are a construction of the state. I for one oppose corporate person hood – owners should be liable for damages they cause. Let's just say it's a business ;).
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
EVERY home buying situation would be now like this.
[/quote]
That's not true. There are lots of independent homebuilders. People construct individual houses on country roads all the time. I don't think that would change. All of the options currently available to you would continue, and there would be more.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
I buy a home and am forced to pay dues…dues…taxes…whatever.
[/quote]
If you buy the land and home free and clear, you wouldn't forced to pay anything – unless you intentionally signed a contract with your neighbors to pay for certain services.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
If i dont pay dues, i am under contract and if i am in violation for a time…They get their private police to boot me…if i resist…hmm…there is a similarity here isnt there!
[/quote]
If you signed a contract, but refuse to pay what you agreed on, the reasonable result would be that you lose the service you were paying for. For example, if you refuse to contribute to the maintainance of a local park, you'd lose the right to use the park. Any good contract has an exit clause, so in general, that is what would apply.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
A free market would be no better in some situations, better in others and worse in others as you can see…
[/quote]
I don't agree with your vision of what a free market would look like. I think there would be a lot of people who wouldn't want to join the kind of structured community you describe, and so there would be abundant alternatives.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
I brough up pot cuz its a sore subject with a lot of people…i dont either but i dont agree with why it was origionally banned and why it still is today…racism (mexicans) and international treaty
[/quote]
I'm with you there. Do you also agree that enforcement of pot laws is immoral? For starters, do you think arresting someone for smoking pot in their own home is an immoral act?