The Law: Foundations

Posted by dbhalling 1 month, 1 week ago to Philosophy
78 comments | Share | Flag

In this post I discuss the foundation of Law

Laws are the implementation of political philosophy.

All law and rights theory starts with property rights law.
SOURCE URL: https://hallingblog.com/2017/03/18/the-law-foundations/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
    Yes, very good article well thought out.
    Question? Do you actually mean it?
    You can't have it both ways.
    Shout me down again, call me names again, push me out again, but I cannot believe that you are sincere about property rights.

    Why? National sovereignty to define and defend a border.
    Millions of people via common agreement and consent extending their ownership authority to form towns, cities, counties, states and a nation - the reason for our federal government.

    If you own something you have legitimate right to regulate it, lend it, rent it, or enter into agreement for its use. Property rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
      AJ it is a simple syllogism

      1) A proper government cannot initiate force
      2)Stopping someone on a public thoroughfare is initiating force
      3) A proper government cannot stop someone on a public thoroughfare.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
        A proper government has the interests of its people at heart and not the interest or welfare of the world.

        A border is as legitimate as a fence around my property and the same restrictions apply. Why? Because my property is part of a town, city county and state which, by my consent, authorizes the federal government to legitimately create and defend the border from outsiders seeking entry - a legitimate role. The authority comes from the bottom up.

        Force, I contend, is from the illegal immigrant since he/she is FORCING his way into a place where he/she is not invited. If that person requested and received permission to enter, and there is a process in place, then there would be no issue (no force). It is because of this illegal trespass that this is an issue at all, the reason why an act of force is needed.

        Immigration is not the issue, its invading someplace that is the issue. A sovereign nation has the right to regulate its immigration.

        My conclusion is valid because it is the only true way to actually have property rights and it is also reality.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
          AJ believe your own BS, just don't pretend it has anything to do with Objectivism or the Founding principles of the US
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
            Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness “Collectivized ‘Rights,’”

            A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense) . . . .

            Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.

            Her words not mine. You are wrong.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
              Yes it is amazing you are unable to read or understand basic logic. A group of individuals cannot stop other individual from traveling or trading. Sovereignty does not mean you can stop me at the border - that is initiating violence.

              The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. alt’s Speech,
              For the New Intellectual, 183
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
                So, on our land, building a passive wall, again on our land, and placing 'keep out' signs is force?

                Saying 'Stop' is force?

                "...has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government." Legitimate or otherwise we have a nation and it has legitimately established territorial integrity (please remember that not everyone is an O).

                And you say I'm peddling BS? I'm the one lacking basic logic? Or are you the one hell bent on trying to push a concept?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
                  Duh you are stopping people from traveling on a public thoroughfare
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
                    Your cookie crumbles when you refuse the legitimacy of a national border.

                    Rand said a nation has a right to its territorial integrity for the exact reasons I've explained ad nauseam and yet you refute it?

                    Mentioning a restriction (putting up a sign) is force? Building on land I own is force?

                    Out of respect I won't draw the = sign to what this is, how you aligning yourself. And you can keep taking points if it cathartic, it doesn't change reality.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
                    "Not only the post office, but streets, roads, and above all, schools should all be privately owned and privately run." --Ayn Rand, Playboy Interview

                    In other words, public thoroughfares should not even exist.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
                      You are confused. Private roads would have to allow every person to travel on them freely, unless they are a criminal. Your idea that property rights allow you to do anything you want to your property is childish. Your property rights are limited to the value you created. If I create a baseball bat, that does not allow me to do anything I want to with my bat - for instance hit you in the head.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
                        Re: “Private roads would have to allow every person to travel on them freely, unless they are a criminal.” Please show me anything Ayn Rand ever said that would support such a statement. I doubt that she would. Thousands of private roads exist today that exclude the general public for all kinds of reasons. A “private” road that leaves its owner with no control over its use and access would not be private at all. “The right to property is the right of use and disposal.” --Ayn Rand, The Fascist New Frontier.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
                          This would be a misunderstanding or property rights and Rand never said otherwise. You can charge a fee, but not deny access.

                          Rand would never suggest that private property can be used to make prison. Imagine you position applied to the transcontinental railroad. No one can go north or south over the the railroad. How is that freedom?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
                            I’m looking for a positive statement from Ayn Rand to support your explicit position that “Private roads would have to allow every person to travel on them freely, unless they are a criminal.” Your interpretation of what Ayn Rand would or would not say is not really the same thing. Ayn Rand made it clear many times that “The right to property is the right of use and disposal,” and she explicitly said that roads and streets should be private.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by blackswan 1 month, 1 week ago
                            If you're riding the railroad, you must buy a ticket. Hoboes are thrown off. There is no free ride. Similarly, if you sneak into the country, when there are legal avenues for doing so, you're violating the laws that have been set up for allowing visitors (and those wanting to stay) to enter. If you're snubbing the law, before you even set foot into the country, ipso facto, you're a criminal. BTW, if you're sneaking into the country, it's very unlikely that you have a business arrangement set up.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
                            "You can charge a fee, but not deny access."

                            but not deny access.

                            What you champion is not ownership in reality or philosophically sound (at least outside of socialism and/or communism)

                            If in my time on this earth own something (land) then while I'm here, while I invested my money on said land, and whether or not I put labor into the use of that land, the land is mine to do with as I wish. You, she, or anyone else has no standing to tell me what I can and can't do with my land while I own it and you sure has hell can't pass through without my permission, even for a fee.

                            If the government (state or federal) wants my land they buy it from me or condemn my property as blight and seize it (another matter to discuss). Why buy it from me if I don't own it? If they could simply pass through at will?

                            You may note in Rand quote I used her points were made for "citizens' (aka those who legitimately belong to that society) and not anyone who just happened to want to be there.

                            ps

                            Trans con railroad BOUGHT a lot of land to make those lines, it was legally purchased (sometimes through coercion).
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
                What is amazing that the US fought several (five) wars in part over the right to travel/trade freely.

                Declaration of Independence – Revolutionary War 1) Restricting immigration to the Colonies “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.” 2) Restricting Free Trade/Travel. “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world”

                Barbary Wars This was about the right to travel/trade freely in the Mediterranean

                War of 1812 The US wanted to trade/travel with many nations, particularly France, and the British stopped our ships for no reason – except they were at war.

                WW 1 The US wanted to trade/travel with many nations, particularly England, and the German’s stopped our ships for no reason – except they were at war.

                WW 2 The US wanted to trade/travel with many nations, particularly England, and the German’s stopped our ships for no reason – except they were at war.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                  Your arguments are such stretches they are beneath your level of logic and intelligence and frankly, I'm quite shocked you would put any such out there.

                  The Declaration of Independence complained to King George that the States themselves under their own charters had the right to police immigration and that Parliament and King George were trampling on that grant of power - among many. And Free Trade does not mean Free Travel anywhere in the world under no restrictions whatsoever.

                  The Barbary Wars weren't about free travel. They were about the piracy and forced enslavement of US merchant traders to Islamic pirates. It was about protection of private property and the lives of US citizens in international waters. When Tripoli refused Jefferson's entreaties, Jefferson sent in the Leathernecks and they sacked and occupied Tripoli in response, giving rise to one of the key elements of the Marine's fight song. I would also point out that there was a significant element of religious ideology at play here as well, as the Barbary pirates were Muslim and held that piracy was perfectly acceptable under Islamic law.

                  The War of 1812 was Britain seeing weakness in our political system due to States Rights controversies. A contributing factor most certainly was France's aid to us during the Revolutionary War, but in a twist of politics the US refused to back France in their war with England at that time - to Jefferson's dismay. It started out as a trade war conducted by British-backed privateers impressing American merchant ships' crews, impounding their ships, and stealing their cargo. Then it escalated into an attempt by Britain to conquer the United States one by one. Remember, they pillaged and burned Washington, D.C. But our primary trading party at the time wasn't France, but England itself!

                  WW I was a result of the European politics. We agreed to stay neutral and Germany treated us as such as long as we weren't supplying arms to either Britain or France. The Lusitania was sunk because it was a covert arms shipment. And many argue that it was designed to force the US to get involved in the War. We violated our agreement of neutrality and so Germany retaliated by sinking the arms shipment.

                  WW II was the result of the egregious demands for reparations from WW I by England and France on Germany. Again, we tried to stay neutral for a time, but were forced to join the war after the Japanese bombing of Pearly Harbor. But politically we sided with England and France in the imposition of the WW I reparations, so Germany viewed us as an enemy to begin with - and not without good reason. It didn't help that many of the nations of the world were ruled by dictators and tyrants.

                  But let's not stop there.

                  The Korean War was also a trade war. Oops. No, it was a war of ideology: western democracy and free market economics vs communism. Northern Korea invaded Southern Korea and the US went to the aid of their ally. What is also interesting to note is that much of this war was a proxy war of the United States vs Mao Zedong's Communist Chinese, who had taken control of China because the US failed to get involved in favor of the Chinese Nationalist Party led by Chiang Kai-Shek - a general and ally during WW II. Seeing China lost to Democracy and the spread of the USSR, the US acted to push back against the tide of Communism sweeping across the globe.

                  The Vietnam War was a trade war. Again, no. It started out again as an ideological proxy war between the pro-communist North Vietnamese or Viet Cong (backed again by China and Russia) and the US-backed South Vietnamese. This war ended in disaster because it was prosecuted by politicians instead of military personnel and because of protests led by pro-Communist groups in the US. It ended with the defeat and slaughter of the South Vietnamese after the US pulled out. Only recently did Vietnam regain its position as a free market under a democratic system nearly 40 years later. I would also point out that it was precisely because the politicians didn't want to violate the borders of neighboring Cambodia (where the VC would commonly retreat to) that the war stalled.

                  The Gulf War was a trade war. Maybe, but predominantly it was a US response to a call for aid from aggression. Iraq invaded Kuwait because it wanted the rich oil industry there. But the US already had access to oil from both nations. And the invasion of Iraq left their oil fields burning - hardly exploitable by the conquering American capitalists.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  khalling 1 month, 1 week ago
                    blarman, think through this carefully.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                      Then kindly state your objections. db cited several wars and opined about how they all originated from a single moral cause. I simply corrected him because in all cases (except potentially the Revolutionary War), travel was not the primary cause. Even in the case of the Revolutionary War, travel and trade were two of the seventeen points listed as infringements upon the rights of the Colonists. Others included the right of trial by jury, trial by peers, taxation without representation, quartering of soldiers, and more. db attempts to ignore the others and focus solely on the ones he believes bolster his opinion as if they were the only relevant ones. That's nonsense. Jefferson states very clearly that it was the sumum bonum of all the infractions - not merely one or two - that led to the break-up.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
                    You appear to be incapable of reading. The parts under the Declaration are exact quotes.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                      I didn't object to you citing those as two of the seventeen reasons cited in the Declaration of Independence. I merely corrected you on all your other supposed examples because you erroneously attempted to attribute reasons for those wars when a simple look at history says that these were tertiary results - not causes.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Ed75 1 month, 1 week ago
                Important to recognize here is the concept of "voluntary" and the definition of "ownership" for this "conversation". Public infers "government" where as private infers "Individual".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
            Dale, I cannot believe that you cannot see the flaw in your thinking. Again, if you own something you have all right to regulate it. Deny this you deny private property in all its forms. The Founders, and I'd wager immigrant Rand, supported national borders.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Ed75 1 month, 1 week ago
        I wonder what your definition of "a proper government" is? Your whole discussion depends upon understanding that meaning. What mechanism does a government use to "protect the rights" of it's citizens, if not the threat of overwhelming force?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
          First of all it is not the rights of citizens, it is the rights of anyone in the territory (Jurisdiction) of the government. I have been very clear on point and your little devious slight of hand shows that you are not interested in an honest discussion. You also have no concept of Objectivist political theory or individual or natural rights. Your a collectivist pretending to be interested in freedom. Thanks for being a useful pawn.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Ed75 1 month, 1 week ago
            Would not an "honest" discussion include answering my two questions rather than an incorrect analysis of my motives?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Ed75 1 month ago
              Your failure to define your terms when asked politely, and reverting to the progressive tactic of attacking the person to evade an "honest" discussion is at the very least irritating. It could indicate something much worse but since I don't know you, I won't go there.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by blackswan 1 month, 1 week ago
        This only applies to those who are CITIZENS, people who AGREE to the rules established by that government. If you refuse to agree, then you become a criminal, forfeiting any right to consideration, especially if you're TRESPASSING on someone else's property.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
          You have not read the Constitution and you do not understand the definition of a proper government. The constitution and proper government have to protect the natural rights of all people under there jurisdiction. Although your argument is great if you want to support private slavery.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  edweaver 1 month, 1 week ago
        Dale, I have a question. Isn't a public thoroughfare an initiation of force? I'm not sure about a city, but in Wisconsin, property owners pay tax to the centerline of country roads. And there is no choice which I concluded to be an initiation of force. And also isn't a proper government to gain it's power from the governed?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
          Yes and no. Obviously taxes are the initiation of force. However, if you start to say farm some land that is not owned you have property rights in that land. However, people had the right to travel over that land before you started to farm it. So they have some rights to travel and your right to farm cannot completely cut off that right to travel. Interestingly in ancient Rome the land owners had to maintain the road or people could travel wherever they wanted to. In the US when we had a homesteading act, roads were built into the law. What good would it be to own land, but not able to leave it or transport your goods?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  edweaver 1 month, 1 week ago
            I agree, it is in people's best interest to be able to cross from one place to another. The part that most confuses me is how we could have a country with no borders at all. To me is seems that citizen's have earned the right to travel freely and non-citizen's earn the right to travel by entering through proper channels via a travel visa or approved immigration. What am I missing?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
              Free travel does not mean a country does not have a border. There is a clear border between Nevada and California, but no boarder guards. The same has been true with the US and Canada throughout most of history. The border defines which country has legal jurisdiction, and has nothing to do with border guards.

              A proper government does have different laws for citizens and non-citizens other than potentially the right to vote or hold some political office
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  edweaver 1 month, 1 week ago
                I agree, a proper government doesn't have different laws for citizens and non-citizens, once they use the appropriate channels to get here. The getting here part is the gray area for me. If seems to me a completely wide open, come as you are boarder policy could allow a country to be overrun by anything and everything.

                Could you clarify what you mean by US & Canada? I haven't been to Canada since the 1990's but both times we were scrutinized at the boarder before we could enter. We saw vehicles crossing that had everything laying out on the ground. I guess I don't see that as free travel. Am I confused on their policy?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month, 1 week ago
            Once you work the previously ownerless land and
            make it yours, it's yours. I do think one thing. If a
            bunch of landowners got together around one per-
            son's yard and refused to let him cross any one
            of those pieces of land to get to the store, or to a water source elswhere, etc., this would amount
            to false imprisonment, and so they would be ob-
            ligated to allow him a right-of-way to get back
            and forth (at least to the extent of getting in and
            out)--not necessarily to cross all of their lands,
            but at least to get in and out.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DeanStriker 1 month, 1 week ago
          Now and what would constitute a "proper" government except with such having unlimited powers of Force? This eliminates "citizens" from having any possibility of refusing consent!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DeanStriker 1 month, 1 week ago
      "Sovereignty" is a primary and natural Individual Right. Only with that can man insist upon his Right to Life.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
        Sovereignty is also something bestowed on a government by its people for the express purpose as described by Rand as posted previously (and will again).

        "Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness “Collectivized ‘Rights,’”

        A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense) . . . .

        Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations."

        Whether our country is or isn't functioning within its mandate is another matter (Convention of States) the reality is there is still a nation for the American people, still a border to define our lands and our governing philosophy, and still a throng of people hell bend on violating our territory (including far too many complicit within).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  khalling 1 month, 1 week ago
    This whole post, once again goes to immigration. Asking people to integrate concepts and apply them in other areas. Might be a helpful step here.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
      The reason this happens is that the goal seems, each time, to invalidate national sovereignty in an attempt to allow people to travel wherever they wish, whenever they wish, and regardless of whether some other people claim a land as their own. This is exactly why this philosophical discussion topic reverts to borders each time.

      Denying national sovereignty denies individual ownership (property rights) by telling the "owner" you can't do this with what you possess because others say so.

      I threw into the conversation solely because I find it ironic that Dale posts a solid piece on property rights when he undercuts his argument with the philosophical right to travel.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Kittyhawk 1 month, 1 week ago
        You said, "Denying national sovereignty denies individual ownership (property rights) by telling the "owner" you can't do this with what you possess because others say so." I think it's exactly the opposite. No one in favor of open borders is saying private landowners can't exclude whomever they choose from their own private property. Do I own my property, or does "the government" own it?

        What if I am a property owner near the border, and I have a business -- maybe a restaurant or market -- and I want Mexicans to come shop there without having to apply for immigration? What if I have friends who are Mexican citizens and I want them to come visit me? Having guards at the border preventing my potential customers or friends from coming to my private land is telling me I can't use my property as I see fit. Closed borders violate citizens' rights; open borders allowing access into "the country" at large -- but not to any individual's private property -- cannot violate anyone's legitimate property rights. You do not have a positive right to control the use of my property and exclude my invited guests and customers.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
          then they cross the border with permission, through a valid check point, as they always have to shop and then go home.

          Nothing revolutionary or new there. Also, check out the Bracero program.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
          What if in "the country at large" all property were private, as it would be in an Objectivist society?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Kittyhawk 1 month, 1 week ago
            The owner of each piece of private property is free to decide for himself or herself who may enter. However, there are problems of access, such as otherwise land-locked property, which will have to be addressed. The law currently provides for "easements by necessity," and this seems like a fairly workable solution.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  edweaver 1 month, 1 week ago
    Excellent article! America could move back toward freedom if only people understood what you so well explain in this article. Nice work!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
      Thanks
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 1 month, 1 week ago
        I agree with Ed.
        However, to my chagrin, I have come to believe that the majority of citizens of the USA have no idea as to what freedom is and therefore cannot teach it or implement it. So while I enjoy the discussion and debate, there can be no real implementation until people become knowledgeable in the ways of freedom/liberty.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DeanStriker 1 month, 1 week ago
          All of us have been "preaching" freedom/liberty throughout our sorry lives but no real implementation results.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 1 month, 1 week ago
            In my earlier years, I tried in conversation or debate to explain the nature of freedom and self-reliance. It took me a short while to realize that freedom and self-reliance were way too scary for people that I'd talk to. Rely without any help? Isn't that dog-eat-dog? etc.etc.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by DeanStriker 1 month, 1 week ago
              You got THAT right!
              The older I become, the more muddled my thinking becomes. So today I much prefer writing, because this will at least allow me to check and correct my thoughts. But either way, the communication is not working well toward accomplishing something!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 1 month, 1 week ago
    I believe that "all crime" is a form/version of THEFT. The rights to life, liberty,and property can all be stolen. Murder is the theft of life, robbery is a theft of property, rape is a theft of innocence and free will, slavery is a theft of freedom, etc.

    A THEFT creates a DEBT to the victim.

    The "law" evolved to determine JUSTICE.

    I define JUSTICE in three words: A DEBT PAID.

    Legal processes evolved to determine:
    1. Is there a debt?
    2. What is the debt?
    3. Who is responsible for the debt?
    4. How will the debt be "paid?"
    5, How will the debt payment be enforced/collected?

    The failure of the system to get a debt paid is INJUSTICE.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month, 1 week ago
      That makes it sound as if all crimes (including
      murder and rape) can be paid for with currency, as
      in the case of a civil suit. Some crimes are so
      horrendous that even death is insufficient. (Still,
      I have some reservation about the death penalty
      because of the possibility of executing an inno-
      cent person by mistake).--But it irritates me
      when people deny that they are seeking venge-
      ance. Revenge is a very important part of jus-
      tice. Not the whole of justice, but still a part.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jimjamesjames 1 month, 1 week ago
        Assuming a fact not in evidence, that the word "debt" implies only currency for recompense. Prison sentencing is another option as are hanging and ostracism and a Scarlet Letter.

        My issue is that the system is fair, transparent, open, and not tainted with corruption within the judicial process.

        Most of the cases I've heard that convicted and punished (death sentence) someone, involved judicial corruption within the process. That corruption "stole" something from the person and the sanctity of the system. That "theft" should be punished and anyone convicted of that "theft" should die.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DeanStriker 1 month, 1 week ago
      If Life be "stolen" by murder, it cannot be restored by "law".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jimjamesjames 1 month, 1 week ago
        Not restored, but that is only one option in achieving recompense. I have often thought that "and eye for an eye" should be incorporated into the collection of debts. A person that commits murder has forfeited they right to life: kill'em

        In many cases (the holocaust) the debt can never be paid. You philosophers can deal with that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
    I agree that property rights begin with individual rights. The real question is whether or not individuals delegate to their government the abilities to protect those rights. The Founders argued that they absolutely could, and that this was the primary function of good government. Where the article trails off is in acknowledging that the Founders also agreed that part of Natural Rights were their extension as delegated through good government: national protection of individual property rights through the Armed Forces. They recognized that foreigners who wanted to come to the United States were subject to Immigration policies strictly and explicitly granted to Congress to oversee. They recognized that national boundaries were part and parcel of the establishment of government and that the individual States and their Peoples were entitled to self-rule until and unless they joined to form a "United" States in which they agreed to let some governmental power to the Federal government - including territorial rights, right of entry into the Union, etc. The entire notion of a State specifically denotes positively-asserted national boundaries over which a governing body has been granted authority to protect and ensure rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 month, 1 week ago
      Really? Where? The fact is that there were essentially no rules about immigration in the US until the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?...

      A little knowledge would go a long way
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
        You are correct: a little knowledge would go a long way.

        Look at the Articles of Confederation. In those, each of the States was treated according to how they saw themselves: as separate, sovereign entities or States. They had all the same legal authority as France or Britain within their geographical areas. That was why when they formed the Articles of Confederation, each State had a single vote - they were treated by each other as sovereign nations - not as part of some indiscriminate (national) whole. In very fact the word confederation is taken from a compounding of sovereign nations - not merely an amalgam under a single national head. That was also why when they were given the Constitution to ratify, the States were left to themselves as to how to either ratify or disassociate.

        I would also note that the States themselves codified their own immigration rules. Massachusetts wrote into its own Constitution (which pre-dates the Constitution) a denial of slavery - and slaves were imported (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit.... Just because the entire body of Confederated States did not agree on a single policy which applied to all of them prior to the Chinese Exclusion Act did not mean that the individual States had not already taken upon themselves the rights and obligations of sovereignty defined by specific geographic boundaries.

        Yet another example I would submit is the existence of various extradition treaties between the States up to and even following ratification of the Constitution. The very notion of extradition for crimes wholly hinges upon sovereignty within geographical boundaries and recognized jurisdictional authority.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  kddr22 1 month, 1 week ago
    "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal right of others. I do not add"within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violated the rights of the individual." Thomas Jefferson
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 1 month, 1 week ago
    It is a simple concept and implemented with little effort or control. The problem with living thus is that almost all people prefer slavery. They subscribe to either the will of theocracy or the will of the state believing it will provide because they don't want to believe that they must provide for themselves. From that premise flows all the regulations and authority that people believe that all must be subject too. The socialists will never leave the libertines alone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo