The U.S. Constitution: Pro-Freedom?

[Sonny Tufts]

"a gross generalization"? What I said was a pretty $#@!ing accurate generalization, considering that specific performance is almost never applied, precisely because it is such an extreme measure. The fact that it so rarely is used and only with so many restrictions only serves to enhance my point. One of those restrictions, is it shouldn't be used for personal service!! (because that would be $#@!in' slavery)

Except you didn't limit your claim to personal service contracts. You even acknowledged that one can be forced to convey real property via specific performance (presumably without becoming a slave). Nice try, but no cigar.

And, BTW, how in the world is a State that has joined a union analogous to someone who has promised to render personal services? And how can a State possibly complain that it's a slave if it's forced to abide by the Constitution?

[TheTexan]

Except you didn't limit your claim to personal service contracts. You even acknowledged that one can be forced to convey real property via specific performance (presumably without becoming a slave). Nice try, but no cigar.

Conveying property is not slavery and I never said it was. Conveying property, is just the primary context of how specific performance is applied. So, right back at you.. nice try.. no cigar.

And, BTW, how in the world is a State that has joined a union analogous to someone who has promised to render personal services? And how can a State possibly complain that it's a slave if it's forced to abide by the Constitution?

If you don't think it's a personal service contract, the contract is still not eligible for specific performance, based on any number of common law standards. Have your pick, almost every one of these restrictions would apply:

- Specific performance would cause severe hardship to the defendant.
- The contract was unconscionable.
- Common Law damages are readily available or the detriment suffered by the claimant is easy to substitute, then damages are adequate.[1][2]
- The claimant has misbehaved (unclean hands).
- Specific performance is impossible.
- Performance consists of a personal service [3]
- The contract is too vague to be enforced.
- The contract was terminable at will (meaning either party can renege without notice).
- Note that consumer protection laws may disallow terms that allow a company to terminate a consumer contract at will (e.g. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999[4])
- The contract required constant supervision.[5]
- Mutuality was lacking in the initial agreement of the contract.
- The contract was made for no consideration.

[acptulsa]

Except you didn't limit your claim to personal service contracts. You even acknowledged that one can be forced to convey real property via specific performance (presumably without becoming a slave). Nice try, but no cigar.

And, BTW, how in the world is a State that has joined a union analogous to someone who has promised to render personal services? And how can a State possibly complain that it's a slave if it's forced to abide by the Constitution?

Why should I sit by and let you pick your battles?

How is a contract that can never be completed, satisfied and laid to rest except by death not slavery?

And since you want to ignore the question, I'll up the ante. How can a contract be agreed to by a newborn, even if you think it's for a necessary? How can a newborn consent by any sane legal standard?

Do you dare answer me?

[osan]

If that man ever had his way ,,his utopia would be Owned by a Warlord in 2 years.

as soon as you organize defense you have created Government.

I've had a few direct tete-a-tetes with him on other platforms and have to say that he's a great big dick much of the time. You can't get a word in edgewise with him and if you disagree on the least point, he's on you like a lefty. He doesn't even ask for clarification on points of meaning. He just assumes what you mean, decides you're feces, and goes off. It's a shame because some of his ideas are sound, but he seems to think he's the only one with worthy thoughts. I just ignore him now, mainly because he has nothing new to say and I sure as the devil would not vote for him for any office.

[PAF]

I've had a few direct tete-a-tetes with him on other platforms and have to say that he's a great big dick much of the time. You can't get a word in edgewise with him and if you disagree on the least point, he's on you like a lefty. He doesn't even ask for clarification on points of meaning. He just assumes what you mean, decides you're feces, and goes off. It's a shame because some of his ideas are sound, but he seems to think he's the only one with worthy thoughts. I just ignore him now, mainly because he has nothing new to say

Yet people love Alpha Trump

and I sure as the devil would not vote for him for any office.

People like that/them/us [politically correct term] don't seek office, so no skin off anybody's back.

It is a lot more difficult to pull people up, than it is to pull people down. When one stands on principle and the truth, there is no reason to debate it. When you do debate it, look what happens with the 2ndA --> "sensible" and "red-flag" gun laws.

Too bad politicians don't stand on principle and truth. But then, nobody would want to vote for them. Right, @osan? lol

[pcosmar]

I've had a few direct tete-a-tetes with him on other platforms and have to say that he's a great big dick much of the time. You can't get a word in edgewise with him and if you disagree on the least point, he's on you like a lefty. He doesn't even ask for clarification on points of meaning. He just assumes what you mean, decides you're feces, and goes off. It's a shame because some of his ideas are sound, but he seems to think he's the only one with worthy thoughts. I just ignore him now, mainly because he has nothing new to say and I sure as the devil would not vote for him for any office.

And I have been described as an anarchist,,for my views..
I accept Government,,try to influence it.. I don't pretend it doesn't exist.

Much like I accept Hurricanes and Sharks.

[Snowball]

A perpetual union is not by defintion, as understood then or now, necessarily a permanent union.

We should never forget that this country is illegitimate. It is thoroughly illegitimate.

[TheTexan]

A perpetual union is not by defintion, as understood then or now, necessarily a permanent union.

We should never forget that this country is illegitimate. It is thoroughly illegitimate.

+rep on both counts

[osan]

Yet people love Alpha Trump

As I have oft quipped, the meaner is a beast and nothing more. Regardless the true source of the document, the Protocols of Zion nonetheless makes this point quite well when it says that those who refuse to use their brains are no different from those who have none.

The elite have worked tirelessly to cultivate the inner idiot in as many as possible. As we see, they have done their work well. Given this, and given the fact that almost no matter how dim the individual, people are still able to keenly tell when the general environment is not in good shape. And so who can claim reasonable surprise when those Americans would glom on to a man who so adroitly read the room and gave clear and concrete steps, moving forward?

[acptulsa]

And so who can claim reasonable surprise when those Americans would glom on to a man who so adroitly read the room and gave clear and concrete steps, moving forward?

Clear, concrete steps. You must be joking. He promised everything, even mutually contradictory things, with never a word to how any of it could be accomplished. What medications were you on in 2016?

That's not what did it. In the early primaries, he was getting six or seven percent.

What did it is, there were seventeen bodies in the race. Seven percent was therefore enough for Fox to pronounce him the front-runner, and Republicans will nominate a ham sandwich if Fox pronounces it the front-runner.

[osan]

Clear, concrete steps. You must be joking. He promised everything, even mutually contradictory things, with never a word to how any of it could be accomplished. What medications were you on in 2016?

You seem to have missed the point. For the mean man, he was lighting the way. We were speaking of the lowatt intellects that comprise the American mean. For them, Trump provided what was needed. It was largely smoke and mirrors, as if this should surprise anyone.

[Snowball]

+rep on both counts

Possibly the most concise and accurate defence of secession as a fully American right, steeped in historical affirmation, that I've ever heard:



Audio download page:
https://www.thebadroman.com/show-notes/episode-24

[Sonny Tufts]

How is a contract that can never be completed, satisfied and laid to rest except by death not slavery?

Just as a contract can be dissolved if all parties thereto consent, the Union could be dissolved if all of its members agreed. It would probably be possible even if less than 100% consented.

But if only one State wants to leave, you're going to have a problem. From a purely legal standpoint (assuming secession can be analyzed in legal terms) the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no right to secede. From a de facto perspective it's hard to see how it would ever be allowed, either by the other States or by the citizens of the secession wannabe State.

And since you want to ignore the question, I'll up the ante. How can a contract be agreed to by a newborn, even if you think it's for a necessary? How can a newborn consent by any sane legal standard?

Newborns don't enter into contracts. Older minors sometimes do, and they have the right to disaffirm the contract under certain conditions. A contract for necessaries could be viewed as enforceable under a quantum meruit theory without regard to actual consent.

Not sure what all that has to do with secession, though.

[TheTexan]

But if only one State wants to leave, you're going to have a problem. From a purely legal standpoint (assuming secession can be analyzed in legal terms) the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no right to secede.

If we're still running with the contract analogy, the Supreme Court's rulings would have no bearing on a member state's ability to terminate the contract relationship.

From a contract perspective, the Supreme Court is basically the contract's designated arbitrator/mediator. It's an extremely common thing for contracts to have a designated arbitrator. But what those arbitrators can't do, is change the terms of the contract. Saying that the contract cannot be terminated, without the consent of X amount of parties involved, would be changing the terms of the contract. Imagine if you went into mediation over your phone bill, and the mediator said nope, you cannot terminate this contract because we decided that this contract requires the consent of both parties to terminate it? You would be furious, report the phone company to the BBB, and the phone company would get their ass handed to them in various legal penalties.

If we were to however put the contract analogy on a shelf, and consider it from a human rights perspective, the Supreme Court's ruling that a state cannot secede on its own, violates the right to self determination.

It is such an important right that the United Nations recognizes the right to self determination as a basic human right in Article 1 of the UN Charter.

Nearly any rational person of solid ethics will claim to respect this basic human right, but it hasn't always been consistently upheld. The Catalans are for example being politically oppressed and forced to stay in a relationship they no longer desire. And this is extremely unethical.

There is no justification for forcing people to stay in a relationship that is no longer consensual. To claim otherwise would be to confess oneself as a tyrant.

[Sonny Tufts]

There is no justification for forcing people to stay in a relationship that is no longer consensual. To claim otherwise would be to confess oneself as a tyrant.

Taking this to its logical extreme, it follows that an individual has the right to leave his relationship with government and to no longer be bound by its rules. In other words, secession and self detrermination can't be limited to just governments. But that is pure anarchy, and it doesn't work, no matter how many people believe in the myth of Galt's Gulch.

Saying that the contract cannot be terminated, without the consent of X amount of parties involved, would be changing the terms of the contract.

To the contrary -- I have drafted hundreds of contracts, and one of the boilerplate provisions states that the contract cannot be amended or terminated without the consent of all parties (excluding emplyment contracts). But you are correct in that a court will not order a party to continue to be bound to a contract he has breached (excluding cases of specific performance). Instead, the breaching party will be liable for damages.

But the contract analogy is inapposite in at least one respect: what is the remedy for a breach? In a case involving individuals instead of governments, the usual remedy is damages. But what are the damages if, say, California decided to secede? Setting aside the fact that this could be a positive boon to the rest of the country, how could one ever measure the damages, especially if California were one of the states that receive more federal money than its citizens pay in federal taxes? So unless you're prepared to say that a state government may breach its contract with the other states with impunity, what is the remedy?

[TheTexan]

Taking this to its logical extreme, it follows that an individual has the right to leave his relationship with government and to no longer be bound by its rules. In other words, secession and self detrermination can't be limited to just governments. But that is pure anarchy, and it doesn't work, no matter how many people believe in the myth of Galt's Gulch.

The concept still holds at the individual level but it does get complicated. The short version of it is that the individual seceding would need to have sufficient resources to offset any legitimate damage that the secession causes. The costs are generally going to be larger than what an individual can afford. Let's say that one of the many conditions of secession is that if the individual needs to travel, to say Mexico, they must travel with US escorts to their destination, to ensure they don't enter the US illegally.

It gets complicated, and expensive fast. But "complicated" is still not an ethical justification. With that said, I don't judge people very harshly if they say it's simply impractical for individuals to secede. For most people it's just too difficult to comprehend.

When we're talking about large groups of people, the size of Luxembourg and other small countries, I judge very harshly those who say they cant secede without permission.

A state the size of Texas... Noone except a full blown tyrant would say they don't have the right to form their own country.

So unless you're prepared to say that a state government may breach its contract with the other states with impunity, what is the remedy?

If there are specific, legitimate damages, then those should be addressed. But most of the negotiation would be around how the assets and debt should be divided, as in a demerger.

[Sonny Tufts]

The concept still holds at the individual level but it does get complicated. The short version of it is that the individual seceding would need to have sufficient resources to offset any legitimate damage that the secession causes. The costs are generally going to be larger than what an individual can afford. Let's say that one of the many conditions of secession is that if the individual needs to travel, to say Mexico, they must travel with US escorts to their destination, to ensure they don't enter the US illegally.

The biggest complication isn't damages, but the fact that the seceding individual may have to move. Remaining in the territorial area of the governmental entity from which he is seceding while at the same time claiming he isn't subject to the laws of the entity will get very dicey very quickly.

[TheTexan]

The biggest complication isn't damages, but the fact that the seceding individual may have to move. Remaining in the territorial area of the governmental entity from which he is seceding while at the same time claiming he isn't subject to the laws of the entity will get very dicey very quickly.

There are ways to accommodate it but it does get expensive. Costs which the seceding party would generally be expected to bear (right or wrong).

If I can afford to put a 20ft wall around my territory, and afford the US border guards that they claim are necessary, and afford the bureaucratic overhead the US requires to manage the situation, then why shouldn't I be allowed to secede?

[osan]

And I have been described as an anarchist,,for my views..
I accept Government,,try to influence it.. I don't pretend it doesn't exist.

Much like I accept Hurricanes and Sharks.

IF "government" is properly structured and administered, it can work well. The problem isn't "government" - that has never existed in sé. The problem is people. Always has been; always will be.

The greatest way in which the US Constitution fails, and does so most spectacularly, is in holding scoundrels accountable. I mentioned some years ago when I wrote "A Missing Link In Normative 'Government'" how the Constitution left us bereft of sufficient means of defense against corrupt mobsters in the houses of government it established in such cavalier fashion. My suspicion is that the Framers may have assumed we would likely remain as wild beasts pursuant to the preservation of our liberties. Hindsight being what it tends, it is clear they gave posterity too much credit.

Being the real problem, people are always the lynch pin. Good people need neither government nor constitution. They know right from wrong and treasure their freedoms. Once corrupted, anything becomes possible and perdition is all but assured and inevitable.

All we can do is make of ourselves better men and set into writing Law that renders unto the good men the direct means of physically destroying all tyrants. In the final analysis, murder is the only assurance we have that we will have even a snowball's chance in hell of protecting our sovereign interests. Though wholly out of vogue these days, what with all the contamination of egalitarian thinking that most people appear to accept as some sort of divine, immutable truth, I fully believe in the station of the Superior Man that demands his shepherding of the Weakman. We see first hand what happens when Weakmen are given equal say in matters that affect all men; the world decays before our eyes, in their appalling ignorance, the Weakmen luxuriating in that which they bring forth in such errant proportion that it becomes as filth and poison to the world.

And so the Superior man needs to keep the Weakman under control, lest the latter run amok and turn the land to waste. Sadly, the universal tendency has been for Superior men to fall to corruption, in time, such that he becomes as the Weakman, at which point the rotten end cannot be terribly far off.

That all said, my admittedly inadequate swag at placing better resources into the hands of ever greater numbers by which the common man can fend off the tyrant and his minions comes, at least in part, with this initial draft of Amendment XXVIII, wherein I spell out truly draconian punishments for any public servant, from President down to village dog catcher, who dares violate his oath of office by any means, whether through passage of legislation or more direct violations of the rights of Freemen, and for whatever reason fails to make full and proper amends.

I fully believe that the assumption of the mantle of the public trust demands many sacrifices by those who dare step up to that lofty position. One's entire family would be drafted and held to the standard in question and would share any government officials responsibilities for the choices made pursuant to the discharge of the relevant duties of governance by the office-holder.

Until we begin removing life from those who transgress, and reducing their entire families to abject and miserable penury for at least two full generations in payment for the sins of the relative who presumed, we will see no improvement in our condition. It is as plain and as simple as that.

[PAF]

The greatest way in which the US Constitution fails, and does so most spectacularly, is in holding scoundrels accountable.
And so the Superior man needs to keep the Weakman under control, lest the latter run amok and turn the land to waste. Sadly, the universal tendency has been for Superior men to fall to corruption, in time, such that he becomes as the Weakman, at which point the rotten end cannot be terribly far off.

Until we begin removing life from those who transgress, and reducing their entire families to abject and miserable penury for at least two full generations in payment for the sins of the relative who presumed, we will see no improvement in our condition. It is as plain and as simple as that.

Yes, but, the "greatest president of our lifetime" and who was "Sent by God" increased the debt by $8 Trillion-plus in one single term [even waaaaayyyyyy more than Obummer in 2 full terms], and nobody even batted an eye. In fact, there are Yard Signs EVERYWHERE "2024 - Make America Great Again - Again!"

[pcosmar]

In fact, there are Yard Signs EVERYWHERE "2024 - Make America Great Again - Again!"

The current Regime is your other option..

The insistence of so many to do Nothing has given the current seat warmer.

This year I will be Voting a Straight Republican Ticket.. I have never done that..

but it is my statement that I have had enough of Democrats.

[PAF]

The current Regime is your other option..

The insistence of so many to do Nothing has given the current seat warmer.

This year I will be Voting a Straight Republican Ticket.. I have never done that..

but it is my statement that I have had enough of Democrats.

Wow. Like there's a difference. Whoopee.

See @osan 's post above. Better yet, don't be complicit, I've got 2 jack boots over my throat.

[PAF]

@pcosmar

I've been thinking about that bird with 2 wings that many people pledge to.

What's the difference, when money is stolen by way of taxes, between distributing it to Globalist Corporations (ie: Republicans) and distributing it to Globalist Initiatives (ie: Democrats)?

Also, do Lobbyists recognize party and only lobby one side? Or don't they care and they lobby both?

[pcosmar]

@pcosmar

I've been thinking about that bird with 2 wings that many people pledge to.

What's the difference, when money is stolen by way of taxes, between distributing it to Globalist Corporations (ie: Republicans) and distributing it to Globalist Initiatives (ie: Democrats)?

Also, do Lobbyists recognize party and only lobby one side? Or don't they care and they lobby both?

So join the Black Bloc and burn it all down..

You can date the Anarchy Princess..she is right on your page.

[PAF]

So join the Black Bloc and burn it all down..

You can date the Anarchy Princess..she is right on your page.

You didn't answer the questions. Do you know the answers?

[pcosmar]

You didn't answer the questions. Do you know the answers?

I know that I was able to live as a Free Man in a Horribly Authoritarian environment..

I have lived and worked across this country,, Wanted and on an Alias.

and no internet Philosopher is likely to teach me about freedom in this clown world.

I am a Christian Believer..and trust God not man.. and I do take a Stand against Evil..both Spiritually and Physically..

I will vote against every D on the Ballot.. and won't split the Vote with Go No Where Parties..

is that clear enough.

[pcosmar]

You didn't answer the questions. Do you know the answers?

Your questions are Irrelevant..

[PAF]

Your questions are Irrelevant..

It is long overdue for this Empire to come to an end. Whoever is responsible for Nord Stream, there is no doubt in my mind that the politicians, corporations, lobbyists, on both sides at the very least instigated it to fruition. I seek truth and justice for any and all men, no matter where they may hail. I will not be complicit, nor will I “fight for this country” for all of the atrocities it has created here, and around the world.

My questions are precisely relevant to those who seek truth and justice.

[CCTelander]

Wow. Like there's a difference. Whoopee.

See @osan 's post above. Better yet, don't be complicit, I've got 2 jack boots over my throat.

Parts of this thread remind me of one of the major reasons why the so-called “liberty movement” has met with so very little success over the past almost half century of my involvement, and why that result is so likely to continue into the dark, dismal future: You NEVER hit what you’re not actually aiming for.

[osan]

Yes, but, the "greatest president of our lifetime" and who was "Sent by God" increased the debt by $8 Trillion-plus in one single term [even waaaaayyyyyy more than Obummer in 2 full terms], and nobody even batted an eye. In fact, there are Yard Signs EVERYWHERE "2024 - Make America Great Again - Again!"

What do the two have in common here? Your point evades me.