I am replying to this post out of order since it directly addresses the numbered points I have posted.
As those of you who post good quality posts know, It does take some time to compose them, and sometimes the real world demands attention.
There are a lot of y'all posting and only one of me replying...
Admit or deny that these words are a part of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Sure, the DoI says those things, but they're not factually correct. We are not created.
Are you stating that your dad didn't stick it in you mother and create you?
There is no "Creator" to endow us with anything,
Endow: to freely or naturally provide (someone or something) with something
Does "creator" refer to biblegod or nature? (Nature... That feeling your Mom and Dad had...)
and it is a demonstrable fact that no "Creator" ever shows up to make sure that any endowments it offers are respected.
(I can appreciate a good debate so I understand nit picking in a debate. However, I will counter pick nits as evidenced above. <shrug>)
The "Rights" in question are obviously "alienable," otherwise the Declaration of Independence would never have needed to be written in the first place. Physics would have made the violation of those rights impossible, and their existence would have been self-evident even to the British.
You are correct in the that rights that are violated are not rights. Regardless, are you going to assert that you are more equal than me, or that we are equal equal?
Fact of the matter is, the Colonists had to win a war and form a government in order to make the Declaration of Independence stick. If you read the next line, you'd notice that the DoI explains why we create governments. Funny how you missed that.
I didn't miss it. It is not germane to my position.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
I do not consent.
The purpose of
the State is to secure INDIVIDUAL
State did NOT do that in the Kelo decision. Neither did the
State with Obamacare. (SCOTUS found it constitutional as a tax law. Not as something the State could impose as a flat out command to purchase insurance.)
Just to be clear- There is no such thing as a Collective Right without Individual Rights. Thus the legitimacy of
the State's rules (commands) fail at the State's foundation... The non-existent right of one individual to command another can NOT be given to individuals that comprise
the State. The individual right to command is something that is going to be intensely addressed as a result of what I read below.
101. Admit or deny that You were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, you were not born with a higher rank than I.
102. Admit or deny that Therefore, you DO NOT have a right to command me by your mere birth.
103. Admit or deny that If this is true for you, it is true for every other human being born on the planet.
Admit. However, I do possess a potential capacity [to attempt] to command you by force or threat of force.
And I have the right
to unleash my own capacity
of reciprocal force or threat of force to stymie your attempt.
This fact is also true for every other human being born on the planet (the ones that are currently alive, anyway).
No argument. Same reply.
Therefore, in order to prevent the destruction of society via the competitive application of this capacity (i.e., violence unleashed unpredictably at individual whim), we need a way to regulate and limit this capacity.
I disagree with your rosy eyed opinion of the current system/ situation.
Here are three videos of the State's agents unleashing violence unpredictably at their individual whim.
You can find more here: Google police brutality
And check out what happens to honest cops: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/chicago-code-of-silence-2_n_2064058.html
The only way to limit the individual capacity for violence is to provide reliable assurance that the would-be aggressor will lose, at least in the long run.
As you peruse the various videos of police brutality, take the time to read the associated text. You will find in many cases, the gang of police (Opinion: akin to any other dangerous street gang) protect their own, and the perpetrator gets off with a slap on the wrist compared to what a private individual would get for doing the same tort (wrongdoing).
Try to get a form from the police to file a police abuse report and see what happens:
In other words: superior force. In order to restrain an individual from exercising their capacity for violence at will, it is necessary to create a system that can command them to refrain from violence, and expect to be obeyed.
Where does the system get the right to command?
And as the above videos highlight, That system you so unquestionably and uncritically believe in fails to refrain its own actors from doing violence at will.
Two rhetorical questions:
If you are afraid of heights are you going to apply for a job as a skyscraper window washer?
Who do you think will be attracted to a job where you can aim guns at people and order them about with impunity?
In order for you to exercise a "right" not to be attacked, a system has to be in place that can command others not to attack you. In order for others to exercise a "right" not to be attacked, a system has to be in place that can command you not to attack them. This system we call "government."YOU
call it government. I call it a bunch of thugs masquerading as the State. See rhetorical questions above.
What you are prescribing is this: "We need a government that is strong enough to vanquish all enemies, yet can't trample on our rights
." The contradiction here is obvious.
So, in order for you to have a "right to life" or a "right to liberty" that isn't just a plaintive wail you emit as you fall under a hail of bullets, knives, or fists,
a government has to exist that is powerful enough to make it against the law to attack you.
<smirk> Hmph. There are laws against murder in all States and Federal Zones. Please explain how that law's working for these 59,659 people.
Let me say this again: In order for there to be "rights," there must be a government that can command people--including you--to respect them.
Yeah, that really worked well to make people respect the rights of those 59,659 above.
745 ILCS 10/4?102.
Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals. This immunity is not waived by a contract for private security service, but cannot be transferred to any non?public entity or employee.
The 40 words in bold are verbatim in New Jersey and California statutes as well.BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!
Police have NO DUTY TO PROTECT
IF YOU ORDER NOW we will throw in this excerpt.
Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.
Emphasis mine. Link.
104. Admit or deny that If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.
Deny. If I assert a "right to life," I am simultaneously commanding you not to kill me.
And thereby contradicting your own answer to points 102 and 103. You have admitted that you don't have a right to command me. In other words, you have denied that you have a higher rank than I. You have also admitted that this is true for everyone else on the planet. Thus you have denied that anyone else on the planet has a higher rank than I.
I'm not calling you on your strawman since it gives me a target rich environment.
Likewise, if you assert a "right to life," you are simultaneously commanding me not to kill you.
I'm sure you believe
In order for you to "have" a "right to life," I must recognize your right to command me and constrain my actions within a limited sphere, and vice versa.
Almost correct. You must recognize your own duty to treat others as you wish to be treated. You must recognize your own duty to not initiate force against others.
If you attempt to attack me, I will defend using whatever method I determine is best for the situation you create when you INITIATE
force against me. You have, in that instance, violated the Non Agression Principle
So let me ask you, If every law against murder is rescinded, would you start committing murders?
Remember, those laws didn't help 59,659 people shown above.
By asserting that no one has any "right" to command you, ever, you are asserting that you have the "right" to attack or kill anyone at will.
Make shit up much?
What evidence do you rely upon to substantiate that assertion?
That makes you a dangerous person to have around.
I'm only dangerous to those who attempt to violate my RIGHT to be left alone. In other word's I am only dangerous to those who attempt to command me when I have offered no offence whatsoever.
Other than that, I'm a big teddy bear.
The same principles apply to the dead (i.e., the signers of the Constitution, dead legislators, etc.).
Not understood. Missing context? Ignored.
108. Admit or deny that If no one has a right to command me, then no one has a right to choose someone to command me.
By this denial, you are indicating that I don't have a right to command my south neighbor but somehow I have the right to give my north neighbor the right to command my south neighbor.
You have admitted:
101. You were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, you were not born with a higher rank than I.
102. Therefore, you DO NOT have a right to command me by your mere birth.
103. If this is true for you, it is true for every other human being born on the planet.
Then you deny that If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.
How's that work where an individual with a lower rank can command an individual with a higher rank? (104.)
At this time I notice that there is no response to points 105, 106, & 107.
Since "rights" are only possible if you can be commanded to respect them (and likewise for everyone else),
Nope. Rights are only possible WHEN they are respected. Commands to respect are just like commands (laws) to not murder.
if we want to have rights, we need to have a "system of command" with the power to uphold and enforce them.And where exactly, does the "system of command" get its right to command?
If individuals are left to fend for themselves in protecting their rights, then we're in a situation of competitive individual violence between aggressors and victims...
Your responses in this post indicate that you just might be a GUN GRABBER
, that is, somebody who thinks gun control laws reduce crime. Please confirm or deny.
By the way, more guns=less crime.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/24/states-crime-rates-show-scant-linkage-to-gun-laws/?page=allhttp://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realitieshttp://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
If individuals are left to fend for themselves in protecting their rights, then we're in a situation of competitive individual violence between aggressors and victims and/or between people who have disputes over whose "rights" are being violated...
The WWGHA mantra... Say it with me: EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE?
If individuals are left to fend for themselves in protecting their rights, then we're in a situation of competitive individual violence between aggressors and victims and/or between people who have disputes over whose "rights" are being violated (e.g. one person claims a "right" to build a house on a certain spot, but another person claims that the land in question is "their property"--who's the aggressor?).
Make shit up much?
The issue here, is who certifies the ownership. And non-
State organizations can handle this... Just think Title Insurance companies.
How does one delegate rights that one does not have?
It turns out that the best way we've found to solve this problem is for people to delegate rights-enforcement to a cooperating group able to bring overwhelming force to bear if necessary, so that violence-competition ceases as much as practically possible.
And what's this WE
shit Kemo Sabe? WE
were born into this system... Just as second generation slaves were born into that system. Just as the slave had no say, WE
had no say in creating the system.
We call this group "government."YOU
call it government. I call it a bunch of thugs masquerading as the State. See rhetorical questions above.
So far, the best form of government that we've developed is representative democracy--precisely, a system whereby people agree to collectively choose who can command us to respect the "rights" we want ourselves and others in society to be able to exercise. Is this system perfect? Nope. It's just the best thing we've come up with so far.
Where does this collective get the right to command
? (Note to self: post anti-lilac treatise.)
Far as I am concerned, you have failed to make the case that you have the right to command me. I guess this individual right to command is going to be our focus in future posts.
If you don't have that right, you can NOT give it to anyone else. So now you need to convince me of your right to command me.
109. Admit or deny that Thus it does not matter how many people vote to give a politician a right to command, if they do not have the right to command me, they do not have the right to give that politician the right to command me.
Deny. Some version of that is the only way for there to be any "rights" at all. In other words, you cannot assert a "right" not to be commanded (at all, ever), since such a "right" eliminates the social structure that makes "rights" possible in the first place.
Nice try at making a strawman... I almost missed it. I am NOT asserting a right to NOT be commanded. I am asserting that YOU have NO right to command me. Which you have already admitted in reply to points 101, 102, & 103.
And since you deny point 109, I take it to mean you are saying that even though people do not have the right to command me, they can still choose someone to command me. See neighbor example above.
In order for you to have "rights" to life, liberty, etc., you must live in a civilization wherein you agree to be commanded within a limited sphere (i.e., you'll obey commands not to violate others' rights) in return for others abiding by the same rules.
Evidence to support your assertion?
Are you asserting that without those rules you would violate other's rights?
Since "rules" are worthless if they're not enforced, there must be some agency that enforces the rules and protects "rights."So who enforces the traffic rules when there are no cops around?
Perhaps you are self-governing... The only government there actually is. That is unless you blow through every stop sign you come to when no cops are around.
That agency we call "government."
There is no "government". There is only the "State."
110. Admit or deny that Therefore if you elect a politician, that does not give the politician the right to command me.
Deny. So far, "electing politicians who can command" the people within a society (including you) within a limited sphere has proven to be the best way we have of creating any "rights" at all.
Where is your evidence of a politician's right to command?
Where does said politician get the right to command?
This is the point that you appear to be missing.
Who gives said politician the right to command?
I certainly did not and you have failed to prove that you can give said politician the right to command me.
111. Admit or deny that If the politician does not have a right to command me, then it matters not if I am standing within the boundaries of any territory the politician believes is his to control.
Deny. If you are living within the physical territory of my civilization, driving on its roads, benefiting from the rights-protection services it offers, using the currency whose value the "faith and credit" of its government insures as your medium of exchange, breathing the clean air its environmental regulatory agencies insure your "right" to, using the internet its research-and-development funds created, enjoying safety in "your" home and "property" because it commands other people not to pillage you at will and mobilizes the necessary force to deter them from doing so, if you can shift a little lever on your toilet and have your stinky shit go into the sewer system my civilization provides for you so that your ungrateful ass doesn't die of cholera...
...then it bloody well matters where you're standing, and you can just sod right off if you think you're such a special little snowflake that the rules that make it all possible don't apply to you!
I "can just sod right off
" Get personal much? My, my... You have just worked yourself up into a nasty frenzy haven't you? Sod right off
... You must be a Brit.
All those words and you fail to provide proof to support your denial. In case you missed reading what you replied to:
111. If the politician does not have a right to command me, then it matters not if I am standing within the boundaries of any territory the politician believes is his to control.
So according to you, if the politician does not have a right to command me, he still does.
How's that work?
Admit or deny that A contract requires an offer, consideration, acceptance, and a meeting of minds.
It has been said that the Constitution is some sort of contract.
201. Admit or deny that The federal constitution was never given to me as an offer, therefore I never gave an acceptance in return.
202. Admit or deny that Since I was never given the offer, the consideration from the other party was never presented.
203. Admit or deny that Since I was never given the offer, the return consideration was never presented.
204. Since I was never given the offer, there was no meeting of minds.
205. Therefore, the constitution is NOT a contract that I am party to.
So you agree that I am fully entitled to just show up and kill you whenever I like, or kidnap you and chain you up in a basement and feed you to rats piece by piece? Can you show me a contract I signed that says I agreed not to do that?
I dare you to post a sign in your yard, front window, or door (whichever is the most visible) that says:
LAW-FREE ZONE. THE RESIDENT OF THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY LAWS OR ANY RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF LAW OFFICERS OR ANY OTHER AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT. THE RESIDENT OF THIS PROPERTY WILL NOT CALL THE POLICE, FIRE DEPARTMENT, OR ANY OTHER AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT FOR ASSISTANCE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. THE RESIDENT OF THIS PROPERTY MAY ALSO BE CONSIDERED NOT TO ENJOY THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW WHILE HE IS OFF OF THESE PREMISES, NOR DOES ANY OF THE RESIDENT'S POSSESSIONS OR MONEY ENJOY THE PROTECTION OF LAW. THE RESIDENT WILL NOT CALL POLICE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Feel free to post your "I Got A Gun" "Beware of Dog" or whatever signs in addition to this. Go ahead. I dare ya.
Vehement, nonsensical reply noted.
Finally, I've come to the end of this <sarcasm> brief </sarcasm>
I'll read the new posts later.