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

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The free life lived in colonial America was unique in history. People from the most advanced culture in the world found themselves far from their political master. Everyday a problem had to be solved without the normal supervision and support of their fellow Europeans. Independence naturally developed from the situation.

Natural rights were discovered in the course of independent living and found to be the best morality for an independent life. No polity has philosophized a culture of freedom and then successfully fought to gain it. Only people who lived in freedom by some happy accident have fought to keep it.

Civil rights were developed in response to the controlled social environment in Europe. Civil rights assume a different economy and culture than individual rights.

The disharmony between negative rights and positive rights has mostly to do with the preferred way of life of the right's proponents.

An individualist would naturally plan for his retirement, preferably by paying off his house and business capital faster than he can do now with social security payments, mandatory health insurance and the 15 working years completely consumed in paying taxes.

Civil rights assumes that working 15 years of your life to pay taxes and nothing else is normal and various benefits gained back from that expenditure are deserved.

Ever since the first time my class in school was punished for the behavior of one student, I have been against collectivism as unjust and unable to handle details. Civil rights are based on the assumption of control by all powerful superiors and the permanence of a debt based economy, so civil rights cannot be guaranteed -- they can be lost by the political system or the economic system. And since civil rights are not based on how things are (natural) but rather on ideas about how things should be (ideological), they cannot be depended on to solve whatever problem they are meant to address.

Individuals do things, groups of individuals qua group do nothing except the sum of what each individual has done. A social system that makes planning and doing easier for the individual will be a more productive and flexible and ergonomic culture than a culture firmly requesting benefits from power.

Should this be a new thread?

All very true.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Glad you enjoyed the Grieg ... I didn't intend it sarcastically, only humorously.

It has been said that the birth of the modern democratic republic (or republican democracy) occured during the Enlightenment, beginning perhaps with Locke and culminating in the American and French revolutions, but these ideas found purchase in older, established and proven systems of governance.

Where did we and/or the French get our ideas and structure for the republican form of government?



Civil rights are a honey trap? Perhaps.

As are are Utopian idealistic philosophies of every stripe.

Best,

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Glad you enjoyed the Grieg ... I didn't intend it sarcastically, only humorously.

It has been said that the birth of the modern democratic republic (or republican democracy) occured during the Enlightenment, beginning perhaps with Locke and culminating in the American and French revolutions, but these ideas found purchase in older, established and proven systems of governance.

Where did we and/or the French get our ideas and structure for the republican form of government?



Civil rights are a honey trap? Perhaps.

As are are Utopian idealistic philosophies of every stripe.

Best,

The official story for America is that we invented the principle of balance of power, or dispersion of power. Democracy was one facet of the dividing of power. The building blocks of the governmental institutions are reputed to be from the Roman Republic. I don't know the Roman Republic well enough to say. Sounds plausible, the Roman Republic lived without a king for 500 years.

Once the American region had a weak government and economic prosperity, all other European nations had an additional incentive to become more enlightened. The possibility of "exit" has contributed more to freedom world wide than good philosophical arguments.

The "miracle" in question consists in a simple but momentous fact: It was in Europe — and the extensions of Europe, above all, America — that human beings first achieved per capita economic growth over a long period of time. In this way, European society eluded the "Malthusian trap," enabling new tens of millions to survive and the population as a whole to escape the hopeless misery that had been the lot of the great mass of the human race in earlier times. The question is: why Europe?

....

Within this system, it was highly imprudent for any prince to attempt to infringe property rights in the manner customary elsewhere in the world. In constant rivalry with one another, princes found that outright expropriations, confiscatory taxation, and the blocking of trade did not go unpunished. The punishment was to be compelled to witness the relative economic progress of one's rivals, often through the movement of capital, and capitalists, to neighboring realms. The possibility of "exit," facilitated by geographical compactness and, especially, by cultural affinity, acted to transform the state into a "constrained predator" (Anderson 1991, 58).
mises.org...

I don't know as much about the French as I should. I've come across almost as much stuff in conspiracy literature as I have in scholarly history about the French Revolution. At some point the French had to kill the revolution in order to save it.

A successful revolution and government needs a successful economy. Economics was still only a talent specific to extraordinarily minded individuals during the French Revolution.

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

It seems to me that some sort of plebiscite is needed.

I have been primarily concerned with repealing the 16th and 17th amendments but, maybe I am thinking too narrowly.

What is the most important first step toward restoring our constitutional republic?

a reply to: greencmp

If I had to sum up all my arguments thus far, the common trend for ALL of it; 3 United States, 2 legal contexts, 2 types of citizenship status' - is just one underlying constitutionally protected component. That being the Right of the people to contract. I firmly believe , through research, that all of the perceived ills of our nation are born of a lack of understanding in what it actually means to contract [with government] and what a [government] contract legitimately constitutes.

Every perceived benefit, is a franchise, an opportunity to contract [with government]. For most it ends at; I work for 15 years and pay taxes and I get to collect at the end? Sign me up. Few look into what the associated 'cost' of receipt of that benefit actually is. The cost is usually what is referred to as 'comity'. In the words of Robert Heinlein [The Moon is a Harsh Mistress] "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

The first step IMO is the reeducation of the public, if only in the sense that it is in their best interest to be familiar with the law, the organization of government, how laws are made and enforced. I do not expect the government to fully disclose or reduce into writing every grain of truth-in-lending for every offer to contract, they don't now, and why would they freely give away the keys to the shackles of franchise, when omission is so lucrative?

Simply reigniting the ability to question authority and not taking things at face value. Why do they say I have to pay taxes, when our representative continually refer to our tax system as 'voluntary'? Why does the Social Security manual have a withdrawal chapter and a from to do so [SSA-521]? Why are the definitions at the front of USC titles except for Title 26 [Internal Revenue Code]? Is that intentional? What do they not want people to see?

If that fails, then it is up to those who want to live life free of government franchise and civil status' to use the system as it is meant to be, and uphold the law, rather than looking for ways around the law.

Believe me, they would take notice when 1-2million working age individuals withdrew from SS, and terminated fiduciary responsibility associated with that [now void] SSN. But, it must be done right, and it must be done completely. One cannot be both sovereign and a citizen of the United States [2].

My thoughts on the matter anyway.

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

Interesting but, the opt-out solution requires expertise, diligence and ultimately vigilance to establish and maintain.

I was thinking that repealing the federal income tax and restoring senators to state appointed would cover most of that without requiring anyone to do anything. I think that would get their attention at least as well.

a reply to: Boadicea

I've tried to look at it from various perspectives, but I believe their specific perspective is that each colony-now-state was a sovereignty unto itself, and the union was for specific purposes only, enumerated within the Constitution... In other words, they did not trust each other to a certain extent, and basically agreed: This is what you cannot do to us. So in the end it does come down to federal powers vs. state powers.



" quote from Greencamp
Ultimately, I have decided that state's rights is the way to handle pretty much everything, that way has always been our saving grace.

Keep these decision at the local level, states do have their own constitutions which stand unless contested as unconstitutional. "


Yes. Which raises its own questions/problems. There are those who believe (mistakenly in my opinion) that because it is forbidden to the federal government, that it is also forbidden to the states... and those at the other end of the spectrum who believe that just because something is worthy that the federal government has the responsibility and the power to impose it on the nation. The states have always been the "laboratories" so to speak, as states implement laws or programs to benefit their populace, and other states learn from their mistakes and successes.

One of the beauties of this is that states can adapt and modify to fit the unique needs of their states and communities, with the insight and input of the people, rather than the one-size-fits-all approach of the feds, which seldom serve our best interests.

The pre civil war Nullification tradition held that the States never made the Federal Government a superior. The Federal Gov was to be an arbiter of disputes between states, as a disinterested party. The Constitution was meant to explicity declare the specific powewrs of the FG, the Supreme Court in particular was not meant to be the final word on any law. The Supreme Court was like a plus one in any interstate dispute.

Why would any state government give up all its power to the central government?

Interesting but, the opt-out solution requires expertise, diligence and ultimately vigilance to establish and maintain.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

I was thinking that repealing the federal income tax and restoring senators to state appointed would cover most of that without requiring anyone to do anything. I think that would get their attention at least as well.

I have found that the 16th amendment dos not confer any new powers of taxation, and repealing it would be symbolic more than anything. I can expand, but to maintain the nice balance of law and philosophy in this thread, I would rather not diverge heavily into taxation. In essence the 16th added nothing to the powers already enumerated in the constitution; Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 3 [taxation of imports], and Art 1, Sec 8, cl 1 and 17 [Municipal Taxation of the Federal Zone for the Internal functions of government]. All it did was extend the federal zone [for the purposes of taxation] to the territories and possessions of the United States [2].

ETA: It is the 'Federal Income' Tax. Art 1, Sec 8, cl 1 and 17 [Municipal Taxation of the Federal Zone for the Internal functions of government]. I don't have any 'Federal Income'. Do you?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Why would any state government give up all its power to the central government?

A contractual promise of a benefit at the price of 'comity'. Though, 'comity' is not indicative of a full surrender of sovereignty, rather just a portion.

originally posted by: J.B. Aloha

Interesting but, the opt-out solution requires expertise, diligence and ultimately vigilance to establish and maintain.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

I was thinking that repealing the federal income tax and restoring senators to state appointed would cover most of that without requiring anyone to do anything. I think that would get their attention at least as well.

I have found that the 16th amendment dos not confer any new powers of taxation, and repealing it would be symbolic more than anything. I can expand, but to maintain the nice balance of law and philosophy in this thread, I would rather not diverge heavily into taxation. In essence the 16th added nothing to the powers already enumerated in the constitution; Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 3 [taxation of imports], and Art 1, Sec 8, cl 1 and 17 [Municipal Taxation of the Federal Zone for the Internal functions of government].

Well, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the necessity of the 16th amendment at the time. If they didn't need it, it wouldn't have happened and, as I understand it was a close call, some even say that it didn't officially pass. Not an unimportant amendment to be sure, even if only symbolic.

If not simply a repeal than perhaps a new amendment with a new ban on income taxation?

a reply to: greencmp

I added a sentence to what you quoted above before I saw your post.

All it did was extend the federal zone [for the purposes of taxation] to the territories and possessions of the United States [2].

I am not dismissing it out right, but, I haven't seen it confer anything new either.

a reply to: Boadicea

I've been giving this some thought. There is strength in numbers, and it is often more efficient and practical to pool resources for a common goal... such as law enforcement, education, road maintenance, etc. The question is determining which functions are best left to the individual and which are best handled as a whole. So much simpler said than done!

A thing to remember is that its not free when the government does it. All the roads we have now were paid for by us citizens. The trick is figuring out how to pay directly for them. Something like a "cable package" of civic services might be the mode.

Like Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson and William Penn and so many other founding fathers, I consider public education of the absolute paramount in healthy Republic. An educated public is an educated voting public. Further, education creates an independent, resourceful and self-sustaining people -- in other words, a strong people, who neither want nor need public assistance.

Having said that, the current state of education is a joke. But the premise is sound. We just need to fix it. Others disagree with me, and would like to see public education done away with. I just want to see it wrested from federal interference and control, handled as locally as possible to best serve that communities needs. I would like to see vocational education become more available, and I think we otherwise need to totally reform our educational system.

Homeschooling seems to stand up to college level demands pretty well. I haven't ever heard otherwise. Homeschooling could be done with tutors for busy people. Like babysitting and a source of income for anybody who knows the material.
Internet tutors could supply variety in course content and style so as to match up the education with the tastes and talents of the students.

Rating agencies could offer testing and endorsements for employers, colleges, and loan applications.

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

Why would any state government give up all its power to the central government?

A contractual promise of a benefit at the price of 'comity'. Though, 'comity' is not indicative of a full surrender of sovereignty, rather just a portion.

Then the state is still giving up a known for an unknown. Giving up sovereignty for a promise of some benefit. In a country that had just fought a revolution against remote authority, giving up sovereignty is not believable.

I think real perceived benefit was some standardization of trade, mostly that transportation would not be impeded across state territory, and a NATO like alliance.

ETA: a reply to: greencmp

For clarity the amendment itself uses the term 'several states'. I contend that these 'States' are not states of the Unions, but rather the Federal States [and territories, possession, and instrumentalities]. We see in the IRC itself, 26 USC §7701 (a)(9) and (a)(10) that it only refers to the federal zone through the definitions of 'United States' and 'State'.

These definitions use the word of art 'includes'. And At first glance most assume the common meaning of both term and what is written in the Title is just an add on. This is not correct. The SCOTUS is very clear on how definitions in Statute are to be interpreted. I Submit the following:

"When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition even if it varies from the term's ordinary meaning."

"It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term."

"As a rule, a definition which declares what a term means...excludes any meaning not stated."

- Each quote is from a different case, but were all referenced and pulled from Stenberg v. Carhart 530 U.S. 914 (2000)

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Commerce is one of the few things the government can constitutionally regulate amongst the states of the Union and within the United States [1].

I will be more specific in what benefits I am referring to: Education monies, social insurances, and other franchises of that type.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

Money represents wealth. Check.

... and wealth is created through the natural progression of requirement, vision, effort and reverence. Uh ... check.

What is "wealth" itself then, in your terms [in a society were EVERYTHING has been privatized]?

EDIT FOR CLARITY IN BRACKETS.

Wealth in terms of socio-economics is culture. Everything made by man. Stadiums, highways, TV shows, BBQ recipes, home garden vegetable breeding, new words, new sports, anything that people make.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

So ... money represents goods which have inherent value.

I'm with you. Now, in a society where everything has been privatized, where does the money [itself, i.e. the fungible currency] come from?

E.g., A gross way of looking at my question: does each producer of goods issue their own money?


Also, if you have another moment, a quick definition of what you mean by privatized ... just a functional one.

Company stock could be money. A famous company like IBM or Ben and Jerry's could have stock that is widely circulated.
Less famous companies would essentially be giving out coupons for their goods, which could acquire more value over time.

A professional money company could take in all kinds of stuff and issue currency.

Precious and semi-precious metals could be traded for their current (future hypothetical) value. A piece of copper the size of a silver dollar is worth about a dollar as copper right now.

Casino chips have been used like money recently, which is the same as cryptocurrency, in that it has value because money was put into it.

And barter would be lawful for all mutually agreed transactions.

The closest to a real prediction about commodity money is that it would evolve from what we have now into something always backed 100% by real good of universally recognized value.

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

Commerce is one of the few things the government can constitutionally regulate amongst the states of the Union and within the United States [1].

I will be more specific in what benefits I am referring to: Education monies, social insurances, and other franchises of that type.

I intend to read your posts soon, I'm rereading at page 3 now, but education and social insurances are not specifically authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution, therefore they are not authorized, is my understanding.

a reply to: Boadicea

Natures law is might makes right. Wolves routinely steal from bears. Bears have been documented stealing from humans.

Biggest wolf rules the pack, there is no vote.

If your rights come from a creator, why didn't they exist before 1776?

Your rights are based on the gov you live under. Go to the middle east and use your "right" to free speech and see what happens.

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.

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.

Finally, we are a democracy. 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, 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.

The US is not a Democracy because in a Democracy a group of people can vote themselves anything. We are a Republic because the laws rule, not the voters. The voters have a veto, but the voters were never meant to pass any proactive governmental actions.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

Alexis de Tocqueville

Read more at www.brainyquote.com...

The founders though that positive rights was or would lead to buying votes with the voters money.