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

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

Wait, what am I complaining about???

I'm merely asking you questions and formulating your answers into a logical framework.

My point of departure was this post of yours:

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: greencmp

One positive right that has come to mind is the "right to an attorney"

The law should be quite simple, how else can it be obeyed? Do we need law of such complexity that lawyers are mandatory?

Murray Rothbard has some interesting ideas on local adjudication as he was forced to consider some of the details being so nearly an anarchist. Privatize everything but allow for appeal.

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

I have bolded the quote I'm inquiring about above.

So ... as I was saying, to me TOTAL PRIVATIZATION means just that ... nothing left for the local, State or Federal Government to do because everything would be handled by private vendors.

However, that still requires some kind of economy, and so far, you've allowed that money would continue to exist under such a system, that money representing individual goods (wealth) which presumably would be traded VIA THE EXCHANGE OF MONEY with others for needed goods and services.

All levels of Government are gone. Who makes the money? Each individual Vendor? Who sets the value of the money? Each individual vendor? We are talking about a totally FREE market here, right?

How does that work on an interstate level, for example? How does it work on an international level?

Or is the postulation that a village based economy is somehow best?

How will that ... unimaginable reduction in the scale of ... everything that goes on in our lives not result in wide-scale ... panic, discontent, animus, etc?

I really am trying to understand how this system would work as compared with any level of what we now have.

Is that what you mean by COMPLAINING? I really thought we were having a wonderful chat!

There is a very small possibility that the system could crash and be open to a new local organization of governance. The free market itself doesn't need that. The free market is the natural default organization for distributing wealth. The Black Market is proof of that. Government is also a default mechanism of natural origin, like animism.

However, since the free market performs a wealth creating and personally empowering service, it will eventually take over as some part of normal governance. The coercive human government provides service mostly against other governments and will someday disappear.

Murray Rothbard describes a system that could work now, but will probably not happen until from generations to millennia of Randian dropouts (ala Atlas Shrugged) show the regular guy how it works.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Semicollegiate


We could start simply and with something easy for all to understand by the challenge to the doctrine of the Devine Right of Kings.

That challenge lead to the concept of "We the People".

Since only one person can physically put pen to paper, isn't "We the people" a major presumption? Actually, "We the people" is shorthand for "those of the states which will join the Union". The authors of the Constitution wanted to list the states but couldn't because at the time none of them had ratified it.

Any one using "We the people" is speaking artistically or rhetorically, not legally, IMO.

I learned most of that from Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo's youtube lectures, I don't remember which one, maybe this one

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I have not seen or heard this before.

Will have to allot time to watch his lectures. Thank you.

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]. 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?

True enough and I love Sowell but, merely keeping watch and surviving is not going to restore our constitutional republic at this point.

A natural rights amendment would be tantamount to conceding that these principals were not clear enough. It is also never a good idea to fix a bad law with another law with the exception of repeal amendments.

The only thing I find acceptable so far is those two repeals but, I am open to suggestions.

Edit:
By the way, I am beginning to worry about the well being of our gracious host.

a reply to: greencmp

How would it serve the cause of increased/restored individual/natural rights to further empower the (usually dysfunctional to a greater or lesser degree) State Legislatures by repealing direct election of Senators?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

How would it serve the cause of increased/restored individual/natural rights to further empower the (usually dysfunctional to a greater or lesser degree) State Legislatures by repealing direct election of Senators?

It serves the balance of powers intended in the constitution.

The reason for the passage of the 17th Amendment should be stated. The 17th Amendment was passed because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power. The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator. When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate.

For instance, in the very first Congress, the State of New York went without representation in the Senate for three months. Additionally, numerous other problems resulted from the efforts to resolve individual deadlocks. The problem of deadlocked legislatures continued unabated from 1787 until 1913.

The 17th amendment, calling for popular election of senators, fixed the procedural problems, but also inappropriately and unintentionally altered the balance of power. Instead, the 17th Amendment should have fixed the procedural problems and left the balance of power between the states and the federal government intact.

The 17th Amendment should be repealed. This would reinstate the states' linkage to the federal political process and would, thereby, have the effect of elevating the present status of the state legislatures from that of lobbyists, to that of a partner in the federal political process. The state legislatures would then have the ability to decentralize power when appropriate.

Repeal the 17th

a reply to: greencmp

So, no increase in individual or natural rights? Merely a re-investiture of power from the popular into the local political machines?

Your summary ignores the fact that 29 of the 48 State Legislatures were already using a "popular election" process at the time of the passage of the 17th due to massive corruption in the system. And that the change was requested in the House starting in about 1828 and many times there after for the next 84 years? That when the Senate finally allowed the measure to come to a vote, and Congress submitted the amendment for ratification, it passed by wide margins of approbation?

The Founders intended the Constitution to change over time. The 17th Amendment is one of those rare political moments when the People were actually somewhat served by a political act, increasing their voice and position in their own Government.

I fail to see any value for the individual rights of the people in a repeal of the 17th Amendment.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

/donsasbestossuit

The free market is not necessarily an equitable market though, is it?

In my opinion, that's one of the biggest flaws with this style of ideology. There is almost a divine balancing force that many attribute to the "Free Market" which has never been demonstrated to exist.

Every market in civilized history has been in a mixed economy. Cf. Code of Hammurabi structuring of credit, trade rules, etc.

I am glad to be proven wrong. What are real world examples of the purely "free market" that have served all individuals equally by performing a wealth-creating and personally empowering service?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

So, no increase in individual or natural rights? Merely a re-investiture of power from the popular into the local political machines?

Your summary ignores the fact that 29 of the 48 State Legislatures were already using a "popular election" process at the time of the passage of the 17th due to massive corruption in the system. And that the change was requested in the House starting in about 1828 and many times there after for the next 84 years? That when the Senate finally allowed the measure to come to a vote, and Congress submitted the amendment for ratification, it passed by wide margins of approbation?

The Founders intended the Constitution to change over time. The 17th Amendment is one of those rare political moments when the People were actually somewhat served by a political act, increasing their voice and position in their own Government.

I fail to see any value for the individual rights of the people in a repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Our negative rights are clear enough, no need to restate the obvious, what you are thinking of is attempting to enshrine positive rights which we shouldn't do at any level (though again, it is only the federal level that we are concerned with when we talk about our "constitution", states may attempt such things).

There isn't any convincing argument for the constitution somehow resulting in the abdication of state power to a central body. Only that the state's actions are limited to not doing what is specifically forbidden to do.

The founders did not intend for our constitution to change though they did allow for it to be amended.

There is no positive change in the value for the individual rights of the people in repealing the 17th amendment, it is a correction to a mistaken reallocation of power away from the states themselves that is important to the balance of powers in our republican government as a whole.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Semicollegiate


We could start simply and with something easy for all to understand by the challenge to the doctrine of the Devine Right of Kings.

That challenge lead to the concept of "We the People".

Since only one person can physically put pen to paper, isn't "We the people" a major presumption? Actually, "We the people" is shorthand for "those of the states which will join the Union". The authors of the Constitution wanted to list the states but couldn't because at the time none of them had ratified it.

Any one using "We the people" is speaking artistically or rhetorically, not legally, IMO.

I learned most of that from Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo's youtube lectures, I don't remember which one, maybe this one

This was good, Tom Woods is OK too but, it seems like whenever someone tries to become a libertarian spokesperson, it just doesn't work.

I am not sure how to address this seemingly insurmountable problem. Perhaps constitutional restoration is a message that really needs to have no leader.

originally posted by: greencmp

Our negative rights are clear enough, no need to restate the obvious, what you are thinking of is attempting to enshrine positive rights which we shouldn't do at any level (though again, it is only the federal level that we are concerned with when we talk about our "constitution", states may attempt such things).

There isn't any convincing argument for the constitution somehow resulting in the abdication of state power to a central body. Only that the state's actions are limited to not doing what is specifically forbidden to do.

The founders did not intend for our constitution to change though they did allow for it to be amended.

There is no positive change in the value for the individual rights of the people in repealing the 17th amendment, it is a correction to a mistaken reallocation of power away from the states themselves that is important to the balance of powers in our republican government as a whole.

I will admit that your first paragraph above seems muddled to me. I am not attempting to enshrine anything. I am merely stating my disagreement with your seeming position that a repeal of Amendment 17 would increase any level of individual rights ... positive, negative, neutral, natural or civil.

The Constitution in its very essence creates a central body! It is an organizing document for how individual states could unify into a single nation. There doesn't need to be any "argument" because ... that's what the Constitution is! It establishes a nation and a system of governance. In that system, certain powers are ceded by the People to the national government and some to the States. It is clear from the overall structure of the document, as well as the direct statement of Article Six, Clause 2, that indeed, that system was a hierarchical one, with the Federal government superior.

Your third paragraph is mere semantics: to amend something is to change it; to change something is to amend it.

Your fourth paragraph answers my question establishes my point. There is no contribution to individual rights in such a repeal.

The Constitution allows for Amendment, the Constitution was amended lawfully, ... I appreciate your opinion but I disagree.

Amending the Constitution was an application of the joint powers inherent in the People of the very individual, natural rights we are discussing here.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp

Our negative rights are clear enough, no need to restate the obvious, what you are thinking of is attempting to enshrine positive rights which we shouldn't do at any level (though again, it is only the federal level that we are concerned with when we talk about our "constitution", states may attempt such things).

There isn't any convincing argument for the constitution somehow resulting in the abdication of state power to a central body. Only that the state's actions are limited to not doing what is specifically forbidden to do.

The founders did not intend for our constitution to change though they did allow for it to be amended.

There is no positive change in the value for the individual rights of the people in repealing the 17th amendment, it is a correction to a mistaken reallocation of power away from the states themselves that is important to the balance of powers in our republican government as a whole.

I will admit that your first paragraph above seems muddled to me. I am not attempting to enshrine anything. I am merely stating my disagreement with your seeming position that a repeal of Amendment 17 would increase any level of individual rights ... positive, negative, neutral, natural or civil.

It doesn't.

The Constitution in its very essence creates a central body! It is an organizing document for how individual states could unify into a single nation. There doesn't need to be any "argument" because ... that's what the Constitution is! It establishes a nation and a system of governance. In that system, certain powers are ceded by the People to the national government and some to the States. It is clear from the overall structure of the document, as well as the direct statement of Article Six, Clause 2, that indeed, that system was a hierarchical one, with the Federal government superior.

It's not.

Your third paragraph is mere semantics: to amend something is to change it; to change something is to amend it.

No, that is why we had to pass another amendment to repeal the prohibition on alcohol.

Your fourth paragraph answers my question establishes my point. There is no contribution to individual rights in such a repeal.

Yes, no contribution to individual rights, just state's rights.

The Constitution allows for Amendment, the Constitution was amended lawfully, ... I appreciate your opinion but I disagree.

Amending the Constitution was an application of the joint powers inherent in the People of the very individual, natural rights we are discussing here.

Correct, and the best interests of the people, the citizens of the united states of america, would be better suited with a less powerful, less invasive and less centralized federal government.

a reply to: greencmp

In rough order of your bits of response:

1. Agreed.

2. Yes, it is. Read it.

3. What? I believe now that you are merely being specious. An amendment to something to add to it (positive change) being countered by another Amendment to take something away (negative change) is still change.

4. And would the best interests of the American people (by which you refer to that national identity, btw) be best served by further empowerment of the local (State, County and Municipal) authorities, which actually have an infinitely greater likelihood of "interacting" with us as citizens with on a daily basis? (Interacting meaning inflicting garbage into our lives).

If government is "bad" it's bad at all levels ... particularly at that level where someone can get into a car and drive to my house.

Please explain to me how the utter incompetence, overt ignorance, and blatant malfeasance in many cases of State and local officials is preferable to a distant, diffused and often dysfunctional Federal government.

Aside from that, I am good with your opinion as well as being good with mine.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That's an interesting way to think of it, that a bureaucrat in hand is worse than two in an office building somewhere.

I think that the closer the people are to the funding and the expending the better.

When you see it in front of you, you act to correct it.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's an interesting way to think of it, that a bureaucrat in hand is worse than two in an office building somewhere.

I think that the closer the people are to the funding and the expending the better.

When you see it in front of you, you act to correct it.

I have no problem at all, in general, with reshaping, restructuring, reforming, or even replacing per se, our systems of government.

I have no problem with looking at ideal situations and theories to inform how we might do things better in the everyday world.

There is no doubt in my mind that the last place that Government needs to be is sticking its nose into my business.

But ... it's all a matter of scale. The a County Deputy Sheriff has a lot more chance of screwing my life up on his whim than does Barack Obama.

I guess it's a matter of how you figure your chances ... LOL.

a reply to: Gryphon66

True but, you can move out of your county to elude an overbearing sheriff.

Voting with your feet is the last resort and first threat of any citizen against tyranny.

If that ability is taken away by national standardization, no non-political recourse is left.

a reply to: greencmp

Not if the Sheriff has already put you in jail.

I've seen everything from Johnson to Obama.

Their actions by and large have only a nominal effect on my life.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Usually, it isn't a personal beef with an administrator who has you bound and gagged in the shed but, that does happen I suppose. All the more reason to carry a concealed weapon.

Typically, your town or even your state will pass some law which makes your life that much harder through taxes, local ordinance or other interference in the day to day operations of your life. So, you take off and move to another place.

The overall effect of free migration deflates and/or dissipates corruption.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Gryphon66

Usually, it isn't a personal beef with an administrator who has you bound and gagged in the shed but, that does happen I suppose. All the more reason to carry a concealed weapon.

Typically, your town or even your state will pass some law which makes your life that much harder through taxes, local ordinance or other interference in the day to day operations of your life. So, you take off and move to another place.

The overall effect of free migration deflates and/or dissipates corruption.

Not if the next State/County/Town is also corrupt ...

a reply to: Boadicea


I'd love to read through all the replies to this thread when I have more time!

Just wanted to ask your thoughts on this subject of the Noahide Laws and if you've heard of them, in light of this:

One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one Joint Resolution To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. "Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one Joint Resolution To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. "Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded....

....Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe', this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws;"

thomas.loc.gov...:H.J.RES.104.ENR:

For one, I had never heard that "our nation was founded on the Noahide Laws"!

Two, do you think there is any reasonable foundation or scheme in place to "return the world" to obeying them?!

They are written about some here:

carm.org...

The seven Noahide Laws are not explicitly listed in the Bible. Instead, they are derived according to the Talmud's interpretation of Genesis 2:16 given to Adam, and Genesis 9:4-6 given to Noah. The Talmud is a "Jewish literary collection of teachings, laws, and interpretations based on the Old Testament Torah. It has two parts, the Mishnah and that Gemera."1

The seven Noahide Laws are listed in different orders, but basically they are as follows:
Idolatry is forbidden
Blasphemy is forbidden
Murder is forbidden
Theft is forbidden
Sexual Immorality is forbidden
Eating flesh of living animals is forbidden
Justice laws (???)