That way I can quit hijacking this thread.
I do not consider your input here to be hijacking the thread at all. Please do not feel it is necessary to carry on elsewhere.
Again, Law is a politician's command.
You keep saying this, but no one is agreeing. I reject this definition. Try another one.
Are you going to argue that it's okay to kill the protesters because the law allows it?
Your question is too vague to be answered. It depends, doesn't it? What protestors are we talking about? What are they doing? Why are they being killed?
Are you going to argue that it's not murder because it's done according to the law?
As I said in my first response to you, we don't always get the law right. Your question is too vague to be answered.
They are an armed insurrection against the rule of law. Are you aware of the results of the Nuremberg trials? There are times when one has a duty to break the law. Are you aware that Jews and other undesirables were herded into concentration camps according to the rule of law?
Sure, sure, I agree. As I said above, it depends. I need more specifics to answer.
Wait, are you comparing jews to the cattle? If so, wow, man. If not, I do not see the relevance of either Nuremberg or the jews.
It has been said that democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Yes, it is. And that was foreseen by thomas jefferson, et al, with the Bill of Rights to protect the minority from such predations.
Also, please recite the Pledge of Allegiance with me: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the ???????? for which it stands...
Oh. You wanted to be pedantic. Sorry. Not "democracy". Republic.
What evidence do you or the prosecution rely upon to prove those laws apply to me?
Are you currently within US borders? If so, they apply to you. Why do they apply to you? Because the rest of us say so. I think it is unlikely the evidence I would provide - essentially, the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, and various other documents - would be deemed authoritative or acceptable to you.
You see, laws are human constructs. Your request for "evidence" is a categorical error. They do not exist outside of our say so. It is like when a police officer says "you are under arrest," he brings about a certain kind of reality which is otherwise undetectable, but is not supernatural, per se.
And here Sir(?)
ya, I'm a "he".
Are you stating that representatives are not politicians?
Are you stating the law is not backed by threat of force?
Are you stating that the law enforcers won't escalate force until there is compliance or the alleged offender is dead?
good call on all those. Yes, representatives are
politicians, the law is
backed by threat of force, and if you resist the law, they'll kill you. However, let's not get carried away with a perspective that, while technically correct, is overall a misrepresentation. You say "politicians" as if they are a separate species. They are not. In a representative republic, they are us. Sure, many of them are out of touch skuzballs. But whom do we blame for that? Who elected them?
And you call laws their"commands", as if they were whims and dictates. But they were debated and voted on, so I can hardly see how that is a command in the sense you imply. Our compliance is not optional, and yes, that is under threat of force.
About a million years ago - give or take - evolution figured out that our predecessors were more successful as a group than as individuals. So we evolved with a proclivity to be social. But not in the way ants are social or even wolves. We are more individualistic. We are not quite mountain lions. But there is that tendency.
For animals to work together as a group, there have to be rules to govern their behavior to ensure group success. Those rules limit the freedom of the individuals for the benefit of the group. Originally, these were morals. As our predecessors evolved and moved on, they developed them further into laws. Laws are enforced by force if necessary, because that is how people are. There is always some asshole willing to scam the system for his own personal benefit (ex. Cliven Bundy) at the expense of the rest of us. If you do not like our groups policies and laws you are, in this country any way, free to leave.
If you do not want to comply with the group, or contribute to the group success, that is fine with me. Stay the fck off my roads, out of my libraries, and off my internet. Do not expect my police, fire department or ambulance to help you when you need it. Etc. Otherwise, you are a parasite on the rest of us. If that is your wish, I would happily pay your one-way airfare to Somalia. Just let me know. You only need to renounce your US citizenship in a way the bureaucracy recognizes.
As to the representatives: What evidence do you rely upon to prove they represent me?
Well, nothing. My representative is a repub cocksucker (possibly literally) and votes against my interests on pretty much everything. But that is how it works. I'd prefer a parliamentarian form of government, but I think a constitutional convention to change it would cause a civil war. So, if your rep does not represent you, you are shit outta luck. Your options are political activism or move. The offer to go to Somalia stands open.
By that same unexamined logic, Santa Clause does exist as well.
eh, no. Not even close. The North Pole has been searched and there is no workshop full of elves to be found. Washington DC, however, is full of buildings with federal government employees. Or, elves, if you prefer.
the superstitious belief in "government".
I do not think superstitious means what you think it means.
What exactly, has been stolen from the public?
Grass. Space. Other ranchers have to pay for that. He did not. He is a parasite.
Do you have a link to the transcripts of the court case?
As I understand there are no transcripts because he represented himself by mail. He literally mailed it in. So there would be no stenographer and all the comments and arguments would be written.
Please understand that my position on Bundy is tentative. I assume the numerous news reports are more or less accurate. If contradictory evidence is presented, I could change my mind about him. However, I would not change my mind about the 1000 armed assholes. They are still assholes.
You were part of the suppression of the whiskey rebellion?
And what exactly was your part in deciding how to deal with "that"?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I was referring to the civil war.
Not sure I understand the question. Are you asking how I think the situation would go if those yahoos were niggers or camel fuckers? Isn't the term "yahoo" just as demeaning?