Who owns you?

That's not an exception, Sherlock.

Well I certainly can't respond to it as if it is a fact, since it is in fact a *******ned lie.

To be sure; and it is certainly amusing that you are so blissfully oblivious to what it indicates about what I'm responding to.

Indeed it is obviously true. As for lameness, it does not bother me in the least that your delusional mindset is to all appearances impenetrable.

No, I think "snivel" pretty well hits the nail on the head.

Good, then you won't be sniveling about it any more.

 

Again, I agree with your attitude. But, suppose you are constructing a porch on your house to improve your lifestyle, and during this pursuit of happiness a guy comes by and says that you have to draw up plans for the porch and submit them to the authorities where other people will have the final say whether you can build it and how you build it and will charge you a fee for their decision. You might explain to the gentleman that you would prefer to be left alone, but he will explain to you that he is from the government and thus has a right to be on your property bullying you.

Rights, as you know, are a complicated subject going back to Thomas Aquinas endorsing the Divine Rights of Kings and Popes, Paine writing The Rights of Man, The Declaration of Independence mentioning God-given rights, and now the majority of Americans apparently believing in the right to a living wage, the right to affordable housing, and so on.

But, in my humble opinion, we wouldn't have to worry about the various concepts of rights if a majority of people firmly believed in and supported the Golden Rule, which is effectively the same as the late Libertarian Party founder Gary Nolan's Non-aggression Principle- the idea that is absolutely immoral/unethical to bully peaceful people who do not want to be bullied. Some conservatives hate this idea as evidenced by the fact that they booed Ron Paul for mentioning the GR during a speech on foreign policy, and a lot of liberals immediately recognize that it is anathema to their socialist agendas because it would prevent them from taxing Peter to pay Paul.

Personally I don't think that you or I or anyone else is going to implement the GR or change the direction the US is going in. It might have been Victor Hugo who said that "Even armies cannot stop an idea whose time has come," and unfortunately, Keynesian, utilitarian, authoritarian, Marxist, socialism is the idea whose time has come to the majority of Americans, the absolute belief that only more government spending and more bureaucracy can make things better.

[/I]

 

You're definitely right about the direction in which the U.S. is heading and unfortunately most Americans have been "drinking the socialist's Kool-Aid". There are a few of us left who consider ourselves Libertarians (in the true sense) and patriots, that are trying to preserve the Republic (or what's left of it) that our founding fathers created for us. The Constitution of the United States in my opinion is one of the greatest documents ever written but now it's considered by some to be out-dated and just a useless piece of paper.
I think that we are beginning to see very deep divisions in the U.S. and it's not as superficial as liberals against conservatives or the two political parties bickering back and forth, but a war over morality and ideals! I think that there is going to be a huge resurgence of the ideals and vision that Americans once had for their country and it will start with the reinstatement of the Constitution as the law of the land. Once that has been done, the "golden rule" will also become viable again.
I hope that it doesn't come to a civil war or an actual bloodletting but there have been some that actually predicted something of that sort for our future. Hopefully we can all just agree to disagree and allow each state go to the direction that it's people decide is best for them but something tells me that the Marxist/socialist element will find it in their nature to make things difficult, making at least some violence inevitable.
At any rate, knowing the deeply felt and growing resentment toward our current government, I won't be surprised if there is a sudden announcement that several states decide to secede, to form a new nation that is based on the principles of the old Republic. I personally would be very happy about that, though it would bring a time of great trouble and upheaval to our people and country.
I'll end this post with what I remember reciting in school as a child, which really takes on a lot more meaning to me today as an adult who yearns to see a return to the days before socialism,... "The Pledge Of Allegiance"
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation, UNDER GOD, indivisible, with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL.

 

If you can't answer the question, then just say so.

 

I've already discussed the wonders of utopian anarchy in other threads. It's off topic to got into detail in this one.

 

Those who advocate for no imposition upon INDIVUAL VOLITION advocate for anarchy.

Those who advocate for MUTUAL or INDIVIDUAL CONDITION advocate for tyranny.

Those who advocate for MUTUAL VOLITION advocate for libertainism.

Over the course of your posts, I am left to believe that you make no distinction between anarchy and libertarianism.

I am also left to believe that mutual volition is the best possible condition among men.

 

I don't tend to chase people around the forum, looking for everything they ever said. I agree that's it's a tangent. Have a nice day.

 

You'll have to identify what you mean by those phrases. But I understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchy. And Antiauthoritarian, which whom I have been discussing, is advocating the latter, unless I am mistaking him.

- - - Updated - - -

You too!
.......

 

Individual volition is the exercise of one's volition (one's will). Individual volition has no inherent limitations upon volition.

Individual condition is the state of an individual's material condition.
Mutual condition is the state of individuals' material conditions relative to each other.
Individual and mutual condition have no inherent limits upon violations of individual volition.

Mutual volition is the exercise of individual volition within limits.
Mutual volition has an inherent limits upon both indivdual volition and violations of individual volition, mutuality.

 

Once again, proving you have no substantive argument.
As a display of intellectual prowess, it ranks right up there with the flyweights of the world.

Ignore becomes you.

 

Questioning the legitimacy and effectiveness of government is hardly the same thing as advocating anarchy.

 

Do you mean of government in general, or a government? The former is advocating anarchy, the latter is not.

 

Questioning = advocacy. Got it.

 

Your question was ambiguous and I was simply clarifying it. What is your big aversion to answering simple questions?

 

So the Constitution gets its lawfulness from a bunch of people that have been dead for centuries? How mystical.

 

What question?

 

Statement. "Questioning the legitimacy and effectiveness of government is hardly the same thing as advocating anarchy."

 

I only now noticed your national flag. I am not familar with it, but I know that it's not ours. Please accept my sincere apology.
There is very good reason why you seemed like you were a world away from our history; you are.
Again, I apologize.

 

Statement = question. Got it.

 

So are you going to address my response, or are you just interested in silly games?

 

I grew up in Memphis...so please finish your thought. I'm interested to know where you were going with that.

 

I did. You are the one playing games. You said I was advocating anarchy. Then you tried to say if I was questioning government in general that I was advocating anarchy. Then I came to the logical conclusion that you, for whatever reason, are equating questioning with advocacy depending on what is being questioned.

The point is that questioning is questioning and nothing else, certainly not advocacy. A simple concept that seems to escape you.

 

Please don't assert why I said if you cannot be fair and honest about it. What I said was: "But I understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchy. And Antiauthoritarian, which whom I have been discussing, is advocating the latter, unless I am mistaking him."

Again with the mischaracterizations.

You: Questioning the legitimacy and effectiveness of government is hardly the same thing as advocating anarchy.
Me: Do you mean of government in general, or a government? The former is advocating anarchy, the latter is not.

I never argued that questioning government in general was you advocating anarchy. What I said was that if you are questioning the legitimacy and effectiveness of government is advocating anarchy.

Because if you are questioning the legitimacy and effectiveness of government, you are saying that society could be run better without one, are you not? Unless I am mistaken.

Well then maybe I was mistaken, and you are not advocating for anarchy. Hence my statement above. I had the impression you were. Thanks for clarifying. Now I can stop wasting my time.

 

I agree this set a disturbing precedent and was, in my opinion, the wrong decision by the SCOTUS; but the fact remains that 99% of property owners don't lose any sleep worrying about the government taking their property. The exception does not make the rule, and broadly speaking, private property rights are respected and protected.

 

You seem to have failed to comprehend my statement. You were asked from where the Constitution gains its "lawfulness". You answered that it attained such from the "consent of the governed". The people who did the "consenting" are long DEAD. That these DEAD people somehow have given consent FOR people living hundreds of years after the fact reaches well into the realm of mysticism. Don't take that to mean that I'm bashing your religion or anything...it just seems odd to me.