The 9th Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America is the one that is NEVER talked about in legal or political circles. It's the one [they] don't want you to think about.
It preserves ALL rights that ALREADY existed before the Constitution was created, with the only exception being those rights that were delegated to government by the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment is about We the People fighting off enemies, foreign or domestic.
But the right to self-defense, gun ownership in general, and all the rest are in the 9th Amendment.
Remember: All of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) are to LIMIT THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and NOT to "create" any new rights of the people.
Most people do not know there even is a preamble to the Bill of Rights, much less have ever read it. Here is the Preamble:
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
Catch that? RESTRICTIVE.
The Bill of Rights are ALL restrictive, as to what the federal government is NOT permitted to do.
The 1st: Congress shall make NO law ...
The 2nd: ... shall NOT be infringed.
The 3rd: NO quartering of soldiers ...
The 4th: ... shall NOT be violated ... (btw: "unreasonable" search or seizure means without a judge's signed warrant)
The 5th: NO person shall be held/compelled/etc. ...
The 6th: The government SHALL provide several protections to anyone accused of a crime.
The 7th: Anyone involved in a civil case SHALL have certain rights preserved.
The 8th: Excessive bail shall NOT ...
The 9th Amendment says that ALL rights of the People, that ALREADY existed BEFORE the government was created, were STILL IN EFFECT AFTER that government was created. Here is the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Get it? RETAINED.
Originally, Madison wrote 17 amendements, mostly modeled after George Mason's work on the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He scaled that down to 12. He did not omit anything, but merely rearranged them so that some of them were consolidated from two or three into one. The 5th, for example, has several restrictions of the federal government included within one amendment, rather than having them each in their own separate amendments.
The 12 amendments were presented to the States, and 10 were approved. The other 2 had to do with the number of representatives in the House, based on population, and congressional salary increases not taking effect until after the next legislative session. Those 2 did not pass. However, the one on salaries was given new life more than 200 years later, and was ultimately ratified in 1992, to become the 27th Amendment.
The 9th Amendment is KEY. It preserved ALL rights that humans had before the government was created.
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/billofr_.htm
As the Declaration of Independence stated (which was written just 13 years earlier), certain truths are SELF-EVIDENT. Namely, that we have rights that existed BEFORE the government existed, and for which the government shall never be permitted to violate (inalienable/unalienable). And ...
... to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Government does not grant fundamental rights. Those rights existed before the government existed, and those rights were used to CREATE the government in the first place.
Once created, government CAN create "civil rights," which are rights that are really privileges, and can be regulated by their creator (the government). But the government cannot create civil rights that supercede natural/God-given rights, because those rights are inalienable/unalienable (untouchable).
The day that people realize we don’t have to ask the government permission to do the things that are our right to do will be an interesting one.
"interesting"
Oh yes it will be
What is a "civil right" except an attempt to limit inalienable rights or empower the government and create two classes of citizen?
For example, the 5th amendment:
The eminent domain clause creates two classes of people. The first class is the governors, who can steal your property, i.e. the real and only legal owners of property (because they can take it whenever they feel like it, which is the definition of a Sovereign AKA Ruler AKA Ultimate Authority). The second class is the governed, AKA the vassals (or slaves) who use the land at the pleasure of the Authority (and only so long as they pay their Lease AKA Tax to their Sovereign).
This of course is a fraud, and almost certainly added by the Banker class, who ultimately own everything. This is why the IRS can come and take your property whenever the fuck they want just on suspicion of a "tax crime" which is so loosely defined as to be laughable.
There can be no "civil" government (of, by, and for the people) if there are two classes of citizens. There can be no true We The People if the fraud of Sovereignty is bolstered (or contrarily, if Individual Sovereignty, which is a God Given Right is nullified) by law. While the Right to Property may not be a "God Given Right", it is intrinsic in Sovereignty as it is defined civilly, and thus there can be no non-fraudulent government that can take property away from an individual for any reason other than as an act of war (one Sovereign acting against another).
P.S. This applies to anything you own, not just land; like your car, or your gun, or your drugs, or any of your property. ALL ownership regulation is fraudulent.
Voting would be an example of a civil right, but not a fundamental right. This is because if the government did not exist (if we were "back to nature") then there would be no government jobs to vote for.
So, it is not a fundamental right. There are many types of rights: fundamental (aka natural, aka God-given), constitutional, civil, contractual.
Contractual rights are between parties, but are not fundamental to all. The right to contract is a fundamental right, but once parties create a contract, then the rights created within that contract are contractual rights of the parties, and not to anyone else.
Civil rights are similar. However, you are correct that civil rights are probably going to create two classes of citizen. Certainly, 4-year olds could be considered a 2nd class because they cannot vote, but we also have to consider the question: Should they?
Yes, it sure does. And the Supreme Court's decision in London (Connecticut) was an abomination, basically saying that the state can take property if doing so benefits individuals and not the public in general, so long as the property taxes go up (which is claimed will benefit the public).
Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it. Not saying I have all the info on that, but I know that the IRS always (as in ALWAYS) violates the law when they attempt to do so, which opens them up to counter action.
This is why the recent court ruling stating that the SEC "court" could not issue orders on SEC claims (because doing so is a conflict of interest) is an extremely important one. The same should be applied to tax "court" (a fake court that sides with the IRS 99% of the time).
It IS a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. It is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, generally, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acqured, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed. The rights are associated with the property, not the individual, and a particular individual(s) has possession of those rights at any given time.
When I sold my property to you, the rights that belong to the property WERE mine, but NOW they are yours.
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness. But notice: it is the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right TO happiness. This is where the leftwing nutjob dimwits have everything wrong.
There is no "right to healtcare," for example, because such a "right" would necessarily mean that the doctors and nurses must become slaves in order to provide it. Rather, there is a right to PURSUE healthcare, provided one can honestly acquire it -- and the government has no lawful authority to stop anyone from that pursuit.
Which brings us back to the 9th Amendment: Did Americans in 1789 have a right to pursue health care? Did they have that right in 1776? If yes, then we do today, as well.
This word can have different meanings. The sovereignty of the People is collective, not individual. The sovereignty of the government is a sovereignty vis-a-vis other governments, but not something that is superior to the People, who (collectively) hold sovereignty over the government.
Sovereignty of the individual is, likewise, vis-a-vis other individuals. My right to swing my arms stops at your face. Provided I am not harming you or your property (a natural extension of you), nor engaging in force (or fraud, a form of force), then I have the right to swing my arms as much as I want.
But if I cross that rubicon, then I am the one in the wrong.
As the Non-Aggression Principle states: He who FIRST aggresses against another is the one who has violated the law (of mankind or God, no matter what the law of the legislature says -- because that is written mostly by morons and assholes).
I can only say, good post
If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it. It's my property. If someone takes it away from me, which they have the right to do under Natural Law, that's an act of war, and war ensues.
Similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If I try to kill the Tiger to keep from being eaten, again, that's an act of war. By Right, I am the Tiger's food. This Tiger illustration is intended to show where the God-Given Right of property ownership extends, through direct application of what Natural Law says about it.
While I agree that property ownership is a God-Given Right, how it extends into Civil Law is up to the Social Contract itself. By Natural Law, both I, and my erstwhile food thief (or person eater) have the Right to the food, decided through war.
A God Given Right is a Right given by Natural Law, i.e. the Laws of the Universe. Any other Right, or idea of a Right is created by the Human Mind, and not granted by That Which Is, Itself.
In the case of "land", which is what I was referring to in that particular instance, it is not a "God Given Right." The universe doesn't give a fuck about human beings "owning" land. That is a convention. The Universe Owns the land. The Earth Owns the land. We define what "land" is, and what "boundaries" are, and what "ownership" means in that case. It is not a God Given Right, but one defined by society (i.e. by civil convention, i.e. a civil right).
Actually, they can; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law. The fraud is that it is an act of war, one Sovereign entity on another. Just because the laws are obfuscated, and it may be illegal (by Civil and/or Constitutional Law), it is perfectly legal under Natural Law (as an act of war). It may also be legal under Maritime Law, which is I think where the claims are made. This would also be a fraud, since we are not intended to be subject to Maritime Law (a jurisdictional violation), but we are.
This was absolutely by design. If "Property" had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened. Only a Sovereign (AKA Ultimate Authority) can own property. In the face of the inevitable Banker fuckery, making it implicit instead of explicit was absolutely by design to violate our Sovereignty. It allowed for not only the fraud of eminent domain, but also the fraud of property tax (which goes to pay the interest on bank loans).
This word has only one meaning. It is exactly and precisely defined. It means "Ultimate Authority." Any attempt to make it mean something different is done exclusively to commit fraud. The confusion of differences in "meaning" is one of a Sovereign's jurisdiction.
I agree with most of your outlay, but that doesn't change the definition of the word. One disagreement (not so much a disagreement as a point of clarity) is that the government is Sovereign because it is made up of Sovereign Citizens (self-proclaimed citizens of the Corporation they created). It came into being (was incorporated AKA made into a legal person) by declaration of a group of individual Sovereigns. That is where it's Sovereignty comes from, from the Sovereignty of the people who make it up, and their awareness and declaration of their Individual Sovereignty. They had to fight The Crown (their former Sovereign) because The Crown didn't agree that they had the Right to declare their Sovereignty. That of course was The Crown's attempt to perpetuate their fraud of abuse of what that word means.
This is only kinda true. You have the Right (under Natural Law) to swing all you want. The FRAUD is that it is an act of war One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign unless you are under contractual obligation. If you both are contractually bound (a Social Contract, which must have an exist clause) to not hit each other in the face, that is when Civil Law steps in and discusses the Civil Rights (contractual rights) that have been violated, and the contractual consequences are then imposed.
I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:
It looks like we might be talking past each other. We need to define our terms.
What is a "right?"
Certainly, it is a man-mad (human) idea. It does not exist in nature. You cannot go into the forest and pick up a bundle of rights and bring them home with you.
Rights are a human construct that we created as a means to understand how we SHOULD behave towards one another.
If you lived on a deserted island by yourself, the concept of rights would not be relevant. But once there is another person there with you, now you have to figure out how to behave vis-a-vis each other, such that you both prosper.
That's what rights are: a human construct, invented for the purpose of getting along with others.
Now, not everyone agrees that a particular human action is a right. But that does not change the fact that the idea is to figure out what we SHOULD agree on, and once agreed, we consider those who would take actions to violate "rights" to be outlaws and unwelcome in civilized society.
Rights are all about ACTIONS. More specifically, HUMAN actions.
Says who? YOU? Who are you to make such a claim?
Maybe you stole that apple from my apple tree. In that case, you are in unlawful possession of MY property.
The reason we humans created the concept of "rights" is to try and avoid these types of disagreements, which are likely to lead to bloody outcomes.
And if you took it from me? Should I kill you? One of the concepts of "rights" is that because they are about ACTIONS, we also have to accept that along with rights comes duties and responsibilities. One of those is to keep things in perspective. Stealing that apple from my tree does not justify me killing you and your entire family.
This is why the Middle East is so fucked up. They never had a John Locke or Thomas Jefferson anywhere in their history. They have no concept of rights, and tempering action based on the DEGREE of violation.
In some African languages, they don't even have words to describe variations for context (they can say "up" but not "half-way up"). The reason that these words to not exist is because words are represenations of mental concepts, and they do not have these concepts. Hard for us to believe, being that English is the most complex language on Earth, but it is what it is.
I hope you are not trying to say that animals have "rights."
"Rights" are a human construct, and therefore ONLY apply to humans.
"War" is also a human construct, and more specifically one dreamt up by governments and the types of tyrants that would want to "be" the government.
It's not a matter of right, which is a human conctruct. It is a matter of nature, as the tiger is doing what tigers do, by nature. And you are no match for its speed and power -- by nature.
You are engaging in a logical fallacy that many people fall into. It is called "context-dropping." You are using the word "right" to mean different things, and then conflating the two ideas.
Like I said, words represent concepts. Here, the word "right" means BOTH the concept of how humans interract with each other, AND the concept that "by right" simply means how nature happens.
"By right," gravity causes the apple to fall from the tree. But that is not the same thing as saying, "I have a right to own the apple, because I own the tree, because I was the first settler to lay a claim on the land where the tree is located."
The God-given right of property (as in, "life, liberty and property") is the GENERAL concept that we have a right to own property, if ... AND ONLY IF ... we can honestly aquire it.
Once owned, it is a contractual right, which the government is required to protect via constitutional authority and powers, which were delegated to it by the People (collectively) in their sovereignty because they possess God-given/natural/fundamental rights, which includes instituting a government to protect those rights.
Even God-given rights are a human construct. We say they are God-given to emphasize the point that they are NOT given by other men (whether via government or otherwise). They exist at nature, even if there is no government -- like if you are on that island with other humans.
The Universe does not "own" anything. It simply exists. Ownership is a human construct because it is part of the "rights" we SAY we have, because there can be NO OTHER OPTION.
THAT is the key point here.
Again, the Declaration of Independence spells it out: "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..."
This means we BELIEVE that these are truths BECAUSE NOBODY CAN CLAIM OTHERWISE.
This conversation could go WAY deeper into philosphical discussion, which is really what we are talking about here. Humans CREATED the concept of "rights" so that we could peacefully co-exist with each other.
Any person who attempts to "prove" that the right of speech is not a "real right," for example, would have to USE that ability in their attempt to "prove" it does not exist.
We are talking here about the philosophical concept of an AXIOM, which is a statement that cannot be denied, because any attempt to deny it will automatically confirm it instead.
That's what Jefferson was writing about.
And we have constitutional rights and contractual rights and civil rights BECAUSE we have funamental rights, and we have fundamental rights BECAUSE we say so, and any attempt by anyone to prove that we don't will AUTOMATICALLY prove that we do.
It is axiomatic. That's what the Declaration of Independence is ALL ABOUT. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" MEANS that (a) we must agree that human rights exist because (b) it is the ONLY way we can have a civilized society.
You said, "... the IRS can come and take your property whenever the fuck they want ..."
I said, they cannot. We are using the word "can" in two different ways.
CAN they bring guns and storm troopers and physically rip the property out of your hands, or shoot you dead if you won't give it to them? Physically, yes. But legally, no.
As long as you are not dead in the process, you DO have legal means to STOP them.
The reason we have governments AT ALL ... according to the American founding fathers ... is to prevent an all-out bloody battle in the streets every day.
THIS IS WHAT MADE AMERICA DIFFERENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!
EVERY other government that had previously existed prior to America DID come into existence and follow along with the idea that if the king could beat that shit out of you, then it was ok for him to do it.
The American founders say that is NOT the way a society SHOULD be constructed.
ALL of the misery and illegal acts you see today by the EMPLOYEES of government are happening because of the bullshit that YOU are championing here with your statements.
COULD I beat the fuck out of a 12-year old girl? Of course. But SHOULD I do that in a civilized society? Hell, no.
This is WHY the Muslims will rape 9-year olds and also WHY Jefferey Epstein held parties for degenerates to do the same on his island.
YOUR "natural law" bullshit idea is what THEY follow. This is WHY they claim that what they do is perfectly a-ok.
This is WHY they are evil.
They do NOT respect the concept of rights. They think that beating the piss out of people, killing people, torturing people, conning people out of their property and livlihood is a-ok ... as long as they can get away with it.
That's what the British king and his parliament thought, too.
That is WHY the American revolution happened in the first place.
According to your "natural law" bullshit, you can NEVER make an argument as to why children should not be raped and tortured.
It is ONLY via the human concept of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.
The 9-year old has rights, too, even though they cannot physically or mentally defend them. That's why adults have to step in and defend them.
I will tell you this: If YOU, personally, actually believe in that bullshit, rather than just writing in frustration of what you see going on every day -- if YOU actually believe that shit is a-ok, then you are my enemy.
I hope that is not the case.
I don't think YOU actually believe that, but are simply stating that OTHER people do.
And this is what we are up against.
These people abuse the term "natural law" to mean ONLY the "law of the jungle."
The tiger lives by the law of the jungle BECAUSE HE CANNOT DO OTHERWISE.
But the human CAN DO OTHERWISE, which is WHY we do.
We have the intellect to understand the concept of "rights" in more than one context (even though many people drop context and use the term to mean different things, confusing the issue).
We have the intellect that no other animal has, and THEREFORE, we must live in a way that no other animal does.
That is why these people are sick and twisted and evil, and most importantly ... WRONG about "natural law" when they equate it with ONLY the law of the jungle.
We must ALSO include the fact that within that jungle, we humans have a mental ability to understand how to treat each other, and the animals and plants, that no other animal has.
Call that a gift from God, or whatever you want, but the fact is that it exists, and THAT is part of nature, too.
Why?
Some would call that term an oxymoron. If sovereignty only means ultimate authority, and citizen means one who lives within the authority of a particular governmental jurisdiction, then that does not compute.
There were no "soverign citizens" in the year 10,000 BC.
You use that term a lot.
Define "war."
You just said that "sovereign" can ONLY mean "ultimate authority." I said that the word can have different meanings. You said no, it can ONLY mean ultimate authority. But here, you talk about two different sovereigns.
By your logic, ONLY ONE of those individuals can be "ultimate authority." Are you suggesting that everyone must battle it out to decide who gets to rule?
We are back to my statement that the words have different meanings, and you are dropping context (a logical fallacy) when you argue both ways.
Civil rights could be considered a form of contractual rights, but only IF they satisfied ALL the elements of a contract.
They do not.
Neither does the supposed "social contract." Therefore, they are NOT contractual rights. They are a different type of right.
There is never a "meeting of the minds" of all parties concerned, which means there is NO contract.
Gotta take off.
Check back later.
You and I are in conflict as to the concepts we are thinking about when we use certain words to describe those concepts.
Therefore, we must define our terms.
How are YOU defining:
1/2
First, please reread my last response (at least the first part) as I rewrote it several times to try to get out what was a little jumbled at first.
Black's Law Dictionary defines “right” thus:
I define all rights like this:
For War, BLD says:
I'm going to define it more precisely (even if more broadly):
When we say something is "an act of war," my definition is exactly what is meant.
All attempts to violate another Sovereign's Rights (from Natural Law, i.e. the God Given Rights) are acts of war. They are allowed under Natural Law as acts of war, even if they are violations of Civil Law (the Social Contract).
This is not true. I tried to clarify this in my rewrite of the first part of the previous post, but I will elaborate here. If a person tries to steal my food (which is my property, which I have a God-Given Right to, though so does my attacker), then I also have a God-Given Right to defend myself, and my claim to ownership of the food.
The Right to defend myself is granted by The Universe. It is inalienable. It can't be taken away, no matter what. A person can only be coerced into compliance through an infringement of other God Given Rights (the Right to pursue my own path through life). These Rights are not defined by society (though they can be redefined through fraudulent Social Contracts). These Rights; to pursue my own path through life, to defend myself, to live free from oppression, and coercion, etc. are granted by The Universe. All beings have these Rights. All Planets, All Stars, All Everythings have these Rights. That Which Is grants them to all things. They are fundamental (foundational) to existence itself.
This is where the Social Contract comes in. This is the creation of Civil Rights. Unless it attempts to be fraudulent, it doesn't take away from the God Given Rights. It merely creates a contract, a Civil Law. Natural Law still dominates. It is the only true Ultimate Authority. We are a Part of That Which Is, thus we have our own Ultimate Authority. All people (all things) are subject to Natural Law. Only those who enjoin a Social Contract are subject to Civil Law. There can be fraud in Social Contracts (no exit clause e.g.). I suggest there can be a metric FUCKTON of fraud in Social Contracts, but there can be no fraud in Natural Law.
That is what Civil Rights are. God Given Rights are granted by God AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is.
See definition above.
The Middle East is so fucked up because the Catholic Church created Islam to create an Opposition to fight against, to control the world. It was another Reset for The Matrix. It is so fucked up right now, because every time a Middle East country tries to install their own government, the U.S./Euro Corporate rulership goes in and installs a government compliant with those Corporate entities.
Once you understand my definition of Rights, most of your arguments no longer apply.
This is not what is happening.
Also, has nothing to do with what is happening.
I’m going to stop replying to all these arguments because they are all misunderstandings of what I mean by “Right”.
Many people think “the Universe” is something exclusively physical. It is not. It is That Which Is. It is ALL of That Which Is. Universe means everything that Is. School teaches a complete lack of understanding of what the word Universe means. It attempts to put it in a box. It teaches that Physics is Truth, and that the Physics of the Universe is pretty much the same thing as the Universe itself, at least ideally. Physics can never be that. Physics is a mathematical model that is useful. It has nothing to do with Truth. It has nothing to do with the Universe. The Universe Is What It Is, precisely, exactly, nothing more, and nothing less. Our definitions of it, and models of it, have nothing to do with what it is. It Is What It Is.
All of the following words have identical meaning and jurisdiction:
Universe. God. That Which Is. Truth (as in The Whole Truth). Reality. Natural Law.
As for what it means to “own” something, from BLD:
It can also mean:
These are different definitions, though they are intimately linked. In the second case, such ownership is part of Civil Law. It extends that which we have on hand (possess) to that which we may not have on hand. In other words, just because it isn’t in our hands, doesn’t mean we don’t own it (by Civil convention). However, in the first case ownership is a part of Natural Law if you possess it (have it on hand). In the case of civil law, possession is 9/10ths of the law, as a hat tip to what Natural Law has to say about it.
The Universe (AKA That Which Is AKA God AKA Reality) Owns Everything. In the case of the land, the Earth Owns the land. The Earth possesses the land. The Universe (AKA That Which Is, etc.) Owns the Earth.
We own what we Possess, either legally (social contract) or by Natural Law (have on hand).
These are not just social constructs. For example, you own your body. It is always in your possession, and it is yours. Indeed, it is your Sovereign Domain by Natural Law, thus why you have the Natural Law Right (God Given Right) to defend yourself against an act of war (infringement on your Rights).
The axiom in my argument is that there exists a Universe (AKA That Which Is) and that we are a part of it. The entire argument stems from that single axiom. It is therefore an existential argument. If you agree with that axiom, then the argument follows.
I really don’t think you understand my argument. I am talking about different levels of Law. There is Natural Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, etc. All of these have different ways of coming into being. All grievances are heard in the proper court that has jurisdiction depending on which form of law is being violated. The fraud (the BIG FRAUD) in the case of the IRS is a confusion of jurisdiction. It applies Maritime Law to a Civil Law case. It is heard in a Maritime Law court, pretending to be a Civil Court. This is why the IRS always wins. The Fraud is not a violation of law, but a violation of jurisdiction. (I think, I have yet to confirm this from primary sources.) By Natural Law however, there is no violation. The fraud there then is, that it is an act of war (infringement of Individual Sovereignty and God Given Rights), pretending to be Civil Law.
The construction of the system we got was their fraud. If you think the founding fathers “had it all figured out” or weren’t corrupted, you have not dug into history enough. We do not need a ruler to prevent chaos. We only need a social contract (with an exit clause).
We do not need a government to rule us. We only need a social contract which does not demand that all join it, but allows for it. The idea that there would be “all-out bloody battle in the streets” without a ruler is completely untrue. I suggest a Social Contract is wise, but a Ruling Government Body is, and will always be, a violation of Sovereign Rights. It can be no other way.
The entire world has been controlled by the same people for millennia, perpetrating the same fraud, across all these other governments. Every major war in all of history has been by their design. It is all the same people committing the same fraud in the same manner. A part of the Great Reveal is the connectedness of all of history, and the rewriting of it to make it seem separate.
It’s not “mine.” It is simply a statement, a recognition, of That Which Is.
Hopefully after reading what I have written here, you will understand how completely this statement misunderstands everything I have said. If you do not recognize that, then more explanation will have to come, because I promise you, this has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Because when people look to create fuckery in law, they do so against implicit statements. When a thing is stated explicitly, it becomes much more difficult (see 2A).
A citizen is someone who enjoins a Social Contract.
A Sovereign is an Ultimate Authority.
A Sovereign's Jurisdiction is themselves, their God Given Rights, their Civil Rights (socially defined) and their property (both what they possess, and that which they have legal title to by social convention).
A Sovereign Citizen is a person who recognizes that they are the King or Queen of their own life, but has chosen to enjoin a Social Contract to become a signer of that contract (a citizen). Becoming a citizen (signing a social contract) does not take away from the Jurisdiction or Rights of Sovereignty.
Wanna bet?
Each Sovereign has a Jurisdiction. A domain of their Sovereignty. I have defined the jurisdiction above. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.
2/2
I’m not sure I fully understand your protest here, but let me define a few things.
The Constitution is a Social Contract. It was signed by people. It was not signed by ALL people, and that was a fraud, but the Federal Government was intended to be mostly powerless excepting only in The Common Defense, other foreign affairs, and Interstate Commerce. Internal affairs, other than at the borders between Sovereign States (travel, commerce, etc.), were not to be addressed by the Federal Government at all.
The State Constitutions were also a Social Contract, and should have been signed by all people. There must also be an exit clause, or it is fraudulent, and does not respect the Sovereignty of the Individual. The Social Contract is the set of laws that one can choose to live by if one joins society. If not, then one lives under Natural Law alone.
You seem to believe that a person who chooses not to live under a Social Contract would be a bad person. Let me give you an example of a Social Contract. Let’s say there is a town. In that town there are local laws, for example: no shooting your gun off in town except to defend yourself. If a person chooses to go into that town, local laws apply. They can always choose to not go into the town, or choose to leave the town (exit clause). Within the town, you follow the rules or face the consequences, written by law. Such laws must be clearly stated before entry (see The Postman (movie) as an example, you see exactly such a social structure within the various towns, and it works really well.) This is in fact exactly how our whole world is constructed, as is the United States internally, with multiple levels of jurisdiction, and different laws between them. The problem is, the laws aren't clearly stated, and a whole mess of them are violations of Sovereign Rights, on every level. There is also no clear exit clause (though it does exist, but it is obfuscated by fraud).
You are seeing things under the scope of past actions which I assert are not what they appear to be. Our history has been rewritten. The word “Anarchy” itself is completely misunderstood. It only means without ruler. A "Ruler" is a Sovereign. If we have a Ruler, we are vassals. But we are not vassals, we are Sovereign (jurisdiction defined above). Anarchy has nothing to do with “no laws” or “no social contract” or “chaos” etc. Those are what we have been told the term means, because if people really start to think about what it means to live without a ruler, they will want to live without a ruler, and the rulers would lose power.
I think you also may think that I mean because a thing is "allowed" under Natural Law as an act of war, that means there are no consequences. On the contrary, there are always consequences and what would happen is exactly what already happens.
When a person commits murder, for example, they may be violating civil law, but that is irrelevant. Whether there is civil law against it or not, it is that they have declared war under Natural Law, through that act, that ensures the consequences.
Society might murder them back for example. Doing so has nothing to do with civil law per se, even if it is also in compliance with it. The person who committed the murder doesn't have to agree with the consequences. That particular consequence of "murder in return" (or jail in return, or whatever the consequence is, assuming it is against the persons will) enacted without the approval of the murderer, is a direct violation of their God Given Right to pursue the path of their own life.
Such action as murder (or jail against a persons will, etc.) is always an act of war no matter what (no matter who is doing it or the justification). We say "it's the law" (by which we mean civil law) but that's not what's really going on. What's really going on is that we are, through our own justification of law, declaring war on the person who committed the murder, to remove them from this plane of existence against their Right to remain here. All acts of murder (or other such direct violations of another's God Given Rights) are acts of war according to Natural Law. Whether it also has a civil law to back it up is completely irrelevant except in how we (the murderers of the murderer) justify the response.
Nor does such an action bypass due process, or all that other jazz. The point is, when it comes down to brass tacks, it is identical in all ways. It is identical in all ways BECAUSE it all comes down to Natural Law. Whether a person agrees to the social contract or not, the results, on all levels, are the same for direct violations of a persons Inalienable (God Given) Rights (i.e. those crimes that are "against the law" regardless of what Civil Law has to say about it).
See my newest post as my response to you.
Edit: somebody needs to clear his tabs.
Great posts, you two!
To elaborate on that, “theft” is a sin. For theft to be a sin, it follows that property must be a right granted by God. Property, in the vein of “come, let us reason together” is a necessity because two men cannot eat the same apple not farm the same land with two different crops. Both these items would create conflict if the right to manage them was not somehow reasonably derived.
Excellent, very clear, and points out a real elephant in the room:
Great comment and deserves more up votes.
Very informative. Thanks for sharing.
The only reason for government being able to commit such blatant and open acts of tyranny today is due to mass ignorance regarding the principle upon which our Constitutional Republic was founded. Fortunately, ignorance is easy to overcome as long as people are willing to put the time and effort (sacrifice) to remedy it through self-education and research.
That leads to the second big reason government is so easily able to commit such blatant and open acts of tyranny today, apathy. Most people do not understand that the person responsible for standing up to the tyranny is the person staring back at them when they look in the mirror. Too many are waiting for someone else to fix it. Someone else to save them. Someone else to sacrifice and pay the price liberty and freedom have always demanded.
Eminent Domain is one that isn't hard to defend against. You must learn about Land Patents, their history, and how government has hidden that fact from us to allow government to always retain ownership of our property through tax rolls. The best way to begin that self-education on protecting your property is through https://teamlaw.net/land.htm and https://teamlaw.net/WayofKings.htm. Self-education is the beginning. You also have to be willing to actually defend yourself in court.
I woke up during my service in the Gulf War in 1991 and have been on a journey of seeking truth and how to regain my sovereignty back over the government that has systematically worked to enslave us since the Bankers attempted a coup over our money in Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jacksons times.
Once people wake up to the fact that our rights are conferred upon us directly from our Creator, and that governments only legitimate purpose is to protect those rights, it opens the possibility that we can resume firm control over the government that serves us, and remind them that they are not our rulers or authorities, they are our servants and have no authority over our individual rights.
Great post.
You cannot put a claim, or a lien, on my rights. You can't a-lien them. They are unalienable.
That is why some of us pronounce it un-a-leen-uh-bul.
This has nothing to do with aliens from outer space or a foreign country.
Yes, and I think that "inalienable" and "unalienable" are the same thing, but I have seen arguments that "inalienable" is ... uhh ... more correct, I guess ... but I don't know that for sure. So, I included them both.
Excellent
Outstanding! Thank you very much.
Everyone in the United States should have a copy of the Bill of Rights and know them. It really isn't a whole lot of reading and studying, but it's our duty to defend these, so we must know them.
Repeal the 19th amendment.
Picking nits, but I firmly believe that "judges" are British nobility. As such, I do not believe them to be any legitimate authority in this country.
The point of having a judge sign a warrant is that you want SOMEONE other than the cop, as a check and balance, for a search or seizure. If not a judge, who?
Someone that's not a British noble.
Great post. I get tired often of people saying "muh constitutional rights."
Just ducked in to say thx- beautiful post, what we're about here.
Cheers, Op
Interesting you brought this up because 2 years ago I was praying and asking God to show me something I needed to know for this crazy time, something that would be helpful to the American people and I was shown the 9th amendment! It clicked that that was put in as our protection for this time period
Yes, that is very interesting.
In what way was the 9th shown to you?
I saw the words "9th amendment" come up in my vision, and I researched right after and was amazed how it was exactly what I was asking for. And I know how little emphasis is put on it so I found that very interesting.
Wow.
Interesting context, thanks for posting
inalienable/unalienable
inalienable = Corporation of the United States of America
unalienable = The United States of America
Language matters.
Together with the X .... = bidexit ...
Should the forefathers have made a periodic convention of states mandatory?
A convention of states TODAY would be a VERY bad idea, and I do not trust ANYONE who promotes it.
Ask yourself: WHO would be at that convention? You and me? Of course, not.
It would be a bunch of George Soros/Klaus Schwab puppets ... and bye bye to ALL protections of your fundamental rights.
So ... no.
What about if the states' governors were required to be the representatives at the convention of states?
We don't need to amend the Constitution.
We need to ENFORCE it, as written.
That may have to be done by us taking control of States, and doing it from the States.
Does this cover emergency powers? Cos the reason for the perpetual pandemics and wars create the situation for such powers which suspend all constitutional rights we are told.. let them have all monies without oversight and do what they like.
There should be no esquires..ie lawyers allowed either!
Excellent post but let me correct your spelling:
supersede
Response to Slyver --
As good as GAW is, the format is not so good when long posts of debate occur, as we can get lost in multiple points, and it just gets messy.
Here is my response:
(1) I disagree with your definitions of "right," "God Given Right" and "Civil Right." When we disagree with something at the word definition level, then we cannot really get past that.
If we take Black's Law Dictionary as you stated, then I would say that "right" means a faculty of action (or simply the ability to take an action) that must be respected by others, if we are to live in a civilized society.
We could chose to NOT live in a civilized society, in which case the concept of rights would not be relevant. That is the law of the jungle, which all wild animals live in. But as humans, we have an alternative choice, and most people want to live in a civilized society. Not all, just most.
A "right" can be granted by someone else. If I own property, I can lease it to you. You have then obtained the right to possess the property, for a period of time, and for a price. You obtained that right from me. I obtained it first by ownership, which includes the right of possession.
So, we can gain rights from other people. We can also gain rights from governments or businesses (corporations), which after all, are merely people with specific job titles.
And then, we have the "fundamental rights," which can also be known as "natural rights" or "God-given rights." These terms are used to specifically make a distinction between rights that were given by other men versus rights that are not given by other men, but are inherent in each of us, from the moment of birth (or from conception).
THIS is the most important part of the debate, because those who would want to control others do NOT believe that rights can exist outside of another man's authority. They do not believe that a god exists or gives rights, and they do not want anyone to believe that there are any inherent rights, because they want themselves to be the giver and taker-away of all rights.
So, the basic point of agreement we must reach is that there are SOME rights (ability to take action, and have that action respected by others in society) that are NOT granted by other humans. Those are God-given or fundamental, or natural rights.
A "civil right" is a right (ability to take action that is respected by others in society) that is granted by other men, via their employment status in a "government."
(2) Regarding the BLD definition of "war," I agree. However, I disagree that the word "war" should be used in a lesser context, which is what you were doing, and still are doing. I do not agree that simply violating someone's rights is a "war." Such a claim is hyperbolic and not valid. So, we are at an impasse if you insist on using that rhetoric to describe every violation of rights. I think it sounds a little crazy and ignorant to use such language, to be honest. But you have "every right" to do it if you want. Free speech and all. But I also have the right to disagree and disregard such hyperbole.
(3) Here, we have a serious problem of disagreement, which is due to the concepts underlying the words used:
I disagree with your view of what "Natural Law" is, and I also disagree with the general (maybe also your) concept of the so-called "Social Contract."
First, there is no such thing as a social contract. It is a made-up concept that is not valid. A contract is a specific thing that MUST have specific elements, or else it is NOT a contract at all. One of those elements is a "meeting of the minds." The so-called "social contract" will NEVER have a meeting of the minds of all parties (which is all humans in existence), so it fails as a contract. In addition, it is a fuzzy term that has no real meaning. It can mean different things to different people. Therefore, using that term is a sign (to me) of non-critical thinking.
I reject the term completely, and will not debate anyone using that term. Come up with a different term, and define what you mean, and then we can continue. But that term is an oxymoron, which means it is self-conflicting, and anything that conflicts with itself is, by definition, false.
Second, the term "Natural Law" can be a useful term to discuss, HOWEVER, I have found that MANY people who use that term are NOT using the term correctly -- by which I mean that they are using it ONLY to mean the "law of the jungle."
As I said before, wild animals live by the law of the jungle for ONE reason, and one reason only: they do not have the capacity to otherwise. They live on instinct, and not reason, logic, intellectual thought. They do not possess that ability.
Humans do, however. And because we do, we MUST necessarily use our intellect in our everyday life. It would be impossible for you to get up in the morning, and go about your day WITHOUT using your intellect at all, and going strictly from instinct. Impossible. Because using intellect is what we humans do.
Therefore, when anyone claims that "Natural Law" means "law of the jungle" and they OMIT the fact that humans are an intellectual creature, who ALSO lives in that jungle, and who MUST use intellect, then they are omitting a CRUCIAL fact of reality.
Because we have the ability to reason, we MUST use it. Although many people here probably do not like Ayn Rand because of her atheist stance, she contributed more to this understanding about reality than anyone who ever lived. She is the one who really worked out the idea that mankind MUST utilize reason and logic in their daily lives, in order to survive. We cannot do otherwise.
Yes, I know that many people act on emotion and not logic at all, but that is only for conversations about political and philosophical questions. They still go to the grocery store and drive a car and do a million other things that require using their ability to think, with their bodily action coming as a result of that. This is what I mean when I say we use our intellect.
As such, "Natural Law" must ALSO include the fact that we have the ability to determine not only WHICH actions to take to accomplish something, but also to consider which actions we SHOULD take. We have a CHOICE, that the other animals do not.
And that choice makes all the difference. We can choose either to live in a dog-eat-dog world, or a civilized society. Several thousand generations of humans have clearly chosen civilization because it affords a better life.
So, that is what we want, and that is what we should strive for.
THAT is also natural law.
(4) We have several disagreements:
It is NOT true that both you and your attacker have the same right to the same food. Nobody has a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to any particular food.
The fundamental right is a GENERAL PRINCIPLE. It is an ABSTRACT concept, and not about a specific object. The fundamental right is that you and I and everyone (we ALL have it, which is a clue that it is fundamental to being human) has a right to obtain food ... PROVIDED WE OBTAIN IT HONESTLY.
This is why I said before, "What if you stole the apple from me?" In that case, you would NOT have obtained the food honestly, and you would NOT have a right to it. Just becuse it is food does NOT mean it is yours.
You seem to buy into the idea that anything on Earth is there for the taking, as long as someone is big enough and bad enough to beat the piss out of everyone else to get it.
That is the law of the jungle.
I REJECT that view.
The American founding fathers also rejected that view.
The early political philosphers who the founders studied also rejected that view.
Billions of people throughout history have rejected that view, if only by their actions and not necessarily by their writings.
We reject that view BECAUSE you can NEVER have a civilized society with such a view. This is WHY the Muslims live such a primitive life. They have this view, and have never been exposed to people who reject it (until their recent invasion of the West).
It is a primitive mindset, as well as a Globalist mindset (ironic, but true) that the law of the jungle is somehow valid for humans. It is not.
A 12-year old girl has no chance to live her live the way she wants if the law of the jungle prevails. Your ideas would put her and the majority of humans into a lifetime of slavery.
This is WHY America was founded on DIFFERENT ideas. NOT the law of the jungle.
This is just sloppy thinking. The Universe has no power to grant anything. The Universe simply exists.
Some key words, and my definitions:
Reality = everything that exists. This means (a) everything, whether natural or supernatural, and (b) that exists, meaning it actually has physical properties, whether matter or energy or both. A unicorn is a fairy tale and does not exist, and therefore is not part of reality, other than it is a concept within a human brain. But it only "exists" as an idea, and not as something in the real world -- unless and until someone comes along and proves otherwise.
Universe = the physical matter and energy we can measure that exist within reality. This means there is no such thing as a "multiverse," or multiple dimensions. If such things exist, they are part of the Universe, but maybe the Universe is more complex than we realized, if these things really exist. The Universe is matter and energy. It cannot "give" anyone anything.
God = the concept of a master conductor, creator, or otherwise something that exists but is not part of the Universe itself; it cannot be proven and is a theoretical concept, but one worth exploring because much of the teachings attributed to God are very valuable; however, that also depends on which teachings, because I personally reject the teachings of the Hindus, the Muslims, and the Jews. But those are personal choices.
Given these definitions, there are no rights that come from the Universe. There are rights that come from being human (which we can say come from God), and there are rights that are created by and given by other men. But those man-made rights must be inferior to God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") rights, or else we are back to the law of the jungle, which I reject -- and so do billions of others in this world.
Animals do not have rights. Plants do not have rights.
Even YOU do not accept that animals and plants have fundamental rights. If you did, then you would starve to death. If all animals and plants have a right to life, just as you do, then you would not have any right to kill them so you could eat. Such a concept is ridiculous on its face.
Rights are a human construct and ONLY apply to humans. That does not mean we should treat animals and plants in an abusive manner, and that gets back to refining fundamental rights to work it down to property rights and other types of rights, and how we act vis-a-vis each other in a civilized society.
The fraud is when SOME people use the term "Natural Law" to be equivilent to "law of the jungle," which is equivilent to "might makes right" which is equivilent to "you are my slave if I say so, and can use whatever force is necessary to make it so."
It is fraud because these people LIE about what they REALLY mean when they use that term.
The completely ignore the fact that we have the capacity or reason and determine how we SHOULD live our lives.
The American founders did
^ Just realized that my entire post got cut off. I thought the whole thing was posted.
Well, I'm not going to re-write it, but will just end it here:
I don't have the time to explore this further in debate.
I do not disagree with anarchocapitalist theory. I do, however, reject anarchocommunist theory.
So, your anarchic ideas, for me, would depend on which side of the fence you are on, as to whether or not I would support (in theory).
But something I wrote that was cut off is that I think we are a LONG, LONG way away from getting there from where we are now.
For that reason, if no other, I think a better approach is to utilize the Constitution as our rock and foundation. We should insist on it being honored by those who take an oath to defend it.
I disagree that the Constitution is a social contract, since the common meaning of "social contract" is not what your definition is.
The Constitution is a trust, with the 13 States as trustors, the members of Congress, President, and Supreme Court Justices as trustees, and the People as beneficiaries -- who also elect and/or appoint the trustees, both directly and indirectly.
We, the beneficiaries, should enforce this trust agreement against the trustees who are abusing our fundamental rights by refusing to honor their oath.
One more thought: Although the federal Constitution is important, it is no more important than the State constitutions. Most of us should probably be utilizing that document (in whichever State we reside) as a starting place for getting things back on track.
Probably not 1 person in 10,000 has read their own State constitution. Therefore, they have no idea what their power really is.
1/2
According to BLD:
The Natural Laws are things which are established, according to which phenomena and actions follow. They are prescribed by a controlling authority, and have binding force.
Who is the “controlling authority” for the Natural Laws? Nature AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is AKA God. (Please allow me to equate these things and try to appreciate what I am saying, I will get to your definitions later).
Phenomena and actions follow the Natural Laws. ALL phenomena and actions follow Natural Law because there is no higher Law. Natural Law sits at the very top of the “law” food chain. How does Natural Law have binding force? That has already been stated: phenomena and actions follow the Natural Laws. In the case of the Natural Laws, there is no choice. Natural Law is the Laws that cannot be broken.
Lets assume you could break Natural Law. What would the punishment be? Who would enforce it? Is God going to smite you for breaking the Law? Of course not, because you can’t break the Law. How could you possibly break Natural Law since Natural Law is the Law from which all phenomena and action follows. It isn’t a “choice” no matter how intelligent the chooser. Natural Law is the set of laws that govern all behavior.
Instead of creating your “intelligent choice” Natural Law system, you could just as easily (and I suggest more honestly) say that what you are calling “Natural Law” is “the Morality that guides Civil Law.” Morality by the way changes in each society (both in time and space) and thus can’t be Natural Law, because Natural Law can’t change, unless Nature Changes on a fundamental level. Which is itself a ludicrous idea, because if Nature "changes," it's Natural.
Instead of appreciating that Natural Law is the “rules that can’t be broken”, you suggest that it demands that we think through our actions, it demands a responsibility. This suggests that Natural Law places a limit on our actions of “decision of rightness”. To that I say, bull-fucking-shit. If Natural Law demanded such things, then all people would have the exact same morality. All beliefs would be the same. There would be no free will. There would be no murder, or thievery, or micro-aggressions, or whatever, because the universe wouldn’t allow it. If you reject my definition that Natural Law == That Which Is == The Laws of the Universe == The Laws That Can’t Be Broken, then what would you call That Which Is == The Laws of the Universe == The Laws That Can’t Be Broken, and why are you redefining Natural Law as other than those concepts when that is the original intent, built into the very phrase “Natural Law” AKA “The Laws of Nature?”
Natural Law is the Limits and Grants of That Which Is. I don’t know what the Limits are, but they are in there somewhere. When I find them, I’ll let you know. I suggest the Grants (AKA God Given Rights) are intuitive, some of which have already been stated.
“Natural Law is exactly What It Is”, and it can’t be stated any more clearly than that, because our limited words and knowledge are insufficient. While you can influence Nature (AKA the Universe AKA the world around you), because you are a Part of it, you do not in any way define its Laws.
Natural Law == Is What It Is. It Defines Itself. It doesn’t matter if there is a human there to hear it, the Natural Law Tree that Falls in the Universe Forest still makes the Same Noise.
You say you disagree with my definition of Rights, then go on to describe pretty much exactly what I said about Civil Rights (rights granted by Civil Law), then you go on to describe God Given Rights (rights granted by That Which Is), both in complete agreement with my definition of them. So which part exactly did you disagree with?
That is not what I said at all (not the correct context).
It is not hyperbolic but rather an attempt at extreme precision, exactly encompassing it without anything extraneous. It is also valid, but only if you say it correctly.
The “act of war” is not an infringement of rights as you repeated back to me, but an infringement of God Given Rights, i.e. Inalienable Rights, from one Sovereign onto another Sovereign. Violations of civil rights are not included in that, and no where did I suggest they were.
Please hear my words:
act of war: an infringement of a Sovereign's God Given Rights by another Sovereign.
While I didn’t include “God Given” in the definition the first time around, I did clarify that in the next sentence. Ignoring that context is unfair. If you wish to offer an argument against my definition, please address the definition I offered.
Before you do, please look up “acts of war” and you will see that in every case where someone claims an “act of war”, my definition exactly encompasses all such acts.
If you are going to continue with ad hominem, I will be leaving this conversation. It is both unpleasant and suggests you truly don’t give a shit what I have to say to you, i.e. this debate is not engaged in earnest.
Regardless, you not agreeing with my definition or usage of context is not a lack of thinking for myself (the definition of Critical Thinking). On the contrary, it is exactly Critical Thinking that allows me to suggest what I am suggesting. Our disagreement here may just be a point of semantics, or it may be a lack of your understanding my intent. It may even be my misunderstanding (though I do not think so, but I concede the possibility). It has nothing to do with Critical Thinking however, and I suggest you learn what that term means, because a general lack of understanding of that term is an intentional fraud of our education system.
It doesn’t have to be agreed upon by everyone. It only needs to be agreed upon by everyone who wants to partake in some specific social system, and only for as long as they want to partake in it. That is why it must be optional, and why there must be an exist clause, which I have said about a billion times, and you seem to want to ignore.
There are numerous animals that can make and use tools:
Giant squid, large octopi, some birds, dolphins, elephants, whales, orangutans and other simians, etc. Some orangutans have a human vocabulary on the order of thousands of words. There are birds that can do math. There are monkeys that can solve complex puzzles faster than a human. Many dolphins understand the full mode of human speech. All of those animals mentioned have their own complex language, complex societies, they build homes, create and use tools, etc. Are humans the best at all those things? The evidence supports a positive assertion, but to think that Humans are the “only real thinking life form” just because we may be the best is not supported by the evidence.
Anyone who insists that only humans use “intellect” does not understand, or is intentionally misusing that word. If you think animals do not make conscious and intelligent choices, you have never watched or interacted with animals. Orangutan society, vocabulary, and tool making skills are on the order of what the common narrative (likely a total fraud, but that’s a different discussion) suggests humans were at not too long before H. sapiens. They create hammers, spears, specialized tools. They build homes and other tools with those tools. They have a broad vocabulary and within their society they specialize.
Your facts are not Truth, they are instead your beliefs which are not supported by the evidence.
I have a Right to pursue my life as I see fit. That is a God Given Right. Included in that pursuit of my life is my need for food. That is fundamental. It is fundamental to all life, to all of the universe, “alive” (carbon based “life form”) or not. Everything eats (uses energy, i.e. changes energy from one form into another more useful form, to sustain itself). The Sun does it, planets do it, solar systems do it, galaxies do it, animals do it, humans do it, trees do it, oceans do it, the atmosphere does it, blah, blah, blah. It is intrinsic to all things, and therefore a fundamental right.
“Honesty” is a human concept. To Natural Law, all ways of obtaining it are "honest" because you can't break Natural Law. In other words, Natural Law couldn’t give two shits about how it was obtained. That is what Civil Law determines. I suggest that is the entire fucking point of Civil Law. You equate morality with Natural Law repeatedly. Hopefully I have addressed that sufficiently and it will not be done again unless it is in direct address to the argument I have presented.
No they did not. Not if you mean someone like John Locke. They did not reject that view at all. They understood it completely. They chose to create a Civil Law (a Social Contract) that incorporated Natural Law, and fully appreciated it. They made clear statements of Sovereignty in their Declaration of Independence. You can’t truly understand Sovereignty nor Jurisdiction until you understand Natural Law, since that is the true parent concept of both Sovereignty and Jurisdiction.
1/2:
We can agree that there is "something out there" that has an influence or control over the actions of all things.
My objection to the use of the term "natural law" is that that SOME people OMIT a part of nature so that they can arrive at certain conclusions. The part of nature that SOME people purposely neglect is the human intellect, which obviously is also a part of nature (or "reality" or the "Universe").
The conclusion they then arrive at is that "law of the jungle" is a VALID way to organize a society. THAT is the CONCEPT that I reject, regardless of what words are used.
But in terms of "something out there" that nobody can overcome because the "laws" of nature prohibit overcoming them, I agree.
We cannot overcome the law of gravity. We also cannot overcome the law of cause and effect, in that if we choose to not work, and we have no other source of obtaining money (such as Hunter Biden's criminal family funneling him money), then we will be broke, poor, and likely homeless.
But ... we made a choice to not work. That was free will. Humans have the ability to make choices by using our intellect (hey, it will be waaaay more fun to smoke pot all day than get a J.O.B. ... so ... let' do that!). The other animals and plants cannot make free will choices. They act by instinct, because that is their nature. It is not our nature, however.
You continue to think of natural law in a vacuum, where natural law is the ultimate arbiter, and human intellect is not part of natural law. It is part of it. And because humans do not want to live by the "law of the jungle," we CHOOSE to live otherwise. THAT is ALSO part of "natural law."
Take away all the roads, all the buildings, all the structures built by mankind, and we are back to nature. In nature, humans exist. In nature, humans exist and have human intellect, which no other living thing has.
THAT is ALSO part of nature, and therefore part of "Natural Law."
Anyone who ignores it or denies it is engaging in logical fallacy, and the end result of such reasoning leads to death and slavery, because it pretends to justify "law of the jungle" being a VALID way to organize society.
We just had a bunch of degenerates perform a drag queen show for little children in Dallas. Some would argue that this is just "natural law." But they made a CHOICE to do those things, and we have every right to make a CHOICE to put a stop to their harming of children.
The "natural law" that you are defending would support their actions. I reject that.
THIS is EXACTLY my objection to this line of false reasoning that you continue to pursue. It is BECAUSE it necessarily leads to "anything goes" in society.
And that conclusion is reached BECAUSE your position denies human intellect and free will.
The fact that we cannot overcome gravity and make the apples stop falling from the trees DOES NOT mean that ALL things that happen in nature are a result of similar forces. Human actions are, in large part (not entirely), very different.
BTW ... I am NOT the one who is "demanding" that natural law requires we think through our actions. We DO think through our actions because we MUST.
The lion eats a gazelle and not the grass that is all around him because he MUST, not because he decided he should. Humans think through our daily actions because we MUST. It is our nature.
If it could be said we do not have a choice in the matter due to natural law, then the lack of choice is that we do not have a choice to simply refuse to CHOOSE. We MUST choose. Every day.
And because we choose, we can also use our intellect to determine a good choice from a bad choice (that which is in our best long-term interest versus that which is harmful to it).
Nonsense. People make different choices and choose to have different choices. THIS is why they do not all have the same morality. It is ALL about choice, which is to say it is about intellectual decisions.
It is important to note that humans do not always (in fact, usually) think through their beliefs or actions at a conscious level. Young children have not yet developed the ability for complex rational thought at the conscious level. This is why the evil people want to get at them while they are young, in order to indoctrinate them when they have no critical thinking skills to defend themselves against evil ideas.
Most Muslims live in certain parts of the world (until the recent invasion of the West, organized by the Globalists). Most Hindus live in a different part of the world. Most Buddhists live in a different part of the world, and most Christians live in a different part of the world. This is not because each individual thought about each religion, past and present, as well as atheism, at a conscious, critical level, and then just so happen to have have arrived at the same beliefs as their family and neighbors.
No, it is because we learn many things through our culture. Our society. Here at the GAW, many of us are learning that things were learned earlier in life were in fact, lies. We figured that out about Santa Claus, but not about much more important issues. Now, we are awakening to the lies of our own culture.
But that method of learning through others in our culture (family, friends, school, media) is also rational and intellectual thought, in that we simply don't have the time to think through everything at a detailed level. So, we have a tendency to take short cuts, and just accept the ideas of those around use.
That would include morality. If we see and hear people all around us with a particular morality, we tend to adopt that ourselves, even if it is very different from others. But some individuals overcome that indoctrination and begin to explore certain ideas for themselves, and they change their views. Of course, they do that through intellectual reasoning.
Our beliefs form our values. Our values determine our actions. Our emotions are a result of phenomenon we see, hear, experience, and think about, as these things agree with or conflict with our values.
Change our beliefs, and we will change our values, which will change our emotions and our actions.
What I am rejecting (again) is the idea that "natural law" necessarily excludes the reality that humans have intellect, and therefore make CHOICES, and those choices AFFECT what does or does not happen, because unlike other animals, we choose what we SHOULD do, not merely what we MUST do.
The concept of natural law does NOT have to exclude this, but many people who make an argument like you are making do so and arrive at the conclusion that "law of the jungle" is a valid way to organize society. The degenerates in Dallas are a-ok, as is the raping of a 9-year old.
The ONLY thing that prevents natural law from becoming "law of the jungle," is when we ACKNOWLEDGE that humans are different, have intellect, and make CHOICES about how we SHOULD live, both as individuals and as we relate to others in society.
And THIS ... is where the concept of RIGHTS comes into the picture.
As I said before, rights are a HUMAN CONSTRUCT. They do NOT exist in nature. You canNOT go out into the forest and grab a bundle or rights.
Rights are the IDEA that humans SHOULD interact with one another in one way and not in another way. We SHOULD form a civilized society, and we should NOT live by law of the jungle.
These are moral decisions and are based on the conclusions reached when using human intellect. This is WHY Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT ..."
He did NOT say he could prove it. He simply said that this idea is SO OBVIOUS, that anyone should be able to agree with it, and anyone who does not must have ulterior motives.
Remember, this message was directed at the KING, and telling the king, for the first time in human history, "Hey buddy, you put your pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else, so you have NO RIGHT to tell us what to do. Fuck off!"
That was a revolutionary idea, and it lead to war. A REAL war, not a mere "you stole my apple" fake war.
Natural Law describes how the world works. Gravity, zebras eating grass, the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa, etc. Within that understanding of how the world works, we also know that humans have intellect and live their lives via that intellect.
The very fact that you are debating ANY of this PROVES that this is true.
Try continuing this debate WITHOUT using your intellect and making decisions based on it.
This is the PROBLEM with "Natural Law" theory ... IF that theory EXCLUDES this necessary element of human intellect. Which, from my experience, is THE #1 method used by the evil people to pretend to justify their actions -- like the degenerates in Dallas, and other pedophiles amongst the Globalists.
Also, I object to your use of the word "grants" in your statement above. Natural law just IS. It does not "grant" anything. It is simply our understanding of what IS.
If you want to say that God created Natural Law, and through it He grants things, then that is a different discussion, and we can likely find some agreement. But your statement does not say that. Natural law itself is simply an understanding of how the world works -- like gravity and lions and zebras.
I call it the law of Cause and Effect. But they are just terms to describe concepts, and it is the concepts that are important, not the words.
I agree, and you also cannot EXCLUDE something that is by nature a part of it.
And therein lies my basic objection (when people do that).
That is not a definition. That is circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy.
"My dog is what it is." There, I defined what a dog is.
Nonsense, of course.
Now, we can get into Aristotle's Law of Identity, which is "A = A" or "a thing is what it is, and not something else," but that is not a definition of anything. That is merely pointing out that things which exist have specific characteristics, and they cannot be something else which does not have those characteristics.
For example, a human male is a human with both X and Y chromosomes. It makes no difference what changes might be made on the surface, or what a person might think, the fact remains it is a male. It is further a fact that this maleness was determined in the womb, and not on an application for entry into a girl's wrestling match.
You clearly DID use the word war to mean a mere violation of rights -- any violation of rights, and I objected to that.
If you did not mean that, then please be more precise.
We can agree that the BLD definition of "war" is basically correct, and any other use of it would be hyperbole (which is what I said).
2/2:
Make up your mind. You are contradicting yourself. You used the word "war" in a hyperbolic way, then claimed you did not mean it that way (was the wrong context), and now you say you did use it for "extreme precision," making your entire position clear as mud.
Precision would be nice.
And you JUST SAID ...
Fuck, you are just giving me a headache.
Earlier, you said that if someone tried to take your apple, it would be ... "AN ACT OF WAR."
That is just ridiculous and stupid, which is WHY I said it was hyperbolic.
As I pointed out (and you ignored), it was not established that it even WAS your apple.
As I also pointed out (and you ignored), you seemed to be equating the fact that BECAUSE you held the apple ("food" is what you said) in your hand, it NECESSARILY WAS YOURS. I gave an example of where that MIGHT not be true.
But you ignored all that.
The reason I wrote all that was to point out that claiming the theft of food was an "ACT OF WAR" is hyperbolic. I stand by that statement.
Irrelevant, because possessing an apple (or "food") is NOT a God-given right. I prefer the term "fundamental right" because (a) it implies it was a right that was NOT granted by other men, and (b) it includes all who believe whatever they believe about God. This is why Jefferson wrote, "... Nature and Nature's God."
But I understand your use of "God-Given" and I do not disagree. But THOSE types of rights do NOT apply to SPECIFIC PROPERTY.
Maybe this is one of our fundamental disagreements.
These "fundamental rights" (aka "God-given rights," aka "natural rights," aka "rights that exist at nature," aka "rights inherent to being a human") are GENERAL PRINCIPLES, and NOT about SPECIFIC things.
They are ABSTRACTS and not CONCRETES.
Your possession of the apple is real. You DO possess it. But that does not mean you have a RIGHT to possess it. You MIGHT have a right to possess it, but you ALSO might NOT. That would have to be determined with knowing more about the situation.
Someone ELSE might actually hold that right, and YOU are the one who violated it.
If your concept of natural rights is "finders, keepers," then we are back to "law of the jungle," which I reject (for what should be obvious reasons -- especially in this example).
I do not believe that calling out non-critical thinking is an attack on you, personally. I consider it an attack on method of thinking.
However ...
To be honest, based on conversations we have had in the past, and how we seem to be butting heads so much in this one ... I think it is probably best to end the conversation here.
If we were sitting down face-to-face, I think it would be productive, enlightening, and enjoyable. You might even convince me to adjust my thinking.
But this format is just too difficult to really hash things out, and has already taken too much time.
Maybe the next one will be more productive.
Best wishes.
^ I just thought of one more thing, not to debate further, but just to think about.
Let's take "the law of gravity."
We use the word "law" to describe it, but it is not the same concept as a law of man.
It would be more accurate to say "the force of gravity."
These "laws of nature" are not really laws or rules in the same sense that we think of laws and rules made by man. They are not really even laws or rules made by God.
They are merely our observation of how the world works, and specifically the forces of nature.
Maybe that is what I am objecting to when the term "Natural Law" is used to really mean the "forces of nature."
CAN someone punch someone for no reason? Sure, there is no force of nature stopping it.
But what if we don't want society to be a place where this is accepted as a routine thing? The vast majority of people would be constantly in peril, and we don't want that due to how we think people SHOULD engage with each other in society.
Humans have learned to co-exist without doing these things ... for the most part.
Why?
Because we prefer it that way.
And THIS is where we get into a discussion about the human concept of "rights."
Rights are not a force of nature. There really is no "law of nature" in the same sense that there are man-made laws to deal with the man-made concept of rights.
These are really two different concepts.
Maybe that is my true objection to this whole thing.
But we could only find agreement if we were discussing this in person, probably over a few drinks.
1/2 (Sorry it's 1/2 again, it's "barely" 2 if that helps)
That’s fair. I will not expect a response, but I wrote some things before I got to this point, so I will post anyways. Plus this stuff is really helpful for my book. Making arguments for really difficult concepts (like Natural Law, Rights, Sovereignty, etc.) works out so much better if I have to make the argument against a hostile intelligent audience (hopefully not too hostile).
I defined the word (idea) of Law in the beginning of my last post using BLD. I then showed that the Natural Laws were exactly the same as our Civil Laws in their construction. The only differences between Natural Law and Civil Law are; who is the “controlling authority,” what phenomena and actions are allowed, what is the punishment, and what force binds those actions. The BLD definition of law applies perfectly well to all Laws, including Natural Laws.
I also went through and explained all of those differences. They really are very similar. The biggest difference is, there is no punishment for breaking a Natural Law because you can’t. Because you can’t break a Natural Law, all actions are in congruence with Natural Law. That is so fundamental. You keep saying all these reasons why “that’s not Natural Law” or “Natural Law is this other thing.” What you want Natural Law to be is not what it is. It is exactly and precisely the Limits (Restrictions) of allowable action. (I’ll take away “Grants.” I meant it a little bit differently than you suggested, but I’ll concede your objection).
All phenomena follows Natural Law. All phenomena in society follow Civil Law, except those that don’t. When they don’t (and someone is caught) a person is punished for not acting according to Civil Law. That’s really the difference in the levels of Law. In order to enforce Natural Law, Nature just says “no.” There is no punishment because the statement is just “no.” The Authority is Complete. In order to enforce Civil Law, society also says, “no,” and we get a spanking if we choose to say “yes.” The Authority is incomplete.
All of your suggestions of Natural Law being something else require a choice. There can be no choice in Natural Law. You keep ascribing all these other things, and saying “but intelligence” etc. Yes, intelligence is a part of it, but that has nothing to do with what is allowed action by Nature, i.e. the Laws themselves.
The key is the word “allowed”. Your objections of “evil justifications” replace “allowed” with “support.” A person enslaves another by suggesting Natural Law supports (encourages) their action. Natural Law doesn’t give a fuck either way. It only restricts some actions. It obviously does not restrict slavery.
We The People have been enslaved for at least 5,000 years by the exact same group of people. That is how long The Matrix has kept us enslaved, in many cases throughout history (like today) without most people realizing it. My book will show the minutia of this slavery in great detail. It is going to shock a lot of people to see the evidence of the extent of The Matrix. The Matrix I define as: the Intentional beliefs systems, placed over the entire world, in purposeful opposition, through propaganda (half-truths and lies, through control of the “trusted leaders”/media, etc.), to enslave people and make them believe Reality is one way, when it is something very different.
I won’t be talking about the evidence going back too far, because the exposition is intended to avoid as much cognitive dissonance as possible (or feed it in at levels a person can reasonably handle, slowly reaching the full exposure of The Matrix). I start about 200 years ago, and work forward towards the present, but the evidence, once you dig in, supports the Cabal having created or subverted all of our societies, all of our works, all of everything (including things like the fuckery in our Constitution), for a minimum of 5,000 years (Sumerian/Babylonian Empire).
We The People, of the entire fucking planet (not counting places like the Amazon Rainforest, etc.) have been living in Slavery for at least that long (and we still do). So obviously Natural Law allows for slavery, and really doesn’t give a fuck about it, because you can’t break Natural Law and the entire human race has been enslaved for all of what we call "human history."
I want to address some sticking points. While you kinda started to appreciate what I am about to say at the end of your last post, I think you are confusing some fundamental things about how we describe Nature. I do not blame you, that is a purposeful fault of our education system (part of the fraud).
Neither of those things are "laws." I don’t mean they aren’t “laws” like you suggested (i.e. they are forces of nature), I mean they aren’t Laws at all. There is every indication that our actions are not “restricted” by gravity or time in any way. “Restriction” is fundamental to the definition of Law.
That was what I was trying to explain to you with my physics explanation in previous posts. We don't have any idea what "time" is (the driver of what we call "cause and effect"). We don't have any idea what “gravity” is. We have no idea if we can "overcome" either of those things or not. Indeed, our physics models suggest we can very well overcome them both, even if we don't know exactly how to do so with the technology we have at our disposal. It could very well be that the Natural Laws allow us to overcome them without any technology at all (not that I am suggesting that, I’m only saying we have no idea what the true Limits of Natural Law are).
While I hate to use credentials instead of argument, in the interest of time, one of my degrees is in physics. My senior paper was on manipulations of spacetime through certain solutions of General Relativity (AKA warp drive and wormholes AKA "overcoming" both gravity and time). I will be happy to present a more complete argument if you wish, but for now please allow me to say, physics has nothing definitive to say about any "law" of the universe, including gravity, or time or anything. We have useful models and axiomatic philosophies. We know exactly Jack and Shit about The Universe or the specific allowances or limits of Natural Law... and Jack left town.
I assert again (which you did not address) that this is an assumption that is not supported by the facts. I suggest you look deeper into what it means "to think" and what "instinct" means. There is not one type of decision that we make that (higher) animals do not make. There is not one type of action we can do that animals do not show the exact same behavior. For example, they can choose to not work (sustain themselves e.g.) they do it all the time. They can choose to not get food and to just lay there. There are experiments that show that given the option, that is exactly what certain animals will do, because it is more "fun" to do whatever they are doing. You think it's “instinct.” I say whatever it is, it is identical to what humans do. You can't possibly prove it otherwise, since neither you nor I are a species other than human, but by observation, and indeed, by the measurement of brain activity, which are the pieces of evidence we have, there is zero difference between how higher mammals act and how humans act, whether it be conscious choice, or instinct, or whatever you want to call it.
Please discard this topic as part of your argument unless you can provide something besides supposition. It has no basis in fact which makes it detract from your argument. If you would like for me to provide supporting documentation I can do so. I also have degrees in biology, so I've spent a lot of time looking into this shit and can provide very detailed arguments if you wish.
Lets look at the “Law of the Jungle” for a second. Do animals enslave each other? Do they have chaotic societies without laws or punishments? No. In fact they have organized societies, they have laws and punishments, and they do not enslave each other. So the Law of the Jungle when you go into the actual jungle is not what you are suggesting it is, yet this is the basis of your argument. Why?
We automatically live by the law of the jungle. We can’t live any other way. It is impossible. We can however, just like how other animal groups do it, create rules of cooperation, what we call Civil Laws.
Your argument is akin to the Natural Laws are "more moral" for humans, because humans (and only humans) have intelligence. But your argument does not account for the fact that animals have Civil Laws, and codes of ethics (morals) that guide their society. Your argument does not account for the fact that humans can and do do whatever they fuck they want, when they want to, which means that Natural Law does not restrict their aberrant actions, but Civil Law may change them, if they choose to adhere to Civil Law, or simply choose to live cooperatively and respectfully (something animal societies do very well in the actual jungle).
No it does not. Natural law defines how the world works. We describe how the world works, and we describe it all wrong in our models, just by varying degrees.
It proves that we think, it proves nothing more than that. Animals also debate. If you think otherwise, you have never had a pet. Granted their vocabulary is limited and the debates are rather shallow, but the intent, and the logical process are still a part of the conversation.
I didn’t say that. I said that God IS Natural Law. God IS the Universe. The separation of God from That Which Is is intentional fraud. As I said, that’s a very long discussion. I am only asking that you try to appreciate what I am saying (and allow me to say it). I am not asking you to agree.
My argument is that EVERYTHING is a Part of Nature and that NOTHING is excluded. I have excluded NOTHING, because NOTHING CAN BE EXCLUDED.
2/2
It is the only way it can be described, because it is EVERYTHING. We cannot comprehend everything, nor describe it, except to state that it is everything. That is not a logical fallacy because it is not using the language of logic. It is instead as complete a description as can be stated using our limited language.
Logic can’t accurately describe That Which Is, because the language of logic is itself incomplete and axiomatic. I have an entire section of my book dedicated to this topic. I am happy to provide a very detailed argument to support this if you wish. It gets into math a little bit, but it is completely supported by all research on the topic. Here is a place to start.
The bottom line is, Logic, like all of the other things we use to describe That Which Is (physics, science in general, math, etc.) are useful tools, they are not Truth.
I don’t agree. Please look up “act of war” and see if you can find a single instance where my statement doesn’t fit. Then attempt to contrive an instance of a Sovereign infringing a God Given Right of another Sovereign that is not an act of war. Only if you can find an instance that falls outside of my definition (on either side) will I agree that my definition is wrong. I only ask for one instance.
Your argument about the apple makes me feel like you haven’t heard a lot of what I’ve said, so I won’t address it except one thing:
I didn’t ignore it, I just didn’t respond to it directly. Implicit in other explanations was that Natural Law says if I have it, it’s mine. You disagree with that, but I assert that’s because you do not understand Natural Law and instead ascribe to Natural Law a social morality and individual responsibility. Your disagreement of what Natural Law is (The Laws that can’t be broken and nothing more) is not my fault. I can’t make all of my statements fit with your definitions because I believe you are incorrect.
There I will stop. If you really want to (not that I expect it) you can go back and reread my objections to your “It’s not necessarily your apple” argument in other posts. I’ve already addressed it implicitly in what Natural Law and Civil Law are, and what Natural Law and Civil Law have to say about it. I really feel you are conflating the two, and justifying it through your perception of what it means to be “intelligent” and “moral.”
I think that if you can agree that Natural Law has nothing to do with thought and morality (other than that they are a Part of That Which Is), because Thought and Morality do not limit action in an absolute sense like Natural Law does, and respect that all Natural Law REALLY has to say is what is allowed behavior, any conversation would go a lot smoother.
2/2
Billions of people throughout history have been led by the nose by an evil Cabal down a path of abject slavery. They believe what they have been taught, through fraud, for millennia. I have a feeling, based on who you are placing faith in, that you haven’t gotten far along the path of appreciating the true history of this planet. The evidence suggests we are not the first “advanced” civilization. A year ago I would have thought that was completely crazy. Then I actually started digging into the evidence. The Great Reset is not the first Reset. There have been many others, and in each case history was rewritten, and the rhetoric created in the works further obfuscated Reality.
The evidence suggests about 13,000 years ago there was a comet that hit the arctic and caused a Flood (The Flood). It almost completely wiped out the advanced civilization that existed at that time. Making that case is possible, but would take quite a while. I can point you in the right direction if you are interested, but it is well worth attempting to comprehend the scope of the rewriting of history, so you can appreciate what is going on today. That is not the only lie of history, it’s not even scratching the surface. The evidence suggests virtually everything we believe about history is a lie to one extent or another. The “official narrative” of “society started 10,000 years ago in the fertile crescent” is provably intentional fraud. The evidence for that statement is overwhelming.
I’ve tried to explain to you that your belief of this definition was implanted by a school system that purposefully intended to make you believe something that isn’t true. If you want to say “the physical part of Reality” you need to use a different word, because “Universe” means everything, by definition. It is described in the way you have defined it so that people will think of “spiritual” and “physical” as separate things. That is a fraud (intentional lie to mislead comprehension of That Which Is).
This “separateness” of God is another fraud. There can be no separation from God, God is That Which Is. To make this case would take a very long time, but again, it can be done, and I can lead you in the right direction if you wish. There is so very much context that needs to be understood however. There is so much fraud in our education. The Bible for example (final edit, not the original books, though some of those too), was written by the same people that wrote the Quran, and the Bhagavad Gita, etc., etc.. They are all designed to guide us in the wrong direction, by lies of context. What exactly the Right direction is I can’t say for sure of course, but all signs point to an appreciation of “oneness”, i.e. God as All, i.e. The Universe, and God, and That Which Is, and Reality, are all identical meanings, and We, and all other things, are fundamentally Part of All AKA God. The idea of a separate "God" is intentional fuckery.
If you can at least grant that these things might be true, we can continue meaningfully. At least grant that your definitions might be fraudulent (intentionally misleading). You really need to delve into history more I think, because you are missing so much of the fraud.
I'm not sure why it is important for you to define these particular terms (God, Universe, etc.). Their equality is central to my attempt to help you understand the scope of things, but it is not essential to the main arguments themselves. If you can just allow that I am equating them for a reason, and try to understand that reason, it will make things go a lot smoother. Unless of course you wish to have the separate debate about the topics themselves, in which case that's fine, but is very much a tangent to the main topic of this conversation.
Capitalism and Communism, or any “ism” have nothing to do with anarchy. I mean, they can have something to do with them, just like orange juice can have something to do with a peanut butter sandwich, but they have no meaningful relationship unless you purposefully have them both for lunch. They are Economic Design Patterns. We currently live in a Totalitarian Capitalism (weakly disguised as a “free market” which is a total fraud and always has been.) Capitalism is an economic design pattern to “use capital to gain more capital.” In a truly Free Market, any ism can be applied. It is when we force a society to adhere to any one ism that we create the problems. If someone wants to run a business where all workers share equally in both the means of production and the profits (an application of the Communism Design Pattern), then the market will decide whether or not they will succeed. But (presumably) all of those “workers” are there by choice in a Free Market. It is only when any ism is forced that fuckery ensues.
Economic Design Patterns have nothing intrinsically to do with “ruler” or “no ruler.”
The Constitution is an Article of Incorporation that, through the Sovereign Authority of the signers creates a Trust. It is not the Trust itself; that is the corporate entity defined by the Article. This Article of Incorporation is a Contract, as are all Articles of Incorporation, between the Signers and the Authority that grants Legal Personhood (the definition of a Corporation). In the case of the Constitution, the Signers and the Authority were the same people, which is rare, but there are several other examples. The Constitutional Contract defines a Social Order AKA a specific Order to Society AKA a Social Contract.
From the National Archives Bill of Rights
But how do we implement when matzo knocks on our door threatening to jail if we dont hand over guns?
don't hand them over
Last word should probably be "inseparable"
No.
Inalienable rights are rights our Creator gave to us, they are inseparable from us. Nothing to do with being tangible / touchable or not.
Healthcare is a HUMAN right...
There is no such thing as a "human right" because that term is used to mislead people.
That's why I use "fundamental right" instead, because it means a right that existed BEFORE the government existed, and therefore the government did NOT grant it.
You have a right to PURSUE healthcare, but you do not have a right to DEMAND somebody else provide and pay for your healthcare. That would make them slaves, and you do not have a right to enslave others, no matter how noble you think your cause might be.
Very educational. Thank you, Fren.
I actually had a middle school and a high school teacher who were very good and taught ALL of this. I doubt many of my classmates retained any of the information.
Love my bill of rights
Those guys knew we would be in the situation we're in today. Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, they all knew.
Linclon was not a founding father, and had nothing to do with the Constitution.
There is even a good debate as to whether he was a white hat or a black hat.
He did wear a black hat, after all. KEK