Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 62

Thread: West Virginia House just passed Convention of States

  1. #31
    The only reason I don't buy the argument that an article V convention could be twisted and turned against the states is because if it was really that easy, I think those in Congress would have done so by now.

    My criticism of it is that it is foolish to think that Congress would feel any obligation to call a convention if a 2/3 threshold were ever met (I remember a group called FOAVC that made a fairly convincing case that the threshold has already been met, as there is no stipulation for a time frame or expiration on calls for an Article V convention, except in cases where states later withdrew such motions). But lo and behold, Congress ignores it.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by showpan View Post

    BTW, Ron Paul would disagree with you!!!


    ....


    "Secession, of course, is not lawful. And if we've learned anything from history, we know it can have disastrous results. The federal government abuses its power, true, but if we have any alternatives to civil war, we should take them."


    https://conventionofstates.com/news/...n-is-good-news
    He disagrees with me about term limits. Not about a constutitional convention.

    Do you not realize that the link you provide is supporters of a constitutional convention arguing *against* Ron Paul's position?

    I can't find a statement from RP himself addressing the constitutional convention idea, but I'm pretty sure that if I keep looking I'll be able to find something where he does, and I'm pretty sure that it will be pretty much in line with this article published at the Ron Paul Institute, arguing against the idea.
    http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...al-convention/

    From the article you provided from that conventionofthestates site, it looks pretty obvious that they too understand that RP is no supporter of their scheme.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    He disagrees with me about term limits. Not about a constutitional convention.

    Do you not realize that the link you provide is supporters of a constitutional convention arguing *against* Ron Paul's position?

    I can't find a statement from RP himself addressing the constitutional convention idea, but I'm pretty sure that if I keep looking I'll be able to find something where he does, and I'm pretty sure that it will be pretty much in line with this article published at the Ron Paul Institute, arguing against the idea.
    http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...al-convention/

    From the article you provided from that conventionofthestates site, it looks pretty obvious that they too understand that RP is no supporter of their scheme.
    You still have no clue what you are talking about. I posted his comments. He agrees, if there was a way to do this without succession, then he's all for it and they aren't arguing against his position.....you must be reading in opposite glasses.....or beer....don't know which would be worse.
    Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.
    Thomas Jefferson

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by showpan View Post
    You still have no clue what you are talking about. I posted his comments. He agrees, if there was a way to do this without succession, then he's all for it and they aren't arguing against his position.....you must be reading in opposite glasses.....or beer....don't know which would be worse.
    Hold up. Are you saying that you think the words in the quotation marks that you put at the bottom of post #29 are Ron Paul's words?

    Because if you actually read the article that you quoted those words from, you would see that they clearly are not. They are the words of somebody who supports a constitutional convention complaining about the fact that Ron Paul is not on their side and disagreeing with his support for secession of states and nullification. Notice this sentence in that article: "On this point, however, we'd [i.e. the article's authors--people other than Ron Paul] like to point him [i.e. Ron Paul] to Article V of the Constitution, which describes a peaceful, constitutionally-sanction means to limit federal power."
    Last edited by Invisible Man; 03-07-2022 at 12:34 PM.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Please read what I posted earlier. The 16th Amendment was needed to overcome the holding in Pollock that an unapportioned tax on investment income was unconstitutional. Since Pollock acknowledged that a tax on other kinds of income was valid, in order to have an income tax apply to the wealthy (who had a lot of investment income) a constitutional amendment was necessary. The following editorial cartoon from 1913 illustrates this (the wording on the figures are "The Working Class" and "The Idle Rich", and the collar around the rich guy is labeled "Income Tax"):

    You are literally just regurgitating Establishment talking-points, circa 1913. How un-critical do you have to be to be incapable of examining even historical political questions with a critical eye?? In contemporary politics, I understand that people get swept up in the heat of the moment and partly or completely lose their ability to think critically. But this is long-dead history. C'mon man!

    SCOTUS has changed its mind more often than my last dinner date deciding what she was going to wear to dinner. So let's put our thinking-caps on, shall we? Direct taxation means exactly what it says -- placing a tax directly on citizens (or corporations), without apportionment to each state according to its census. A poll-tax is the most direct of all taxes: "Each person shall pay $100 tax", for example. Income tax is just a method for scaling a poll tax so that people with more income pay a higher direct tax, and people with less income pay a lower direct tax. It's just scaled-capitation!

    Income tax, as we know it, is a modern invention that only became logistically possible at national scale with the advent of modern book-keeping. The 16th Amendment cleared the way for popular income tax at the Federal level but direct Federal taxation of the ordinary, working American's income would not become commonplace until much later. In 1913, the lowest tax bracket paid 1% tax, and the only people who would have actually paid any income tax at all would be businessmen, investors and other people like that whose income is on the books. The next bracket (2%) began at $20,000... that's $567,975.76 in today's dollars, using a standard inflation calculator. Basically, the Federal income-tax began as a giant nothing-burger -- it's a dramatic historical example of the camel's nose in the tent.

    The way Federal tax (besides tariffs, etc.) was supposed to work, according to the crystal-clear language in the US Constitution, is that the Congress was supposed to decide on a levy (say, for $1M), then apportion that levy among the States according to the census, and then the States could collect that tax based on whatever factors (such as income). That (intentionally) created an obstacle for the Federal revenues because, if you have to announce your levy ahead of time, then you may later discover that your revenues could have been much higher. And since national governments don't like to collect one penny less than all the taxes they could have squeezed out of their subject populations, the Feds had to find a way to weasel around the apportionment requirement. That's what the 16th Amendment secured. Sure, they had some temporary decisions from SCOTUS that reversed gravity for a time, but they needed a permanent solution. That's why they needed the 16th Amendment. No more SCOTUS flip-flopping... direct Federal income taxation was now safe-and-secure, for all time, and the globalists could get on with their grand project of global enslavement of the human race, funded by ever-growing tax hauls from the IRS and infinity-cash from the Federal Reserve. Land of the Free, indeed!
    Last edited by ClaytonB; 03-07-2022 at 12:48 PM.
    Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    Direct taxation means exactly what it says -- placing a tax directly on citizens (or corporations), without apportionment to each state according to its census.
    You really need to learn some history. That has never been the definition of "direct tax" as that phrase is used in the Constitution. In its very first case involving the meaning of the phrase SCOTUS upheld a federal tax on carraiges against the claim that it was a direct tax. Although the justices gave different reasons for their decisions, most felt that the only direct taxes were capitations (poll) taxes and taxes on land. The fact that the owner of the carraiges had to pay the tax didn't make it a direct tax.
    See Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1795).

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    A poll-tax is the most direct of all taxes: "Each person shall pay $100 tax", for example. Income tax is just a method for scaling a poll tax so that people with more income pay a higher direct tax, and people with less income pay a lower direct tax. It's just scaled-capitation!
    A "scaled" capitation is a contradiction in terms. Capitations are of a fixed amount per person, subject to whatever exclusions the legislature provides (e.g., $x per adult person). In any event, no court has ever viewed a federal income tax to ba a capitation.

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    The way Federal tax (besides tariffs, etc.) was supposed to work, according to the crystal-clear language in the US Constitution, is that the Congress was supposed to decide on a levy (say, for $1M), then apportion that levy among the States according to the census, and then the States could collect that tax based on whatever factors (such as income).
    You have it backwards. What you describe is the requisition method used under the Articles of Confederation, the failure of which led to the Constitution's granting Congress a broad taxing power (the fact that some States refused to pony up their share was another). Congress enacted direct taxes only five times (1798, 1813, 1815, 1816, and 1861) and in each case the tax was levied on land. But it didn't need the 16th Amendment to impose the Civil War era income taxes because it allready had the authority to do so under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. As SCOTUS pointed out later:

    The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’” Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926) (emphasis added).
    The only flip flop SCOTUS has ever made regarding direct taxes was in Pollock, which carved out an exception to its previous holding in the Springer case that an income tax isn't a direct tax. But since that exception applied only to investment income, it's crystal clear that a tax on wages or other kinds of non-investment income has never been viewed as a direct tax. That's history. That is a fact. Live with it.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    You are literally just regurgitating Establishment talking-points, circa 1913. How un-critical do you have to be to be incapable of examining even historical political questions with a critical eye??
    pretty much
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    You really need to learn some history.
    This coming from someone who unironically copy/pasted a circa-1913 political cartoon as support for a position on the constitutional meaning of "direct tax"...

    That has never been the definition of "direct tax" as that phrase is used in the Constitution.
    That's the very point in contention. SCOTUS is a Federal court and, therefore, it is a prosecutor in its own case in this matter. It's the best that we have under the constitutional, three-branch system of government, but the legal/political question is separate from the question of fact. The fact is that when the Constitution says "direct tax" it clearly means direct taxes on US citizens on goods/services that are not crossing any border. I'm not going to debate with you how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or other "What If?" historical scenarios about how the Constitution has been misinterpreted by self-interested Federal SCOTUS judges, especially post-1913. SCOTUS has changed its mind frequently on this and countless other constitutional questions, so the rulings of SCOTUS are no reliable guide to the intent of the Constitution.

    A "scaled" capitation is a contradiction in terms. Capitations are of a fixed amount per person, subject to whatever exclusions the legislature provides (e.g., $x per adult person). In any event, no court has ever viewed a federal income tax to ba a capitation.
    It's not a contradiction in terms, it's a completely exact description of what an income tax really is. "Each person must pay $X in tax" -- if X is a constant, then it is a capitation, if X varies from one individual to the next based on income, then it is an "income tax", so income tax is just a scaled version of capitation/poll-tax. I realize that the law does not use language that way but, mathematically, this is what it is. Facts hurt.

    You have it backwards. What you describe is the requisition method used under the Articles of Confederation, the failure of which led to the Constitution's granting Congress a broad taxing power (the fact that some States refused to pony up their share was another). Congress enacted direct taxes only five times (1798, 1813, 1815, 1816, and 1861) and in each case the tax was levied on land. But it didn't need the 16th Amendment to impose the Civil War era income taxes because it allready had the authority to do so under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. As SCOTUS pointed out later:
    I get that you're a huge fanboy of sweeping Federal power but you are presenting a completely myopic picture of the history of the US. Yes, it's been a decade or two since I last dug through the history books, so I'm going off of rusty memories here, but let's just say that all of these events were hotly contested at the time -- you are presenting deeply divisive, partisan events in our nation's history as though "everybody agreed" that "direct tax" means whatever Congress wants it to mean.

    Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’” Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926) (emphasis added).
    Emphasis added in the correct place. You're literally quoting the refutation of your own point, so your posts make no sense whatsoever.

    The only flip flop SCOTUS has ever made regarding direct taxes was in Pollock, which carved out an exception to its previous holding in the Springer case that an income tax isn't a direct tax. But since that exception applied only to investment income, it's crystal clear that a tax on wages or other kinds of non-investment income has never been viewed as a direct tax. That's history. That is a fact. Live with it.
    SCOTUS does not define reality, and certainly not the intentions of the Founding Fathers in respect to taxes, given that SCOTUS is a wholly self-interested party in any such question. That is to say, SCOTUS's own interests constitute a direct conflict-of-interest in terms of defining Federal taxing powers, a point that the Founding Fathers themselves understood! That is one of the reasons why all powers not enumerated to the Federal government were to have remained with the States. But the word-twisting snakes and weasels just burrowed right through the crystal-clear meaning of the constitutional language. And you are quoting/citing these very snakes and weasels of history as though their words settle anything at all.... and on top of it, you have the audacity to cast shade on anyone who disagrees with you simply because they're not copy/pasting from the IRS tax-protester FAQ like the great constitutional historian, scholar and lawyer Sonny Tufts!
    Last edited by ClaytonB; 03-08-2022 at 12:19 PM.
    Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The power to impose an income tax was in the original Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1), so I guess Madison, Hamilton, et al. were enemies of the United States even though they founded it. The nation's first income tax was enacted 52 years before the 16th Amendment and was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1881.
    (As always, Sonny is here to set us all straight on paying tribute to the Crown.)

    But that was back when taxes were paid to the federal constitutional government instead of the private debt collection corporation called the IRS, which collects tribute to the bankers. Paying taxes to the IRS is merely a voluntary contractual agreement and has nothing legally in common with original constitutional taxation as written by Madison, et al. We haven't paid constitutional taxes for a long, long time. European bankers lost the country by violence but won it back via banking and associated (voluntary) commercial contracts, such as signing the W4 form when starting a new job. Signed W4 enters a contract with a private corporation (IRS) to voluntarily service debt accrued to the bankers. They've quietly replaced constitutional rights with commercial contracts that almost everyone dutifully (and ignorantly) enters just because they're told to. What Sonny never mentions is that even the federal "government" isn't the constitutional government of 1789. It's a corporation seated within the city limits of sovereign city of Washington DC and incorporated in Delaware (ahem...Biden...). It was created by the Act of 1871 and is a corporation offering governmental-like services and privileges but with attached liabilities, also.

    ON topic:
    It's insane to have a constitutional convention. Who really believes that the inalienable rights delineated won't be absolutely ravaged by the current crop of our bought-and-paid-for "representatives"???? Anybody supporting that is either a moron or a shill.
    Last edited by devil21; 03-09-2022 at 03:03 AM. Reason: in a moment of irony I misspelled inalienable myself
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    ON topic:
    It's insane to have a constitutional convention. Who really believes that the unalienable rights delineated won't be absolutely ravaged by the current crop of our bought-and-paid-for "representatives"???? Anybody supporting that is either a moron or a shill.
    QFT

    All anyone in this thread needs to do is read post #11 and ask themselves what the antecedent of the pronoun "they" is.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    QFT

    All anyone in this thread needs to do is read post #11 and ask themselves what the antecedent of the pronoun "they" is.
    What @showpan writes goes to the heart of the part of my post that you did not quote. There is no erosion of state's rights per the 10th for the 50 states. Instead, there has been contract after contract offered to The People, and with the severe effort of banker controlled media, The People have entered into those contracts, thus abandoning inalienable rights in exchange for tons of liabilities and few privileges. The shooting down of the vax mandate is the 10th still in action. Btw, I wish people would start verbally speaking the word "inalienable" correctly. It is IN-A-LIEN-ABLE. As in can not have a lien placed against. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lien The correct speech of the word does NOT contain the word "alien". It's a-[/i]lien[/i]. A lien can only be legally granted to a corporation by your contractual acceptance of the lien.

    IIRC @showpan has always been an RPF shill account and I ignore or oppose whatever is posted by that handle.

    (eta: some people love the Mithras cap and associated symbolism because Mithras was the god of CONTRACTS. Yes, perhaps liberty to enter contracts.....even if ignorantly and to your own detriment. Keep sinning on the dotted line, y'all. Errrr signing. Columbia is also known as Isis, Egyptian goddess of fertility...making new slaves daily....hence why her man's penis stands tallest in the city and the President usually sits in her Oval Orifice. Everything under the tip of her man's giant penis is "under water" (Reflecting Pool) and subject to commercial maritime contract law, not constitutional law, by the slaves own contractual consent.)
    Last edited by devil21; 03-09-2022 at 03:14 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    The fact is that when the Constitution says "direct tax" it clearly means direct taxes on US citizens on goods/services that are not crossing any border.
    That is your opinion, one not shared by any court or legal scholar. In particular, it is one not shared by the Congress that passed the unapportioned 1794 carraige tax that was upheld as an indirect tax and the unapportioned 1791 whiskey tax that led to the Whiskey Rebellion that was put down by the dude whose signature appears prominently at the bottom of the Constitution.

    and countless other constitutional questions, so the rulings of SCOTUS are no reliable guide to the intent of the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    how the Constitution has been misinterpreted by self-interested Federal SCOTUS judges
    I hate to break it to you, but the Federalists won the debate when the Constitution was ratified.

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    SCOTUS has changed its mind frequently on this
    To the contrary -- the Court has always construed the Direct Tax Clause very strictly, with Pollock being the sole exception. I had hoped that the Court would have carved oiu another exception for Obamacare's individual mandate, but it didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    Emphasis added in the correct place. You're literally quoting the refutation of your own point, so your posts make no sense whatsoever.
    It refutes quite nicely the claim that the 16th Amendment was needed to impose an unapportioned income tax on all kinds of income, especially wages.

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    SCOTUS does not define reality
    But it defines the meaning of the Comstitution, subject to being overled by an amendment or by the Court itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    That is to say, SCOTUS's own interests constitute a direct conflict-of-interest in terms of defining Federal taxing powers, a point that the Founding Fathers themselves understood!
    Oh please, not the "government pays the judges' salaries so the courts are all corrupt" excuse. If that were the case the government would never lose a tax case. But it does.

    Look, I understand you disagree with the last 227 years of Direct Tax Clause jurisprudence, but the fact remains that SCOTUS's restrictive interpretation is the law. The people are free to change this interpretation just as they did when the 16th Amendment was rarified to overturn the Pollock case (I realize you disagree about ratification, byut that's another matter).
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    What @showpan writes goes to the heart of the part of my post that you did not quote. There is no erosion of state's rights per the 10th for the 50 states. Instead, there has been contract after contract offered to The People, and with the severe effort of banker controlled media, The People have entered into those contracts, thus abandoning inalienable rights in exchange for tons of liabilities and few privileges. The shooting down of the vax mandate is the 10th still in action. Btw, I wish people would start verbally speaking the word "inalienable" correctly. It is IN-A-LIEN-ABLE. As in can not have a lien placed against. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lien The correct speech of the word does NOT contain the word "alien". It's a-[/i]lien[/i]. A lien can only be legally granted to a corporation by your contractual acceptance of the lien.

    IIRC @showpan has always been an RPF shill account and I ignore or oppose whatever is posted by that handle.

    (eta: some people love the Mithras cap and associated symbolism because Mithras was the god of CONTRACTS. Yes, perhaps liberty to enter contracts.....even if ignorantly and to your own detriment. Keep sinning on the dotted line, y'all. Errrr signing. Columbia is also known as Isis, Egyptian goddess of fertility...making new slaves daily....hence why her man's penis stands tallest in the city and the President usually sits in her Oval Orifice. Everything under the tip of her man's giant penis is "under water" (Reflecting Pool) and subject to commercial maritime contract law, not constitutional law, by the slaves own contractual consent.)
    A shill...LMFAO....you are a turd, I basically just stooped to your level for you since that is what you were after....lol....gotta love them keyboard warriors.

    BTW....If you don't agree with someone, it doesn't give you the right to insult them or make assumptions about them. That shows that intelligence is not your strong point. It also doesn't make you "king" of RPF. Being Libertarian is great because not only do you NOT own me, you also don't own any particular view on ANY subject even if you falsely place yourself high on some pedestal over others. How does it feel to look down from the clouds?
    Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.
    Thomas Jefferson

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Btw, I wish people would start verbally speaking the word "inalienable" correctly. It is IN-A-LIEN-ABLE. As in can not have a lien placed against. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lien The correct speech of the word does NOT contain the word "alien". It's a-[/i]lien[/i].
    Pretty sure the root of the word is alien, meaning "to belong to another". Not "lien"
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I hate to break it to you, but the Federalists won the debate when the Constitution was ratified.
    That's not how reality works. Political arguments are the most complex and difficult kind of argument because they span the chasm between logic and action, but you're asking us to believe that everyone who was party to the debate simply vanished when the Constitution was ratified. Don't be silly.

    To the contrary -- the Court has always construed the Direct Tax Clause very strictly, with Pollock being the sole exception.
    You keep trying to make this a narrow argument over what SCOTUS has believed at various points in its history. But it's not -- the intent of the Constitution is a historical fact that stands independent of SCOTUS rulings.

    But it defines the meaning of the Comstitution, subject to being overled by an amendment or by the Court itself.
    This is probably our biggest disagreement. SCOTUS does not "define the meaning of the Constitution", under any construction, rather, it rules on Constitutional questions. These are very different. SCOTUS could, tomorrow, rule that the 2nd Amendment is null and void because of some technical argument that supposedly proves this. But does that actually make the 2nd Amendment null and void? Of course not. Would it alter the landscape of Federal law and policy? Of course! So, SCOTUS rulings are a function of Federal interests, they do not and cannot "define" the meaning of the Constitution which was, after all, ratified by the 13 original states... it didn't descend from heaven in a cloud of glory.

    Oh please, not the "government pays the judges' salaries so the courts are all corrupt" excuse. If that were the case the government would never lose a tax case. But it does.
    A casino also loses some money when a slot machine pays out. So, this argument proves absolutely nothing.

    A judge need not be corrupt in order to have a conflict-of-interest that taints his or her opinions. The taint has nothing to do with their intentions, it has to do with the structural credibility of the ruling itself. If a judge is a direct relative of one of the parties to the dispute, they might even rule more harshly if they don't like that relative. But whether they will be too harsh, not harsh enough, or be completely unaffected by their relationship to that party... is irrelevant. The conflict-of-interest taints their ruling in the estimation of the public at large, and that is why judges are expected to declare conflicts-of-interest and recuse themselves. In the case of SCOTUS ruling on tax law, yes, they must rule on tax law because that is how three-branch government works but their rulings should not be treated as though they are unquestionable pronouncements from the Almighty, or something, particularly when they rule on existential questions. The Constitution was not ratified in a vacuum, which means that SCOTUS did not come to being in a vacuum, which means that their rulings do not "define" anything, they are simply the court-of-last-appeal within the Constitutional framework.

    The meaning of the Constitution is not always crystal-clear because it is a pretty terse document and it has some antiquated language and some of the questions that would later arise simply were not a problem at that time. But on this particular point, it is crystal-clear. SCOTUS will write up whatever opinion it writes up but I consider such rulings to be as useful as wet toilet-paper in a discussion on the intent of the Founding Fathers because, yes, they have a monetary and political conflict-of-interest and are literally judging in their own case. And this was the whole problem that the Constitutional prohibition on direct taxation was intended to prevent. Tariffs are laid on goods that are crossing a Federal border, so it makes sense for the Federal government to collect taxes on them. Tariffs are an example of an indirect tax. The power to levy direct taxes was reserved to the States, except by apportionment. An income tax is a direct tax, it is not an indirect tax placed on something crossing a border.

    While the notion of income taxation existed and had been implemented in various times and places, in general, until the early to mid 20th-century, it was not logistically possible for governments to rigorously enforce income tax. That's why, in older times, you had things like feudalism. It outsourced and amortized the taxation process in such a way that a steady stream of resources was being extracted from the land, but in a flexible and proportional manner that would be able to adapt to annual fluctuations in crops, and the varying productivity of one region to the next. But without modern book-keeping, income tax as we know it simply was not logistically possible. So, the idea that the Founding Fathers meant to exclude certain kinds of income tax as "direct tax", but permit income tax in general, is just silly. And Pollock only goes to underscore the absurdity of SCOTUS's prior rulings on this question. SCOTUS could, tomorrow, write that up is down and down is up, but that wouldn't make it so.

    Look, I understand you disagree with the last 227 years of Direct Tax Clause jurisprudence, but the fact remains that SCOTUS's restrictive interpretation is the law. The people are free to change this interpretation just as they did when the 16th Amendment was rarified to overturn the Pollock case (I realize you disagree about ratification, byut that's another matter).
    Oh yes, we agree that SCOTUS has the final say on the matter in respect to Federal governance. That was the whole point of the Constitution, to create a three-branch system of government with checks-and-balances that would result in rational and stable national governance. I see your 227 years and raise you 233 years ... perhaps we really should go back to the original Constitutional convention and have the states dissolve this abomination we call "the Federal government" -- including SCOTUS itself -- and replace it, lock-stock-and-barrel. Because, so long as we're operating on the internal logic of the American Republic and what it has explicitly stood for throughout its history, including the years before 1789, that's how this really works. If SCOTUS wakes up and decides to define up is down and down is up, then what SCOTUS is really saying is that we need to go back to 1789 and re-architect the Federal government. That can be arranged, if they insist. SCOTUS itself has consistently disagreed that this is possible, which is not surprising and is a perfect example of the special-pleading that defines SCOTUS rulings whenever it comes to an existential question, which Federal taxation is. In other words, if you want to know the final word on what the Federal government intends to do, go read SCOTUS rulings. If you want to know the final word on what the Federal government will be permitted to do by the states who ratified its Constitution, then you have a Constitutional convention and put full dissolution and re-constitution on the table. It's not impossible and certainly preferable to another civil war bloodbath...
    Last edited by ClaytonB; 03-09-2022 at 09:23 PM.
    Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Pretty sure the root of the word is alien, meaning "to belong to another". Not "lien"
    Yep. In this specific case, it is being used in the sense of "to alienate" that is, "to abandon". See Wiktionary for etymology -- inalienable, root is alienate, from alien.

    Inalienable rights are unabandonable rights. You can't get rid of them, even if you wanted to:

    Let us pursue more deeply our argument that mere promises or expectations should not be enforceable. The basic reason is that the only valid transfer of title of ownership in the free society is the case where the property is, in fact and in the nature of man, alienable by man. All physical property owned by a person is alienable, i.e., in natural fact it can be given or transferred to the ownership and control of another party. I can give away or sell to another person my shoes, my house, my car, my money, etc. But there are certain vital things which, in natural fact and in the nature of man, are inalienable, i.e., they cannot in fact be alienated, even voluntarily.

    Specifically, a person cannot alienate his will, more particularly his control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own will and person, and he is, if you wish, "stuck" with that inherent and inalienable ownership. Since his will and control over his own person are inalienable, then so also are his rights to control that person and will. That is the ground for the famous position of the Declaration of Independence that man's natural rights are inalienable; that is, they cannot be surrendered, even if the person wishes to do so.
    Murray Rothbard, From chapter 19 of Ethics of Liberty, source
    Last edited by ClaytonB; 03-09-2022 at 09:38 PM.
    Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Btw, I wish people would start verbally speaking the word "inalienable" correctly. It is IN-A-LIEN-ABLE. As in can not have a lien placed against. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lien The correct speech of the word does NOT contain the word "alien". It's a-[/i]lien[/i].
    Pretty sure the root of the word is alien, meaning "to belong to another". Not "lien"
    This is correct.

    Inalienable means "not alienable".

    Alienable means "transferrable to (the ownership of) another" or "capable of being alienated, sold, or transferred to another".

    The etymological breakdown is: alien + -able (where alien was borrowed by Middle English from Old French, which derived it from from the Latin alienus).

    Whereas lien - meaning "a claim upon or right to hold (a part of) another's property" - was borrowed from Middle French, which derived it from the Latin ligamen.

    See: alienable, alien, lien.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by showpan View Post
    A shill...LMFAO....you are a turd, I basically just stooped to your level for you since that is what you were after....lol....gotta love them keyboard warriors.

    BTW....If you don't agree with someone, it doesn't give you the right to insult them or make assumptions about them. That shows that intelligence is not your strong point. It also doesn't make you "king" of RPF. Being Libertarian is great because not only do you NOT own me, you also don't own any particular view on ANY subject even if you falsely place yourself high on some pedestal over others. How does it feel to look down from the clouds?
    It's nice, thanks. Anyone pushing for giving the current crop of corrupt bought-and-paid-for thieves posing as politicians any opportunity to interfere with the Bill of Rights is either a moron or a shill. I don't think you're a moron so that kinda narrows it down in my book. No one seriously believes more liberty would be granted if such a convention were convened.

    Quote Originally Posted by thetexan
    Pretty sure the root of the word is alien, meaning "to belong to another". Not "lien"
    https://thelawdictionary.org/inalienable/

    Not subject to alienation ; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e. g., liberty.
    Liens (a claim upon) placed against your personal "property", such as your rights. I don't think our perspectives are very far apart, though, and are more like a subtle corruption of language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    This is correct.

    Inalienable means "not alienable".

    Alienable means "transferrable to (the ownership of) another" or "capable of being alienated, sold, or transferred to another".

    The etymological breakdown is: alien + -able (where alien was borrowed by Middle English from Old French, which derived it from from the Latin alienus).

    Whereas lien - meaning "a claim upon or right to hold (a part of) another's property" - was borrowed from Middle French, which derived it from the Latin ligamen.

    See: alienable, alien, lien.
    There's the root word "lien" right there.^^^^ All I'm saying is that the correct way to pronounce the word is in-a-lien-able, instead of in-alien-able.
    Last edited by devil21; 03-11-2022 at 10:50 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    There's the root word "lien" right there.^^^^
    "Lien" is not the root of "inalienable" - "alien" is (and "lien" is not the root of "alien"). The links I provided demonstrate this.

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    All I'm saying is that the correct way to pronounce the word is in-a-lien-able, instead of in-alien-able.
    I don't know what the dash-breaks in your spellings are supposed to signify, as "alien" is not monosyllabic.

    In every phonetic breakdown I have found, the "alien" in "inalienable" is pronounced just as "alien" is (/ˈeɪ.li.ən/).

    "Lien", on the other hand, has two pronunciations: /ˈliːn/ or /ˈliːən/ (only the latter of which is similar to the pronunciation of "alien").
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 03-11-2022 at 11:33 AM.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    It's nice, thanks. Anyone pushing for giving the current crop of corrupt bought-and-paid-for thieves posing as politicians any opportunity to interfere with the Bill of Rights is either a moron or a shill. I don't think you're a moron so that kinda narrows it down in my book. No one seriously believes more liberty would be granted if such a convention were convened.



    https://thelawdictionary.org/inalienable/



    Liens (a claim upon) placed against your personal "property", such as your rights. I don't think our perspectives are very far apart, though, and are more like a subtle corruption of language.



    There's the root word "lien" right there.^^^^ All I'm saying is that the correct way to pronounce the word is in-a-lien-able, instead of in-alien-able.
    Guys, guys, listen up! Everyone is mispronouncing the word adobe! It's A-Do-Be and means, "To do and be nothing"... just break it down... Do-Be and then put A- in front to make it "not". So, adobe comes from the root "do-be" and really means "to do and be nothing", it doesn't mean a type of sun-dried brick, that's nonsense!

    While anyone is free to invent their own private definitions and pronunciations of words (ahem, urban slang), the fact is that you are objectively incorrect about the word "inalienable", both in respect to its root (it's not "lien"), and its pronunciation. No one pronounces it the way you are suggesting because that is not how it is pronounced, and "lien" is not the root of "alien", "alienable", "alienability", "inalienable" or any variation thereon. An alien is a foreigner. To alienate is to make something foreign, such as in an act of exile or deportation (the meaning of the word is itself metaphorical.) As you yourself note, the word "lien" has nothing to do with any of this and that's because it's a completely different root word, as myself and Occam's Banana have amply documented. If you can find any hint anywhere on Wiktionary or any other reputable source that "lien" is the "true root" of "alien", I'll listen/read it. But empty assertions do not make it so.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    "Lien" is not the root of "inalienable" - "alien" is (and "lien" is not the root of "alien"). The links I provided demonstrate this.



    I don't know what the dash-breaks in your spellings are supposed to signify, as "alien" is not monosyllabic.

    In every phonetic breakdown I have found, the "alien" in "inalienable" is pronounced just as "alien" is (/ˈeɪ.li.ən/).

    "Lien", on the other hand, has two pronunciations: /ˈliːn/ or /ˈliːən/ (only the latter of which is similar to the pronunciation of "alien").
    Think of it like the words "abridge" and "avow". Abridge=to bridge, to shorten, avow=to vow. Alien=To lien. There's a crapload more examples of the usage of the "a" meaning "to do xxxxx". It changes it from a noun (bridge, vow, lien) to a verb.

    Fwiw, I didn't just conjure this up. It was spoken in a historical documentary about Jefferson and his drafting of the Declaration, with a voice over of the text as being read by Jefferson. A light bulb went off when it was said and it makes perfect sense to me that the word is pronounced in-a-lien-able (phonetically: in-a-leen-a-bull), meaning can not have a lien placed upon, an infringement upon ownership of. Also consider that Jefferson was not a fan of bankers and their methods for stealing property, which includes placing liens for unpaid taxes. He precisely chose every word in the Declaration. The word "lien" would most certainly have been very relevant to him.
    Corruption of language regarding our rights has been ongoing and continues to this day. TPTB wouldn't want people to relate to such a common, yet powerful, word as "lien", since everyone knows what that means. Instead, morph the pronouncing to "alien", like ET, so it loses original intent and impact.
    Last edited by devil21; 03-11-2022 at 03:01 PM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    Guys, guys, listen up! Everyone is mispronouncing the word adobe! It's A-Do-Be and means, "To do and be nothing"... just break it down... Do-Be and then put A- in front to make it "not". So, adobe comes from the root "do-be" and really means "to do and be nothing", it doesn't mean a type of sun-dried brick, that's nonsense!
    It's true, that it gained that meaning in the late classical period. Prior to that, it was pronounced the same way, but meant "a doobie". People in ancient times would use "adobe" as a material to make their doobies, thus the name. A-Doobie only later became "A-Do-Be"
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  27. #53
    I seem to be in a self-indulgently verbose mood today ...

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Think of it like the words "abridge" and "avow". Abridge=to bridge, to shorten, avow=to vow. Alien=To lien. There's a crapload more examples of the usage of the "a" meaning "to do xxxxx".
    That is not what "alien" (which is the root of "inalienable", not "lien") means, nor is it how the word evolved etymologically.

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    It changes it from a noun (bridge, vow, lien) to a verb.
    Both "bridge" and "vow" can be used as verbs. (No prefix is necessary, and the "a" in "abridge" and "avow" is not a prefix, anyway.)

    Neither "lien" nor "alien" are used as verbs.

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Fwiw, I didn't just conjure this up. It was spoken in a historical documentary [...]
    Then the word was mispronounced by the narrator/reader.

    Neither the word "inalienable" nor its root "alien" (nor the pronunciation of either) is derived from or linguistically related to "lien".

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    [I]t makes perfect sense to me that the word is pronounced in-a-lien-able (phonetically: in-a-leen-a-bull), meaning can not have a lien placed upon, an infringement upon ownership of.
    It doesn't matter how much it makes sense to you. That is not how "inalienable" is pronounced (except in error), and that is not what it means.

    You are, of course, free to understand (and pronounce) any word in whatever manner pleases you, but your understanding (and pronunciation) in the case of this particular word is idiosyncratic and linguistically counterfactual.

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Also consider that Jefferson was not a fan of bankers and their methods for stealing property, which includes placing liens for unpaid taxes. He precisely chose every word in the Declaration. The word "lien" would most certainly have been very relevant to him.
    That's as may be, but it has nothing to do with his use of the word "unalienable", which already had an established meaning having nothing to do with "lien".

    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Corruption of language regarding our rights has been ongoing and continues to this day. TPTB wouldn't want people to relate to such a common, yet powerful, word as "lien", since everyone knows what that means. Instead, morph the pronouncing to "alien", like ET, so it loses original intent and impact.
    No "corruption of language" is involved, and nothing has been "morphed" here (unless by those unfamiliar with how "inalienable" is properly pronounced). This is not a plot by TPTB. It is just a mistake. "Lien" has nothing to do with the meaning or "original intent" of "inalienable" (or "unalienable").

    (Also, I dispute that "everyone knows what [lien] means". In fact, I am skeptical that most people do. let alone everyone.)
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 03-11-2022 at 04:11 PM.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I seem to be in a self-indulgently verbose mood today ...
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    ... me

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I seem to be in a self-indulgently verbose mood today ...



    That is not what "alien" (which is the root of "inalienable", not "lien") means, nor is it how the word evolved etymologically.



    Both "bridge" and "vow" can be used as verbs. No transforming prefix is necessary.

    Neither "lien" nor "alien" are used as verbs.



    Then the word was mispronounced by the narrator/reader.

    Neither the word "inalienable" nor its root "alien" (nor the pronunciation of either) is derived from or linguistically related to "lien".



    It doesn't matter how much it makes sense to you. That is not how "inalienable" is pronounced (except in error), and that is not what it means.

    You are, of course, free to understand (and pronounce) any word in whatever manner pleases you, but your understanding (and pronunciation) in the case of this particular word is idiosyncratic and linguistically counterfactual.



    That's as may be, but it has nothing to do with his use of the word "inalienable", which already had an established meaning having nothing to do with "lien".



    No "corruption of language" is involved, and nothing has been "morphed" here (unless by those unfamiliar with how "inalienable" is properly pronounced). This is not a plot by TPTB. It is just a mistake. "Lien" has nothing to do with the meaning or "original intent" of "inalienable".

    (Also, I dispute that "everyone knows what [lien] means". In fact, I am skeptical that most people do. let alone everyone.)
    The irony, here, is that I usually find myself arguing against the eytmology-police who tend to take an excessively narrow and unimaginative view of the evolution of words. But in this case, sorry, I have to side with the etymology-police.

    "Avow", "abridge", "abide", "astride" and many other a-something words are great examples of what "alien" is not. "I was a-walking along." "I was a-bed when he called." It's an old-fashioned usage but it illustrates how this works in English. Find me any example from history, anywhere, where someone said, "The property was a-lien" or something to that effect. If you can produce such an example, then you have won your case hands-down. "Lien" arose from a different etymology and happens to share a suffix in English with the completely separate word "alien".

    From an online legal dictionary:

    Alienable

    The character of property that makes it capable of sale or transfer.

    Absent a restriction in the owner's right, interests in real property and tangible Personal Property are generally freely and fully alienable by their nature. Likewise, many types of intangible personal property, such as a patent or trade mark, are alienable forms of property. By comparison, constitutional rights of life, liberty, and property are not transferable and, thus, are termed inalienable. Similarly, certain forms of property, such as employee security benefits, are typically not subject to transfer on the part of the owner and are inalienable forms of property.
    From another online legal dictionary:

    History of Inalienable Rights

    The history of inalienable rights, also referred to as “unalienable rights,” takes us back at least as far as the philosophy found in Athens in the 3rd Century B.C. Centuries later, as the Age of Enlightenment rolled through 17th Century Europe, as the common people fought the idea that only those born to the monarchy were endowed with unquestionable rights, the concept of inalienable rights was used to challenge the rights of kings.

    As society progressed, natural rights were used to justify the establishment of social contracts, laws that established specific rights for individuals or groups, finally a government to protect legal rights. The concept of inalienable rights had made its mark on the world, though there has been much controversy and differing beliefs on what such rights are. Philosophers and scholars, who held widely differing beliefs, generally agree on the one point that inalienable rights are something that cannot be taken from the people, even at the hands of the government.

    For example, John Locke, 17th Century English philosopher, discussed the concept of natural rights as he advanced the idea that life, liberty, and property were fundamental rights that people could not be forced to surrender. It was Thomas Jefferson who later adopted Locke’s belief with the slightly modified statement placed at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    George Mason, delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in the text of his home state’s Virginia Declaration of Rights, said:

    “all men are born equally free,” and hold “certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.”

    Thomas Jefferson relied heavily on the writings of Francis Hutcheson in his Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, in which he made a distinction between alienable and inalienable rights. Hutcheson stated:

    “For wherever any Invasion is made upon unalienable Rights, there must arise either a perfect, or external Right to Resistance … Unalienable Rights are essential Limitations in all Governments.”

    And

    “[T]here can be no Right, or Limitation of Right, inconsistent with, or opposite to the greatest public Good.”
    Thomas Jefferson was, no doubt, a political philosopher in his own right, but the term "inalienable rights" did not originate with him.
    Last edited by ClaytonB; 03-11-2022 at 04:02 PM.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheTexan again.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    I got one of these shirts for Christmas or a birthday or something a bazillion years ago:



    The funny part is that all shirts say XXL regardless of the actual size of the shirt
    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

    H.L. Mencken

  34. #59
    No need to keep debating this issue but I do always find it interesting how we all acknowledge that dictionary websites routinely change words and definitions to suit political agendas (see: "vaccine" for recent example) but then rely on those same dictionaries to prove other points we wish to make, as if they're then the final arbiter of language. It's particularly interesting when discussing historical content, knowing that language and history itself has been bastardized repeatedly in the meantime. Oh well, carry on.
    Last edited by devil21; 03-12-2022 at 10:33 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    No need to keep debating this issue but I do always find it interesting how we all acknowledge that dictionary websites routinely change words and definitions to suit political agendas (see: "vaccine" for recent example) but then rely on those same dictionaries to prove other points we wish to make, as if they're then the final arbiter of language. It's particularly interesting when discussing historical content, knowing that language and history itself has been bastardized repeatedly in the meantime. Oh well, carry on.
    Unlike the case for "vaccine" (for which there is documentary evidence), there is no reason to think or suspect that anything at all has been changed with respect to the meaning, pronunciation, or etymology of "inalienable", "alien", or "lien". (Also unlike the case for "vaccine", I fail to understand how surreptitiously altering the definition, pronunciation, or etymology of "inalienable" in the manner you describe serves the interests or supposed agenda of the alleged editors.)

    As for "rely[ing] on [...] dictionaries to prove other points we wish to make", definitional fiat is the prerogative of every discussant. You may define any word (or even make one up) to mean whatever you please, so long as you make it clear that you are doing so when it runs contrary to common usage, and so long as you avoid equivocation between your usage and the commonly understood one. (If you like, you may, for example, define "elephant" to mean what everyone else typically means by "cat", and then proceed to speak reasonably and meaningfully of elephants chasing mice and using litter boxes.) In this regard, I have previously and elsewhere said the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    This is (yet another) perfect illustration of why it is silly and pointless to play the "dueling dictionaries" game for anything other than resolving disputes over etymology or colloquial usage. They really need to assign a new category of informal fallacy for this kind of thing: call it argumentum ad vocabulum ...
    In this particular case, however, the dispute actually is over etymology and usage, so making reference to dictionaries is entirely appropriate. (That's what they're for, after all.)
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 03-12-2022 at 01:58 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. West Virginia Republican Convention 2012
    By PaulConventionWV in forum West Virginia
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-28-2011, 11:31 AM
  2. Ed Burgess for West Virginia state house
    By mdh in forum Ron Paul Candidates 2008
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-27-2008, 01:50 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 05:50 PM
  4. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 04:28 PM
  5. HUCK wins West Virginia convention
    By PauliticsPolitics in forum Super Tuesday
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 03:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •