Who owns you?

Law is not established by those complicit with the law; it is established by those compliant with it. Compliance with law ultimately equates with complicity with it. A lesson learned by the German people in Nuremberg all too late.

 

I'm not sure what that has to do with the Constitution, but........OK?

 

How did it become the law of the land and from where does it derive its lawfulness?

 

You don't seem to be able to follow your own line of reasoning here.

You were the one that said :
Non sequitur, obviously, since there are rules which exist independently of any human contrivances.

There are no rules that are not the result of human contrivance.

But of course it is. We are talking about a fundamental aspect of human civilization and is intrinsic to our history.

I just gave you two examples that your statement that its a "(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) lie" is a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) lie.

so i guess you had other reasons for tellimg me I am unfit to live under the protection of the constitution is not bringing up the constitution as an argument.
bit of a disconnect in logic there.

dead end.

nice deflection.

And I never said they did, obviously.

[/QUOTE]

I find it interesting that you edit my comments and then respond.
Its a rather sleazy rhetorical tactic, especially when you then condescend, obviously.

 

Anything done by law is done by force. Our constitution essentially says that the only justifiable use of force is to enforce mutual volition. The constitution is a libertarian document.

 

It's hard to describe the concept I have in mind using plain English language, which is why you now believe that we essentially said the same thing, but I disagree. I have a right to sunlight, wouldn't you agree? Yet do I have to own it in order to have a right to it? And that's a mere physical object. So, if ownership is not a necessity to have a right to a mere part of the physical universe around us, do I need ownership in order to have a right to what's me?

 

Feel free to point out the questions you claimed I dodge, to prove you're not making baseless accusations again.

I answered your every question directly except this one: " So how do you know what anarchy would do?" Which I responded with "where did I claim to know what anarchy would do" since your question contains the false premise that I purported to know that.

 

That's fine in a world where only those people exist.

Making (*)(*)(*)(*) up again, are we?

 

--- Complete self-ownership is not the natural state of things. This can be demonstrated clearly in hunter-gatherer communities. In these societies where technology and machine power does not substitute manpower, your designation and job are determined by what is necessary for day to day survival. A person in this position doesn't get to decided that they want to lounge around this day or that day, or that they don't care for fashioning clothing or weapons. If not by their fellow tribesman first, they will be compelled by their empty stomach to get up and find food. Only when they have a surplus might they endeavor to do what they enjoy.

---With the advent of technology that has replaced necessary manpower, and the sophistication of nature's operational principle of "survival of the fittest" through such means as capitalism, we enjoy increasing self-ownership and so called rights. With bountiful resources comes freedom. Believing that there is some intrinsic right to life is taking our current state for granted.

---If basic necessities ceased to be met through congenial means due to scarcity, you'd see your right to life diminish proportionally with the ebbing resources. When there is plenty for everyone we can agree that you and I have a right to life. When there is only enough to feed five mouths, but there are twenty hungry stomachs....do the math.

---Only in a world where all living creatures are totally self-sustaining could there be in inherent right to life. So long as the resources necessary for every living creature to survive remain finite, the right to life must be met with a consensus.

---As far as nature is concerned, you have no more right to live than a parasite killing you from within, or a predator feasting on you. In my opinion, declaring that man has an inherent right to live undermines mankind's enormous struggle to come as far as we have, and demeans the strugle of every other animal on this planet.

 

Clearly there are no such things as God-given inalienable rights. If we have these God-given rights, what good did having them do for the Jews, Poles, and minorities slaughtered by the Third Reich? Where was God when thousands of American boys were drafted into the Vietnam war where 55,000 were killed and thousands more maimed trying to protect French. colonialism?

And there is no right to own a gun, or rights to living wage, to drive a car, to affordable housing, and so on. Any graduate of a law school or police academy will quickly inform you that these are not rights, they are privileges granted by the powers-that-be. However, these privileges actually do exist, unless they are revoked by executive order, constitutional amendment, or other political means.

So, there are really no logical, legitimate rights that exist.

And that's the good news because no person can claim some kind of a right, by "majority rule," a "social contract," or whatever, to run your life, and to prevent you from owning a gun, and so on.

An excellent take on individual sovereignty is The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_s...perstition&sprefix=the+most+dangerous,aps,163

 

Still dodging, I see. Please feel free to point out where I've made any accusations against you before this, let alone baseless ones.

You should review the thread. You might find this:

To say that anarchy would not do something implies some knowledge of what it would and would not do.

You have not answered either of the questions from that post. By my count, that's two.

 

First things first: you claimed there are "exceptions to the rule". What are they, exactly?

Pure projection, obviously.

And properly so, obviously.

Those who are utterly devoid of any understanding of morality will no doubt agree.

Please, you have no idea.

No doubt your "proof" will be taken as dispositive by imbeciles.

Other than the fact that it's true? No, hth.

I suppose it appears that way to enemies of logic.

As far as debate is concerned, every self-evident truth is a "dead end". Is that supposed to be a problem?

Nice projection.

That is surely an amusing bit of pharisaical gnat-straining, considering you'd have us follow your lead by swallowing a camel of an idea which can hardly be described as anything but thoroughly diabolical.

If you do not wish to be told things you shouldn't have to be told, the ignore function is your friend.

More to the point, it's true in a world where only two such people exist - never mind that in such a world that pair would be deemed a threat to society by people like you.

No, just drawing a reasonable inference. You see less meaning in unenforceable contracts than in enforceable contracts because you mistrust others, and that is because you assume they are no more trustworthy than you are.

The bad news, of course, is that such a person need not make any claim at all. He only needs to demonstrate that he has the might.

 

If no one else makes a contract, I suppose.

We do you feel the need to continuously make ad homs and personal insults to try to defend your position? You talk about trustworthy and honesty and you're making assumption about me and you've never even met me.

 

OK, all you had to do was point out what you were talking about.

Anarchy, a state in which there is no government, creates a situation were there is nothing to secure rights, with the exception of whatever power you can accumulate.

 

You are right, but by rejecting consent to involuntary servitude to the likes of Barack Obama, Dubya, and Bashar Assad, and a delusional belief that Big Brother Loves You, you gain some psychologically empowering self respect, fwiw.

 

Read your history books.

 

It's true regardless of that, obviously.

The only assumption I make is that you believe what you say, from which everything I said follows ineluctably. So deal.

 

The only assumption I can make is that you cannot defend you position without resorting to insults and ad homs, which seems to be typical for conservatives here.

 

It's not the least bit empowering without the proper foundation for that rejection, which no one has who believes there are no God-given unalienable rights.

 

Can I help it if the lies a person professes to believe have implications he is not aware of?

 

I think that the answer to your question was summed up in the words of an old song by Aaron Tippin,... "you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything"! You certainly DO have unalienable rights but you have to OWN them and use them or they are worthless. Nobody is going to GIVE them to you, nor can anyone take them away unless you first give them up!
There are certainly those who would like to take your rights away from you but it's your duty to fight for them and keep them at all costs for your own sake and also for the sake of the generations that follow you. LIFE, LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS,... nobody has a right to take your LIFE from you, nobody has a right to take away your LIBERTY or freedom and nobody has a right to keep you from what makes you HAPPY. If anyone tries to infringe on any one of those basic human rights, then it's your duty to kick his a$$ or die trying!

 

What you do with your own self is your own business.

The fact that you seem unable to defend your position without resorting to personal attacks and insults is a matter of record.

 

God-given inalienable rights and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, but if they ever guaranteed life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness for anyone, please tell me about it.
(Or guaranteed the Constitutional right to freedom of speech, for that matter. Socialist Presidential candidate Eugene Debs was sent to prison in 1918 for speaking out against US participation in WW I.)

 

You mean no one can claim that the right to own a gun is inherent or inalienable. No one needs the "right" to prevent you from owning a gun, they just need the power to do so.

 

I generally find that the most arrogant posts are those with the least substance. no exception above.

Morality is a subjective human construct - hardly an absolute.

Was a time when it was highly moral to burn people at the stake.
Of course murder is immoral, but they pin medals on you if you kill lots of enemies in a war.
As disgusting as it may be, the Greeks and the Romans both thought nothing of paedophilia.


BTW, you are still sleazily editing my comments.
I suggest you save the inner grammar nazi editorial urges for you own.