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.

 

Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

page: 12
55
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

If this Natural Law was so Self Evident and Unalienable and Universal one would think that murder would be an aberration. It is not. It is not even in *nature* if you stretch the definition of murder to be the killing of another of one's own species.


I believe that you have at one time or another, worked in a profession dealing with law. If such is the case, then I'm sure that you are aware that the definition of 'murder' is specifically:

The -
1) intentional (to differentiate from manslaughter)
2) and unjustifiable (to rule out things like self-defense and executions)
3) commission of a homicide ('homicide' to rule out such things as killings of animals as 'murder')

Just a reminder, 'cause I'm willing to bet you already knew... I'm taking that from the Code of Virginia, as I was trained, but that definition is pretty much standard.



If these rights were so "natural" and unalienable, *why* did we need a Constitution to grant them to us?


The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it restrains government from abrogating them. Note that I said 'restrains', since it clearly can't prevent such all by itself - and hasn't done much to even slow it down in the past recent several years, and I also said 'abrogate', as in completely dissolve, since in those same years, there have been some pretty sad encroachments.



Originally posted by whatukno

In natural law, murder is completely justified because of survival of the fittest.



See immediately above for the legal definition of 'murder' (we ARE still dealing with law, right?) Murder is NEVER justified, completely or even partially. It's built right in to the definition.




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


More disingenousness? It is self evident to the person who is facing their murderer that it is wrong, I assure you. This is why people will fight to defend themselves against murder, or would you have them simply wait for a police officer to come and protect them? You hope to dismiss natural law by pointing to the fact that people do murder, but would then turn around and uphold legislation declaring murder wrong as valid. That my friend is simply disingenuous.

There is no such thing as "legal" murder, only invented legislation that would declare it so by the whims of those who wrote the legislation. You would think that by your view of humanity, murder is favorite past time of people, but it is self evident that murder is indeed an aberration, and most people do not murder other people, only you fanciful and whimsical world does this happen.

I will not put you on record for anything, if you choose to go on record, and I have all ready read enough of your posts in this thread to know you have gone on record as dismissing natural and inalienable rights. Indeed, you disingenuously hoped to dismiss it by declaring those who assert their inalienable rights as simply being religious people who believe in God, as if this is what the definition of inalienable is. Inalienable means non-transferable, and one does not have to believe in God in order to hold inalienable rights.

Inalienable rights are universal and belong to all people regardless of their citizenship, or race, religion or sex. Yet you would dismiss this and disingenuously so. If you want to go on record as being dismissive of inalienable rights this is your choice to do so, and you have the inalienable right to express that choice here, you just don't have the legal right to take inalienable rights away. Further, while you claim to uphold legislation, you certainly ignore that legislation codified as law that acknowledges inalienable rights, and what your agenda is with that, who knows? That you do your own whimsical dismissing of legislation is clear.

Natural rights are inalienable rights and any action that causes no harm to another is a right and inalienable, unless it is self defense, and if that defense requires harm, then this too is a right. It is neither arbitrary nor whimsical, and works universally. However, look at your own behavior for the demonstration of how capricious you are towards legislation. If that legislation acknowledges inalienable rights you ignore it, then hope to argue that only legislative acts can work as law.

You want to play the "Western culture" game in yet another fallacious argument in order to dismiss natural rights, but remain ambiguous as to whether you are advocating non Western cultural legislative acts or not. Would you like to go on record and advocate murder? Rape? Genital mutilation?

You hope to dismiss inalienable rights by first acknowledging that an individual who asserts these rights does not necessarily make them a murderer, or rapist or child molester but then argue that they might, as if simply legislating a statute prohibiting murder, rape, or child molestation would prevent this. Are that naive?

Bit of a stretch? Did you ignore Wuk's twisting of my logic in order to come to the conclusion you did? No, I am not stretching anything, I was responding directly to Wuk's disingenuousness and now I am responding to yours.

We do not need a Constitution to grant us rights, nor does the Constitution grant these rights, but works as Amendments prohibiting government from legislating them away. Of course, you would have to either be ignorant of the language of the Bill of Rights, and any states Declaration of Rights, or willfully ignore that language in order to reach the conclusions you have.

Why do we so jealously guard them? Do you have I have a mouse in my pocket? I don't see you guarding any rights, but merely dismissing them as things granted by government. How ironic then, that you ask why we hold these rights as sacred, since you are so against any God given right, and how moronic that you would declare the fact that we do hold them as sacred as evidence that they are not natural. It is natural to jealously guard ones rights, and I have no doubt you hold your own rights as sacred, just not the rights of those you could care less about.

I have read your devolvement into the ludicrous for several pages now, yet now you want to pretend your are Pot, and I am Kettle. You want to bully those who you fear just as much as Wuk does, and you also play the game of play by "our" rules or get out. That is ludicrous. The guy driving that car hurt no one, but because he asserted a natural right to travel, you want to spend pages arguing he and others like him should leave society. You have a right to express these opinions, but clearly you are in disagreement with the police officers who let this driver go, and would have preferred force was used against him to punish him for not having a license, even though there was no victim. That is ludicrous.

Here is the difference between you and I, where you think I should take my beliefs and leave society, I argue that you have a right to your beliefs and do not have to go anywhere you don't want to go in order to hold them. You can pretend all you want that inalienable rights have not been codified into statute or Amendment, in order to insist that those who assert these rights have to leave, but at the end of the day, it remains pretense. If you hold legislation in such regard, then have the courtesy of showing regard to that legislation that respects inalienable rights, just like those police officers in that video did.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



Here is the difference between you and I, where you think I should take my beliefs and leave society, I argue that you have a right to your beliefs and do not have to go anywhere you don't want to go in order to hold them. You can pretend all you want that inalienable rights have not been codified into statute or Amendment, in order to insist that those who assert these rights have to leave, but at the end of the day, it remains pretense. If you hold legislation in such regard, then have the courtesy of showing regard to that legislation that respects inalienable rights, just like those police officers in that video did.


What the man did in the video was shovel enough bull [snip] at the officers to make them just drop it. (amazingly enough, cops are human too, and if you bull [snip] a cop enough the right way, they sometimes will just drop it just to go on about their day)

See, the problem is, if you don't want to be a part of society, then you do have the freedom to leave it.

We all shouldn't have to conform to you, especially if you refuse to reciprocate that same for society.

Sure, I am a meanie conformist, but only because I understand that most people operate well under the rule of law. Fact of the matter is, I haven't been talked to by a police officer in quite a while. Haven't been arrested in over 10 years. Seems to me that my plan works out quite well.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Wuk, it may be your reality that natural rights justify murder, but it is you who rely upon fallacy and hope to twist Darwinian language in order to support your fallacious argument that natural law justifies murder. Survival of the fittest does not mean killing prey is murder. We do not murder cows in order to eat them, they are our prey and we kill them for our survival, nor do we murder vegetation in order to eat it for our survival. Murder is not killing, the two are different, not just in natural law, but in legislative acts here in The U.S. as well, but you would ignore that fact, just as you have ignored the legislative acts I have pointed to acknowledging inalienable rights, in order to dismiss them.

You hope to pretend that the only way to achieve justice is through legislative acts, but this just isn't true. However, in order to form a more perfect union, we the people have agreed to forgo our own personal sense of justice and institute a government to mediate that justice for us, but the act of murder remains a heinous act, and all we have done as reasonable people is mete out the justice in order to insure a modicum of domestic tranquility. Again, inalienable rights still exist after this agreement, and all that we have done as reasonable people, is grant government the right to handle justice, regarding criminal acts.

The history of common law does begin with wrongful death suits, but don't kid yourself Wuk the federal and most state constitutions are heavily rooted in common law, and indeed, the Constitution directly speaks to common law. Just because we have a Constitution doesn't mean that Constitution repealed common law. Common law is an evolution of judge made decisions that function as a guide on how future cases would be decided. Your attempts to put words in my mouth really isn't working out for you Wuk.

What is complete twaddle is that you have consistently ignored the irrefutable evidence I have supplied that inalienable rights have been codified into legislative acts, and you ignore this because this is irrefutable, so all you can hope to do is pretend I never supplied this evidence. Whimsy and twaddle.

You also pretend to not use hyperbole when this is all you do, and you constantly do. You have on this very page used hyperbole, yet will excuse your hyperbolic nature, and typical of the whims of a collectivist then turn around and declare my hyperbole as a foul. You are entitled to your opinions Wuk, but what is terrifying is your ambition to legislate, and then your opinions become far more dangerous.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


There you go again pretending that people who assert their inalienable rights don't want to be a part of society, and stupidly so. Clearly I and that driver in the video do want to be a part of society, and the evidence is of that is clear in both instances. It is just more fallacy from the master of whimsy pretending that anyone who doesn't agree with him doesn't want to be a part of society. Who made you "the decider" of who belongs in society and who doesn't?

You continue with this fallacy by insisting that I am demanding you conform to me and my beliefs, but that driver hasn't hurt you in the least, nor have my arguments here in this thread. No one is making you conform to anything here, this is just more pretense on your part.

You are not a conformist, you are a collectivist, and you certainly have no intentions of conforming to the law, but would rather act as rogue legislator imposing your whims upon the people.

The fact of the matter is, I was arrested only just a year ago for selling my personal DVD collection on a public sidewalk, and when I went to court, it took me less than 15 minutes to have the case dismissed, and all it took was first challenging the jurisdiction, then pointing to the state constitution, and where the judge wanted to argue the point, once I pointed to a similar case where the 9th Circuit of Appeals had ruled that the ordinance by which I was charged was unconstitutional, and I made the point that it shouldn't even still be on the books, that judge agreed with me, and dismissed the case. He didn't tell me to leave society, he didn't call me a non-conformist, he simply did what was right, and dismissed the charges against me.

Since that time, I have seen both of the police officers who arrested me, and were in court when they witnessed the judge dismiss the case, and each time I have seen seen them, (always separately), they smile and wave, I wave back and that is that.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


More disingenousness? It is self evident to the person who is facing their murderer that it is wrong, I assure you.


Wrong.

I was responding to this from you...


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by whatukno
 


You disingenuously attempt to claim my logic justifies murder, but murder is not a law because Congress wrote a statute saying it was wrong, it is a natural law of social beings, and it is based on the self evident and natural right to life. But, according to your logic if a person asserts their natural right to travel then you take the leap and declare them advocates of murder. Hardly co-operation on your part, just more political grandstanding from an ambitious collectivist.


You stated murder was wrong because, and I quote, "...it is based on the self evident and natural right to life...." I'm saying if it was so "self-evident" murder would be an aberration. Since murder is not an aberration, it is not so "self-evident" as you would have me believe.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This is why people will fight to defend themselves against murder, or would you have them simply wait for a police officer to come and protect them? You hope to dismiss natural law by pointing to the fact that people do murder, but would then turn around and uphold legislation declaring murder wrong as valid. That my friend is simply disingenuous.


It is the Right to self defense that is self-evident, and biologically hardwired in human beings, and most order creatures and critters too I might add.

Would I have you wait for a police officer? No, I would not. *I* wouldn't and it is my semi-informed opinion that anyone who does is in serious need of that proverbial "clue" we so frequently hear and read people are in need of getting.

Murder is wrong because it is immoral to take the life of another human being, morals agreed upon by "civilized societies." It is not wrong because of some ethereal higher power "endowing" us with this sense of how it should be. Nor are we born with this concept preexisting in our consciousness.

Want to know why a person has to be of a certain age before they are legally old enough to commit the act of murder? Glad you asked: Because prior to a "certain age," known as the "age of reason" in a bygone era, there is no concept of "right and wrong," and additionally, it takes a "certain attainment of maturity" to understand the consequences and meaning of ending someone's life.

My point is not to say that murder is OK, or it is only illegal because our government[s] say it is illegal, I'm just saying it isn't wrong because of "Natural Law." Natural Law = laws imparted by nature. Nature has no such laws. *Men* do... men as in *the collective of man*.


There is no such thing as "legal" murder, only invented legislation that would declare it so by the whims of those who wrote the legislation. You would think that by your view of humanity, murder is favorite past time of people, but it is self evident that murder is indeed an aberration, and most people do not murder other people, only you fanciful and whimsical world does this happen.


Need I say: Read your history. Read your newspapers. Read the internet. We murder with depressing regularity and sometimes for the most trivial of reasons.

However, over the course of evolution a mantle of neocortex began to develop and enshroud the limbic system; evolving at first to serve limbic needs in a way that would maximize the survival of the organism, and to more efficiently, effectively, and safely satisfy limbic needs and impulses. In consequence, the frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes evolved covered with a neocortical mantle, that in humans would come to be associated with the conscious, rational mind. Sometimes, however, even in the most rational of humans, emotions can hijack the logical mind, and the neocortex, and even peaceful people might be impelled to murder even those they love.

Indeed, the old limbic brain has not been replaced and is not only predominant in regard to all aspects of motivational and emotional functioning, but is capable of completely overwhelming "the rational mind" due in part to the massive axonal projections of limbic system to the neocortex. Although over the course of evolution a new brain (neocortex) has developed, Homo sapiens sapiens ("the wise may who knows he is wise") remains a creature of emotion. Humans have not completely emerged from the phylogenetic swamps of their original psychic existence. Link


I would argue that it is *I* who understands "natural law," as defined by *nature* far better than many in this thread. *I* do not "pretty up" nature with concepts unnaturally wrested from the bowels of the "social contract" and magically "endow" them upon humanity. Human beings are *animals*. Social, yes. Sentient, yes. Intelligent, sometimes. But there is NOT ONE UNIVERSAL MORAL found in EVERY civilization or society. Not one. If there were such I would grant the "Natural Law" claim made in this thread.

There is NATURE. And there is HUMAN NATURE. Period.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What you will find that I do a lot is let people give themselves enough rope to hang themselves with it, and that is exactly what I have done here as well.


However, in order to form a more perfect union, we the people have agreed to forgo our own personal sense of justice and institute a government to mediate that justice for us


There you go. Check and Mate.

That is right, as a society we indeed agreed to forgo our own "natural law" and replaced it with "legislative law" In this way, we can take the act of murder and homogenize it, sterilize it, and show the cold hard facts of the matter. We as a society have done this. Now some have rejected this idea, and have decided instead to reject that contract. They pick and choose which laws they wish to obey, they hide behind certain amendments to the constitution and dismiss the body of text outright.

You are right in a sense that many of our laws come from your unwritten "natural law" and is that wrong? In fact, I suspect that many of the laws today fall under your natural law. Some however, are more for the convenience of the officers that unfortunately have to enforce those laws.

Such as your drivers license. Should you be stopped without any identification whatsoever, you could claim to be whoever. (lie) but according to you and your "natural law" the cop should just accept that lie and be on his way, not being able to do anything even though you might be the guy who just torched a house 3 blocks over and are covered in soot and ash.

As I have said on other threads along this same topic, Anarchy works only in small tiny communities, it does not work on a state or national scale.

I mean if everyone were like you, an intelligent person, whom on the surface I would imagine wouldn't hurt anyone intentionally. Then natural law would be fine and there would be no need for legislation.

Unfortunately society knows better, we have seen enough to know that not all people are nice, not all people are smart, not all people are kind. And so, unfortunately we agree to abide by a set of laws.

And so, those laws are on the books, but if you don't want to abide by those laws, the choice you have is to leave society. Because you simply cannot enjoy some of society, and ignore the requirements of that society.

It's the same if I travel to a foreign country, I simply cannot ignore their laws just because I am an American. I have to obey their laws as a representative of my homeland.

I can't for instance go to England and slap the queen on her behind and ask her "hows it goin' toots." Because well, that's assault, and rather rude. I admit, it would be funny as hell, but I wouldn't because that society disproves of such uncouth behavior.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

I don't drive because it has become clear to me that most people are "arses at large",and I want no part of it.

If you don't have the gumption to do it the hard way,don't do it,see where it gets you.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 
The thing that sets him apart is his refusal to submit.

Most people are submissive sheep,and consent to anything demanded by a poser in uniform,who is no different than they are.

Bow down,wait for the hand to feed you,or be smacked up by it.

Americans are idiots,they seem to think that government is there to help and protect them.There are few things farther from the truth,and you can see it if you take the time to look away and stop chasing your tail in pursuit of meaningless BS.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

It is ridiculous how everyone is so tied into the system.

Once you are out of it,the sheep you are surrounded by turn to wolves who are jealous of your being free from the bonds that bind them,they don't even know why they resent you.

The world is full of stupid people.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck
 
Just watch how few modes of travel which are free now,become not so free after the economy slides a bit further down the pipe.

A lot of people will submit to the new rules without asking many questions.

That is how we got where we are.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 
Stated like a true sheep.

People like you are everywhere.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


No it is not wrong, you are being disingenuous, and it doesn't make your argument any less disingenuous by repeating it. You can repeat over and over that murder is the norm in the United States, and it will still remain a false argument. An aberration is a deviation from the norm. I live in Los Angeles, where the murder rate for the year 2008 was 9.6%. That's just under 10% and 10% does not constitute the norm. I defy you to point to any city in the United States where the murder statistics will support your contention that murder is a normal act, and the majority of people are doing it. It is disingenuous to assert that murder is not an aberration, it is an aberration, and that is a fact, not just my opinion.

You continue with this disingenuous nonsense by dismissing the self evident wrongness of murder and asserting that it is the right to self defense that is self evident. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the right to self defense is self evident because murder is wrong, and all the smoke and mirrors of hardwired nature mumbo jumbo doesn't make the wrongness of murder any less self evident. Yet, you then turn around and undermine your own argument by insisting you would rely on your right to self defense to prevent someone from murdering you. I am pleased you would do such a thing, but it doesn't make your arguments any less disingenuous, particularly since you declare murder morally wrong. People agree on what is moral based on the self evident nature of morality.

No I don't want to know why someone has to be a certain age before they are charged with murder, and I haven't asked, and your capriciousness in assuming that each state conforms to you presumption this is so is woefully ignorant. In California Proposition 21 makes a distinction of age for those juveniles who are tried as an adult as opposed to those who are tried as juveniles, but if they commit murder, they will be tried for it.

Your insistence that murder is only a crime because our government(s) legislated is such ignores the fact that murder was a crime before our government had the authority to legislate. This is why I am not wrong in calling your arguments disingenuous. Do you honestly believe that prior to the institution of government people did not view murder as wrong? Did it ever occur to you that because people understood murder and other crimes were wrong, they agreed to ordain a government in order to implement justice in this regard?

You need not say that I read newspapers and the internet, I just linked you one statistic effectively showing you that murder is not the norm in Los Angeles. You can not hope to offer up anecdotal evidence as proof, and you must take the number of homicides and compare that against the population if you hope to prove that murder is the norm. You are not just being disingenuous, you are being histrionic about it.

You hope to argue that you understand natural law better than most because of your dim view of humanity, but your dim view of humanity is hardly an understanding of reality at all. True to the arrogant nature of those who would insist they understand things better than most you dismiss people as being animalistic and only sometimes intelligent and your claim that there is not one universal moral in found in every civilization is merely a presumption on your part based upon your own ethnocentricity. Woman subjected to honor killings understand instinctively the immorality of such an act, and the psychological damage caused by this for women in those cultures is palpable.

Fortunately, inalienable rights have been codified into legislative acts and people don't need your "grant" in order to enjoy them. b



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 
Some people just can't grasp the fact that most people cannot cover their own mistakes because there is nothing left of their paycheck after all of the taxes are taken from them,then insurance,then registration,then maintenance......moo

Do some math,figure out how much you spend on these things,and you may notice that you would have enough money left over to take care of your own obligations,whether paying damages or whatever....

Believe it or not,this springs from consumerism,spending every dime on crap one doesn't even need,leaving nothing to cover a rainy day.



[edit on 27-6-2010 by chiponbothshoulders]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I guess you've never played chess before Wuk, as you can't use your pawn and pretend it is your queen in order to checkmate. You're playing checkers and pretending its chess.

We most certainly did not agree to forgo our inalienable rights in order to have The United States, and still you pretend as if I didn't show you your own state constitution to refute this argument, as well as the 9th Amendment of the federal Constitution, and still you refuse to speak to that. Why? Because then you would have to agree that rights are indeed inalienable, and you just don't want to agree to that.

Look, it is late, and I am tired, so I am not going to address point by point your arguments. Early I posted your states constitution on the matter of rights, I am going to end tonight's debate by posting a link to the California Constitution, of which I have no doubt you will ignore as well:


CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
PREAMBLE

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.


www.leginfo.ca.gov...


CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


www.leginfo.ca.gov...

Fortunately, I do not have to rely on your opinion in order to enjoy my inalienable and natural rights, and I don't have to leave society either, I can simply rely on those rights as protected by constitution regardless of what you have to say about it.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 



See. You interject what you believe is the "right" way we, the collective we, should live. What if my idea of ideal was to live in as artificial and aseptic environment as I could possibly construct? What if 90% percent of the world's population agreed with me? More importantly, what if *no one* agreed with me? Would I still be *allowed* under this Natural Law system?


I think you answer this pretty well in your next post paragraph:


I disagree with your premise. I am a *part* of nature, being 100% natural with no artificial "bits" accrued [as yet ]. How can I be a *part* of nature, being a natural organism, and a product of nature, and be "outside of nature," as if I could actually divorce myself from being a natural organism?


It seems you are arguing two sides of the same argument, using each as you see fit to continue the arguement. On one hand you are asking a "what if" about living in an aseptic environment, then on the other you are claiming that you cannot live separate from nature as you are a natural organism.

Are you playing devils advocate here? If not, do you believe yourself to be bound by natural law as a natural organism, or do you seek to live outside of natural law in this antiseptic environment?

The truth is, you ARE a natural organism. The problem is we ARE trying to live outside of nature. Your first paragraph describes the problem quite well, while your second describes the truth quite well. It seems you understand the components of what is going on, yet are not putting them into the correct places to express this understanding.

This is not an interjection of my beliefs. This is the way the natural system is supposed to work. It isn't my interjection, it is Creations interjection. Some call it God, and believe it to be sentient. You don't have to believe that, but to deny that the Creative force hasn't shown the "correct way" by example is to ignore the wisdom of trying to live within the system you are part of. Unless you happen to be one of those people who believes that we can conquer nature, in which case you would be unarguably wrong until such point that you were able to flawlessly create predictive models.



Forgive me this bit of "quibbling," but are you not presuming to say how we should all live? What you propose as your vision of perfection is, in all sincerity, a harsh and brutal - short lived - life. One I wish NO part of, that you very much.

I have a lot of free time because of my "buying into" my society's division of labors. I do not have to provide for everything I utilize and enjoy by the sweat of my brow and exertion of my muscle. I do not have to draw my own well water, chop my own wood, hunt my own food, grow my own crops, tan my own leather, weave my own cloth, sew my own clothing, cobble my own shoes, etc., etc. And I am profoundly *grateful* for it.


There should be no quibbling on this. It would seem that you have little understanding of what my idea of perfection is, as what you describe sounds like it really, really would suck. No one wants to go back to the stone age here. Not even pre-industrialized times.

But we have this technology that we really only put to use for war. And even if we don't put it to use for war, we will with hold release for fear that it may give another nation the chance to go to war with us, and have an advantage. Even worse, we worry that all groundbreaking inventions would be a national security concern, and we lock it away. For letting the enemy know what we have might jeopardize a possible advantage in the future. So the planet goes without the fruits of our labor all because of a few people who fear that the borders they have drawn and created, and the land that they are hording, will be under attack by another group who likely has the same mindset.

Natural law is not predicated on an archaic existence. Only that we recognize the way nature does things, and try to emulate it within our own society. Not doing so is akin to swimming upstream. Look at how many other stupid little laws are on the books that have nothing to do with anything about justice, and everything to do with creating tax revenue, or attempts to legislate morality. Since when is there a clear victim in prostitution? Or the 30something that smokes pot after working in an executives position all day?


Yes. Technically true. But these great men you list had no other means of understanding beside passive observation. Do you honestly think, really, that Pythagoras would not have hitched a ride on one of the shuttle missions to space if he had had the opportunity? Do you honestly believe these great men [and they truly were] would have restricted themselves to "passive observation" had they had a alternative route to understanding?


Possibly. But this has little to nothing to do with what we are talking about. Passive observation is a means to an end: to actively observe. Natural law does not preclude this. It only dictates the behavior we should exhibit once we enter into this new environment (or ignore it at our own peril). There should be plenty of passive observation done prior to any active observation, so you are clear on the "rules of engagement" with whatever it is to be studied. Otherwise you ignore orbital mechanics and miss landing on Mars altogether.



You seem to be extremely intelligent and very thoughtful. I cannot credit the image of such a person, intelligent and thoughtful, believing that nature is *peaceful* and *without strife*. Goodness... our closest "cousins," the great apes, are extremely violent, territorial, and situationally cannibalistic. THAT'S "Nature" for you.


But we are not apes. We are capable of reason and logic. The behvior of another animal should have little to do with our behavior, unless we are seeking a way to come to terms with a situation (studying how dolphins swim to fast to create faster watercraft, for example).

Thank you for the compliment. I can say i have enjoyed discussing this with you.


something to consider:

If "driving" is not a right, then why is there all the outcry over the Saudi women wanting to drive, and the related story about breastfeeding their drivers? Why would it be a an issue for them, but not us? Or do you only get to drive with the permission of the government? Is that not somwhat cruel and unusual? In my area, if you don't drive you are screwed. Everything is all spread out, and you wouldn't be able to conduct business, as there is no public transit system. Unless, of course, you want people to ride bikes or walk while it is 105 degrees? Yeah, i will ride my bike to the daycare when it is 105, pick up my baby and peddle 8 miles to the grocery store for some noodles, then another 2 miles home.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You always stop at the preamble, do you assume that is the entire constitution for these respective states, and the United States, the preamble?

Yes, you have inalienable rights, but that doesn't mean that the government cannot pass laws.

There is nothing in any of those constitutions that say that you have the fundamental right to drive a car no matter what.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


No it is not wrong, you are being disingenuous, and it doesn't make your argument any less disingenuous by repeating it. You can repeat over and over that murder is the norm in the United States, and it will still remain a false argument. An aberration is a deviation from the norm. I live in Los Angeles, where the murder rate for the year 2008 was 9.6%. That's just under 10% and 10% does not constitute the norm. I defy you to point to any city in the United States where the murder statistics will support your contention that murder is a normal act, and the majority of people are doing it. It is disingenuous to assert that murder is not an aberration, it is an aberration, and that is a fact, not just my opinion.


An aside: Wish I had the energy to count how many times you've tossed out the "disingenuous" label in this page of the thread alone.

Anyway, when I state that murder is not an aberration I am referring to the simple but sad fact that people across all societal strata, all relation combinations - or no relationship, all ages - except the very young, have committed murder, and for reasons as varied as anger, love, lust, greed, revenge, honor, turf, reputation, need, whim, thrill... and "dunno."

Given the right set of circumstances: We are *all* capable of murder. Fortunately for the vast majority of us, that unique set of circumstances never materializes for us as individuals. But that is not because we are "above" the act or "incapable" of it, rather - we've just never been faced with that which would cause us to murder.

[edit on 27/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


cooperating means cooperating, it doesn't mean that you get to just go do whatever and I and the rest of society has to take it.

According to your logic, murder is justified because you are able to do it.

According to your logic, rape is justified because you are able to do it.

According to your logic, child molestation is justified because you are able to do it.

But, most of us know that the above is wrong, we have yes collectively cooperated and agreed to not do these things to each other.

Most of the time, it works out fine, but sometimes some people decide that those laws don't apply to them, and they do these things anyway.

You seem to think that no law applies to you, that your actions are justifiable based solely on the fact that you can commit the act.

All I am saying is you can't half ass reject society. It's all or nothing, society does not come ala carte, it has many options to it, but some things are requirements.

You aren't allowed to go stab people in the head just because your "natural rights" dictate that you don't have to conform to societies norms. If you choose to do those things, society will send you somewhere where you cannot harm another.

The person in the video is also doing this half assed, he apparently obeys the speed limit, he obeys the traffic flow, he even stops for the cops. If he truly is a freeman, doesn't it dictate that he must also ignore all these other things as well?


Natural rights would not allow stabbing someone in the head. It creates a victim. You are not going to eat the person (as that is unnatural behavior for us), and unless he was attacking you there would be no right to do what you did.

That is silly.

But when did it become a norm of society that we had to be licensed to travel from place to place? Like i said in a prior post, unless i have a car, i am forced to walk or bike across a very large area to get from home, to work, to daycare, to store....in 100+ heat for 5 months out of the year.

And why is it rejecting anything, other than unnecessary taxation and regulation? If i buy gas and other petrol products, i am paying for the roads. Why would i not be able to use them? Taxing on consumption is Constitutional. That is the way it should be done.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 



See. You interject what you believe is the "right" way we, the collective we, should live. What if my idea of ideal was to live in as artificial and aseptic environment as I could possibly construct? What if 90% percent of the world's population agreed with me? More importantly, what if *no one* agreed with me? Would I still be *allowed* under this Natural Law system?


I think you answer this pretty well in your next post paragraph:


I disagree with your premise. I am a *part* of nature, being 100% natural with no artificial "bits" accrued [as yet ]. How can I be a *part* of nature, being a natural organism, and a product of nature, and be "outside of nature," as if I could actually divorce myself from being a natural organism?


It seems you are arguing two sides of the same argument, using each as you see fit to continue the arguement. On one hand you are asking a "what if" about living in an aseptic environment, then on the other you are claiming that you cannot live separate from nature as you are a natural organism.

Are you playing devils advocate here? If not, do you believe yourself to be bound by natural law as a natural organism, or do you seek to live outside of natural law in this antiseptic environment?


No. I'm not playing devil's advocate here. I do *not* believe in "natural law," I believe in the Rule of Law and I believe in the Laws of Nature.


The truth is, you ARE a natural organism. The problem is we ARE trying to live outside of nature. Your first paragraph describes the problem quite well, while your second describes the truth quite well. It seems you understand the components of what is going on, yet are not putting them into the correct places to express this understanding.


Eh, I just don't want you or anyone else telling me how close to nature I have to live. And, I believe when you say "we are trying to live outside of nature" you are attempting to make me something other than "of nature", even if I lived in that aseptic environment. In that bubble I am still me, a creature of nature, a natural being. I might live in an artificial environment but I am still a component of nature. My carbon atoms coexist with all the other carbon atoms. Sorry, couldn't resist that last one.


This is not an interjection of my beliefs. This is the way the natural system is supposed to work. It isn't my interjection, it is Creations interjection. Some call it God, and believe it to be sentient. You don't have to believe that, but to deny that the Creative force hasn't shown the "correct way" by example is to ignore the wisdom of trying to live within the system you are part of. Unless you happen to be one of those people who believes that we can conquer nature, in which case you would be unarguably wrong until such point that you were able to flawlessly create predictive models.


We should be responsible tenants during our time on this earth. Just, if I want to spend it in a high rise apartment in NYC that does not inherently insult the earth. In fact, urban dwellers have, on average, a smaller ecological footprint and smaller ecological impact than suburban or rural. FTR: A high rise apartment in NYC is about as far from the natural way you espouse as you can get.


There should be no quibbling on this. It would seem that you have little understanding of what my idea of perfection is, as what you describe sounds like it really, really would suck. No one wants to go back to the stone age here. Not even pre-industrialized times.


Perhaps. But when someone says that we should follow nature's example, in my experience at least, it means eschewing modernity. My dislike for Luddites is so profound I even include it in my profile on ATS.


Natural law is not predicated on an archaic existence. Only that we recognize the way nature does things, and try to emulate it within our own society. Not doing so is akin to swimming upstream. Look at how many other stupid little laws are on the books that have nothing to do with anything about justice, and everything to do with creating tax revenue, or attempts to legislate morality. Since when is there a clear victim in prostitution? Or the 30something that smokes pot after working in an executives position all day?


No argument from me. I just don't believe this Natural Law magically grants me the legal right to alter my consciousness or sell my body when I live within a society that clearly and loudly tells me I cannot. I have every hope that I will live long enough to see the day when the laws are made respectful of person choice but until that day I respect the law... even if I think it's *stupid*. That whole "orderly society" thing again. I have broken exactly one law [willfully] other than traffic stuff and I did so for purely humanitarian reasons. But, I also did so knowing that I could end up before Judge and Jury for doing it. Even then, I made the choice that I would defend what I did for the reasons I did it and let the chips fall where they would. I would not have claimed some "special exemption" from my society's laws. So, I'm just generally a law abiding citizen and when I wasn't... I accepted the possibility of the consequences.




top topics



 
55
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join