New Dictionary Project?

[osan]

A big problem with nearly anything that human beings do centers on insufficiencies in communication. This is especially significant where politics are concerned.

Consider the criminal justice system. How many of you are aware that the law dictionaries upon which lawyers and judges rely have absolutely pathetic definitions of terms such as "law" (!!!) and "crime"? Seriously guys, get your hands on copies of various law dictionaries such as Black's and Bouvier's (there are quite a few more, BTW) and look up those two terms. The definitions border on the idiotic.

I have been thinking that there exists a set of terms for which scientifically rigorous definitions should exist for many reasons including but not limited to removing the ability of politicians and other agents of the Tyrant from doing what they do so successfully, which is to twist and manipulate word meanings to suit their agendas.

What so you all think of the idea and would you be willing to help with it? A list of terms vital to the cause of liberty would be the first step.

And if anyone has a better name for this endeavor, I'm all ears.


ETA:

Per suggestion, I am adding to this post the most current swags at the terms thus far addressed. To wit:

Law: n. A validly enforceable rule that is: a) based upon one or more axiomatic and objectively demonstrable truths, b) follows strictly from the postulations upon which it is based, c) conforms perfectly with the propositions from which it strictly follows, d) addresses criminal acts by one human being against another human being other than himself, e) provides no immunity to itself, but is universally applicable to all human praxis relevant to the rule, g) restricts human behavior such that it either prohibits or compels it. Law always addresses acts mala in sé, and never addresses acts mala prohibita, the latter being wholly invalid, unjust, violative of basic human rights, is reflective only of the arbitrary whim and caprice of legislators without authority. Such statutes are not Law, and are therefore null and void, carrying with then no valid force of law, the enforcement of which constitutes felonious color of authority.

Any exception to a Law, whether specified in the Law itself, or in another Law, must itself meet all the required specifications of a Law.**

** Not at all sure about this one, but throwing it out in case it is valid.

Crime: n. A willful or negligent act of commission or omission such that the property rights of a human being, the victim, are violated or otherwise trespassed upon by the actions or a defectum voluntarium of another man, the perpetrator, who is not the victim of such acts. All crimes are violations by a perpetrator against property rights of a victim. In order for a crime to have occurred, a provable material harm must have been sustained by a victim at the hands of a perpetrator, whether directly or indirectly in terms of ultimate results, and in terms of agency. Indirect harm and agency, in order to be established, must demonstrate a causal chain connecting the actions of an alleged perpetrator to the losses sustained by an alleged victim. Each condition is necessary, yet insufficient in itself, save that all are met in any given case.

The drafting of criminal Law entails the principled demonstration of how the act in question qualifies as a crime must be established and proved. The victim must be validly defined in terms of the material losses sustained by the criminal act.

Defectum Voluntarium†: n. The willful failure by a human being, as promisor, to do as he has pledged for another human being, the promisee, who is other than the promisor, such that under the necessarily dire and exigent circumstances to the promisee under which the promisor has made the promise, the promisee comes to severe harm, where fulfillment of the promise by the promisor would not have lead to the promisor to come to harm, and where at the time of failure, the promisee had no alternate options for escaping the threat of imminent harm that ultimately lead to the harm incurred. Under such circumstances, a promisor assumes responsibility to make every good-faith effort to fulfill the promise he made up to the point that to do so would likely result in severe harm to himself.

Amended Crime: n. A crime for which

† Changed "Explicit Failure" to "Defectum Voluntarium" so I can sound smarter than I actually am.

[Champ]

Sounds like a good idea and something that will certainly come along eventually.

On a semi-related note, the slang dictionary pinpoints the "in practice" usage of a lot of words that no longer seem to hold the original meaning anymore. I've been using it more, especially as political correctness keeps on fortifying itself and words are being "cancelled".

[osan]

OK, I've let this slip long enough. Since nobody has stepped up, I guess I will have to take the first stab.

Two of the most singularly important terms relating to all things political are "Law" [sic] and "crime".

I have scoured perhaps a dozen so-called "law" dictionaries, yet not a single one defines either term, save in the most non-rigorously vague manner imaginable. The definitions are so bad, so utterly lacking in semantic validity, as to be quite astonishing. So I shall take the first swag with "Law", and "crime", and let us see where this all goes, if anywhere.

Law: n. a principle that, through its discovery or derivation from that which is axiomatic, and subject to its validation as being itself axiomatic and universally applicable, does in itself either prohibit behavior, or compel it.

crime: n. A violation of, or trespass against Law such that a clearly identifiable victim has been produced as a result of the act, without which a crime cannot have occurred.

[Occam's Banana]

A big problem with nearly anything that human beings do centers on insufficiencies in communication. This is especially significant where politics are concerned.

Consider the criminal justice system. How many of you are aware that the law dictionaries upon which lawyers and judges rely have absolutely pathetic definitions of terms such as "law" (!!!) and "crime"? Seriously guys, get your hands on copies of various law dictionaries such as Black's and Bouvier's (there are quite a few more, BTW) and look up those two terms. The definitions border on the idiotic.

I have been thinking that there exists a set of terms for which scientifically rigorous definitions should exist for many reasons including but not limited to removing the ability of politicians and other agents of the Tyrant from doing what they do so successfully, which is to twist and manipulate word meanings to suit their agendas.

What so you all think of the idea and would you be willing to help with it? A list of terms vital to the cause of liberty would be the first step.

And if anyone has a better name for this endeavor, I'm all ears.

There are not and can not ever be any "scientific" definitions of terms such as "law" and "crime". That is because the things denoted by such concepts are transcendental (metaphysical) in nature, not merely empirical (physical). For example, there are no intersubjectively (i.e., "objectively") valid tests or experiments one could possibly conduct on strictly "scientific" (i.e., empirical) grounds in order to determine whether some event is a "crime".

Also, every historical attempt to effect "prescriptive" (as distinct from "descriptive") dictionaries or usages has been a wash, at best - just ask the Académie Française (or even New York Times staffers). The relation between language and meaning embodies a stochastically emergent order that can not be pinned down so neatly.

Ultimately, the same thing that makes poetry and all other expressions of imagination possible also makes possible "the ability of politicians and other agents of the Tyrant [to use and abuse words and concepts in order to do] what they do so successfully". It just isn't possible to prevent the latter - and even if it were, you'd necessarily end up preventing the former, as well. They are of a piece - you can't have one without the other - and that is both the magnificent glory and the abominable curse of the human capacity for language and meaning.

Poets, priests, and politicians [and philosophers, too! - OB]
Have words to thank for their positions
Words that scream for your submission
And no one's jamming their transmission

-- The Police, De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da

[acptulsa]

I agree. No word has some kind of intrinsic meaning that can be ascertained by chiseling away the efflux. These people are simply trying to create Newspeak, just as Orwell taught them to do--and warned us to resist.

Resistance is easy. It sits on my bookshelf. The second page says, "Copyright 1975 The G.C. Merriam Co." And no number of computer keystrokes can change one single thing inside of it.

[osan]

There are not and can not ever be any "scientific" definitions of terms such as "law" and "crime".

I remain to be convinced of this. The definition becomes the hypothesis, which may then be treated as any other scientific proposition. It may differ in the sense that it cannot be verified empirically, but not all hypotheses can be, nor do they need be. There are many mathematical theorems that are proven sans empirical evidence, which is to say that they are established as proven by reason alone. I spent years doing mathematical proofs using ITP and AURA. There was no empiricism involved, and yet we proved manifold arcane mathematical theories.

As to empiricism, even that is not necessarily out of the question as you claim. Once the hypothesis is proved in reason, it may be put to the empirical test through application in the real world. Come to a demonstrated validation of a definition, then apply that definition and observe how well is works in practice. This sort of thing is done all the time.

That is because the things denoted by such concepts are transcendental (metaphysical) in nature, not merely empirical (physical).

Not necessarily. It depends on the proposition in question, and I would submit that "Law" and "crime" are eminently applicable in the real world. Hell, it's done now with the eminently $#@!ty definitions that are the current operational fare. "law: that which a legislative body declares..." could probably be improved upon by a middling bright sixth grader.

For example, there are no intersubjectively (i.e., "objectively") valid tests or experiments one could possibly conduct on strictly "scientific" (i.e., empirical) grounds in order to determine whether some event is a "crime".

Oh that is not at all true. Objectivity depends upon the definition itself, as well as the assumptions upon which that definition founds itself.

For example, if we agree that each man owns his life and that nobody holds claim to that life, all else equal, it then follows quite naturally and with rather brutish force that taking someone else's life, or enslaving it, is objectively incorrect, which is to say that it is wrong. On that basis, any prohibition of murder is objectively correct and justifiable, the act objectively qualifying as a crime. There is no valid argument to be made against a murder Law. There is a victim, and a crime has clearly been committed due to the trespass committed by one against another.

Compare with a statute that prohibits the possession and use of some arbitrarily named drug, plant, fungus, or similar. There is no objective basis to qualify it as Law, which is why is it a mere statute, which is to say it is naught but the whim and caprice of some body of men exercising authority they do not possess. There is no victim, even where someone ODs himself and dies. One cannot be his own victim in the sense of crimes. He may be a victim of his own stupidity, but that is an entirely different sense of the word.

Also, every historical attempt to effect "prescriptive" (as distinct from "descriptive") dictionaries or usages has been a wash, at best - just ask the Académie Française (or even New York Times staffers). The relation between language and meaning embodies a stochastically emergent order that can not be pinned down so neatly.

Assuming this is true, it is a metaphysical argument that borders on the pedantic and has little to no bearing on practical governance. I would also point out that any Law dictionary worth half its weight in guano is going to be both descriptive and prescriptive because both aspects are important. What you are describing is a grand copout by people who don't want to commit to something that works and can be demonstrated as optimally just and proper. This can be done, but people get too caught up in fringe philosophical points. Being aware of them and acknowledging them is important, but cases that are a million sigmas from the mean are of just this side of zero value and much of the time, less than zero.

Ultimately, the same thing that makes poetry and all other expressions of imagination possible also makes possible "the ability of politicians and other agents of the Tyrant [to use and abuse words and concepts in order to do] what they do so successfully". It just isn't possible to prevent the latter - and even if it were, you'd necessarily end up preventing the former, as well. They are of a piece - you can't have one without the other - and that is both the magnificent glory and the abominable curse of the human capacity for language and meaning.

Au contraire, mon ami. When a prosecutor, well trained in the correct principles of human relations faces the noose for any abuse of his office, you would find that what I suggest would become eminently practicable, the would-be tyrants thinking not twice or thrice before taking an unwise path, but many times and coming to the conclusion that any ill-gotten gain holds no value to him when the noose is around his neck as the last rites are read him.

Clear and present threats to life upon conviction with no recourses of appeal would serve as a powerful restraint on cute ideas by those in positions of special trust. Those foolish enough to tug at that tiger's tail serve as reminders to the rest as they swing from their necks on the six o'clock news.

Poets, priests, and politicians [and philosophers, too! - OB]
Have words to thank for their positions
Words that scream for your submission
And no one's jamming their transmission

-- The Police, De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da

And who is to blame for that? You are. And I am. We tolerate the intolerable and so here we find ourselves. That in no way invalidates my basic proposition. The lyric even makes my point in that it acknowledges the central importance of words - their sheer power. That is why we are behooved and obliged to learn better how to use words with craft, art, and power. Our thoughts form our realities and our words form our thoughts.

[jbnevin]

It's a great idea to be active and adaptable in the field, since it's one you have stake in. One can participate in an existing dictionary project, create a new one, work to increase the credibility of good references, or work to decrease the credibility of bad ones. That way, references that people choose will get better over time.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Main_Page
https://www.onelook.com/

I'm curious as to your reviews of some of the existing definitions. What makes them idiotic?

[osan]

I'm curious as to your reviews of some of the existing definitions. What makes them idiotic?

Consider Bouvier's, considered generally as THE definitive resource:

LAW. In its most general and comprehensive sense, law signifies a rule of action; and this term is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action; whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. 1 Bl. Com. 38. In its more confined sense, law denotes the rule, not of actions in general, but of human action or conduct. In the civil code of Louisiana, art. 1, it is defined to be "a solemn expression of the legislative will." Vide Toull. Dr. Civ. Fr. tit. prel. s. 1, n. 4; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1-3.

2. Law is generally divided into four principle classes, namely; Natural law, the law of nations, public law, and private or civil law. When considered in relation to its origin, it is statute law or common law. When examined as to its different systems it is divided into civil law, common law, canon law. When applied to objects, it is civil, criminal, or penal. It is also divided into natural law and positive law. Into written law, lex scripta; and unwritten law, lex non scripta. Into law merchant, martial law, municipal law, and foreign law. When considered as to their duration, laws are immutable and arbitrary or positive; when as their effect, they are prospective and retrospective.

This does not so much as rise to absurdity. It basically says that Law is whatever a legislator says it is. Don't like black people or Jews? Legislate them into prison, death camps, back to Africa, Mars, etc. The list of possibilities along that line is nearly endless.

Let us see how they treat "common law":

LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.


2. The common law is derived from two sources, the common law of England, and the practice and decision of our own courts. In some states the English common law has been adopted by statute. There is no general rule to ascertain what part of the English common law is valid and binding. To run the line of distinction, is a subject of embarrassment to courts, and the want of it a great perplexity to the student. Kirb. Rep. Pref. It may, however, be observed generally, that it is binding where it has not been superseded by the constitution of the United States, or of the several states, or by their legislative enactments, or varied by custom, and where it is founded in reason and consonant to the genius and manners of the people.


3. The phrase "common law" occurs in the seventh article of the amendments of the constitution of the United States. "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall not exceed twenty dollar says that article, "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. The "common law" here mentioned is the common law of England, and not of any particular state. 1 Gallis. 20; 1 Bald. 558; 3 Wheat. 223; 3 Pet. R. 446; 1 Bald. R. 554. The term is used in contradistinction to equity, admiralty, and maritime law. 3 Pet. 446; 1 Bald. 554.


4. The common law of England is not in all respects to be taken as that of the United States, or of the several states; its general principles are adopted only so far as they are applicable to our situation. 2 Pet, 144; 8 Pet. 659; 9 Cranch, 333; 9 S. & R. 330; 1 Blackf 66, 82, 206; Kirby, 117; 5 Har. & John. 356; 2 Aik. 187; Charlt. 172; 1 Ham. 243. See 5 Cow. 628; 5 Pet. 241; 1 Dall. 67; 1 Mass. 61; 9 Pick. 532; 3 Greenl. 162; 6 Greenl. 55; 3 Gill & John. 62; Sampson's Discourse before the Historical Society of New York; 1 Gallis. R. 489; 3 Conn. R. 114; 2 Dall. 2, 297, 384; 7 Cranch, R. 32; 1 Wheat. R. 415; 3 Wheat. 223; 1 Blackf. R. 205; 8 Pet. R. 658; 5 Cowen, R. 628; 2 Stew. R. 362.

As you can see, even Bouvier's acknowledges the absurd circumstance. Now consider "criminal law":

LAW, CRIMINAL. By criminal law is understood that system of laws which provides for the mode of trial of persons charged with criminal offences, defines crimes, and provides for their punishments.

Yet another all-but-useless definition that talks much, yet says next to nothing.


In case you are thinking that Bouvier's may be an outlier, allow me to put that to rest. To wit, Black's:

Law. That which is ordained, laid down, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

...

The word may mean or embrace: body of principles, standards and rules promulgated by government...

Once again, the definitions are vague on a matter of the utmost and central importance to every human being walking planet earth. Reference to "body of principles" is the only possible ray of light there, yet it is extinguished with "promulgated by government". Forgetting that "government" is a non-entity, save in the minds of people, the principles of Law have nothing to do with "government", but arise as part and parcel of the nature of things.

They refer to "absolute law". Lets us see what it says.

Absolute law. The true and proper law of nature, immutable in the abstract or in principle, in theory, but not in application; for very often the object, the reason, situation, and other circumstances may vary its exercise and obligation.

From the one side of their mouths they acknowledge, however superficially, the fundamental nature of absolute law, while from the other side they disparage and discount it via blind and unsupported assertion. Once again, the lexicographer fails most spectacularly with all manner of wild pyrotechnics.

And for the sake of establishing a pattern, let us turn to Ballentine's:

law. The whole body of rules of conduct applied and enforced under the authority of established government in determining that which is proper and should be permitted and that which should be denied, or even penalized, in respect of the relation between a person and the state, between him and society, or between him and another individual, including a provision of a constitution, a legislative enactment or statute, a municipal ordinance, a principle declared in an authoritative decision of a court, a rule of practice prescribed by a legislature or promulgated by a court acting with authority, even, to some extent, a usage or custom.

To all this, and several more that I have uncovered, I can only say "UGH"... and that's my most generous response, rendered on my best day.

These definitions don't even rate as pathetic, but I would call them eminently dangerous. We are talking about issues that revolve around the potential destruction of the lives of innocent and properly free men. Given the utter gravity of the issue of "law", I would accept nothing less than a properly rigorous definition of terms whose application in the courts determine the lives of the parties involved. Neither is this a laughing matter, nor can the gravity be overstated. For those who doubt, consider that if you openly bear your sidearm on the mean streets of NYC, the fact that you will be lucky to make it to prison alive for the minimum of one year should disabuse you of your dubiety.

[jbnevin]

In the civil code of Louisiana, art. 1, it is defined to be "a solemn expression of the legislative will."

I think we've all had solemn expressions of legislative will wielded against us at one time or another.

Absolute law. The true and proper law of nature, immutable in the abstract or in principle, in theory, but not in application; for very often the object, the reason, situation, and other circumstances may vary its exercise and obligation.

From the one side of their mouths they acknowledge, however superficially, the fundamental nature of absolute law, while from the other side they disparage and discount it via blind and unsupported assertion. Once again, the lexicographer fails most spectacularly with all manner of wild pyrotechnics.

My God

Law: n. a principle that, through its discovery or derivation from that which is axiomatic, and subject to its validation as being itself axiomatic and universally applicable, does in itself either prohibit behavior, or compel it.

crime: n. A violation of, or trespass against Law such that a clearly identifiable victim has been produced as a result of the act, without which a crime cannot have occurred.

What led you to choose these definitions? What about them solves the need or clarifies meaning? Is there any part that was difficult to complete? Any part that still needs work? Rough draft or final?

"A principle that is derived from assumed truths, and that is itself axiomatic and universally applicable, and that either prohibits behavior or compels it."

"A violation or trespass against a person."

[osan]

What led you to choose these definitions?

They are a stab - an attempt at a desperately needed improvement on the utter inadequacies under which people now labor, and under which justice is clearly and vastly ill-served, as is freedom.

What about them solves the need or clarifies meaning?

I'm not yet certain that they do, but someone needs to take a first step, so I volunteered.

Is there any part that was difficult to complete?

In their entirety. This is no mean task, yet it is vitally important to every soul walking the planet, if freedom is to be considered as something better than a sad and not very funny joke.

Any part that still needs work? Rough draft or final?

If it didn't need work, and probably lots of it, I'd have published it.

This is a tough semantic nut to crack, but consider that such words are used to destroy lives in the name of justice. Given this alone, what could be more important?

[jbnevin]

This is a tough semantic nut to crack, but consider that such words are used to destroy lives in the name of justice. Given this alone, what could be more important?

I'm sold on that point. I have an established definitions bias to the point it is a known condition for which I need be fully cognizant.

In that case, what do you think of my second stab? I rearranged it for what I thought was clarity, which historically has risk of returning puzzled grimaces. On that second part, I find it central that a crime need have a victim aside from the perp.

[osan]

I'm sold on that point. I have an established definitions bias to the point it is a known condition for which I need be fully cognizant.

In that case, what do you think of my second stab? I rearranged it for what I thought was clarity, which historically has risk of returning puzzled grimaces. On that second part, I find it central that a crime need have a victim aside from the perp.

Well lessee...

"A principle that is derived from assumed truths, and that is itself axiomatic and universally applicable, and that either prohibits behavior or compels it."

Not a principle, but a rule of action that is based upon postulate(s) or the principles that follow therefrom. That is the core problem we face - statutes are the mere whim of a legislator with no formal and sternly enforced requirement that a valid principle be observed. Hence the drug statutes, those against prostitution, the now passé statutes criminalizing gaysex, those that prohibit RKBA, and so on down the miserable list of prohibitions and compulsions that have been put on the books since the days of Sumer.

"A violation or trespass against a person."

It is good, so far as it goes, but methinks it leaves too much wiggle room for scoundrels, who will stretch the meaning of "violation or trespass" all out of recognition. "Because possessing a firearm violates the inherent right of Weakmen fairydusters to feel safe, the right to keep and bear arms is hereby repealed now and for all time, but the right to suck a big tuna shall be sacrosanct into eternity."

It is sad that we need to work so hard in the attempt to close off loopholes of commission or omission, but... well, humans.

I will repeat myself unto the nausea of all: words are the single most important things in the lives of every human being who has ever lived, who lives now, or who will ever live moving forward.

[osan]

I find it central that a crime need have a victim aside from the perp.

I forgot to address this.

Yes, this is a very astute point. A man cannot be his own victim, save in the way I mentioned earlier. Therefore, suicide cannot be a crime. Besides, anyone distraught enough to make a serious attempt at killing himself needs help, not punishment.

Just about thirty years ago, a friend of a friend in CO decided to off himself by eating a .45 ACP from a 1911. The slug whizzed about the inside of his skull and exited on the other side after knocking out a molar.

And what did the glorious "state" of Colorado do? The scum prosecuted him, convicted him, and sent him to prison! I tell you this tale in confirmation that the idea is not just some pedantic exercise, but an actual and very practically real concern because people in positions of such power are raving insane as often, or more so, than otherwise.

[jbnevin]

Not a principle, but a rule of action that is based upon postulate(s) or the principles that follow therefrom. That is the core problem we face - statutes are the mere whim of a legislator with no formal and sternly enforced requirement that a valid principle be observed. Hence the [victimless laws] ...

Yes, ok, this is a key point.

A rule that is: a) itself axiomatic and universally applicable b) derived from accepted truths c) either prohibits behavior or compels it.

Notes: Truths are accepted by a society more or less based on reason, logic, and evidence. The extent to which it is more, is the extent the society has greatest chance for perpetual survival.

It is good, so far as it goes, but methinks it leaves too much wiggle room for scoundrels, who will stretch the meaning of "violation or trespass" all out of recognition.

Agree.

A violation or trespass against a person.

Notes: A violation or trespass is an act that causes demonstrable harm upon a legal entity.

[jbnevin]

I will repeat myself unto the nausea of all: words are the single most important things in the lives of every human being who has ever lived, who lives now, or who will ever live moving forward.

Strong statement! Interesting. We reorganize all our thoughts into these symbols and then redefine the symbols internally either intentionally and consciously, or based on external input and subconscious heuristics such as the perceived relative authority of those inputs.

[osan]

Yes, ok, this is a key point.

A rule that is: a) itself axiomatic and universally applicable b) derived from accepted truths c) either prohibits behavior or compels it.

I'm liking this very much. Not sure about "accepted" though. It's too loosey goosey. Accepted by whom? What about OBJECTIVE truths? Objective reality exists. In fact, I would argue that all reality is objective, though this is mainly speculative. We perceive through our senses; vision, hearing, taste, touch, odor. Assuming that this is not all one gigantic hallucination (and even if it is, what difference does it make to our experience?), the objective reality we perceive through the interecession of our senses remains objectively what it is, regardless of the subjective ways in which we take it in.

We had the argument a few days ago about pornography, myself and a couple of other forum members over in the chatroom ( https://discord.gg/x7EbNkAG if you're interested). I find most porn stupid, some of it disgusting, but most of it is meh... If you like it, watch. If you REALLY like it, make it. If you hate it, don't watch. The point here being that what gets one guy all worked up and angry, leaves others indifferent, and yet others worked up in an entirely different way.

What we have here, then, appears to be a very fundamental problem between what we assume is the objective reality that is just outside our skins, and the assumedly subjective one in our brains. But is it really a problem? I say no... that is, unless you insist on pedantic metaphysical arguments such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They can be interesting, amusing, but generally seem to prove ultimately pointless in terms of practical living.

My take is that there is no such thing as subjective reality in the strictest sense of "reality". There is reality, which is purely objective in its nature simply because it exists and is what it is, regardless of how we adjudge it. Then there are our judgments of that reality, which is not subjective REALITY, but our subjective opinions, assessments, likes, dislikes, etc. These are two very different things, one being reality and the other being opinion, so to speak. We can choose, for example, to decide that gravity does not exist, but how many of us are willing to take the elevator to the observation deck and take that leap of faith off the precipice? People talk a lot of crap, but at the end of it all there are certain perceptions that no rational and fundamentally sane human being is willing to challenge in a rubber-meets-the-road fashion. Talk is cheap.

Pardon my digression, but I thought it was a sufficiently important point to make, given the subject matter.

So let us rewrite ever so slightly to this:

Law: n. An enforceable rule that is: a) based upon one or more axiomatic and objectively demonstrable truths, b) follows strictly from the postulations upon which it is based, c) conforms perfectly with the propositions from which it strictly follows, d) addresses criminal acts by one human being against another human being other than himself, e) provides no immunity to itself, but is universally applicable to all human praxis relevant to the rule, g) restricts human behavior such that it either prohibits or compels it.

Any exception to a Law, whether specified in the Law itself, or in another Law, must itself meet all the required specifications of a Law.**

** Not at all sure about this one, but throwing it out in case it is valid.

Note "enforceable", which acknowledges and allows that we may choose to enforce such a rule, or not. For example, rape is very clearly a crime for which the rape statutes are most likely Law, even if they are written in a manner less valuable than bat guano. If I am walking a lonely lower Manhattan street at 2AM on a Saturday in August and I witness one human attempting to rape another, the choice is mine whether to act in defense of the apparent victim or just keep walking. There is no compulsion to enforce a rule, but the option remains to us. "Government" agencies may, and pretty nearly universally do, however, require their agents to enforce such Laws in every case. That is a matter of policy and not of Law per sé.

Then we come to "crime", to which you posited:

A violation or trespass against a person.

Definition issue in your use of "person". The original meaning of "person" derives from "personas", which was the mask worn by stage actors in ancient times. Such masks incorporated a megaphone-like structure, intended to help the voice carry in a time where electronic amplification was unavailable. People, most often the willfully dim, frequently complain that corporations are not "persons", based on the false understanding that a person is a human being. The two are not the same, particularly in the legal sense. A corporation is precisely a person - a mask, a false front for something that does not, in fact, exist save as a legal convention - an instrument of convenience that provides a conceptual base from which one may then carry out practical operations of manifold sorts. A "government" is perhaps the ultimate example of a person. It exists nowhere, save in the minds of men who, in their generally degenerated state of morals and intellect, mistake the notion for some sort of objectively extant thing in itself.
promisor
Once again let us rework:

Crime: n. An act of commission or omission such that the inherent†† rights of one man are violated or otherwise trespassed upon by the actions or explicit failures of another man who is not the victim of such acts.

Explicit Failure: n. The willful failure by a human being, as promisor, to do as he has pledged to another human being, the promisee, who is other than the promisor, such that the promisee comes to harm. The promisee comes to harm due to the promisor's failure where, had the promisor not pledged his commitment, the promisee may have exercised another extant option that would likely have saved him from injury, the option having been irretrievably abandoned as the result of the promise made to him by the promisor, perhaps under some dire and exigent circumstance to the promisee. The promise in question offered similar outcomes as the option and would have sufficed, had it been fulfilled. Explicit failures are acts of fraud.

In this very narrow sense, an act of omission does in fact qualify as a crime. For example, you are on a sinking, wildly burning ship and are by all means going to die if nobody comes to rescue you. A boat shows up, and at the same time a helicopter. Both promise to take you to safety, you choose the boat, so the helicopter flies away, only to have the boat trundle off with the captain saying "later, sucker". That would be a crime of omission because had the boatman not offered to save you, you could have opted for the helicopter ride. Or, alternately, had the boatman fulfilled his promise, you would not have drowned or burned to death. But making the promise such that another abandons an option that would have saved them, yet then reneging on your pledge, you have painted another human being into a corner from which there is no escape, sealing their fate when they might otherwise have been saved. It is a form of fraud.

Then there's this:

Notes: A violation or trespass is an act that causes demonstrable harm upon a legal entity.

"Legal" is dangerous. I make a very clear and strict distinction between that which is Lawful and that which is legal, the two having little to nothing in common, save by occasional accident. In all cases I would replace "legal" with "Lawful". Legality related to statutory affairs, which perforce means the random will of a legislator. This is pure cancer, whereas Lawfulness roots firmly in truth and that which is right and proper between men.

ETA:

†† I have stricken "inherent" from the definition because even the violation of a synthetic right may be a crime. Consider a contract where a large sum or other property is lost to one party due to the intentional, conscious, and knowing commission or omission by another party. When such acts occur by accident, we have on our hands a tort. When it is committed with full knowledge aforethought, it is a crime.

[osan]

I will repeat myself unto the nausea of all: words are the single most important things in the lives of every human being who has ever lived, who lives now, or who will ever live moving forward.

Strong statement!

I would hope so. But if you doubt, just try conceiving the world without words. You end up with an effectively empty skull.

Interesting. We reorganize all our thoughts into these symbols and then redefine the symbols internally either intentionally and consciously, or based on external input and subconscious heuristics such as the perceived relative authority of those inputs.

Not quite. The symbols ARE our thoughts. Without the symbols there are no thoughts as such, but only reflexes. But reflexive creatures have no need for a large cerebral cortex. Midbrains are all they need, and perhaps a small cortex for the sake of memory and a certain, primitive sort of logic.

But we have these presumably large cerebella. That structure begs for language and all that words offer. We are creatures ruled by the gesture of symbols, without which we could do not much beyond breathing, eliminating, eating sleeping, screwing, running toward the women, and away from the big cats. It would not be much of a life, but really just a fairly mere existence. Perhaps all "higher" creatures can wonder about the mysterious nature of existence, but so far as anyone can tell, only we are able to do so with almost arbitrary depth. Words and only words bring that to our lives, which is reason enough to understand and accept that they are the single most important things in those lives, everything else paling in comparison. Without them, we are essentially empty shells. Words make us the ghosts that we are. After all, what value is an undifferentiated soul? Little, I suspect.

[osan]

Next issue: rights. Most people do not understand rights, save in the vaguest of manners. I have spent a lifetime witnessing people, usually of a left-bent, shrieking wildly and without end about their "rights" in ways that clearly indicate their blind ignorance of the notion. Two examples of this are those of the ideas of "women's rights" and "gay rights", both the utterances of which should give cause for the eyeballs of intelligent men to roll right out of their sockets. There are no such things as rights specific to women or homosexuals. If they are enjoying their full human rights, there is nothing else that need be addressed on that point. But the terms are not what they purport, but are rather a demand for special, synthetically contrived privileges that rest superior to the inherent rights of mere and mortal white men.

While this isn't really an issue of definition, since the definition of a "right" exists and is good as is, it is a matter of understanding, and so I will include it here for the sake of putting it out there in yet another forum. I have probably posted this here before, but no longer recall. Besides, such ideas bear repetition, so here we go.

I wrote this late in 2016, viewable at https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.co...rights_21.html

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*



What Are Rights?



.

I just realized that in the few years I have been posting here on the various aspects of freedom, I have never specifically addressed the issue of rights in any direct depth. Oddly, I thought I'd done so in my very first essay, "What Is Freedom?", but as it turns out, I had not done so sufficiently. While there isn't all that much in terms of fundamentals to the notion of rights, it still serves us well to have a proper understanding of what they are.

The correct understanding of rights is sorely absent from the repertoire of most people's educations. This is not only shameful, but very dangerous. I will, therefore, endeavor to provide the world with a sufficient synopsis of what rights are by type, there being two.

Before we begin, we should once again consult the dictionary for the proper definition(s) of the word "right" as it would correctly apply in the context of freedom.

From Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of 1895, the relevant entry defines a right as:

Right, n. ...
2. That to which one has a just claim

(a) That which one has a natural claim to exact

(b) That which one has a legal or social claim to do or to exact; a legal power; authority

(c) That which justly belongs to one; that which one has a claim to possess or own;
the interest or share which anyone has in a piece of property; title; claim; interest; ownership

(d) Privilege of immunity granted by authority


And from Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1785:

Right. n. s. ...
3. Just claim

4. That which justly belongs to one

5. Property; interest

6. Power; prerogative


From the definitions above, it is clear that a right is that to which one is entitled and to which he may validly claim ownership. Also note the implicit references to property rights. As it turns out, a right is centrally important to human freedom, for without respect for the rights of men, there can be no freedom, but only degrees of servitude, which I cover in "Degrees Of Freedom."

There are, however, two senses or types of rights. The first and most important is that of the inherent or natural right. An example of this would be a man's right to life - which is another way of saying his claim or title to life, further implying a man's life as being his property, what I call his "First Property", or "FP" for short. Another would be a man's freedom.

These rights are those that are born into us as matters part and parcel of our human fabric. There is, therefore, no possible manner by which one's rights may be separated from the rest of one's being as there is no line of demarcation between the two. You and your rights are one and the same**.

The second sense of a right is that of those of a contractual nature. An example of this would be your right to vote. As a citizen of a given nation whose political structures includes the process of voting, there is most often an implied and assumed right to vote in elections. It is the reason why a citizen of one nation may be prohibited from voting in a nation of which he is not a citizen. Being contractual in nature, which is to say by way of agreement, this right may be stripped from you, which is the reason why a man convicted of a felony in America may have his right to vote removed. Men are not born with the right to vote. They are granted the contractual right as a matter of agreement that this is what men in good standing may do during elections.

All rights imply the right of exercise. If I retain the right to keep and bear arms, it perforce follows that I hold the right to exercise. This may seem redundant or even silly, yet it is an important philosophical point, as well as one of great practical importance. Despite our inherent right to keep and bear arms, many governmental institutions and agencies nevertheless disparage and violate it by enacting statutes and adopting policies that serve that end, despite lip service to the core right itself. It matters no whit that one acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms while preventing by some means the right of exercise, no matter how obliquely. "Yes, you have the right to keep and bear arms. No, you may not walk down the street with a gun on your hip." The violations are often precisely that blatantly illogical, invalid, and felonious.

The right of exercise directly implies the right to acquire the means thereto as one's just abilities may allow. What this means is that if I retain the right to keep and bear arms, implying my right of exercise and therefore the right to acquire the means of exercise, I rest centrally within the sphere of my just abilities to secure for myself those weapons I deem suitable for my purposes. It does not mean, however, that I am entitled to be provided with a weapon or that I may steal one in order to secure my right to exercise. It only guarantees my right to acquire such means as my abilities allow through non-criminal action.

By their very nature, inherent rights may be exercised for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. No man may oblige or force another to justify the other's exercise of his fundamental rights and the prerogatives that follow therefrom. For example, a man decides to openly bear a weapon during a stroll downtown. Police hold no rightful authority to so much as ask even the most seemingly innocuous question of him regarding his comport of arms, and yet they violate these basic rights of good men daily, often for no other reason than they feel that they can.

Contrary to popular misconception, and this is very important so please pay special attention**, all fundamental human rights are in fact absolute. Lawmakers, judges, other government figures, and large proportions of most populations are quick to assert the gross falsehood that the inherent rights of men have limits. They do not. My right to keep and bear arms as a Freeman cannot be rightly limited, save in those cases where my rights come squarely in crossing with those of another whose prerogatives supersede my own under very narrowly defined conditions, an example of which shall be forthcoming.

Were such rights not absolute, they would not be fundamental, but rather contractual or otherwise arbitrary in nature, meaning somebody somewhere held the authority to bestow and rescind such rights. Such a person would be your master and you, for all practical intents and purposes, his slave.

The fact that I may not murder someone with my weapon is not a restriction on my right to keep and bear arms per sé, but rather the simple denial of any right to murder my fellows. The two propositions seem similar, and yet they are at wide variance with each other. This is where my right to act ends and my neighbor's nose begins, as the old saying goes.

When I am traveling freely as a natural man upon the Commons, no other man may order me to disarm or otherwise molest me as regards my state of being armed, precisely because I retain the inherent right to keep and bear weaponry. Therefore, my exercise may not be questioned, all else equal.

Another man does, however rest within his prerogatives to prohibit me from coming armed on to his privately held property, or that over which he wields valid private control. For example, a shop owner may validly and lawfully prevent from entering his place of business those who are armed, even if he is not the actual owner of the real estate in which the business is located. Customers hold no inherent right to enter upon the private property of the shop. The shop owner may set the conditions of entry, including a policy of no weapons. If a customer finds the condition of entry unacceptable, he may choose not to enter.

Contractual rights are different in that they arise not as matters inherent of the fact that we live, but by conscious agreement or deign. For example, Acme Anvil Co. hires a new blacksmith and part of their employment offer is stock options for ten thousand shares such that any time within his first five years of service with the firm he may buy shares at some pre-set price, say $1 per share. That means that at any time during that period, the new hire holds the contractual right, or privilege, to purchase at $1/share as many shares as he wishes up to and including ten-thousands. Beyond five years, he no longer retains that right, an example of how such rights may be limited by essentially arbitrary (though agreed) condition.

As we can see, this is not quite the same as an inherent right in that it is contrived-by and agreed-upon by men through free and voluntary accord. In other words, it may not be absolute, save that it becomes so by such agreement.

The inherent right cannot be constrained in this way unilaterally, and while Freemen may waive certain of their fundamental rights, there is nothing in principal to suggest that they may not re-assert those rights at a later time.

Just because the fundamental rights of men are violated in gross and shamefully criminal fashion on a minute-by-minute basis by other men, most often those identifying themselves as "government" or "the state", it does not follow that those rights do not exist. It only testifies to the violations themselves. This is an area of reasoning where most people fail miserably in their analyses of such situations, falsely concluding that because rights are violated all the time, they therefore do not exist. Were this the case, then there would no such things as contracts because by this reasoning, if you and I enter into an agreement and I violate the terms, you have no recourse because rights, whether inherent or contractual, clearly do not exist as demonstrated by my violation. This is wildly failed logic, if "logic" can even be said to live there at all.

Our natural rights are the unalienable property of Freemen and as such cannot be righteously curbed, diminished, removed, violated, or otherwise disparaged save where a Freeman becomes a proven Criminal, in which case some of his rights may be curtailed for a limited period coinciding with the term of any sentence he may have earned as the result of his unrighteous acts. Short of that, no man holds the least authority to diminish another through acting as if to be the other's master. This is a felony of the highest order, regardless of who is committing it, or their purport to authority, for such claims are damned lies and may be validly met with extreme prejudice and non-equivocation.

It is my hope and desire to disseminate this information to as wide a population as is possible. The lack of proper understanding by so many regarding their birthright is both frightening and appalling in the level of danger it threatens to all men. If you do yourself no other honor in life, at least do that of learning in deeper stance that which no other man may take from you. Your rights are your first property. Treasure them and honor them properly, for to neglect this is to invite calamity upon yourself.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.


** It behooves one to read these sentences however many millions of times needed to make their messages soak in fully. Tattoo it onto the insides of your eyelids if you must, but never forget them and endeavor with all good faith and diligence to understand them wholly and with great precision and clarity, for it will benefit you and those around you endlessly.

[osan]

PS: I see I'm not the first to have thought of this, to wit:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t-s-Dictionary

[jbnevin]

I'm liking this very much. Not sure about "accepted" though. It's too loosey goosey. Accepted by whom? What about OBJECTIVE truths?

That was the goal of my subtext, which I put forward as a placeholder reminder that something must be done about it. It's always going to come down to what people accept individually. But the idea here is that society could reach a point where definitions matter, and in such a world truths would be derived from justifiable authority. I suppose only objective truths are in play.

Objective reality exists. In fact, I would argue that all reality is objective, though this is mainly speculative. We perceive through our senses; vision, hearing, taste, touch, odor. Assuming that this is not all one gigantic hallucination (and even if it is, what difference does it make to our experience?), the objective reality we perceive through the interecession of our senses remains objectively what it is, regardless of the subjective ways in which we take it in.

We had the argument a few days ago about pornography, myself and a couple of other forum members over in the chatroom ( https://discord.gg/x7EbNkAG if you're interested). I find most porn stupid, some of it disgusting, but most of it is meh... If you like it, watch. If you REALLY like it, make it. If you hate it, don't watch. The point here being that what gets one guy all worked up and angry, leaves others indifferent, and yet others worked up in an entirely different way.

On the contrary, I was not having a pornographical argument.

What we have here, then, appears to be a very fundamental problem between what we assume is the objective reality that is just outside our skins, and the assumedly subjective one in our brains. But is it really a problem? I say no... that is, unless you insist on pedantic metaphysical arguments such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They can be interesting, amusing, but generally seem to prove ultimately pointless in terms of practical living.

My take is that there is no such thing as subjective reality in the strictest sense of "reality". There is reality, which is purely objective in its nature simply because it exists and is what it is, regardless of how we adjudge it. Then there are our judgments of that reality, which is not subjective REALITY, but our subjective opinions, assessments, likes, dislikes, etc. These are two very different things, one being reality and the other being opinion, so to speak. We can choose, for example, to decide that gravity does not exist, but how many of us are willing to take the elevator to the observation deck and take that leap of faith off the precipice? People talk a lot of crap, but at the end of it all there are certain perceptions that no rational and fundamentally sane human being is willing to challenge in a rubber-meets-the-road fashion. Talk is cheap.

I'm thinking of it more like objective = 'it is' subjective = 'it seems to be' -- but not the easily passed over version of 'it seems to be,' used like a segueway. I mean it literally, in that the subjective acts as a model of what the world appears to be so far based on available information. It's subject to change. It's hypothetical. The objective then, is what measurably is.

So let us rewrite ever so slightly to this:

Law: n. An enforceable rule that is: a) based upon one or more axiomatic and objectively demonstrable truths, b) follows strictly from the postulations upon which it is based, c) conforms perfectly with the propositions from which it strictly follows, d) addresses criminal acts by one human being against another human being other than himself, e) provides no immunity to itself, but is universally applicable to all human praxis relevant to the rule, g) restricts human behavior such that it either prohibits or compels it.

Any exception to a Law, whether specified in the Law itself, or in another Law, must itself meet all the required specifications of a Law.**

** Not at all sure about this one, but throwing it out in case it is valid.

Note "enforceable", which acknowledges and allows that we may choose to enforce such a rule, or not. For example, rape is very clearly a crime for which the rape statutes are most likely Law, even if they are written in a manner less valuable than bat guano. If I am walking a lonely lower Manhattan street at 2AM on a Saturday in August and I witness one human attempting to rape another, the choice is mine whether to act in defense of the apparent victim or just keep walking. There is no compulsion to enforce a rule, but the option remains to us. "Government" agencies may, and pretty nearly universally do, however, require their agents to enforce such Laws in every case. That is a matter of policy and not of Law per sé.

As a great start, I suggest gather together the definitions for your initial post.

Once again let us rework:

Crime: n. An act of commission or omission such that the inherent†† rights of one man are violated or otherwise trespassed upon by the actions or explicit failures of another man who is not the victim of such acts.

Explicit Failure: n. The willful failure by a human being, as promisor, to do as he has pledged to another human being, the promisee, who is other than the promisor, such that the promisee comes to harm. The promisee comes to harm due to the promisor's failure where, had the promisor not pledged his commitment, the promisee may have exercised another extant option that would likely have saved him from injury, the option having been irretrievably abandoned as the result of the promise made to him by the promisor, perhaps under some dire and exigent circumstance to the promisee. The promise in question offered similar outcomes as the option and would have sufficed, had it been fulfilled. Explicit failures are acts of fraud.

[jbnevin]

Next issue: rights. Most people do not understand rights, save in the vaguest of manners. I have spent a lifetime witnessing people, usually of a left-bent, shrieking wildly and without end about their "rights" in ways that clearly indicate their blind ignorance of the notion. Two examples of this are those of the ideas of "women's rights" and "gay rights", both the utterances of which should give cause for the eyeballs of intelligent men to roll right out of their sockets. There are no such things as rights specific to women or homosexuals. If they are enjoying their full human rights, there is nothing else that need be addressed on that point. But the terms are not what they purport, but are rather a demand for special, synthetically contrived privileges that rest superior to the inherent rights of mere and mortal white men.

While this isn't really an issue of definition, since the definition of a "right" exists and is good as is, it is a matter of understanding, and so I will include it here for the sake of putting it out there in yet another forum. I have probably posted this here before, but no longer recall. Besides, such ideas bear repetition, so here we go.

I wrote this late in 2016, viewable at https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.co...rights_21.html

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

What Are Rights?

.

I just realized that in the few years I have been posting here on the various aspects of freedom, I have never specifically addressed the issue of rights in any direct depth. Oddly, I thought I'd done so in my very first essay, "What Is Freedom?", but as it turns out, I had not done so sufficiently. While there isn't all that much in terms of fundamentals to the notion of rights, it still serves us well to have a proper understanding of what they are.

The correct understanding of rights is sorely absent from the repertoire of most people's educations. This is not only shameful, but very dangerous. I will, therefore, endeavor to provide the world with a sufficient synopsis of what rights are by type, there being two.

Before we begin, we should once again consult the dictionary for the proper definition(s) of the word "right" as it would correctly apply in the context of freedom.

From Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of 1895, the relevant entry defines a right as:

Right, n. ...
2. That to which one has a just claim

(a) That which one has a natural claim to exact

(b) That which one has a legal or social claim to do or to exact; a legal power; authority

(c) That which justly belongs to one; that which one has a claim to possess or own;
the interest or share which anyone has in a piece of property; title; claim; interest; ownership

(d) Privilege of immunity granted by authority


And from Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1785:

Right. n. s. ...
3. Just claim

4. That which justly belongs to one

5. Property; interest

6. Power; prerogative


From the definitions above, it is clear that a right is that to which one is entitled and to which he may validly claim ownership. Also note the implicit references to property rights. As it turns out, a right is centrally important to human freedom, for without respect for the rights of men, there can be no freedom, but only degrees of servitude, which I cover in "Degrees Of Freedom."

There are, however, two senses or types of rights. The first and most important is that of the inherent or natural right. An example of this would be a man's right to life - which is another way of saying his claim or title to life, further implying a man's life as being his property, what I call his "First Property", or "FP" for short. Another would be a man's freedom.

These rights are those that are born into us as matters part and parcel of our human fabric. There is, therefore, no possible manner by which one's rights may be separated from the rest of one's being as there is no line of demarcation between the two. You and your rights are one and the same**.

The second sense of a right is that of those of a contractual nature. An example of this would be your right to vote. As a citizen of a given nation whose political structures includes the process of voting, there is most often an implied and assumed right to vote in elections. It is the reason why a citizen of one nation may be prohibited from voting in a nation of which he is not a citizen. Being contractual in nature, which is to say by way of agreement, this right may be stripped from you, which is the reason why a man convicted of a felony in America may have his right to vote removed. Men are not born with the right to vote. They are granted the contractual right as a matter of agreement that this is what men in good standing may do during elections.

All rights imply the right of exercise. If I retain the right to keep and bear arms, it perforce follows that I hold the right to exercise. This may seem redundant or even silly, yet it is an important philosophical point, as well as one of great practical importance. Despite our inherent right to keep and bear arms, many governmental institutions and agencies nevertheless disparage and violate it by enacting statutes and adopting policies that serve that end, despite lip service to the core right itself. It matters no whit that one acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms while preventing by some means the right of exercise, no matter how obliquely. "Yes, you have the right to keep and bear arms. No, you may not walk down the street with a gun on your hip." The violations are often precisely that blatantly illogical, invalid, and felonious.

The right of exercise directly implies the right to acquire the means thereto as one's just abilities may allow. What this means is that if I retain the right to keep and bear arms, implying my right of exercise and therefore the right to acquire the means of exercise, I rest centrally within the sphere of my just abilities to secure for myself those weapons I deem suitable for my purposes. It does not mean, however, that I am entitled to be provided with a weapon or that I may steal one in order to secure my right to exercise. It only guarantees my right to acquire such means as my abilities allow through non-criminal action.

By their very nature, inherent rights may be exercised for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. No man may oblige or force another to justify the other's exercise of his fundamental rights and the prerogatives that follow therefrom. For example, a man decides to openly bear a weapon during a stroll downtown. Police hold no rightful authority to so much as ask even the most seemingly innocuous question of him regarding his comport of arms, and yet they violate these basic rights of good men daily, often for no other reason than they feel that they can.

Contrary to popular misconception, and this is very important so please pay special attention**, all fundamental human rights are in fact absolute. Lawmakers, judges, other government figures, and large proportions of most populations are quick to assert the gross falsehood that the inherent rights of men have limits. They do not. My right to keep and bear arms as a Freeman cannot be rightly limited, save in those cases where my rights come squarely in crossing with those of another whose prerogatives supersede my own under very narrowly defined conditions, an example of which shall be forthcoming.

Were such rights not absolute, they would not be fundamental, but rather contractual or otherwise arbitrary in nature, meaning somebody somewhere held the authority to bestow and rescind such rights. Such a person would be your master and you, for all practical intents and purposes, his slave.

The fact that I may not murder someone with my weapon is not a restriction on my right to keep and bear arms per sé, but rather the simple denial of any right to murder my fellows. The two propositions seem similar, and yet they are at wide variance with each other. This is where my right to act ends and my neighbor's nose begins, as the old saying goes.

When I am traveling freely as a natural man upon the Commons, no other man may order me to disarm or otherwise molest me as regards my state of being armed, precisely because I retain the inherent right to keep and bear weaponry. Therefore, my exercise may not be questioned, all else equal.

Another man does, however rest within his prerogatives to prohibit me from coming armed on to his privately held property, or that over which he wields valid private control. For example, a shop owner may validly and lawfully prevent from entering his place of business those who are armed, even if he is not the actual owner of the real estate in which the business is located. Customers hold no inherent right to enter upon the private property of the shop. The shop owner may set the conditions of entry, including a policy of no weapons. If a customer finds the condition of entry unacceptable, he may choose not to enter.

Contractual rights are different in that they arise not as matters inherent of the fact that we live, but by conscious agreement or deign. For example, Acme Anvil Co. hires a new blacksmith and part of their employment offer is stock options for ten thousand shares such that any time within his first five years of service with the firm he may buy shares at some pre-set price, say $1 per share. That means that at any time during that period, the new hire holds the contractual right, or privilege, to purchase at $1/share as many shares as he wishes up to and including ten-thousands. Beyond five years, he no longer retains that right, an example of how such rights may be limited by essentially arbitrary (though agreed) condition.

As we can see, this is not quite the same as an inherent right in that it is contrived-by and agreed-upon by men through free and voluntary accord. In other words, it may not be absolute, save that it becomes so by such agreement.

The inherent right cannot be constrained in this way unilaterally, and while Freemen may waive certain of their fundamental rights, there is nothing in principal to suggest that they may not re-assert those rights at a later time.

Just because the fundamental rights of men are violated in gross and shamefully criminal fashion on a minute-by-minute basis by other men, most often those identifying themselves as "government" or "the state", it does not follow that those rights do not exist. It only testifies to the violations themselves. This is an area of reasoning where most people fail miserably in their analyses of such situations, falsely concluding that because rights are violated all the time, they therefore do not exist. Were this the case, then there would no such things as contracts because by this reasoning, if you and I enter into an agreement and I violate the terms, you have no recourse because rights, whether inherent or contractual, clearly do not exist as demonstrated by my violation. This is wildly failed logic, if "logic" can even be said to live there at all.

Our natural rights are the unalienable property of Freemen and as such cannot be righteously curbed, diminished, removed, violated, or otherwise disparaged save where a Freeman becomes a proven Criminal, in which case some of his rights may be curtailed for a limited period coinciding with the term of any sentence he may have earned as the result of his unrighteous acts. Short of that, no man holds the least authority to diminish another through acting as if to be the other's master. This is a felony of the highest order, regardless of who is committing it, or their purport to authority, for such claims are damned lies and may be validly met with extreme prejudice and non-equivocation.

It is my hope and desire to disseminate this information to as wide a population as is possible. The lack of proper understanding by so many regarding their birthright is both frightening and appalling in the level of danger it threatens to all men. If you do yourself no other honor in life, at least do that of learning in deeper stance that which no other man may take from you. Your rights are your first property. Treasure them and honor them properly, for to neglect this is to invite calamity upon yourself.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.


** It behooves one to read these sentences however many millions of times needed to make their messages soak in fully. Tattoo it onto the insides of your eyelids if you must, but never forget them and endeavor with all good faith and diligence to understand them wholly and with great precision and clarity, for it will benefit you and those around you endlessly.

This is excellent. Are there parts you've thought to rewrite now? Or just to poach some definitions or backgrounds for them?

I'm sorry that I cannot give it its due right this moment, but I like what's happening here.

[osan]

Anyone have any further opinions/suggestions/observations on the definitions for "Law" and "crime" and "defectum voluntarium"?

What other essential terms should be included in this? I'm sure there must be several more; words that represent concepts so singularly central to the qualities of our lives, and here I speak mainly in the political sense, that well formed definitions become of paramount importance.

Theye are scoundrels and need to be lassoed by their tiny little balls and reeled in and kept on very short leads. Words are Theire primary weapon against us. We need to get Themme into the cattle chute in which they belong and never allow them to stray ever again, ready, willing, able, and eager to deal them devastation if they so much as hint at drift-wandering from their stations. Defining those limits relies wholly upon words such as Law and crime. If we do not have proper definitions, there is no way to enforce our prerogatives upon Themme; we are as ships with neither rudder, compass, or charts. That has to stop, and once again I cannot overstate the importance of this.

We might call this the Dictionary of Special and Essential Terms, or DSET.

So once again, what else needs to be in this tome?

[osan]

Are there parts you've thought to rewrite now? Or just to poach some definitions or backgrounds for them?

I've not read it for years. I believe I did a fair good job of it the first time around, but if you or anyone else has any thoughts or suggestions, I'm all eyes.

[osan]

Synchronicity.

https://stream.org/words-for-warrior...to-fight-back/

[osan]

Bump.

At what other vital terms shall we take a crack? I don't think I can think of them all.

[osan]

Anyone home?

[Bryan]

Anyone home?

Yes, so should @jbnevin.

At what other vital terms shall we take a crack? I don't think I can think of them all.

Consider my prior list here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ase-Dictionary

Obviously it has all been on ice... and I missed your late reply. Agree on your comment.

General thoughts on making things effective, for each term:
Have a simple description - easy / quick to get the point
Have a long-form description - to clear up ambiguous.
Enumerate boundaries and corner cases

Also, per my prior thoughts, group things in sets such everything falls into one of the items. Example: something can be a Law or a social norm (or whatever, but not a law).

[jbnevin]

Synchronicity.

https://stream.org/words-for-warrior...to-fight-back/

It seems with the times. Defining our own path forward rather than relying on the venerated experts who lost their way.

And yet, the conservative principles are as valid as the liberal ones. It is time to embrace some big changes, while holding steadfast to what has always worked. The principled libertarian and his timeless axioms are as vital as his drive and courage to shed corruption.

[jbnevin]

Yes, so should @jbnevin.


Consider my prior list here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ase-Dictionary

Obviously it has all been on ice... and I missed your late reply. Agree on your comment.

General thoughts on making things effective, for each term:
Have a simple description - easy / quick to get the point
Have a long-form description - to clear up ambiguous.
Enumerate boundaries and corner cases

Also, per my prior thoughts, group things in sets such everything falls into one of the items. Example: something can be a Law or a social norm (or whatever, but not a law).

Wow, I think I never saw that. Ambitious! I like it.

My similar thoughts around that time were associated with a 3D click/draggable matrix of facts that can be rated by the crowd to visually show consensus (this is not something that exists, as far as I know).

I imagine there is already a lot of material toward this end. I was thinking that to have any sort of educated opinion or critique on what you are/were trying to do with the Foundational Knowledge Dictionary idea, I'd need to do a lot of reading. To compare the tables of contents of encyclopedias and similar compendiums, to see what ancients may have said about delineating nature, to see what neural net / artificial intelligence programmers have written about how they try to define the boundaries of reality in their computational models.

The same is true generally of the New Dictionary Project of this thread. There is requisite legal reading I would have to complete. However, I would be glad to help.

[jbnevin]

I have been thinking that there exists a set of terms for which scientifically rigorous definitions should exist for many reasons including but not limited to removing the ability of politicians and other agents of the Tyrant from doing what they do so successfully, which is to twist and manipulate word meanings to suit their agendas.

I would think it would be most helpful to spend time on the first few steps, such as ensuring that the goal, plan, idea, vision, is defined as best as can be at an early stage. Your initial description above reads to me as focused, logical, understandable, and coherent, but it still might be worth further consideration of how it might be improved or whether it is inaccurate or insufficient in any way (even though I do not myself see any specific ways that it is.)

And to the extent it might be worthwhile to brainstorm surrounding, here are my thoughts:

- The obstacle is that definitions change over time and can be manipulated or co-opted. The solution? I don't know but I think of roots. Connect the definitions to what is timeless wherever possible.
- Plain language that has remained unambiguous in our known history and that have numerous precedential contextual examples would seem preferable to new words.
- Examples of words that have been co-opted or definitions that have been manipulated and education on the techniques of such propagandistic manipulations is as important a defense as the dictionary itself?

Here's what ChatGPT says about 'tell me how to outline a plan or idea' FWIW

1. Identify the Objective: Clarify the goal or purpose of the plan or idea.

2. Gather Information: Research and collect data related to the plan or idea.


3. Brainstorm: Generate ideas and potential solutions.


4. Categorize Ideas: Group related ideas together to form a structure.


5. Prioritize: Determine which ideas are most important and should be included in the plan or idea.


6. Create a Timeline: Establish milestones, deadlines, and other key dates to keep the plan or idea on track.


7. Plan Resources: Allocate resources, such as personnel and budget, to ensure the plan or idea can be implemented.


8. Draft the Outline: Put the plan or idea into written form.


9. Review: Have the plan or idea reviewed by a third-party to ensure accuracy and completeness.


10. Finalize: Make any necessary revisions and finalize the plan or idea.