It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nature's Law: Inalienable Rights vs Civil Rights; Constitutional Republic vs Democracy

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I've just gone back as far as Aristotle's Politics in a brief sketch of the "history" of money. I'm looking at your statement that "the free market invented money."

Coins and other value markers were almost always issued by some sort of centralized political power which took steps to standardize their weight and composition (thus leading to the very real power of the "measuring class" of government officials power which was used, of course to cheat as often as to judge fairly).

(As you can see, I'm back in the discussion despite my misgivings. Boadicea if this is off topic just let me know.)

But remember, all of our centralized powers are gone in this scenario of "total privatization". So, we would have competing vendors minting coins probably of differing materials and all claiming, of course, that their coinage is "the most pure, the most fair" etc.

The nature of this quickly becomes cumbersome even at the local (village) level. Now, scale up to multiple villages, different states (with differing vendors and standards) etc. etc, all the way to international trade (which in my opinion, were this system implemented, would basically grind to a halt.)

Wouldn't it be logical, then, that you would have companies (banks maybe) that establish themselves as the only producers of fair money? They want to beat out their competition, so they hire guards and assayers to speak for the quality of their produced good, i.e. their money. Then, a competitor corrupts one of your assayers who starts cheating and you lose your reputation, which you decide to shore up with your guards, and ...

Well, I'd argue that the "centralized powers" would be back no later than two weeks, but I'll admit I'm a pessimist.

So ... how does money get coined fairly, evaluated honestly, measured consistently ... in the absence of a centralized political power?


EDIT: Interesting side note. Cattle were often used early on as a unit of money/value/worth etc.

In the Elder Futhark of the Norse Runes (their "alphabet") the first rune is Fehu which represents wealth in domesticated cattle, and the second is Uruz which represents wild Aurochs (still extant at the time these letters were developed). As the runes became used more for divination than for actual letters, Fehu came to represent the known value of things, personal wealth, and MONEY. Uruz remained a wild untamed often violent force that could destroy order and orderly exchanges. Those meanings make sense to me now. LOL.
edit on 20Tue, 17 Mar 2015 20:58:35 -050015p082015366 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21Tue, 17 Mar 2015 21:00:33 -050015p092015366 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Coins and other value markers were almost always issued by some sort of centralized political power which took steps to standardize their weight and composition


The standardization of money came after money's inception. Money was facilitating trade before any government involvement. Money was invented and brought into being by the free market, from voluntary cooperation by all parties, in order to solve a problem.


we would have competing vendors minting coins probably of differing materials and all claiming, of course, that their coinage is "the most pure, the most fair" etc.


If they lied they wouldn't be in business for very long. Businesses with rotten products always fail.


So ... how does money get coined fairly, evaluated honestly, measured consistently ... in the absence of a centralized political power?


Money providers make the biggest profits from having an honest reputation long term. If fraud became a problem, then rating organizations would become an industry. Almost all businesses need sound money and the business community would keep track of who the honest brokers were.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Individual rights imply that any voluntary trade between individuals is legal.

Civil rights could put any number of constraints on voluntary trading, citing any believed ill by a sufficient plurality or quorum.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Read the whole thread before commenting.



I would like to be able to say authoritatively that all rights afforded in the constitution and the bill of rights are exclusively negative rights.



Edit to add: A reply to Greencmp. Poor tagging/quoting on my part.

No they [per the constitution and bill or rights] are all unalienable, meaning NOT being able to be sold or transferred PEROID. In my opinion the negative v. positive right argument is flawed. First and foremost, one must remember that In Law ALL rights ARE property; anything that conveys rights is property; contracts are property; franchises are property. This can be ANY type of right, constitutional [unalienable] or civil [privileged/contractual/franchise rights/inalienable rights]. However, the legal difference between an 'unalienable' [page 1523] right and an 'inalienable right' [Page 759] is one simple facet [Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed]... "without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Such that, even with consent an 'unalienable' right cannot be sold or transferred, where an inalienable right may be [temporarily transferred or suspended], like for receipt of a [federal] benefit, or to meet the terms of a contract or franchise.

This is a great thread, and I will add more as I reread and comprehend all the avenues presented here.

edit on 17-3-2015 by J.B. Aloha because: nits

edit on 17-3-2015 by J.B. Aloha because: noids



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Of course, let's be honest that we're blithely generalizing about 5-10,000 years of history here, and the situations were far more complex than we're either describing, or, can describe.

Centralized political power doesn't have to be a government which implies a basal type of structure at least (via laws, rules, religious beliefs). Tribal strong-man achieves the same thing with no order other than his whims.

I'm afraid that you sound like you're moving on to ideals and points of faith now. "Voluntary cooperation by all parties" sounds really good but human nature suggests that "getting as much over on other people as possible" is far more likely the order of the day, at least 50% of the time.

Businesses that lie aren't in business long? That isn't my experience. Perhaps we should say that businesses that don't lie well aren't in business long?

What's an example from real-world history of "money providers" that you're describing? Something that models our suppositions?

I would argue that with unrestrained speculation and competition, every business owner would want to seem honest while actually exercising any tactics that successfully minimized their risks and maximized their profits.


edit on 22Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:32:39 -050015p102015366 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   


OK I am British but watched a TBN documentary that astounded me, it was about the NATIONAL MONUMENT OF THE FOREFATHERS, this is also proof that though a Secular nation the US was founded as a Christian nation with all the freedom's that intended and was meant to be ruled from the people to the government and not the government to the people
a reply to: LABTECH767 Ok so one man that ran from a different religion and religious persecution had some faith. That does not dispute that the founding father of the documents of this country tried to leave out religion. In fact is was because of people like that they did it without religion. They fled from religious persecution and intolerance. So they enacted a gov that would not profess a religion and would not restrict it either. All religious references were added later by tyrants. Religion belongs no where i gov. Makes me sick when i see congress have a preacher there with prayer before they start. They can pray at home if they want, not on my dime. It should be gone unless they want Muslim prayer too, satanist ect.. Where is the equality it that? It does not belong there and they are a disgrace to the country. With their tyranny. Leave your fantasy world at home, not everyone believes. Our forefathers knew that.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
Read the whole thread before commenting.



I would like to be able to say authoritatively that all rights afforded in the constitution and the bill of rights are exclusively negative rights.



Edit to add: A reply to Greencmp. Poor tagging/quoting on my part.

No they [per the constitution and bill or rights] are all unalienable, meaning NOT being able to be sold or transferred PEROID. In my opinion the negative v. positive right argument is flawed. First and foremost, one must remember that In Law ALL rights ARE property; anything that conveys rights is property; contracts are property; franchises are property. This can be ANY type of right, constitutional [unalienable] or civil [privileged/contractual/franchise rights/inalienable rights]. However, the legal difference between an 'unalienable' [page 1523] right and an 'inalienable right' [Page 759] is one simple facet [Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed]... "without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Such that, even with consent an 'unalienable' right cannot be sold or transferred, where an inalienable right may be [temporarily transferred or suspended], like for receipt of a [federal] benefit, or to meet the terms of a contract or franchise.

This is a great thread, and I will add more as I reread and comprehend all the avenues presented here.


My understanding is that unalienable and inalienable are synonymous and simply mean that which cannot be given or taken away. I have never heard anyone claim a meaningful difference between them, Black's Law Dictionary aside.

You are correct, property is the root of all rights. That is why constitutional republicans are constantly on the defensive against the socialist argument which wishes to dispel with the right of property for the purposes of confiscatory redistributive "social justice" (something other than justice).

I was under the impression that the negative vs positive rights debate was a major component of this discussion.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

So, the answer to my question is that individuals will mint their own coins under the new system?

Okay, we've made some progress.

How do I know how much gold (purity) is in your coins during our transaction in the village market? How about the weight? Does everyone carry a balance scale with them, everywhere they go? How much does that process slow down even the most basic transactions?



These days purity actually could be determined very accurately with mass spectrometry but, the old stand by was to bite the coin.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

Its been many years and years I have never seen where the education system taught the philosophy behind our revolution as they taught the rest of it.


Apparently, and sadly, this seems to be so. While talking to my son last night, who has been to college much more recently than me, he said he actually learned the most about of natural rights from his World Religion instructor. I had an amazing U.S. History/Govt teacher in my senior year in high school who also talked about natural law and rights. My father also talked quite a bit about it, but he was a HUGE American history buff. I feel like it's being hidden in plain sight!


The closest I ever saw, in college, we had a liberal professor came in one day and challenged the idea, wanted it removed from documents, the idea of rights granted by God and/or nature even. What have you.


Disappointing, but at the same time, given how easily the concept can be twisted and tainted, not surprising.


And yes the flow of things toward a philosophy that rights are granted by government is a major departure.


Yes! Thank you!



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

Simpatico. I say get rid of all public sector unions and then rebuild whatever necessary management is necessary locally. The department of education (being only about 40 years old and having failed) among others are to be disassembled, the experiment can be continued at the state and local levels.


Exactly. I well remember the "Johnny can't read" federal report which "justified" their takeover of the education system. Today, neither Johnny nor Jane can read; they no longer have basic home skills, so Johnny and Jane can't cook a meal or sew a button on their shirt or otherwise take care of themselves in the most basic ways; along with shop classes and such, and taking away the marketable skills previous generations learned; and on and on. The feds didn't fix anything, only made it worse.


Pretty much all of these debatable topics are ultimately funded through local property taxes anyway so there is no down side to any particular community to be released from bondage. The only obstacle is the teacher's and other public sector unions, perhaps the greatest threat this country has ever faced as it threatens to devour its master, us.


And if so much of our hard-earned dollars were not going to the feds to be redistributed back to us -- after all the bureaucrats take their cut -- our local schools could be even better funded, as would our police, fire, etc.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: links234
Maybe I'm missing your point but, why can't we have both, equally? We have our natural rights that are equal to our civil rights.


I don't think you're missing anything; rather, you bring up interesting points in understanding the overall picture. We should have both natural rights and civil rights. This is part of the debate about "negative" rights -- which is what the government can NOT do to us... and "positive" rights, which the government must do for us. Freedom of speech is a negative right in that the government cannot control what we say to who or when.... Due process is a positive right in that if the government is going to act upon or against us, they must act in ways that do not violate our negative rights, and must treat you the same as me the same as the next guy. It's not an either/or situation, but civil rights cannot infringe on natural rights. That seems to be the sticker.


Is there anything specifically preventing the government, as an extension of the people, from declaring additional rights that are outside the purview of 'natural' rights?' I was under the impression that this was declared in the 10th amendment.


As I understand it, the government can decide to declare pretty much anything and everything a civil right, as long as it applies equally to all, and does not infringe on our natural rights. They can also take it away. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written with the express purpose of telling the feds what they can and cannot do -- not the people, and not the states. So while the feds powers are limited, the rights of the people and states are innumerable. Specifically, the 9th amendment guarantees all rights of the people, listed or not, and the 10th guarantees all rights of the states, listed or not.


Finally, we are a democracy.


No, we are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, with guaranteed absolute rights that come from our Creator -- not government -- that protect even the smallest minority, the individual. Even with majority rule, these absolute rights cannot be violated or infringed by government.


You clearly understand that we elect our representatives democratically which is the definition of a democracy. Power vested to the people who rule through freely elected representatives.


We have democrat processes to elect our representatives. But these representatives must act within the specific framework of the Constitution, and cannot act against our natural inalienable rights no matter how big their majority.


We, the people, furthered that through the 17th amendment. We don't have national votes on individual laws because we give that specific power to our representatives. But this nation is a democracy nonetheless.


I would say that "we" did not give that specific power to our representatives, they took it; I actually know several people who think that was a huge mistake, and should be repealed.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I feel like I'm distracting from the topic ... as we're into Rothbardian libertarianism ... and the topic is more closely related to Lockean natural philosophy.

Thanks all who answered my questions, beg pardon for the distractions.


No pardon needed, Gryphon. I've enjoyed reading and learning from the exchange. Economics is not my strong point, so I appreciate good discussions that better my understanding!

Thanks!!!



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Boadicea


Its been many years and years I have never seen where the education system taught the philosophy behind our revolution as they taught the rest of it.

The closest I ever saw, in college, we had a liberal professor came in one day and challenged the idea, wanted it removed from documents, the idea of rights granted by God and/or nature even. What have you.

And yes the flow of things toward a philosophy that rights are granted by government is a major departure.


During the limited time I spent in public school, I actually did have civics classes and the ideas behind the constitution and the bill of rights was actually taught from an early age. This was in the seventies when the already functioning local schools still existed unchanged before the implementation of the national public school system. I think it just took a little while for it to bear fruit and stifle the remnants.

Regardless, we should all educate ourselves.

It is interesting how so many cultures around the world are looking to their remaining elders for explanations as to how screwed up their societies have become. Maybe we should consider the same recourse.
edit on 18-3-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: roth1

That does not dispute that the founding father of the documents of this country tried to leave out religion. In fact is was because of people like that they did it without religion. They fled from religious persecution and intolerance. So they enacted a gov that would not profess a religion and would not restrict it either.


I'm speaking only for myself here, but I believe Labtech's point is that in the true spirit of Christianity -- the teachings of Jesus -- no one was compelled or forced to believe or practice a certain faith. This is the same spirit the forefathers brought to our founding documents. All efforts since, up to and including today, to legislate Christianity or any faith, is in direct opposition to the founding principles.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

My understanding is that unalienable and inalienable are synonymous and simply mean that which cannot be given or taken away. I have never heard anyone claim a meaningful difference between them, Black's Law Dictionary aside.


I have seen such arguments made; I don't get it. However, someone decided to make a legal distinction, but I have never found the argument for doing so. Given my distrust of lawyers in general, I suspect the distinction was made as a way to violate absolute rights under color of law.


You are correct, property is the root of all rights.


Depending on how one defines "property," I disagree, unless it includes intangible property -- such as thoughts, faith, love, etc.


That is why constitutional republicans are constantly on the defensive against the socialist argument which wishes to dispel with the right of property for the purposes of confiscatory redistributive "social justice" (something other than justice).


If we had true property rights, no one would be homeless, and no one could have their home/land taken for any reason -- not for mortgage defaults, HOA fines/penalties, tax arrears, etc. Nor would we have such a thing as "nonjudicial foreclosures" in which a home can be taken without ever proving a damn thing against the homeowner, and homeowners have no opportunity to challenge their "accuser." The property rights demanded by "constitutional republicans" have no resemblance to -- or respect for -- natural rights.

In terms of natural rights, we're here, we have a right to live somewhere... and no one has the right to hoard land, especially when others have no where to lay their head... and especially now when the feds own the vast majority of mortgage notes and empty homes. I don't pretend to know the best way to achieve this, but it has to change. The natural right to have somewhere to live comes before and above anyone's right to profit off real property.


I was under the impression that the negative vs positive rights debate was a major component of this discussion.


It is.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: J.B. Aloha

My understanding is that unalienable and inalienable are synonymous and simply mean that which cannot be given or taken away. I have never heard anyone claim a meaningful difference between them, Black's Law Dictionary aside.

You are correct, property is the root of all rights. That is why constitutional republicans are constantly on the defensive against the socialist argument which wishes to dispel with the right of property for the purposes of confiscatory redistributive "social justice" (something other than justice).

I was under the impression that the negative vs positive rights debate was a major component of this discussion.


The smallest of legal distinctions matter. IN or UN matter. AND or OR matter. INCLUDES or INCLUDING matters. These small, seemingly synonymous words purport the 'inclusive' or 'expansive' manner of law and should not be disregarded.

Yes, that particular philosophy is part of the discussion and I made the asseveration that negative v. positive rights was flawed. I also said that I would continue to add to the discussion after I reread and comprehended ALL avenues presented.

In regards to the philosophy of negative v. positive rights I have found it only deals with civil and political rights while falling short in its incorporation of natural rights. Civil and political rights are not synonymous, but they are both ‘Public‘ rights whereas natural rights are ‘Private‘ rights.

A civil right appertains to a person by virtue of ‘citizenship’ in a state or a [political] community. Likewise, a ‘citizen’ IS a member of a political community, and has consented to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and for protection of their individual [private] and collective [public] rights. Ref: Herriott v. City of Seattle.

A political right can simply be thought of in terms of participation, either directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government. Direct example being the right to hold public office or the right to vote, and an indirect example being the right to public education, or right to social security.

It is interesting to note, that someone can choose to have no civil and political rights by virtue of the natural right of ‘liberty’ and in this sense the right to not to associate [freedom of association] with government, and also through a right to declare or establish once civil status.

As established, all rights are property. I find this particular philosophy does not take into account why governments were established in the first place: to PROTECT exclusively private property, and to PREVENT the unlawful conversion of private property to public property. Instead, it focuses on negative and positive duties associated with the exercise of STRICTLY public [Civil and political] rights. I understand the context of these duties to revolve around the premise that ‘duty’ means an obligation as recognized by law, to conform to a certain standard for the protection of others against unreasonable risks. ‘Duty’ Ref: Samson v. Saginaw Professional Bldg., Inc. In contrast, one can argue that ‘duty’ under natural law means an obligation to conform to a [legal] standard of reasonable conduct in light of apparent risks. Ref: Karrar v. Barry County Road Com’n. Please enlighten me if I am mistaken.

As a result, I find that the negative v. private rights philosophy presumes there is no private property and everything is in essence, public.

But, we know this [presumption] to not be the case because; “Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his labor, is generally admitted; and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will…” [The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, 10 Wheat 66, 6 L.Ed, 268(1825)] And, “the right to exclude is one of the most essential [natural] sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.” [Nollan v. California Coastal Comm‘n (1987)].

Good Stuff.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: greencmp

My understanding is that unalienable and inalienable are synonymous and simply mean that which cannot be given or taken away. I have never heard anyone claim a meaningful difference between them, Black's Law Dictionary aside.


I have seen such arguments made; I don't get it. However, someone decided to make a legal distinction, but I have never found the argument for doing so. Given my distrust of lawyers in general, I suspect the distinction was made as a way to violate absolute rights under color of law.


You are correct, property is the root of all rights.


Depending on how one defines "property," I disagree, unless it includes intangible property -- such as thoughts, faith, love, etc.


That is why constitutional republicans are constantly on the defensive against the socialist argument which wishes to dispel with the right of property for the purposes of confiscatory redistributive "social justice" (something other than justice).


If we had true property rights, no one would be homeless, and no one could have their home/land taken for any reason -- not for mortgage defaults, HOA fines/penalties, tax arrears, etc. Nor would we have such a thing as "nonjudicial foreclosures" in which a home can be taken without ever proving a damn thing against the homeowner, and homeowners have no opportunity to challenge their "accuser." The property rights demanded by "constitutional republicans" have no resemblance to -- or respect for -- natural rights.

In terms of natural rights, we're here, we have a right to live somewhere... and no one has the right to hoard land, especially when others have no where to lay their head... and especially now when the feds own the vast majority of mortgage notes and empty homes. I don't pretend to know the best way to achieve this, but it has to change. The natural right to have somewhere to live comes before and above anyone's right to profit off real property.


I was under the impression that the negative vs positive rights debate was a major component of this discussion.


It is.


Property includes your person itself, it means that no one may take your body or your stuff.

"Government has no other end, but the preservation of property."

-John Locke

For that very reason, wealth tends to reinvest rather than sit idle which manifests as growth.

Private local charity and voluntarism was better than what happens today. But no, there is no right to property in the sense that an entitlement is awarded. Only that among those unalienable negative rights, one is that your body and estate cannot be confiscated.

In a truly free market the threat of being perceived as a hoarder would compel everyone to be extra nice to everyone else and, with our income not confiscated, we could afford to.

There is nothing stopping your town or state from doing any of that though so, maybe California should try it out and let us know how it works out.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: J.B. Aloha

originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: J.B. Aloha

My understanding is that unalienable and inalienable are synonymous and simply mean that which cannot be given or taken away. I have never heard anyone claim a meaningful difference between them, Black's Law Dictionary aside.

You are correct, property is the root of all rights. That is why constitutional republicans are constantly on the defensive against the socialist argument which wishes to dispel with the right of property for the purposes of confiscatory redistributive "social justice" (something other than justice).

I was under the impression that the negative vs positive rights debate was a major component of this discussion.


The smallest of legal distinctions matter. IN or UN matter. AND or OR matter. INCLUDES or INCLUDING matters. These small, seemingly synonymous words purport the 'inclusive' or 'expansive' manner of law and should not be disregarded.

Yes, that particular philosophy is part of the discussion and I made the asseveration that negative v. positive rights was flawed. I also said that I would continue to add to the discussion after I reread and comprehended ALL avenues presented.

In regards to the philosophy of negative v. positive rights I have found it only deals with civil and political rights while falling short in its incorporation of natural rights. Civil and political rights are not synonymous, but they are both ‘Public‘ rights whereas natural rights are ‘Private‘ rights.

A civil right appertains to a person by virtue of ‘citizenship’ in a state or a [political] community. Likewise, a ‘citizen’ IS a member of a political community, and has consented to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and for protection of their individual [private] and collective [public] rights. Ref: Herriott v. City of Seattle.

A political right can simply be thought of in terms of participation, either directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government. Direct example being the right to hold public office or the right to vote, and an indirect example being the right to public education, or right to social security.

It is interesting to note, that someone can choose to have no civil and political rights by virtue of the natural right of ‘liberty’ and in this sense the right to not to associate [freedom of association] with government, and also through a right to declare or establish once civil status.

As established, all rights are property. I find this particular philosophy does not take into account why governments were established in the first place: to PROTECT exclusively private property, and to PREVENT the unlawful conversion of private property to public property. Instead, it focuses on negative and positive duties associated with the exercise of STRICTLY public [Civil and political] rights. I understand the context of these duties to revolve around the premise that ‘duty’ means an obligation as recognized by law, to conform to a certain standard for the protection of others against unreasonable risks. ‘Duty’ Ref: Samson v. Saginaw Professional Bldg., Inc. In contrast, one can argue that ‘duty’ under natural law means an obligation to conform to a [legal] standard of reasonable conduct in light of apparent risks. Ref: Karrar v. Barry County Road Com’n. Please enlighten me if I am mistaken.

As a result, I find that the negative v. private rights philosophy presumes there is no private property and everything is in essence, public.

But, we know this [presumption] to not be the case because; “Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his labor, is generally admitted; and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will…” [The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, 10 Wheat 66, 6 L.Ed, 268(1825)] And, “the right to exclude is one of the most essential [natural] sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.” [Nollan v. California Coastal Comm‘n (1987)].

Good Stuff.


Well said.


I believe the signed and dated voluntary tax return forms that everyone fills out are considered opt-ins for federal income tax participation.
edit on 18-3-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I've become more pragmatic as I've grown older. When I listen to ideas about changing the way we live, I need to see that there's actually a real, workable, adaptable plan involved, not just ideology.

I enjoy theory as much as the next person. However, fine shades of semantic reasoning aside ... what is the real effect of having natural/civil/human rights?

"Living cooperatively together with other people so that every individual lives their life as they choose to the extent of their abilities."

Any theory or philosophy that does not anticipate and account for the presence of others is worthless idealism.

We can talk about the power of "the free market" or "natural rights" all day long, but in reality, those are hopelessly generic term UNLESS we can drill down to specific examples either of HOW what we are postulating WOULD WORK in the real world or WHAT HAS WORKED in other real world examples of what we are theorizing about.

IMHO



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

Property includes your person itself, it means that no one may take your body or your stuff.


That works... that covers mental, physical, emotional and spiritual.


"Government has no other end, but the preservation of property."

-John Locke

For that very reason, wealth tends to reinvest rather than sit idle which manifests as growth.


That's quite the pickle there. That's true when money's only value is for trade.... as in redistribution, which is its purpose. Not when money can be wielded as a weapon against others -- whether through debt, taxes, fines and penalties, etc. Too often, natural rights are ignored when profit is involved.


Private local charity and voluntarism was better than what happens today.


And cooperation and collaboration and barter and pretty much all the way people worked together for their common good. All of which has been minimized and mitigated by government programs, and especially by the IRS, wherein now our labor and profits are no longer our own... only what the government allows us to keep after they take their cut, which keeps growing and growing.


But no, there is no right to property in the sense that an entitlement is awarded. Only that among those unalienable negative rights, one is that your body and estate cannot be confiscated.


And "estate" or "property" includes real property. I do not want property ownership to be a "positive" right, in that the government has to give us property... or, worse, assign us a "home" that we are forced to accept for however long they choose. That would certainly not be in the spirit of natural law and rights.

But we are now in a situation where the feds own our mortgages... the feds own jillions of foreclosed homes that are sitting empty... the feds own millions of acres of land (especially in the western states), and control even more... I'm sure I don't have to tell you the devastating impact that has on supply and demand in a free market. It puts land and housing further and further out of reach of most people. And when push comes to shove, do they protect and preserve the property rights of we the people? Nope. They make deals with the banksters and high rolling investors to buy these properties for a pittance -- while people go homeless.


In a truly free market the threat of being perceived as a hoarder would compel everyone to be extra nice to everyone else...


People are already perceived as hoarders -- the 1%? the elite? -- and they laugh all the way to the bank as they step on the dredges of society. A true free market won't change that. Greed is greed and no amount is never enough.


There is nothing stopping your town or state from doing any of that though so, maybe California should try it out and let us know how it works out.


If the liberals running Cali really meant half of what they spew, it would have happened a long time ago!

However, if the feds stopped (illegally) hoarding so much land in states like Arizona and Nevada and Utah, that land could be homesteaded -- much the same way the feds have done -- and that would be a boon for all. The economic development would be phenomenal and would benefit everyone instead of just a few chosen winners.

There is nothing "natural" about money. What was created to simplify trade and commerce -- which supports the freedom and natural rights of the individual and the community -- has now become a weapon to take from the individual and the community. Financial rules and regulations must support and promote the natural rights of the people or it's just another form of oppression and tyranny.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join