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

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

YAY! Me too.

I haven't exactly been following this thread closely, but I am far more realistic and less idealistic as I approach my 70s.

Unless you have a well thought out business plan and enough devoted investors willing to support it ---- you're just "pissing in the wind".

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.

Yes, given the level of liability I see no solution other than insolvency. We should have each department or agency declare their own bankruptcy and liquidate their assets. Default and cut loose all the pensions and unfunded liabilities, then have the states follow suit, the cities and so on.

That way we can leave primary things like defense and arguably critical social services alone for now. That is not a popular position that I hold but, I don't see how the US becoming isolationist or unsympathetic to poverty right now helps very much.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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."

I agree, although I would include the right for people to not associate with others as well if that's what they want, but they cannot impose on anyone else in doing so. And that might just be a technical point on my part, since I like being a hermit at times.

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

I agree again. Talk is cheap. More important, what works in theory is not always so easy to put into practice. I suppose my best answer to this is that we must understand the fundamental principles of any situation, including our absolute natural rights, before we can find a solution that works with those principles. But it is then incumbent upon us to respect and incorporate those principles into the solution.

originally posted by: greencmp

Yes, given the level of liability I see no solution other than insolvency. We should have each department or agency declare their own bankruptcy and liquidate their assets. Default and cut loose all the pensions and unfunded liabilities, then have the states follow suit, the cities and so on.

That way we can leave primary things like defense and arguably critical social services alone for now. That is not a popular position that I hold but, I don't see how the US becoming isolationist or unsympathetic to poverty right now helps very much.

No, it's not a popular position... but I fear that if we don't do this, or something similar, then everything will inevitably collapse like a house of cards. Our system has been corrupted beyond viability and sustainability.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I agree, although I would include the right for people to not associate with others as well if that's what they want, but they cannot impose on anyone else in doing so.

Yes, many forget that freedom of association includes freedom to not associate [even with government].

I will try to illustrate.

Ones Body, labor, and all that you own starts out as your exclusively private property. This includes intellectual property and intangible property [Natural rights]. Ideally, this exclusivity puts that private property beyond the civil control or regulation of government; baring an unlawful conversion of private to public. And only through donating or volunteering [choosing to associate] some portion of it to 'public use', a 'public office' or another 'public purpose' can it then be civilly regulated and controlled and any duties or obligations applied.

The above was articulated very well in Budd v. People of the State of New York (1892)
"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,—'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation."

originally posted by: J.B. Aloha

originally posted by: Boadicea
I agree, although I would include the right for people to not associate with others as well if that's what they want, but they cannot impose on anyone else in doing so.

Yes, many forget that freedom of association includes freedom to not associate [even with government].

I will try to illustrate.

Ones Body, labor, and all that you own starts out as your exclusively private property. This includes intellectual property and intangible property [Natural rights]. Ideally, this exclusivity puts that private property beyond the civil control or regulation of government; baring an unlawful conversion of private to public. And only through donating or volunteering some portion of it to 'public use', a 'public office' or another 'public purpose' can it then be civilly regulated and controlled and any duties or obligations applied.

The above was articulated very well in Budd v. People of the State of New York (1892)
"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,—'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation."

Thank you! This brings it all together beautifully. I really appreciate your input here, and the case references. This is basically what I was taught... what I think... but I don't have the background to back it up.

originally posted by: J.B. Aloha

originally posted by: Boadicea
I agree, although I would include the right for people to not associate with others as well if that's what they want, but they cannot impose on anyone else in doing so.

Yes, many forget that freedom of association includes freedom to not associate [even with government].

I will try to illustrate.

Ones Body, labor, and all that you own starts out as your exclusively private property. This includes intellectual property and intangible property [Natural rights]. Ideally, this exclusivity puts that private property beyond the civil control or regulation of government; baring an unlawful conversion of private to public. And only through donating or volunteering [choosing to associate] some portion of it to 'public use', a 'public office' or another 'public purpose' can it then be civilly regulated and controlled and any duties or obligations applied.

The above was articulated very well in Budd v. People of the State of New York (1892)
"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,—'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation."

Nowadays there would be shocked gasps and fits of fainting in the audience, maybe on the bench.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: J.B. Aloha

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

So let's try. How about we pick a current issue -- the more controversial the better -- and see what we can come up with.

Greencmp and I have already talked a little about real property rights and the right to have somewhere to live... we could expand on that. Or something else?

Anyone want to try?

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: J.B. Aloha

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

So let's try. How about we pick a current issue -- the more controversial the better -- and see what we can come up with.

Greencmp and I have already talked a little about real property rights and the right to have somewhere to live... we could expand on that. Or something else?

Anyone want to try?

I have been thinking about ebay as a microcosm. I believe its history more or less generically illustrates the effects of burdensome intervention on a thriving free market.

Summary:

Ebay takes off with the personal responsibility and utter transparency model. The market regulates itself and grows in both breadth and transactional internal confidence.

The market was 'fixed' to respond to a perceived increase in dishonesty or a desired elimination of imagined dishonesty resulting in a variety of delays, withholdings and disruptive policies which dramatically decreased the willingness of participants to participate. Sellers stopped selling and, being buyers themselves, stopped buying as well.

Recognizing the magnitude of the dilemma in confidence they implemented a whole bunch of destructive policies including the decision to 'reset' sellers with bad feedback histories which simultaneously rewarded the deleterious elements while sticking their thumb in the eye of the actually perfect sellers whose unfettered reputations became instantly unremarkable.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: J.B. Aloha

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

So let's try. How about we pick a current issue -- the more controversial the better -- and see what we can come up with.

Greencmp and I have already talked a little about real property rights and the right to have somewhere to live... we could expand on that. Or something else?

Anyone want to try?

What exactly do you mean by that?

Do you mean tax free? That you have the right to do whatever you want on your property? That you can prevent law officers from coming on your property? Etc

a reply to: Boadicea

Okay, how about the political meme "You didn't build that."

This of course arose in the 2012 US Presidential Election as a misstatement of something one politician said about what another politician said. (I'm not using names because I don't want it to become about the partisanship or the politics or the people involved.)

Basically the idea that I take away from the importance of the discussion is that in 2015 in America none of us have created what we have (our property) in a vacuum. We are each of us embedded in an economic system and an infrastructure that has been created not by individual enterprise alone, but by cooperative actions over two hundred years directed by local, State and the Federal Government.

I believe it to be a clear fact that 99.99 percent of us couldn't survive for more than a few days at most completely "on our own." (Example, we are set down in the middle of the desert or plains or tundra alone far outside of human community.)

Boadicea noted that they are a hermit and I well understand that position, particularly these days. HOWEVER, even though I may not "choose to associate" with that many people on a personal/social level, I still have to on a business/professional level ... or I starve.

So, long story short (fail) how can we change our current system to be more ... appreciative ... of individual rights (natural, civic, etc.) while still maintaining the infrastructure (social, physical, economic) that we have all grown up in and from which we have all created our own personal "wealth."

Thank you everyone -- and I'm sorry. I've got a mini crisis here. I'll be back as soon as I can take care of things.

Sorry!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea
So, long story short (fail) how can we change our current system to be more ... appreciative ... of individual rights (natural, civic, etc.) while still maintaining the infrastructure (social, physical, economic) that we have all grown up in and from which we have all created our own personal "wealth."

I don't personally believe any drastic systemic 'change' per se is required. Merely upholding and championing the law... fulfilling the ideal that we are a nation of law, rather than a nation of men. Respecting that there is in fact [and in law] two separate, distinct, and mutually exclusive contexts for men and women to be part of: (1) Constitutional/Republic [inherent, private, and unalienable] and (2) Statutory/Federal Corporate State [voluntary, public, and revocable]. Simply, making it known to ALL that most of what people complain about are usually voluntary and self inflicted. Taxes: Voluntary. Maintaining one civil status over another, or no civil status at all: Voluntary. Participating in government social insurances or other social franchises: Voluntary. Participating in government protection franchises like business incorporation, military, federal employment: Voluntary.

The biggest change I think is the reeducation of the public in regard to learning, understanding, and applying the law. The highest court in the land has repeatedly said that men [and women] must know the law, and that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Ignorance in this case does not mean "stupid or unknowing", rather it means "wanting familiarity" [and working to become more familiar]. Something I remedy regularly.

I have zero problem with those who choose, after full disclosure and informed consent [which never happens], to partake in the allure of government benefit franchises [with the associated costs for said benefit]. Where the hiccup occurs, is for those men and women who choose the opposite, to live a life without government benefit or interference. The crux then becomes; Can a man [or woman], while excluding government (public sector), successfully associate with the private sector?

It is a noodle baker Gryphon66, that is for sure. My only anecdote on the matter is an 'educational' attempt to open a checking account without a social security number or traditional government issued ID, and only a notarized and apostilled identity document [affidavit]. Since being ineligible or withdrawn from SS also makes one ineligible for most State issued ID cards or commercial licences. In short, 'successfully' was the result, but it was not easy and they were not 'appreciative' of the education.

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

From what you're saying, you seem to be referring to what is generally called the "Sovereign Citizen Movement."

Is that correct?

originally posted by: Boadicea
Thank you everyone -- and I'm sorry. I've got a mini crisis here. I'll be back as soon as I can take care of things.

Sorry!

I hope all is well. We'll be here long after your crisis is over.

Take care of you and yours!

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.

Not from what i read from the quote from an independent poster / not the Op. Which is what i was responding to.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: J.B. Aloha

From what you're saying, you seem to be referring to what is generally called the "Sovereign Citizen Movement."

Is that correct?

Absolutely not. That is a good way to get in trouble. Plus, one cannot be both a [Constitutional] Sovereign and a [Statutory] Citizen like they try to do. It generally is all or nothing. Fully disenfranchised, or you are committing fraud. The term itself, I find oxymoronic. I have read their works heavily and find many of the arguments flawed or contextually selective in their approach. Examples include (1) The Internal revenue code is unconstitutional, or (2) The 16th amendment was never fully ratified, or (3) 'Wages' are not 'Income' and therefor not taxable, or (4) Land Patents can defeat mortgages. The list goes on. They are particularly bad in the 'Tax' Department. Our end states may be similar, but my approach is vastly different. ETA: I have been very consistent on this in my postings, and I choose to not associate with that fraudulent status or any who claim to be such.

My apologies to all -- but I need to bow out for now.

I had a crazy morning to say the least. Some Nazi wannabe went on a shooting rampage this morning, and me and mine are okay, but it hit a little too close for comfort, and I'm a little freaked out. Yeah, I guess that makes me a wimp.

Please continue the discussion. I'm very impressed with everyone's thoughtful contributions so far. Keep up the good work.

a reply to: Boadicea

Glad everyone is unscathed. Take your time.

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

Well bless me, I can still be surprised!

You did seem exceptionally reasonable in your related thought compared with most of the Sovereigns I've encountered.

So, now ... I really want to give your ideas consideration in context. I'll be following up with questions if you're in the mood for it. (Caution, I can ask a lot of questions.)