Yeah, (considered antiquated?) stuff old dino began to be taught in elementary school.
Guess that isn't done anymore.

No, No, No! they should all attend a semester course learning American Civics before becoming a candidate for a congressional office.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TjmH...

Are you sure you are old enough to meet the terms of use?

I'm sure you do not meet the spirit of the forum.

I do look forward to making you cry more often.

Oh, boo-hoo-hoo!

Did I hurt your little feelings? For that I do not care.

Do not blame me for your failure to make an argument that you can defend. This forum is based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Objectivism.

Thank you for your compliment but it is really undeserved. It is not my superiority that is the question but your choice to remain ignorant of that which is available to be known. I have spent the time needed to be where I am not whining.

You're too insulting to play with.
Bray in triumph over your vast superiority.
Like I could care..

Watched it, no I read it. Do I need to question your language skills?

"LAW. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which
phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens, subject to sanctions or legal consequences, is a "law." Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705.

In old English jurisprudence, "law" is used to
signify an oath, or the privilege of being sworn;
as in the, phrases "to wage one's law," "to lose
one's law."

The term is also used in opposition to "fact."
Thus questions of law are to be decided by the
court, while it is the province of the jury to solve
questions of fact." - Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 1968.

So which of these slave definitions are you referring to? I believe it would be the third, opposition to facts.

The article contains no law, just statutes and statutes are not law, just the prohibitions of man opposing real law in opposition to facts, real law.

No excuse for you, none at all. It's called ignorance which is a choice to ignore that which is. More than likely based on refusal to address that which one does not want to be true.
What law is stated?

Me dino thinks you picked the right moniker.
Did you even watch this? The law is here stated.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/33850/...
Excuse me while I go around in circles acting like a stooge. Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo!

Your argument is becoming circular. So what are you trying to project, that immigrants are illegal unless that come with or are children?

Anchor babies, is that babies with anchors around their necks? What do we do with them, chuck them in the lake to see if they are witches?

Who doesn't belong here? I'm sure the native Indians thought the same of you and your ancestors, so who is right?

As Hank Reardon said to his government stooge, "Someday your going to have to decide which side you are on." I say the same to you, you can;t have it both ways.

What laws are you talking about? Those arranged by some 57 demigods who declared they had a right to rule?

Kids are not at fault for being brought in--some actually sent in unsupervised like that invasion of children Nutty Nancy happily proclaimed to be "an opportunity."
Some dreamers are anchor babies. Don't think I need to explain their purpose.
My heart goes out to the kids and to those who reached adulthood knowing only our culture.
I think humane concessions should be offered to innocents. But not their chains of grown relatives.
Everyone else who doesn't belong here, well, they don't belong here.
Can't obey US laws like a grownup should? Bye!

no

Really, then please explain the Dreamers and the other alleged 120 million people here without visas.

The main issue is that term illegal, a dictate of man not of nature or nature's god.

Still begging the question are you?

Relevance, you made a claim which you seem unable to prove so you use logical fallacies to deflect. Is that also your definition of Objectivism?

Objectivism was the central philosophy of Ayn Rand, not subjectivism. Are you living life for others being their apologist?

I care not about the ignorance of others, I don't have to stoop to that level. If they lie on the ground, they must be doormats and deserve to be walked upon.

There is no "simplistically" when it comes to rights, you either know what they are or you don't have them. I leave belief systems to believers.


So by your logic of foreigners are non-citizens then are all non-citizens foreigners?

"CITIZEN. A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas,) possessing ll the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties. "Citizens" are members of community inspired to common goal, who, in associated relations, submit themselves to rules of conduct for the promotion of general welfare and conservation of individual as well as collective rights. In re McIntosh, D.C.Wash., 12 F. Supp. 177." - Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 1968.

Collective rights infer the rule of the mob, slave and master. I'm not a slave and have no master on this earth. By what right can you claim to be a god and determine who can or can not be where?

By the way the Chinese own a large part of California and other states not to mention some of the largest buildings in New York. Are you saying they have no right to the property they own?

We and them is a belief system better left to believers.

And on top of that, there is that law that anyone who enters the USA illegally is an illegal alien subject to arrest and deportation. Period.

Well, I would agree that a lack of a clear definition, or listing, of Rights is a major problem amongst the general public and therefore amongst our elected officials.

That you may be clear in your distinction between what you refer to as rights as opposed to privileges does not mean that others are.

I am thinking much more simplistically than you are, I believe.
A citizen is an agreed upon member of a country. A foreigner is a non-citizen. Simple as that.
In my opinion, foreigners do not have a Right to be in the USA. We, per agreed upon laws, allow them to enter and be here. It is a privilege that we have given them - it is not their Right.
This is equally true for me regarding other countries. I like being able to go to Italy, but I have no fundamental Right to go there.

Logical fallacy? Stretching for relevance, aren't you?

What is a foreigner? Your ancestors?

No one has more rights than another, no one!!! What you are trying to state are privileges where your pull determines who has what privileges, the sign of tyranny. I will go out feet first before I bow to slavery.

Who says? Only a slave must bow to a master, I'm not a slave.Step on my toes and we litigate.

I love the concept of the legal system and am very adapt in using it.

I would say one of us knows the meanings and the other is but begging the question, a failure in logic normally referred to so a logical fallacy.

Interesting, yet in modern times even the public areas are highly restricted. The norm is you can not do anything unless you have a license or authorization of some kind. I do not feel "free" as should be the case.
The Government acts as if it owns the land even if it is private.

I'm too old (and bored) to waste time arguing meanings (and variations thereof) when we both know the meaning of the words.

But Ayn Rand was a statist that blocked her from seeing the true causation of the effects she say manifesting. First her father, a middle class pharmacist at the time of the communist revolution where young Ayn got to experience the true tyranny of a communist takeover and then to escape to the US where to her horror this country was in the throws of being another Russia. While she does portray government at it's worse and inaccurately portrayed big business as the victims when in reality they are the order followers, without them the state would not be capable of much of it's theft.

Experience is a horrible teacher but necessary when one refuses to learn history as you have pointed out in your quote, "it's form of government". There is but one form of government, circular. The stage of this circular form depends on the morality of the population. A republic degrades to a democracy to socialism to collectivism (fascism or communism are the rulers not the form).

But her philosophy of Objectivism is a very powerful philosophy one should integrate into their lives. One would also be wise to understand the maxim of law in regards to order followers.

You are perfectly right that it applies to the commons but you misunderstand the maxim of law of the commons. It does recognize the right to private property that is the whole basis of free man. What is in question is the land, do you actually own it?

As stated by John Locke in "Second Treatise on Government":

"God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience. The earth and all that is therein is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And though all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of Nature, and nobody has originally a private dominion exclusive of the rest of mankind in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state, yet being given for the use of men, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial, to any particular men. The fruit or venison which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no enclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his- i.e., a part of him, that another can no longer have any right to it before it can do him any good for the support of his life."

So long as there is a path to travel then there is no right to enter private property. Where there are large tracts of land then passage is permitted so long as nothing is taken and the only thing left is footprints.

However that also instills rights, the right to defend what is yours. But before violence is used, the offender must first be asked to leave, if not then you have the right to arrest and have police transport to magistrate where you press charges for trespass.

But there are millions of acres that are of the commons not to mention the millions of miles of roads and right of ways to get there.