States' rights vs the Constitution

[P3ter_Griffin]

You guys are a bit over my head at this point, but I must ask; what is different between what Spooner wrote:

Section III
Although it is the right of anybody and everybody---of any one man, or set of men, no less than another---to repel injustice, and compel justice, for themselves, and for all who may be wronged, yet to avoid the errors that are liable to result from haste and passion, and that everybody, who desires it, may rest secure in the assurance of protection, without a resort to force, it is evidently desirable that men should associate, so far as they freely and voluntarily can do so, for the maintenance of justice among themselves, and for mutual protection against other wrong-doers. It is also in the highest degree desirable that they should agree upon some plan or system of judicial proceedings, which, in the trial of causes, should secure caution, deliberation, thorough investigation, and, as far as possible, freedom from every influence but the simple desire to do justice.

Yet such associations can be rightful and desirable only in so far as they are purely voluntary. No man can rightfully be coerced into joining one, or supporting one, against his will. His own interest, his own judgement, and his own conscience alone must determine whether he will join this association, or that; or whether he will join any. If he chooses to depend, for the protection of his own rights, solely upon himself, and upon such voluntary assistance as other persons may freely offer to him when the necessity for it arises, he has a perfect right to do so. And this course would be a reasonably safe one for him to follow, so long as he himself should manifest the ordinary readiness of mankind, in like cases, to go to the assistance and defence of injured persons; and should also himself "live honestly, hurt no one, and give to every one his due." For such a man is reasonably sure of always giving friends and defenders enough in case of need, whether he shall have joined any association, or not.

Certainly no man can rightfully be required to join, or support, an association whose protection he does not desire. Nor can any man be reasonably or rightfully expected to join, or support, any association whose plans, or method of proceeding, he does not approve, as likely to accomplish its professed purpose of maintaining justice, and at the same time itself avoid doing injustice. To join, or support, one that would, in his opinion, be inefficient, would be absurd. To join or support one that, in his opinion, would itself do injustice, would be criminal. He must, therefore, be left at the same liberty to join, or not to join, an association for this purpose, as for any other, according as his own interest, discretion, or conscience shall dictate.

An association for mutual protection against injustice is like an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. And there is no more right or reason in compelling any man to join or support one of these associations, against his will, his judgement, or his conscience, than there is in compelling him to join or support any other, whose benefits (if it offer any) he does not want, or whose purposes or methods he does not approve

and what Natural Citizen has presented? If the presented Republic is funded voluntarily, which is seems like as presented -with its focus on the individual- that it would be, I really cannot see a difference myself.

[osan]

A state can do whatever it wants so long as it doesnt violate the Constitution, is that correct?

Hell froogin' no. Where would anyone get such a foolish idea?

"States" are not, in and of themselves, extant. They have no reality of their own apart from that of the minds of the individuals that hold this concept. Being materially insubstantial in even the least measure, a non-existent "state" can have no rights, per sé. Therefore, all this talk of "states' rights" is pure nonsense, referring to a thing or condition that has never existed and never will, barring a fundamental redefinition of "state", which in itself would bear no change upon the meanings of the discussions we have had in this world prior to such a redefinition.

Practically speaking, "state" is naught more than a script in which people assume roles and do their acts in accord with the written word. This is by its very nature arbitrary and therefore wholly invalid because there is nothing to prevent the script from being re/written to violate and destroy some at the hands of others. It is a formula most dangerous and fraught with jittering insanity while daring to don the mantle of the moral high-ground and girded with ostensive "good intentions". We have watched for at least 8,000 years just how well good intentions work out, which is to say they never do in the final analysis.

The optimal solution is pure freedom, which perforce negates the existence of the biggest lie ever told: the "state".

[Natural Citizen]

You guys are a bit over my head at this point, but I must ask; what is different between what Spooner wrote:

The contradiction occurs as a result of differing views on where rights actually come from. As a result of the contradiction of the primary fundamental principle of Natural Law, we're left with a Man-over-God versus God-over-Man scenario in terms of Man-To-Man relations as they relate to Government philosophy.

There is much to say about this.

[osan]

Seems like the confusion here comes from ignoring the fundamental difference between a Republic and a Democracy within the context of the initial question.

In this one sentence you have somewhat obliquely demonstrated one of the invalidating qualities of any "state" or "government" (the two being effectively interchangeable terms): One should not have to understand what at times may become the subtle and arcane differences between one form of tyranny and another (all "governments" or "states" are tyrannical, the only question striking at the degree and precise nature). The fact that so many people are so easily confused and ultimately bamboozled by these differences; taken in by the seamlessly smooth lies and deceit of the peddlers; that should tell one all they need to know about the fundamental nature of "the state".

All that the people need to know, value, and want is "freedom": what it is, what it is not, and the vanishingly small restrictions placed upon the individual based upon recognition of the equal rights of others. Educate well the people in these two considerations such that each holds true mastery of them and no carpet-bagger would be able to dissuade any man from his rights. Leave men free to slay and otherwise punish those who trespass upon them and the world would settle into a far better groove, so to speak, for all would eventually take well to heart the counsel of danger, as well as that of prosperity. It is the classic "stick and carrot" game and it is as close to perfect as human things become. But it demands its price, and far too many people are unwilling to pay, preferring the illusion of getting that which they crave at no cost to themselves. This corruption is the basis for nearly all our current troubles and we would do well to excise this cancer from among ourselves.

[P3ter_Griffin]

The contradiction occurs as a result of differing views on where rights actually come from. As a result of the contradiction of the primary fundamental principle of Natural Law, we're left with a Man-over-God versus God-over-Man scenario in terms of Man-To-Man relations as they relate to Government philosophy.

There is much to say about this.

Thank you, this helps me get on the same page so I can better understand the discussion.

[Natural Citizen]

The optimal solution is pure freedom...

Can you make a case that pure freedom won't undermine the safety of Individual Liberty and God-given, unalienable rights against violation?

Actually, scratch that. I see you've mentioned something with regard to it in post #34. I'll read over that.

[Natural Citizen]

Thank you, this helps me get on the same page so I can better understand the discussion.

Is just a moral conundrum is all. Except that it creates conflicting virtue in terms of Man-To-Man relations as they relate to Government philosophy.

That's an important term, by the way. Virtue. It could be said that the most profound, and likely the most generally unrecognized, threat to Individual liberty comes as a result of the slow erosion of virtue.

[Natural Citizen]

Leave men free to slay and otherwise punish those who trespass upon them and the world would settle into a far better groove, so to speak, for all would eventually take well to heart the counsel of danger, as well as that of prosperity.

By that standard, it seems that Justice would become a commodity. That could be equally tyrannical. You're talking about a wild west scenario here. That's dangerous, too. But you're talking about an indivisible whole, too. Which, as was mentioned, must either be accepted or rejected in order to receive its benefits. So, then, what would you surmise to be the underlying principle of this indivisible whole? You can't really say non-agression since you've mentioned that men should be free to slay in order to establish prosperity.

[osan]

The contradiction occurs as a result of differing views on where rights actually come from. As a result of the contradiction of the primary fundamental principle of Natural Law, we're left with a Man-over-God versus God-over-Man scenario in terms of Man-To-Man relations as they relate to Government philosophy.

There is much to say about this.

Such a contradiction arises ONLY as the result of stone-ignorance of the basics.

Firstly, the source of rights is less relevant than one might think, save for the outlandishly ignorant assertion that they evolve from the "state", or some equivalently nonsensical notion.

Whether "God" endowed us with rights is immaterial to the fact that our rights inhere from the nature of our relationships to one another. The solitary man is as God in the most practical terms. He can do as he pleases, any time he fancies to do so, and never worry about repercussions beyond things akin to setting himself on fire and the sort.

Add one other individual to the mix and everything changes. It is one thing to strike one's own finger with a stone, but quite another to do so to one's fellow, particularly without his knowledge and consent. THAT is where the basis of our rights arises as such, where the notion was begotten because the solitary Adam has no need for such ideas because of his status as effective God of all he sees and experiences.

The solitary Adam, by whatever virtue, had born into him the desire to continue his life, thereby giving rise to a claim to that life, which is rightly his own. The appearance of Eve almost certainly made no change in that claim; nay, it may have indeed bolstered it greatly, especially after the "wedding night". Wanting so much to do a LOT more of that would almost certainly further cement and invigorate Adam's claim to life. Eve, likely finding herself in the same position, certainly after the passage of that pleasant soreness, would also be even more inclined to claim that which was born into her: life itself.

This is all in our nature as men and whether it sources from a particular definition of "God", a different one, or something else, the one thing we CAN say is that it does NOT source from any given man or body thereof, however constituted and regardless of purport, for any to that effect is a filthy lie. Something beyond men has endowed those men with their lives and the urge, the claim, to them. In this, we are all of us precisely equal each to all the others. It is this truth about the equality of all men that no socialist or other would-be usurper of mens' rights can defeat, for to attempt it requires the acceptance of assumptions so wildly and obviously false that no man worth 1% of his guano could accept them, much less would.

When one understands the truer nature of human equality - what it is and what it is not, all contradictions vanish.

I assert that contradictions arise due to flaws in our mental constructs and not due to material conflicts in the material world. When an apparent contradiction presents, know ye well that the source lies in your thoughts and not "out there". This was the lesson I learned as a physics major. All the seemingly contradictory aspects of quanta caused my inadequate brain too profound a violence. They supposedly exist, and yet so does the world. The flaw, it became apparent to me one day, had to be in the ways in which we think about things, or perhaps that we have with these issues wandered into a section of God's petri dish never intended for mens' visitation. And as a result, perhaps "God" has put certain brakes upon us that limit our ability to see that which rests beyond the ephemeral veil. And perhaps it is just as well.

That last bit aside, IMO there are no contradictions that are valid, for the world is here and it works rather well, men being the apparently sole source of cluster-copulation. Only men stooge and bugger things up so neatly as we tend. Perhaps it is all good, but what if it is not? What if we truly have gone off the plantation so far that we now stand in real danger of being eaten by things against which we have no defense?

Mind is EVERYTHING, IMO. It leads us to harmony or to destruction. The choice is usually ours and for whatever reason we seem to choose the latter far more frequently than I would have ever imagined as a child.

The point is that our rights are inherent, rather than given. It is part of the nature of what we are in the context of our fellows. Rights speak directly and irrevocably to human relations, for in solo they mean nothing as there is no need to even think about such things. Therefore, being each of us perfectly equal to all others in our claims to life, it follows perforce that no man holds a greater claim to his own life than does another to theirs. Nor does any man hold a greater claim to the life of another than does that other to their own, if we can even say one can hold claim to the lives of their fellows (a discussion for another day)

I validly claim my own life. You validly claim yours. They, theirs. What then is the valid basis for one group of men to lay claims of power over the lives of other men? I assert that there is no such valid basis because AFAICS, any such claim is by its very nature arbitrary, rendering it as bull-dinkey fit for naught more than fertilizing the tomato plants. Any man claiming authority over me and wishing to be taken seriously must first produce before me his valid basis for such authority. "The Law" is no such basis, and the other candidates I have seen are even weaker tea. But my mind remains open. Show me the convincing basis and I will yield. Before that, I stand as stone, immovable and unwilling.

A great key in understanding one's liberty is to understand the nature of one's rights. Few understand it beyond "God gave 'em to me", which is easily refuted when one demands demonstration. Whereas that approach and understanding fails, my approach is unassailable. God is a clever little devil, and endlessly kind in that He gave unto us all the means of divining the truer nature of our places in this world that require no faith in His existence. This is a gift beyond all gifts, IMO. God has been so kind and humble that He stood aside and gave us the ability to discover basic truths about ourselves without having to resort to relying upon the exposure of He who has perhaps no desire to come directly out into the light, as that would destroy the mystery of life, and thereby the fun of living.

Think on that awhile, and I believe you may see the truth in it.

I do firmly believe that we have been equipped with everything we need to live wildly prosperous lives. The ONLY thing that gets in our way is us. How stupid is that?

[Ronin Truth]

States dont have rights, only individuals do. Governments have powers and can dole out privileges.

And incorrectly call those privileges 'rights'.

[Ronin Truth]

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

[osan]

Natural Law by Lysander Spooner (essay)

I've not read the entirety, but I seem to agree strongly with the core message. I do not, however, agree with the written style, which has its semantic problems. Clarity is a big issue with me and in some places I would say there would be reasonable cause for a rewrite.

Otherwise, what I have thus read seems agreeable to the extent that it is complete, clear, and correct.

[Natural Citizen]

Such a contradiction arises ONLY as the result of stone-ignorance of the basics.

Firstly, the source of rights is less relevant than one might think, save for the outlandishly ignorant assertion that they evolve from the "state", or some equivalently nonsensical notion.

Whether "God" endowed us with rights is immaterial to the fact that our rights inhere from the nature of our relationships to one another. The solitary man is as God in the most practical terms. He can do as he pleases, any time he fancies to do so, and never worry about repercussions beyond things akin to setting himself on fire and the sort.

Add one other individual to the mix and everything changes. It is one thing to strike one's own finger with a stone, but quite another to do so to one's fellow, particularly without his knowledge and consent. THAT is where the basis of our rights arises as such, where the notion was begotten because the solitary Adam has no need for such ideas because of his status as effective God of all he sees and experiences.

The solitary Adam, by whatever virtue, had born into him the desire to continue his life, thereby giving rise to a claim to that life, which is rightly his own. The appearance of Eve almost certainly made no change in that claim; nay, it may have indeed bolstered it greatly, especially after the "wedding night". Wanting so much to do a LOT more of that would almost certainly further cement and invigorate Adam's claim to life. Eve, likely finding herself in the same position, certainly after the passage of that pleasant soreness, would also be even more inclined to claim that which was born into her: life itself.

This is all in our nature as men and whether it sources from a particular definition of "God", a different one, or something else, the one thing we CAN say is that it does NOT source from any given man or body thereof, however constituted and regardless of purport, for any to that effect is a filthy lie. Something beyond men has endowed those men with their lives and the urge, the claim, to them. In this, we are all of us precisely equal each to all the others. It is this truth about the equality of all men that no socialist or other would-be usurper of mens' rights can defeat, for to attempt it requires the acceptance of assumptions so wildly and obviously false that no man worth 1% of his guano could accept them, much less would.

When one understands the truer nature of human equality - what it is and what it is not, all contradictions vanish.

I assert that contradictions arise due to flaws in our mental constructs and not due to material conflicts in the material world. When an apparent contradiction presents, know ye well that the source lies in your thoughts and not "out there". This was the lesson I learned as a physics major. All the seemingly contradictory aspects of quanta caused my inadequate brain too profound a violence. They supposedly exist, and yet so does the world. The flaw, it became apparent to me one day, had to be in the ways in which we think about things, or perhaps that we have with these issues wandered into a section of God's petri dish never intended for mens' visitation. And as a result, perhaps "God" has put certain brakes upon us that limit our ability to see that which rests beyond the ephemeral veil. And perhaps it is just as well.

That last bit aside, IMO there are no contradictions that are valid, for the world is here and it works rather well, men being the apparently sole source of cluster-copulation. Only men stooge and bugger things up so neatly as we tend. Perhaps it is all good, but what if it is not? What if we truly have gone off the plantation so far that we now stand in real danger of being eaten by things against which we have no defense?

Mind is EVERYTHING, IMO. It leads us to harmony or to destruction. The choice is usually ours and for whatever reason we seem to choose the latter far more frequently than I would have ever imagined as a child.

The point is that our rights are inherent, rather than given. It is part of the nature of what we are in the context of our fellows. Rights speak directly and irrevocably to human relations, for in solo they mean nothing as there is no need to even think about such things. Therefore, being each of us perfectly equal to all others in our claims to life, it follows perforce that no man holds a greater claim to his own life than does another to theirs. Nor does any man hold a greater claim to the life of another than does that other to their own, if we can even say one can hold claim to the lives of their fellows (a discussion for another day)

I validly claim my own life. You validly claim yours. They, theirs. What then is the valid basis for one group of men to lay claims of power over the lives of other men? I assert that there is no such valid basis because AFAICS, any such claim is by its very nature arbitrary, rendering it as bull-dinkey fit for naught more than fertilizing the tomato plants. Any man claiming authority over me and wishing to be taken seriously must first produce before me his valid basis for such authority. "The Law" is no such basis, and the other candidates I have seen are even weaker tea. But my mind remains open. Show me the convincing basis and I will yield. Before that, I stand as stone, immovable and unwilling.

A great key in understanding one's liberty is to understand the nature of one's rights. Few understand it beyond "God gave 'em to me", which is easily refuted when one demands demonstration. Whereas that approach and understanding fails, my approach is unassailable. God is a clever little devil, and endlessly kind in that He gave unto us all the means of divining the truer nature of our places in this world that require no faith in His existence. This is a gift beyond all gifts, IMO. God has been so kind and humble that He stood aside and gave us the ability to discover basic truths about ourselves without having to resort to relying upon the exposure of He who has perhaps no desire to come directly out into the light, as that would destroy the mystery of life, and thereby the fun of living.

Think on that awhile, and I believe you may see the truth in it.

I do firmly believe that we have been equipped with everything we need to live wildly prosperous lives. The ONLY thing that gets in our way is us. How stupid is that?

I'm going to pick through this and try to respond to individuial points you've tried to make, osan. for the moment, though, I do maintain that Man is of divine origin and that any Man-to-Man relationship is a product of the fundamental principle of a God-to-Man relationship. I thought that post #24 did a great job at explaining it in a much better way that I. Skimming through your thoughts here, it seems like you're minimizing the principle.

As I said, though, I'll pick through this and respond accordingly.

[Natural Citizen]

I've not read the entirety, but I seem to agree strongly with the core message. I do not, however, agree with the written style, which has its semantic problems. Clarity is a big issue with me and in some places I would say there would be reasonable cause for a rewrite.

Otherwise, what I have thus read seems agreeable to the extent that it is complete, clear, and correct.

Nope. I disagree. What Spooner did is precisely what you did in your previous posting. You've minimized the spiritual completely out of relevance to the primary fundamental principle of Natural Law. And I've shared my thoughts on that deception previously here. Like Spooner, you've stimulated the illusion of a Man-over-God philosophy in terms of Man-to-Man relations and government philosophy. Which, to my content, negates the need to pick through you're thoughts there in the previous posting.

That said, and given that we disagree on the primary fundamental principles of Natural Law, it is by that disagreement that we also disagree on the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty.

It is imperitive to understand where rights come from. And this is an example of exactly why.

[osan]

Can you make a case that pure freedom won't undermine the safety of Individual Liberty and God-given, unalienable rights against violation?

Actually, scratch that. I see you've mentioned something with regard to it in post #34. I'll read over that.

Insofar as a guarantee is concerned, I cannot. Nothing can guarantee absolutely against chaos. But optimal insurance can be reasonably assured as it is in the nature of men to be peaceable. When all are well equipped to destroy the other, each man is given great cause to re-think the wisdom of mugging his neighbor.

One of the costs of pure freedom is the explicit acceptance that there are no guarantees of anything. There are none in any case, so why fool oneself about it? Just accept the truth, which is with you no matter how you may attempt to ignore its presence, and move on with the benefits of freedom, which are many.

Look at what we have now, under this sham of a "free nation": people still murdering one another, robbing, beating, raping. Such existed in Soviet Russia amid draconian punishment. It exists today in red China, despite VERY draconian penalties. Security can never be guaranteed, but only optimized, and that can only occur where men are free to see to their own better interests. We have had, as a species, endless examples of how the other fails. One would think this would have been enough by now.

Apparently not.

[osan]

Nope. I disagree. What Spooner did is precisely what you did in your previous posting. You minimized the spiritual completely out of relevance to Natural Law. And I've shared my thoughts on that previously here. Like Spooner, you've stimulared the illusion of a Man-over-God philosophy.

I have done nothing of the sort. I have done the precise opposite. I have shown that God's gift is so great that he put our welfare before any humanly purported need for "glory" and "praise". I have elevated God to a position most Christians, for example, could never hope to accept because it chafes with certain preconceptions about "God", which IMO reduce God to something almost mere. I don't do that because I've done the proctological exam on Him and it put me to rights about my place v. that of the eternal. I cannot explain the experience to you, save to say it was unforgettable and something of hairy. Once there, your perspective takes on a new shine and one becomes very reticent to make too many claims in the name of God precisely because you now realize that when you utter "God", you have absolutely no idea of what it is you are speaking. It is so beyond you, the best is to simply STFU, pay attention, and stop trying to convince yourself and/or others that you have the first clue as to who or what "God" is.

But I CAN speak to manifestations, and the fact that we can derive the nature of our rights without having to invoke God DIRECTLY, is for me evidence of a grace and kindness beyond that which any religious man I have ever met has made apparently his own in terms of his understanding of "God". This $#@! gets pretty hairy and wild, so I would suggest you take nothing too much to heart because it is so VERY easy for us to be on the same page and yet not see it as we talk right past each other. I think we are closer to agreement than you are currently seeing, so perhaps it is best we not get too involved in argumentation on this point. What say ye?

[Ronin Truth]

"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

[Natural Citizen]

I have done nothing of the sort. I have done the precise opposite. I have shown that God's gift is so great that he put our welfare before any humanly purported need for "glory" and "praise". I have elevated God to a position most Christians, for example, could never hope to accept because it chafes with certain preconceptions about "God", which IMO reduce God to something almost mere. I don't do that because I've done the proctological exam on Him and it put me to rights about my place v. that of the eternal. I cannot explain the experience to you, save to say it was unforgettable and something of hairy. Once there, your perspective takes on a new shine and one becomes very reticent to make too many claims in the name of God precisely because you now realize that when you utter "God", you have absolutely no idea of what it is you are speaking. It is so beyond you, the best is to simply STFU, pay attention, and stop trying to convince yourself and/or others that you have the first clue as to who or what "God" is.

But I CAN speak to manifestations, and the fact that we can derive the nature of our rights without having to invoke God DIRECTLY, is for me evidence of a grace and kindness beyond that which any religious man I have ever met has made apparently his own in terms of his understanding of "God". This $#@! gets pretty hairy and wild, so I would suggest you take nothing too much to heart because it is so VERY easy for us to be on the same page and yet not see it as we talk right past each other. I think we are closer to agreement than you are currently seeing, so perhaps it is best we not get too involved in argumentation on this point. What say ye?

Here is the thing. People read this stuff. And, respectfully, most aren't going to recognize primary underlying conflicts of interest once the discussion becomes about personal benefits of an ideology and material things. So I think it is critical that when contradictions are inserted (especially with regard to the fundamental principle of Natural Law) that it immediately be acknowledged that they were inserted. Spooner inserted a strategic contradiction there. A majorly deceptive one, too. An ends justify the means scenario followed. I disagree with the means. That's our disagreement. In science (as Spooner premised his case for Natural Law) men are certainly of the position to hypothesize and to make attempts to determine truths themselves. In that way, they are of the arbitrary position to change the rules that define the terms of controversy. The spiritual...God's Law (true Natural Law), however, is not up for hypothesizing by men. And man is not of the position to change the fundamental principles of Natural Law to something that is more suiting to his want or his preferred terms of controversy. Not even if he thinks he is. He isn't. Nor will he ever be.

Which, again, was why I'd mentioned to Ronin to give specific attention to the underlined there in post #24. The underlined, effectively, is why I disagree with the means.



Again...what Spooner (as well as subsequent trustees in his path of reason) neglects and strategically contradict by way of his arbitrary view of the primary fundamental principle of Natural Law is correctly described here....

The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.

This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.
　
The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.


This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.

It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.
Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.

This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.

To be fair, though, I also referenced your Cardinal Postulate some place around here in the thread, too. Mainly because I knew we'd get to it. And here we are.

[osan]

...

Natural Law... TRUE (God's) Natural Law... very tricky linguistic/semantic tidbits my friend.

Put 100 people into a room and teach them God's Natural Law and I promise that you will have at least 101 differing understandings of it. Even if God had a very specific meaning in words written by Hisownself on paper, it would avail Him nothing in terms of human consistency in understanding/perception because He created the animal and his language such that perfect uniform lockstep is not possible. This makes perfect sense to me because such consistency would be BORING AS ALL HELL.

There's lots of wiggle room in such notions and the words that convey them, probably at least in part because it makes life far more interesting.

I would also note that even if man is naught more than a God-artifact, he is still part of God and therefore anything he contrives is of God, if only indirectly. Not trying to turn this into yet another religious debate, but only attempting to make clear that our ignorance is generally vast, as are the possibilities where notions such as "God" are concerned. Just look outward to the quasars and everything in between them and ourselves. It is incomprehensibly large and, dare I say it, miraculous. I simply refuse to pin anything definite to the label "God" in the general when I can claim no such authority to do so. I've caught a glimpse of that thing and it right-sized me at age four and I've remained there ever since, rightly or otherwise.

Our rights inhere from the nature of being alive and wanting to remain that way. This is why we claim life. The claim is part and parcel of who and what we are, by whatever virtue of happenstance. That is the part that cannot be argued. The "God" part, can be, if for no other reason than there is no sufficient definition of the concept. To say "God is the creator of everything" tells me next to nothing about the specifics of what "God" is, where "God" came from, what "God" may want, whether "God" knows I exist, whether "God" could care less about me, and so on down a very long list of possible questions. All these questions and other considerations regarding "God" can be argued this way or that and nothing you might contrive is likely to change an atheist's views on such matters. But no man with the least rationality about him can deny the claim to life. It is fact that makes itself manifest in the lives of ever human being on the planet, every single day. We eat, crap, endeavor to certain sorts of action all for the sake of securing our claims to life. Why do I carry a firearm everywhere I go? Partly as a means of defending my claim to life in the event another attempts to wrest that claim from me.

Therefore, while the personal belief in God as endowing us with our claim to life is perfectly agreeable to me, it is repugnant to others and some of those are very adept at validly arguing against that particular position. My approach, OTOH, cannot be successfully assailed because I begin with a premise that cannot be rejected without one making a fool of himself. And I personally credit that clever little tidbit of argumentation not to myself, but to God as His gift to all of us that we may with logic and reason beat the living snot out of those whose narrow views of things lead them to the brands of ignorant hubris that I believe we both find absurd and perhaps annoying.

It is my view that truth comes to us at times in rather unexpected ways. I acknowledge that I may be wrong on that point, but as yet I do not see it.

[Natural Citizen]

Well, it's not just another religious debate. There has never been a discusion like this on the board that I can recall whereas the fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy was discussed appropriately. So often people see religious speak and default to minimizing it of their own accord. Generally, I understand why. But not in this particular discussion. A critical agreement in terms of this primary fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy, I think, must be met. After all, it's the primary fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy.

But I'm afraid that I cannot agree with your premise here. Seems like you're offering a worldly perspective to the primary fundamental principle. And that's very dangerous. To be clear, it's your premise that I cannot accept. But that's me personally. As an Individual. I can't accept that the end justifies contratictory means.

Now, I understand why you take this approach. As it is, people are merely people. And easily led most often. But coercion is aggression no matter who participates in its process. Any idea of attempting to do "good" by force (Leave men free to slay and otherwise punish those who trespass upon them...) is contradictory to the primary fundamental principle of American philosophy. There are monumental consequences to where we choose to be led.

[Natural Citizen]

Given the nature of preceding discussion, it is, I think, appropriate to provide a more precise and valid explanation of Unalienable Rights - From God. One that provides support for the primary fundamental principle beyond "God gave 'em to me." A broad basis for the primary fundamental principle does exist. And the basis cannot logically or arbitrarily be dismissed or minimized in a manner which deems the principle invalid or irrelevant to the fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy.

Sequentially, however, Faith in Man in his capacity to be self-governing is thus related to faith in God as his Creator, as the giver of these unalienable rights and this capacity. Which is referenced from the proceeding basis for the fundamental principle...

Unalienable Rights - From God


". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." (Declaration of Independence)

The Principle

The traditional American philosophy teaches that Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because given by his Creator.

The Only Moral Basis

This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights--those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of "unalienable."

One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty--for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty--to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams): "If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."

Right, Reason, and Capacity to Be Self-governing

For the security and enjoyment by Man of his Divinely created rights, it follows implicitly that Man is endowed by his Creator not only with the right to be self-governing but also with the capacity to reason and, therefore, with the capacity to be self-governing. This is implicit in the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, Man's unalienable rights would be of little or no use or benefit to him. Faith in Man--in his capacity to be self-governing--is thus related to faith in God as his Creator, as the giver of these unalienable rights and this capacity.

Rights--as Prohibitions Against Government

Certain specific rights of The Individual are protected in the original Constitution but this is by way of statements "in reverse"--by way of express prohibitions against government. The word "right" does not appear in the original instrument. This is because it was designed to express the grant by the people of specific, limited powers to the central government--created by them through this basic law--as well as certain specific limitations on its powers, and on the preexisting powers of the State governments, expressed as prohibitions of things forbidden. Every provision in it pertains to power.

The Constitution's first eight (Bill of Rights) amendments list certain rights of The Individual and prohibit the doing of certain things by the central, or Federal, government which, if done, would violate these rights. These amendments were intended by their Framers and Adopters merely to make express a few of the already-existing, implied prohibitions against the Federal government only--supplementing the prohibitions previously specified expressly in the original Constitution and supplementing and confirming its general, over-all, implied, prohibition as to all things concerning which it withheld power from this government. Merely confirming expressly some of the already-existing, implied prohibitions, these amendments did not create any new ones. They are, therefore, more properly referred to as a partial list of limitations--or a partial Bill of Prohibitions--as was indicated by Hamilton in The Federalist number 84. This hinges upon the uniquely American concepts stated in the Declaration of Independence: that Men, created of God, in turn create their governments and grant to them only "just" (limited) powers--primarily to make and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights including, in part, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. As Hamilton stated, under the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government, "the people surrender nothing;" instead, they merely delegate to government--to public servants as public trustees--limited powers and therefore, he added, "they have no need of particular reservations" (in a Bill of Rights). This is the basic reason why the Framing Convention omitted from the Constitution anything in the nature of a separate Bill of Rights, as being unnecessary.

An Endless List of Rights

To attempt to name all of these rights--starting with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence--would be to start an endless list which would add up to the whole of Man's Freedom (Freedom from Government-over-Man). They would add up to the entirety of Individual Liberty (Liberty against Government-over-Man). Innumerable rights of The Individual are embraced in the Ninth Amendment, which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Here "Constitution" includes the amendments.) Some idea of how vast the list would be is indicated by just one general freedom which leads into almost all of Free Man's activities of daily living throughout life: freedom of choice. This term stands for the right to do--and equally not to do--this or that, as conscience, whim or judgement, taste or desire, of The Individual may prompt from moment to moment, day by day, for as long as life lasts; but always, of course, with due regard for the equal rights of others and for the just laws expressive of the above-mentioned "just powers" of government designed to help safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. Spelled out in detail, this single freedom--freedom of choice--is almost all-embracing.

Right To Be Let Alone

In one sense, such freedom to choose involves Man's right to be let alone, which is possessed by The Individual in keeping with the Declaration and Constitution as against government: in enjoyment of his unalienable rights, while respecting the equal rights of others and just laws (as defined in Paragraph 5 above). This right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right most prized by civilized men. This right is, of course, also possessed as against all other Individuals, all obligated to act strictly within the limits of their own equal rights. Consequently any infringement of any Individual's rights is precluded.

Rights Inviolable by Government or by Others

Neither government nor any Individuals--acting singly, or in groups, or in organizations--could possibly possess any "just power" (to use again the significant term of the Declaration) to violate any Individual's God-given, unalienable rights or the supporting rights. No government can abolish or destroy--nor can it rightfully, or constitutionally, violate--Man's God-given rights. Government cannot justly interfere with Man's deserved enjoyment of any of these rights. No public official, nor all such officials combined, could possibly have any such power morally. Government can, to be sure, unjustly and unconstitutionally interfere by force with the deserved enjoyment of Man's unalienable rights. It is, however, completely powerless to abolish or destroy them. It is in defense of these rights of all Individuals, in last analysis, that the self-governing people--acting in accordance with, and in support of, the Constitution--oppose any and all violators, whether public officials or usurpers, or others (par. 9 below).

Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations

In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.

An Offender's Just Punishment

Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people's proper instrumentality--the government, including the courts--under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals--in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility--to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.

It is the offender's breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government's punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.

The Conclusion

Man's unalienable rights are sacred for the same reason that they are unalienable--because of their Divine origin, according to the traditional American philosophy.

Quotes that support this Principle....



RIGHTS UNALIENABLE---BECAUSE GOD-GIVEN

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?

Thomas Jefferson ("Notes on the State of Virginia," 1782)

The Sacred Rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.

Alexander Hamilton (An essay, "The Farmer Refuted," 1775) (Note: entire passage in capital letters in the original.)

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS

Resolved, that the inhabitants of this Province are unalienably entitled to those essential rights ["founded in the law of God and of Nature"] in common with all men: and that no law of society can, consistent with the law of God and nature, divest them of those rights.

Resolutions of House of Representatives, Mass., 1765

In short it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights when the great end of civil government from the very nature of its institution is for the support, protection and defence of those very rights: the principal of which as is before observed, are life liberty and property. If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave--- (Emphasis per original.)

Resolutions of Town of Boston, 1772 ("The Rights of The Colonists, . . . ")

RIGHT TO KNOWLEDGE--- CAPACITY TO REASON, TO UNDERSTAND

[The people] have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know . . .

John Adams ("A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law," 1765)

CONTROL OF SOME RIGHTS QUALIFIED IN ORDER TO MAKE THE REMAINDER SECURE

Men, when they enter into civil society, relinquish some of their natural rights, in order to their more secure enjoyment of the remainder.

Resolution of Town of Braintree, Mass., 1780 (Concerning the new Constitution of Mass.)

Accordingly it may be Observed, That it appears to Us That in immerging from a State of Nature, into a State of well regulated Society, Mankind gave up some of their natural Rights, in order that others of Greater Importance to their Well-being Safety & Happiness both as Societies and Individuals might be better enjoyed Secured & defended . . .

Resolution of Town of Lexington, Mass., 1778

[All men born with equal rights] Some of those rights are alienable, and may be parted with for an equivalent. Others are unalienable and inherent, and of that importance, that no equivalent can be received in exchange. Sometimes we shall mention the surrendering of a power to controul our natural rights, which perhaps is speaking with more precision, than when we use the expression of parting with natural rights--but the same thing is intended. Those rights which are unalienable, and of that importance, are called the rights of conscience. We have duties, for the discharge of which we are accountable to our Creator and benefactor, which no human power can cancel. What those duties are, is determinable by right reason, which may be, and is called, a well informed conscience. What this conscience dictates as our duty, is so; and that power which assumes a controul over it, is an usurper; for no consent can be pleaded to justify the controul, as any consent in this case is void . . . [Men forming government voluntarily delegate some power] . . . No individual, in this case, parts with his unalienable rights, the supreme [governmental] power therefore cannot controul them. (Emphasis added.)

"Essex Result" (Report of Conventions of Towns, Essex County, Mass., rejecting first proposed Constitution for Mass., 1778)

LIFE AND LIBERTY INSEPARABLE

The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.

Thomas Jefferson ("Rights of British America," 1774)

UNALIENABLE UNLESS SELF-FORFEITED

. . . as all men by nature are free . . . that no man can be deprived of liberty, and subjected to perpetual bondage and servitude, unless he has forfeited his liberty as a malefactor . . .

Pittsfield, Mass., Town-meeting Resolution, 1779

RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE UNALIENABLE

God hath given to every Man an Unalienable Right in Matters of His Worship to Judge for himself as his Conscience reserves ye Rule from God.

Petition from Church Organizations in 19 Towns in Massachusetts, 1749

BORN RATIONAL AND ENTITLED TO BE FREE

Reason teaches that all Men are naturally equal in Respect of Jurisdiction or Dominion one over another. Altho' true it is that Children are not born in this full State of Equality, yet they are born to it . . . [entitled to it . . .] For God having given Man an Understanding to direct his Actions, has given him therewith a Freedom of Will and Liberty of Acting, as properly belonging thereto, within the Bounds of that Law he is under . . . [Natural Law, God's Law] . . . So that we are born Free as we are born Rational . . . This natural Freedom is not a Liberty for every one to do what he pleases without any Regard to any Law; for a rational Creature cannot but be made under a Law from its MAKER: But it consists in a Freedom from any superior Power on Earth, and not being under the Will or legislative Authority of Man, and having only the Law of Nature (or in other Words, of its MAKER) for his Rule. (Emphasis per original.)

Rev. Elisha Williams ("A Seasonable Plea . . ."--1744) (Note: a plea primarily for the right to freedom of conscience and private judgment in religious matters.)

[P3ter_Griffin]

This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept.

I can dig this. For the other pieces of the puzzle to work there must first be value to human life. I know this to be true so I just assign such value in human life when I process stuff, but it is a great struggle to envelope one's self in their religion to the point where they can and do view each life, and the world in general, in such a spiritual and meaningful way. I have become a bit of a wroth as of late and I cant shake it. There will always be a need for warriors to defend liberty and freedom from people who wish to impose on it, but I think having that spiritual relationship and therefore value in human life would lead to the warriors actions being more just.

Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations

In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.

I'm curious to hear more about what this entails.

The way I understand that, it sounds like among other things the passage is saying to allow the government to handle the defense of liberty. And as we know when the government says 'don't worry we got this' it results in a populace that is dependent on the government coming through rather than dealing with the rationalization and preparation to take care of the matter for themselves.

And it also sounds like it might be suggesting a forced tax. And if that is the case I say if:

such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times.

then they should have no problem collecting the required funds voluntarily. I will note that if this passage assumes participation with the government itself is voluntary, then forcing its voluntary participants to pay a tax to remain a participant is quite understandable.

[Natural Citizen]

Ah. Good, P3ter_Griffin. I didn't really want to spend too much time on the primary fundamental principle since it's a given. So, it's good that you expand on this part. We can/should place the other elements aside for the time being.

Hold that thought, though. I have pm open in the other window. Heh.

[Natural Citizen]

I can dig this. For the other pieces of the puzzle to work there must first be value to human life. I know this to be true so I just assign such value in human life when I process stuff, but it is a great struggle to envelope one's self in their religion to the point where they can and do view each life, and the world in general, in such a spiritual and meaningful way. I have become a bit of a wroth as of late and I cant shake it. There will always be a need for warriors to defend liberty and freedom from people who wish to impose on it, but I think having that spiritual relationship and therefore value in human life would lead to the warriors actions being more just.

Right. So, then, proper human relations -- Man-to-Man relationships - including his acts of self-governance, is dependent upon the primary fundamental principle to be known, thoroughly understood, and, accepted to be true to better understand where our rights actually come from in a manner in which we may delegate. Effectively, osan's thoughts in terms of man's ability to organize himself is correct. And he's right, arguments from the same page can become counterinuitive. But it is critical that we don't toss primary pieces of the puzzle away during the endeavor itself. And I think that his Cardinal Postulate does just that very thing. And, like Spooner's piece, strategically so. That was my point. I think that the primary fundamental principle is lost/rejected that way. The way Ronin's piece suggested. Proper human relations are dependent upon morality from the source. Not defined by the benefactors. That's how you end up with cartels. For one thing.

But, then, what we get with cartels reflects your other point in terms of voluntary taxing. Right? You start to kind of get into ancap philosophy there. Which, in my own personal view, if adopted as a principle of self governance would, by its very nature, lead to tyrannies far more dangerous than any that man has known throughout modern history. Thinking about what osan was saying about the right to freely slay for the purpose order and prosperity, there. Justice itself becomes a commodity.

Comes down to morality. And who defines and makes applicable its source.

As it is, though, we're governing in a way that is more consistent with a Democracy than a Constitutional Republic. Cultural Marixists have essentially become the establishment. And that's where morality is lost. And subsequently proper human relations.

As much as I disagree with osan's thoughts on a violent solution, it is inevitable. Although, likely something that will happen beyond our lifetimes here. My disagreement with that comes, mainly, because coercion is coercion is coercion, no matter who practices it...it's still morally contradictory to the primary fundamental principle...and how would his cartel be any different than those whom he opposes?...I mean, think about that. It's akin to anarchists thinking they can escape the hand of power by living in volutary socialist communites (which libertarianism does actually permit for) What happens, though, is that the socialists end up taking their wealth at gunpoint in order to subsidize their program. So, they end up with exactly what they were trying to escape in the first place. Except worse. So, I often pause when the term "voluntary" is placed into perspective. Reason being is that often people, generally speaking, participate in coercion without fully understanding what it is. And their role in its function. Which is dangerous. It's equally counterintuitive to Individual Liberty in scope.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Right. So, then, proper human relations -- Man-to-Man relationships - including his acts of self-governance, is dependent upon the primary fundamental principle t obe known and accepted to be true. To better understand where our rights actually come from in a manner in which we may delegate. Effectivly, osan's thoughts in term of man's ability to organize himself is correct. And he's right, arguments from the same page can become counterinuitive. But it is critical that we don't toss primary pieces of the puzzle away during the endeavor itself. That was my point. I think that it is lost the other way. The way Ronin's pice suggested. Proper human relations are dependent upon morality from the source. Not defined by the benefactors. That's how you end up with cartels. For one thing.

And I thank you for bringing it up. It is a side I need to work on whereas on the philosophical side.. or maybe I should say the side that can be deduced with just using a placeholder for human value.. I find myself just examining the issues of the day and rehashing- whether in my head or along with others- the same stuff.

“And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper. If we read of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accident, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter, - we need never read of another. One is enough. If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications?”

-Henry David Thoreau

But, then, what we get with cartels reflects your other point in terms of voluntary taxing. Right? You start to kind of get into ancap philosophy there. Which, in my own personal view, if adopted as a principle of self governance, woul lead to tyrannies far more dangerous than any that man has known throughout modern history. Thinking about what osan was saying about the right to freely slay for the purpose order and prosperity. Justice itself becomes a commodity.

Comes down to morality. And who defines and makes applicable it's source.

As it is, though, we're governing in a way that is more consistent with a Democracy than a Constitutional Republic. Cultural Marixists have essentially become the establishment. And that's where morality is lost. And subsequently proper human relations.

As much as I disagree with osan's thoughts on a violent solution (mainly because coercion is coercion is coercion, no matter who practices it...it's still morally contradictory to the primary fundamental principle...and how would his cartel be any different tha nthose whom he opposes?...I mean, think about that), it really may be the only way to defend against that particular establishment monopoly. And likely a battle that will happen beyond our lifetimes.

As you speak of osan, although he has some more radical violent views or can we say 'solutions', is what I was referencing with myself of becoming a wroth. Pretty much that 'you respect other people's property rights or you die'. And I can find no fault in it, the placeholder allows me to 'compute' that an individual's property rights need to be defended, but not how to deal with the offender.

Before I attempt to convince you to come to the ancap side, I think I need to work on my spiritual side.

[Natural Citizen]

And I thank you for bringing it up. It is a side I need to work on whereas on the philosophical side.. or maybe I should say the side that can be deduced with just using a placeholder for human value.. I find myself just examining the issues of the day and rehashing- whether in my head or along with others- the same stuff.

-Henry David Thoreau



As you speak of osan, although he has some more radical violent views or can we say 'solutions', is what I was referencing with myself of becoming a wroth. Pretty much that 'you respect other people's property rights or you die'. And I can find no fault in it, the placeholder allows me to 'compute' that an individual's property rights need to be defended, but not how to deal with the offender.

Before I attempt to convince you to come to the ancap side, I think I need to work on my spiritual side.

Yeah, I went back and edited my final thoughts there in that communication. Likely while you were responding. I didn't want to make osan the topic. That wasn't a fair thing to do. It's just that he's really the only person I've seen in the board make a comparable assessment that provided an opportunity to talk about what we're talking about here in the more relevant way . That's why I mentioned his thoughts specifically. So, then, my thoughts there have been altered from what you've quoted here in order that he, himself, isn't recognized as the topic at hand.

But, the spritual side is important. You're right. That's the more relevant battle going on. Of course, that could be discussed in simple terms. But I'll save that for others who are more experienced in discussing that aspect of things.

End of the day, it comes down to asking ourselves what we can do better. And weighing the options critically. Agreed.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Just to give you a punching bag to unwind on, this entire philosophy is dependant on the sanctity of life because it is granted by the creator but not once are His words used to defend the core principle nor are they used to support the logical implications that follow. What is the need for all these fallible men's words when we have His? We could be led astray by their words. And, so long as His words can support this philosophy (so long as this philosophy is true, you could say), and being that He is the creator of it, do you not think His words will carry more weight with the masses than a group of men that were plenty immoral themselves?

[Natural Citizen]

Just to give you a punching bag to unwind on, this entire philosophy is dependant on the sanctity of life because it is granted by the creator but not once are His words used to defend the core principle nor are they used to support the logical implications that follow. What is the need for all these fallible men's words when we have His? We could be led astray by their words. And, so long as His words can support this philosophy (so long as this philosophy is true, you could say), and being that He is the creator of it, do you not think His words will carry more weight with the masses than a group of men that were plenty immoral themselves?

I don't want to use you for a punching bag, P3ter_Griffin. What's to be had? I'm generally passive.

To answer your question, though, the belief must exist that Man's unalienable rights are of Divine origin for the philosophy to support the principles mentioned throughout. Specifically the principle that establish moral code. And it is just that. A belief. The founding principles of our Republic are religious in nature. Religions themselves are premised upn belief alone. And ours is really the only nation that defines its specific form of government in a manner that is religious.

I suppose we could discuss the intentions of the framers themselves in order to better examine your questions. What is your view on the founders?

[P3ter_Griffin]

I don't want to use you for a punching bag, P3ter_Griffin. What's to be had? I'm generally passive.

To answer your question, though, the belief must exist that Man's unalienable rights are of Divine origin for the philosophy to support the principles mentioned throughout. Specifically the principle that establish moral code. And it is just that. A belief. The founding principles of our Republic are religious in nature. Religions themselves are premised upn belief alone. And ours is really the only nation that defines its specific form of government in a manner that is religious.

I suppose we could discuss the intentions of the framers themselves in order to better examine your questions. What is your view on the founders?

If Divine originity is all that we are concerned with, and what you have laid out then follows, should animals not be viewed and treated in the same way as humans? The farmer punished for killing the cow, and the fox punished for killing the rabbit? Both the cow and the rabbit were created by the Creator too.

[Natural Citizen]

If Divine originity is all that we are concerned with, and what you have laid out then follows, should animals not be viewed and treated in the same way as humans? The farmer punished for killing the cow, and the fox punished for killing the rabbit? Both the cow and the rabbit were created by the Creator too.

Man-to-Man spiritual relationship provides the benchmark for proper Man-to-Government relationship per the belief that morality is the product of Natural Law.

Of course, while Man is part of the landscape, Man also defines the landscape. Scripture supports this.

As far as animal to animal relations, I don't know. I never really thought about it. I don't know that they reason. Do they reason? Are they of the means to demonstrate morality whether it be one way or the other? Cats play wit hmice before they kil them. Is this because they are being cruel? Or is it just nature? Animals have no system of organized government other than the strongest survive. Natural Selection and whatnot. No principles of non-aggression that I know of.