I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

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.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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.

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

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.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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.

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

I hope you're 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.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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.

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

I hope your 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.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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.

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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 done, 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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

I hope your 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.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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.

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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 done, 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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

I hope your 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.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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.

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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 (and, therefore, 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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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 done, 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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

I hope your 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.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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.

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 why Jefferey Epstein help 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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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 (and, therefore, 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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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 done, 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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

I hope your 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.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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 must agree ("We hold these truths") that human rights exist because that is the ONLY way we can have a civilized society ("to be self-evident").

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 why Jefferey Epstein help 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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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 (and, therefore, 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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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 done, 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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

I hope your 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.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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 must agree ("We hold these truths") human rights exist because that is the ONLY way we can have a civilized society ("to be self-evident").

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 why Jefferey Epstein help 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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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 (and, therefore, 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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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 done, 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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

I hope your 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.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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 -- human rights exist because that is the ONLY way we can have a civilized society.

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 why Jefferey Epstein help 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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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 (and, therefore, 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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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 done, 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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

I hope your 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.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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 -- human rights that exist because that is the ONLY way we can have a civilized society.

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 why Jefferey Epstein help 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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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 (and, therefore, 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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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 done, 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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

I hope your 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.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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.

Human rights that exist because that is the ONLY way we can have a civilized society.

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 why Jefferey Epstein help 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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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 (and, therefore, 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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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 done, 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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

I hope your 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.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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.

Human rights that exist because that is the ONLY way we can have a civilized society.

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 why Jefferey Epstein help 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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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 (and, therefore, 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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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 agress 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 done, 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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

I hope your 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.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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.

Human rights that exist because that is the ONLY way we can have a civilized society.

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 why Jefferey Epstein help 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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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 (and, therefore, 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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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 agress 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 done, 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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

I hope your 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 they types of tyrants that would want to "be" the government.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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.

Human rights that exist because that is the ONLY way we can have a civilized society.

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 why Jefferey Epstein help 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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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 (and, therefore, 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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War

I have to take off, probably for the rest of the day. But I can check back later. For now, I will respond thusly:

Property ownership is a human idea, not a God-given Right.

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 agress 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 done, 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.

If I am holding food, it's mine, I own it.

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.

If someone takes it away from me, that's an act of war.

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 apply 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.

But similarly, if a tiger tries to eat me, I'm its food. If someone tries to kill the Tiger to keep me from being eaten, again, that's an act of war.

I hope your 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 they types of tyrants that would want to "be" the government.

By Right, I am the Tiger's food.

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."

So it's not clear cut on where exactly the "God-given" Right of property extends.

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.

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.

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 Owns the land.

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.

Human rights that exist because that is the ONLY way we can have a civilized society.

Actually, they can ; evidence, they do it all the time. You are confusing levels of law. They can do it by Natural Law.

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.

They can do it by Natural Law.

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 why Jefferey Epstein help 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 concept of the human construct of fundamental rights that can defend against such actions.

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 (and, therefore, 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.

If Property had been left in at the onset explicitly stated, the fifth amendment (as written) couldn't have happened.

Why?

Sovereign Citizens

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.

The FRAUD is that it is an act of war

You use that term a lot.

Define "war."

One Sovereign onto Another Sovereign

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 this, 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 (contractual rights)

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:

• Rights
• War