I think we are just talking past each other here. I do believe people should be punished for harming another without getting consent first. If you want to call that a “right to life”, so be it.
He or she killed the other person.
No, I never said someone has a right to harm another that cannot defend themselves. This is the problem with forums.
I will have to answer the rest later.
You stated that they do not have the right to life since they could not defend themselves. If that is true what is the basis for punishment SINCE an individual was not worthy of life since they could not defend it? And you can take this premise to ANY right an individual may have.
The statement was made for the benefit of the OP, who is indeed a Constitutionalist.
I agree. Accuracy is one of those intellectual inconveniences that really gets in the way of accomplishing the greater good. [;)]
Based upon manipulating the currency, I agree. Then how would you regulate it without the government’s control?
Who is in a monopoly position to interpret the constitution? The federal government.
What is the consequence for a congress that passes a law infringing on freedom of speech? Absolutely nothing.
Was it merely an oversight that the Constitution never mentions nullification, secession, or tax resistance? Judging by who wrote it, I’d have to say it was deliberate. The Bill of Rights, the only commendable part of the document, wasn’t even included by the drafters, it was imposed later.
If nullification is the “correct” interpretation why is it never mentioned?
You’ve yet to address how the Constitution improved upon the Articles of Confederation in any way. Its single purpose was to greatly empower and expand the federal government.
Constitutional government failed because it is socialism
You’ve changed the scenario by adding trespassing, an actual crime, to it.
Stealing trade secrets is not a copyright issue.
The market. Always the market. Free, voluntary exchange.
I agree with that. As market is ultimately based on currency…who is going to be in charge of it?
You are advocating a society without governments…this is perfect for me…what I would like to know is how this society is going to come into existence? I mean practically…
No one. Everyone. When people trade, they will decide what to use as the medium of exchange. Maybe they will direct barter if they have a coincidence of wants. Maybe they will use a fiduciary instrument like cash receipts or metal coins. That will be up to the people making the trade. If someone abuses gold, or silver, if they counterfeit money, people will just switch to trade in something different. In this way, the market works around problems, because there is no center of control.
Education, decentralization, independent non-political action. Working towards the day where we can begin withdrawing our consent without the need for violence.
Ok…I have thought about this too…I doubt that humanity will last long enough to see the free trade day arise…
I wish it could not be utopian, LS…
It’s already happening. You just have to know what to look for, or how to recognize the signs.
It’s not utopian. I don’t understand why people keep saying that.
Some are just faint of heart.
It always happened, but on a small scale…
Lol! Because we are not as optimistic as you are!
Utopian is thinking you can appoint of a gang of thieves over yourselves and not have them act like a gang of thieves.
I am entirely pessimistic about the idea that changing the form of government will change the nature of government
I agree.
To achieve what LS is saying requires a complete rebirth of the society…
What LS is discussing has been discussed for ages. It does not take rebirth of society, only a realization.
If it has been discussed for ages then why am I not seeing any realisation of it?
There have been realizations of it.
No it doesn’t. Government is not a part of society, it preys upon it.
Volunteerism is the norm, coercion is the exception. Political libertarianism is simply the belief that government must follow the same laws as everyone else. The state is a contradiction. Libertarianism is consistent.
If slavery is beneficial, why can only governments own people? If slavery is bad, why do governments get to own people?
Please share examples with me.