Who owns you?

You seem to fail to understand that the Constitution is the law of the land and that it applies to every state and every citizen. Lots of people are dead whose decisions are still law. So, other than demonstrating your ignorance of history, the Constitution, and lack of general reading comprehension, your point is.....?

 

Ahh, so it wasn't a religious thing at all; please excuse my previous mentioning of mysticism. The case seems to be that you're abandoning your "consent of the governed" argument and were only using it originally as a bit of regurgitative rhetoric, leftover from grade-school indoctrination, perhaps? There's no real meaning to the phrase how you use it, is there?

What began as "from the consent of the governed," when challenged, has now changed to, "...the Constitution is the law of the land and that it applies to every state and every citizen. Lots of people are dead whose decisions are still law.So,[...]your point is.....?"

 

You seem angry. Perhaps you should clarify what you meant by "from the consent of the governed" and we'll go from there.

 

I live in rural Florida now, and down here it seems that yes, private property is generally respected, but back in New Jersey, where I grew up and spent most of my of my life, it seemed that the only property right you had was the right to pay hefty, and increasing, taxes on it, despite politicians selling the idea that a one percent sales tax would go to school districts and reduce property taxes. Then a 3% sales tax was going to do the job, then the state lottery, the state income tax, and casino gambling were sold as the panaceas that would reduce property taxes. I haven't followed what's going on up that way recently. Since you are from the Mid-Atlantic region, can you tell me what the latest scheme is?

 

ALL morals and values are human created. Just as all religions, their associated holy books, and the godless Constitution.

Their is no right to the pursuit of happiness in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. The Constitution is written very broadly so as to be flexible. You should back away from the concept of "extra" or "special" rights that I see frequently quoted by the right.

Exactly what is an unalienable right? Using your own words, the Constitution does not delve into unalienable rights.

 

FYI, there was no insult or flame bait in my last reply. Goodbye PF.

 

Please, just take a break....breather. Stay for another day.

 

Not really, since the amendment power is continually abiding, wherefore We the People as presently constituted implictly give just as much consent to be governed by every constsitutional provision we fail to amend as We do to be governed by any amendment(s) We ratify.

 

Here's an argument that the Constitution has no legitimate authority over anyone living today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWESql2dXoc

 

Nobody. As sentient beings, we have the right to do as we will, so long as our actions do not pick someone's pocket nor break their leg. This is inherently obvious.

Yes. Because it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Yes. For the same reason.

Because far too many humans are sheep who will blindly do what they're told. I don't refrain from killing people because it's illegal, I refrain from killing people because it's an evil thing to do, and needlessly deprives them of their life to live. Likewise, if I think it's safe to drive 45 MPH despite a sign that tells me I'm not allowed to exceed 30 MPH, I'm going to drive 45. I'm not a sheep.

Some 16 year olds are intelligent and responsible enough that allowing them to vote would be a reasonable thing. On the flip side, some 18 year olds are not. But deciding that on a case by case basis would be extremely difficult, expensive, and time consuming, so we've decided to draw an arbitrary line in the sand at 18. It would in fact be better to decide it on a case by case basis, but it is not practical, so an arbitrary age standard is a reasonable alternative.

 

I'm not interested in such an argument. I'm interested in specific objections to my argument.

 

Okay, it seems we've come to an impasse. Now, some of you have told me that you believe that the only rights I have are those "granted" by government or by those given by this undefined entity known as "society" but nary a damn person has addressed the thread topic and told me why I don't own myself or why government or society has a claim over my life that trumps my own. So, any mf'er want to elaborate on how they have a greater claim to my life than my own? Step up and be heard.

 

Probably the best argument that anyone will come up with is that there are "social contracts" that bind people within certain geographical boundaries usually defined as "nations" and which are usually said to reflect the "popular" or "majority opinion" of those within these arbitrary boundaries which trump any claims to individual ownership of one's own life, or the lives of groups of people who are in the minority, for example, the lives of Jews and other minorities in the democratic republic of Germany under the guidance of the National Socialist Workers Party elected in a democratic parliamentary process similar to that of England.

 

You're not paying attention, old bean.

 

I think “self ownership” is a silly concept. If you were the only human alive on earth, would you walk around saying “I own myself”? If an aggressive animal tried to steal the chicken you were cooking over the fire, would you shout out “get away, I own myself”?

I believe that ownership stems from production. If you create something, then that item belongs to you, as it would not exist in its form or location except by your effort. As long as you own what your labor creates, and your equal freedom to use the resources nature provided are recognized, then the concept of self ownership seems redundant and prone to contradiction.