We’ll see if that is still your story by the end of the week! lol
I don’t believe government is inevitable. And I don’t believe the answer to other governments must be government. Take the American people. They are armed. No one in their right mind would invade America. Sure, they could nuke America in the absence of a government military industrial complex. But they don’t nuke Germany. Or Switzerland. Denmark. Hong Kong. The nuclear threat was created and promulgated by big governments obsessed with trying to out compete each other on force.
The American experience of hyper-nationalism, and dare I say, paranoia about foreign retribution (let’s be honest, America has stirred up a lot of bee’s nests with intervention) is very unique in the world, and yet at the same time people who are armed, which is the exception in this world, not the norm, run headlong to their government begging for security via tyranny, rather than exercising the individual self-determination those arms secure for them.
But those are consequentialist arguments anyway. We’re discussing morality, and any government which does not have explicit consent, is illegitimate. You cannot take authority by force or fraud.
What you are talking about is the end result, not the founding…
You are right we have come a long way from Constitutional Government, this is my purpose, to return us to the begining, before the laws that dictate rights are privileges, before the government could interpret the intent of the Constitution and had to adhere to the plain English printed on the page…
My purpose is to bring this country to the moral stance of individual liberty, and those who do not want the responsibility, those who do not desire to respect the liberty of others have only two options, leave or fail…
You are correct, and the people let it happen, and it is the people that have to stop it, correct it and respect their responsibility in regard to the Constitution, the Constitution IS only a piece of paper, it is the people that live by it that give it power, and when they compromise that, they destroy it…
You can blame Bush, FDR, Lincoln, Clinton, Radicals, Terrorists, Obama…
It does not matter who you blame, the responsibility is on the people who live here who decided that THEY did not have to take the responsibility of controling the government…
The notion that when the government does it it is not illegal, the bases world wide, the currency by fiat, I stand with Congressman Paul on these issues, and with you (most likely), these are immoral and unsustainable…
But you cannot blame the government, it is the government’s nature to do this, the people are to blame for letting it happen, and then future generations just accept these trespasses as acceptable to government…
We have history to prove that govenrments are hostile to the individual liberty of people, it is time that the people take the correct measures to let the government know, the people are hostile to any government that takes away the liberties of the individual, Thomas Jefferson knew this was the only way to control government, how could the people have forgotten?
I hope I do not surprise you too much at the end of this week…
You are absolutely correct, but limited government by my standard has no authority here, the authority is in the hands of the governed, and that is still shackled tightly against the abuses toward individual liberty…
If you mind the 9th Amendment, by pure definition it supports the Individual rights against the rights granted to the Government and other individuals…
Our government now, is in no way a reflection of what is written in the Constitution…
I have no idea what this means. There are no limits on government. Constitutional or otherwise.
Of course not. But the Constitution isn’t an ideal either. It tries to establish limited government, but that is impossible, because all government, fundamentally all politics, is based upon the manipulation of private property rights. A government cannot fund itself, and maintain it’s monopoly status, without using coercion against anyone who would wish to compete with it. That is precisely what happened during the war against the states, when the South tried to exercise their right to secede after being provoked by northern tariffs. When they refused to be leeched off further, they withdrew, and the North proceeded to use extreme violence against the South.
I know the Constitution is dear to you, but it is a social contract imposed on the people by a band of thieves. It cannot give rights, those pre-exist the Constitution. It cannot protect rights, because all rights are fundamentally property rights, and government by definition undermines property rights. It cannot restrain government, because by creating a monopoly government, it also creates a monopoly on the interpretation of that Constitution, which inevitably leads to abuse.
If you believe in liberty, then you have to believe in self-determination (free will). If you believe in self-determination, then you have to believe in secession (the exercise of free will). If you believe in secession, then you have to believe that the Constitution cannot be the blanket or monopoly social contract for everyone in a region, or under a particular flag. That is to say, people will come and go as they feel it is in their own personal best interest (liberty).
A mission like this has all sorts of hazards. First, imposing morality can only be done by force. Where people have free will, you will naturally have diversity of morals, ethics, values.
Liberty is not a responsibility. That is a positive obligation. It can’t exist without being imposed by someone. People have negative rights, not positive rights. A “responsibility” implies a positive right.
I agree that people should respect the fundamentals of liberty, but what are they? We (anarcho-capitalists) define the basic morality around the NAP or Non-Aggression Principle. That is, no one should aggress against another. That is (generally) what liberty means to Austro-libertarians.
You use the term “individual liberty”. What is individual liberty as you mean it?
Here, the theoretical contry that has limited government, I am sorry there is no example in reality since the declination into authoritarianism of the United States, courtesy of the Civil War, predominantly, though the seeds are a lot earlier…
I use Merriam-Webster to define Republic for me…
b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
The individuals are given the power in a republic, it is of course the responsibility of said citizens to ensure that the government is kept in check, unfortunately the example for a republic, the United States, has the plague of Apathy and therefore we have the out of control situation we have today…
Do you know what the 9th Amendment is, I do not want to come off as the “I know the Constitution, therefore you are always wrong” guy, but I will give you the text…
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
This little amendment is the by far the most ignored, mainly because people do not know it exists and the government would rather it not…
[
I do see your point…
although seemingly belligerent, I do understand you, I do see the validity of your points, but like I said to wilderness “the Constitution IS only a piece of paper, it is the people that live by it that give it power, and when they compromise that, they destroy it…”
Honestly, the first person that said “Interpret the Constitution” needed a swift kick in the pants, no one is given the authority (especially not the general government) to do such a thing, not even the Supreme Court, for that matter “Interpret” does not appear in the Articles of the Constitution at all…
On your last point, despite the executives that have decided otherwise, and the courts illegal rulings on the matter, secession is a right, covered by the Constitution, oddly enough…
So I can believe in Liberty, and therefore self-determination, thus secession, and I can further justify it as a right because it is directly attached to Liberty, therefore it is protected as other rights retained by the people, hence the list of rights in the Constitution, in the form of powers granted to government and rights listed as the people’s, cannot be used to deny or disparage my right to Liberty, therefore self-determination, hence secession…
This is why the Constitution is dear to me, because if you read it, and live by it, you live free, granted you may die fighting to remain free, but as long as you fight, you are free and if you die, you die free…
I am not talking about real property, I am talking about supposed intellectual property (i.e. owning ideas).
Well, intellectual property to me would mean owning ideas. And since the letter A is just an idea, then someone should be able to own it, if there really is such a thing as intellectual property.
Yes I talked about what a government based on rights has evolved into. And no these have always been natural rights inherent in the individual. The governments have liked to say otherwise. The U.S. Constitution didn’t change this. Natural rights go back before the U.S.
So it’s governments nature to be immoral and criminal and I’m morally supposed to swallow that. No way! It is governments nature to be immoral and criminal to take everything by the point of a gun and coerce people. People are coerced by the government to be in its monstrous system. The government is a criminal entity.
Government takes liberty from people. The government can’t avoid being coercive against people and thus violate an individuals liberty. How is this government you talk about going to tax? The government doesn’t one day decide to take individual’s liberties. The only way the government can exist is it has to take their liberty from the very first moment the government comes into existence it violates individual liberty.
You just defined patents and copyrights, not intellectual property. Intellectual property is the idea of owning ideas, plain and simple.
And the letter A is a product of the concept of the mind…
And if a power company is given a monopoly to provide power to a region, starting another power company to compete with it is “a violation of the right of the” monopoly holder as well. It does not mean they should be given a monopoly in the first place.
What does this have to do with anything? Without copyrights, painters can still paint and sell their paintings. Writers can still write and sell their writings. They just will not necessarily make as much money.
Current law says it has to be “sufficiently” different. So no, there cannot be similar versions.
Copying and stealing are not synonyms.
If the schematics are simply copied, no, this is not theft. Again, copying and stealing are not synonyms.
The law may state, “it is illegal to copy some things”, but that does not make it theft. So please quit saying it is stealing. It is just illegal in certain cases to copy. As such, it is a completely arbitrary law. Politicians just decide arbitrarily which things are illegal to copy and decide arbitrarily how long it is illegal to copy said items.
I’m trying very hard not to be belligerent. I reworded my posts over and over to make it as non-confrontational as possible. What I am proposing is a logical procession through conclusions towards the truth.
I don’t see how this is relevant though. The Constitution could be a rock, or a talking stick. It could be a lake or a book. People give power to all sorts of talismans for good and for evil. We have since the beginning of time.
It would be a right even if the Constitution explicitly said it was not, the judges said it was not, and the executive said it was not. Rights do not come from government. They pre-exist government, and thus do not require a Constitution or government.
Don’t take this as belligerent, but I don’t know what any of this means. It sounds like an emotive argument about the Constitution, but I’m struggling to see a clear line of reason within it. You can live free without a Constitution. You can die fighting to remain free without a Constitution.
This part about rights being “attached to liberty”, I don’t get that at all. What is individual liberty? Liberty is a whole, not a series of parts (as I understand it).
hence the list of rights in the Constitution, in the form of powers granted to government and rights listed as the people’s
I cannot stress enough times the Constitution has nothing to do with what rights people do and do not have. Absolutely nothing.
If people have the right to secede, then the Constitution can only apply voluntarily. If you neighbor refuses to acknowledge the Constitution as his governing social contract, then it doesn’t apply, period. To impose it otherwise would be to infringe on his natural rights.
Individuals are not given power. They naturally have it at birth. You don’t need a republic to have power. It is a natural right to self-determination that gives you power.
A responsibility of citizens implies a positive obligation. That is anti-liberty. No one can have a responsibility they do not explicitly accept. That is the entire problem with the notion of a Constitution. It relies on people being under it by force. If everyone who wanted out, seceded, the “union” would be meaningless.
George Washington was an authoritarian when he participated in the Whiskey Rebellion. Government exists to abrogate property rights. By definition, government is anti-liberty.
I think ultimately, the questions will be, what is liberty to you, and which do you value more, liberty or the constitution (because they are not synonmous).
I realize you are getting it from 3 people here, so I will understand if you don’t reply or reply much later.
When I speak of morality, I am speaking of the general morality, the things people agree on as basic morality…
It is basically what I call the do not be a douche code (sorry if this offends anyone), but this means taking life, liberty and happiness (property) from people is not moral, basically similar to your NAP, with the added sentiment from the colony of Georgia, and the Scottish order of the Thistle, Nemo me impune Lacessit, or Noone Wounds me with Impunity.
Liberty is a responsibility, it is a fragile idea that if not treated with respect and not responsibly cared for, it will be taken away…
How do you mean it cannot exist without being imposed by someone?
Individual Liberty is the only way true Liberty can exist, that is once you stop respecting the individual’s right of Liberty compared to the general Liberty of all, you no longer have true Liberty, you have democracy, and as we all know Marx’s one truest postulation, “Democracy is the Road to Socialism” (Communist Manifesto), and when you have Socialism, the rights of all people become privilege, and therefore Liberty is non existent…
No, it is not. It can only be taken away by force, which is wrong. It isn’t lost unless someone takes positive action (implying that liberty isn’t a natural state but a manufactured one)
I’m saying it cannot be a responsibility unless that responsibility is accepted freely. You cannot declare that people have to do X (defend liberty) if they disagree. Responsibility is decided by individuals, at the individual level. We’re not born into this world with responsibilities. That’s (unintentionally I am sure) an argument for slavery.
True liberty, general liberty do not exist. There is only individual liberty.
You just defined patents and copyrights, not intellectual property. Intellectual property is the idea of owning ideas, plain and simple.
Patents and copyrights are not the ideas, but rather the protections on those Ideas, so I stand by my definition…
And the letter A is a product of the concept of the mind…
It was… The person(s) who generated the concept of the English language had voluntarily shared it with others, in some cases the recipients were not so voluntarily accepting it, but this is irrelevant, so the right to “own” the letter “A” was given up at that point…
And if a power company is given a monopoly to provide power to a region, starting another power company to compete with it is “a violation of the right of the” monopoly holder as well. It does not mean they should be given a monopoly in the first place.
Apples and oranges, at the point were the “firm” produces the power, it is already in place over the particular area, giving the “monopoly holder” a clear cut advantage over all other firms looking to provide the same service…
What does this have to do with anything? Without copyrights, painters can still paint and sell their paintings. Writers can still write and sell their writings. They just will not necessarily make as much money.
Who are you to dictate what value the painters and artists receive for their work?
The law may state, “it is illegal to copy some things”, but that does not make it theft. So please quit saying it is stealing. It is just illegal in certain cases to copy. As such, it is a completely arbitrary law. Politicians just decide arbitrarily which things are illegal to copy and decide arbitrarily how long it is illegal to copy said items.
Ok, is the answer to take you work, copy it and produce it without your concent, and without paying you for the right to do such?
Not true. We are living the constitution today. This is the institution that the Constitution has created. Individual rights and legislative power(not to mention executive power) are incompatible, what we have today is the only way the contradictions in the Constitution could have worked out.
Is making the government the judge of what constitutes a first amendment violation going to protect freedom of speech? Of course not.
The Constitution isn’t even a better option than the Articles of Confederation that it replaced. Its entirely contemptable.
You are misusing the language. Not your fault, you’ve learned to do it from others. Copying something is not the same thing as taking it.
If I steal a car, I gain one car and someone else loses one car. Its a zero sum game; Scarcity exists, so property rights serve to resolve inevitable disputes. The damages I have causes are equal to the value of one car.
If I photo copy a page from a book, the original still exists, but now I own a second page. Its no longer a zero sum game. I can gain a page without anyone else losing a page. No damages have been created, because no one is worse off then they were before the page was copied. Where the car robbery scenario was a transfer of wealth, this is a scenario where production occurs.
An intellectual monopoly is no different than trade monopoly. Both seek to criminalize production in order to avoid competition thus protecting their own profits. Its victims are both the potential producers and potential consumers.
Obviously, the Constitution is the recognition not the creation of these rights
No, you are not supposed to “swallow it” you are supposed to fight it, you are one of the people, therefore you are morally justified to the dispensation of justice, particularly if it is justice that is disadvantageous to the government
Ahhhh… the argument of taxation, the beauty of limited government and denial of imperial aspiration is that such a government can function on voluntary funds…
But to go further with this thought we would have to create a theoretical society and see how it would work out, as there is no real world example…