non aggression principle & politics - Page 3

Radar · 09-16-2005, 09:48 AM

The government doesn't have to respond to such petitions, but until they do, I can withhold taxes.

The following website has a list of decrees of the Continental Congress in 1774 in Philadelphia.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/decres.htm

Pay special attention to the part that says...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Continental Congress

"If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the people, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed and thus peaceably procure relief without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."

In otherwords, government may choose not to respond, but until they do, I am under no obligation to give them taxes. I am the master, and government is the servant. If the servant gets out of hand, you starve the servant into submission. I will not contribute money to be used against me.

Undertoad · 10-06-2005, 09:53 AM

Returning to this thread, this question was not answered:

How do the citizens determine whether something is unconstitutional? How do they express that?

elSicomoro · 10-06-2005, 10:06 AM

For the most part, the citizens are sheep. A handful of really smart or creative people determine constitutionality. Then it's a matter of convincing the masses.

Radar · 10-06-2005, 10:16 AM

The Constitution is very clear. It's not ambiguous or vague in any sense. It doesn't require "translation". It means exactly what it says; no more; no less.

If an amendment says "Congress shall make no law", it means "Congress shall make no law". If it says, "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", it means "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

If a law is created that infringes our right to keep and bear arms, for instance a law requiring us to wait a certain time period before buying a gun, or one that limits what type of guns we may buy, we know that this law is unconstitutional in its face and we have no obligation to follow it.

The Constitution limits the powers of government, not the rights of the people. Any laws which attempt to limit our rights, are illegal ones.

Undertoad · 10-06-2005, 10:44 AM

Nevertheless, there is great disagreement over what is and what is not Constitutional.

The most common example is probably whether or not you can shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre/gathering/whatever.

The Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Yet if you incite a riot by faking a disaster through your speech, you'll rightly be charged and locked up. What's the deal there?

Ls would agree that fraud is aggression. But the C says speech can't be abridged. Doesn't say anything about truth of that speech.

Somebody has to resolve this question. Who does it in your world?

10-06-2005, 11:54 AM

(Takes 5mg of Wolf's suggested Haldol dose and steps into hypothetical land)

The men who framed the Constitution expected that both the governed and the government would act with common sense. In fact, I believe Thomas Paine authored a tract entitled just that - "Common Sense."

I have freedom of speech. Does this mean I am free to give military secrets away to the enemy in time of war? After all, I have the right to speak freely to whomever I please.

Do I have the right to shout "FIRE!" where there is none in a crowded theater? What if I stand on a soapbox downtown on the corner of 1st and Main and shout "FIRE!"? In both instances I am telling a lie.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to bring others harm by my use of it. If it did, then there would be no laws about deceptive banking practices, truth in advertizing, inciting riots, on and on.

Falsely shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is an act of coercion, even agression. The people in the dark, crowded theater are unable to judge the validity of my words for themselves. The unwritten social contract in all human societies is that we will not knowingly harm one another. That's why we are shocked by acts of murder or the abuse of an innocent child. The warning shout is taken at its face value. No one would willingly jump up in a mass stampede for the exits when no need for such an action exists.

If I have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," the man falsely shouting "FIRE!" has infringed on all three of these rights. My life is in danger since I may be trampled by the fear crazed crowd, my liberty to make a rational choice has been taken from me, and I'm certainly not happy as I struggle with the mob to escape.

In this sense, the shout of "FIRE!" is far from being a constitutional right. It is in fact, an unconstitutional act. In my world, even a six year old has more common sense then that.

xoxoxoBruce · 10-06-2005, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marichiko

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to bring others harm by my use of it. If it did, then there would be no laws about deceptive banking practices, truth in advertizing, inciting riots, on and on.

Ah, but are those laws constitutional?

SCHUNE · 10-06-2005, 12:36 PM

Lookout123 is very funny and I agree with the golden rule----I think.

elSicomoro · 10-06-2005, 03:54 PM

If the Constitution is the be all end all, what is the point of further laws?

BigV · 10-06-2005, 04:32 PM

Gold versus silver, friend.

10-06-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Ah, but are those laws constitutional?

If you are going to argue the Constitution, that document needs to be examined in its entirety, not merely a single phrase from the Bill of Rights, taken out of context from the whole.

For example, here is the 9th Amendment to that document:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Various disingenuous arguments such as the one about shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater being free speech have been offered to get around the plain meaning of this text, but it clearly allows that rights exist which are not listed in the Constitution, and it thus implies that such rights do not exist because they are granted by positive law.

tw · 10-06-2005, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

The Constitution is very clear. It's not ambiguous or vague in any sense. It doesn't require "translation". It means exactly what it says; no more; no less.

There is no such thing - as others have demonstrated by example. We keep trying to make things less ambiguous. Contracts that once took one page now take hundreds. And still the contract has ambiguities.

As cybernetic research demonstrates - which is why computers cannot comprehend conversations - everything is stated within implied context. And once those contexts were defined by the additional 99 pages in that contract, still, more 'context' remains undefined.

Only in an ideal world is anything, defined by human communication, "not ambiguous or vague in any sense." Everything must be interpreted within unstated context and other assumptions. It's called a meeting of the minds - not a statement of absolutes. No way around reality regardless of what rhetoric proclaims.

Radar · 10-06-2005, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Nevertheless, there is great disagreement over what is and what is not Constitutional.

Only among those seeking to get around the Constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycamore

If the Constitution is the be all end all, what is the point of further laws?

The Constitution defines and limits the scope and role of the government. It grants Congress limited powers to carry out specific tasks such as providing a common DEFENSE. Congress is given the limited power to make laws in the specific areas mentioned only to carry out the specific goals mentioned. This means the point of the further laws is so that Congress can carry out those things and to do nothing else. For instance law enforcement is the domain of the states, and not of the federal government. Neither is charity, education, retirement, healthcare, and the vast majority of the other areas government has gotten involved in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

There is no such thing

Yes there is. What AI on computers can or can't comprehend is irrelevant. There are absolutes in the world. Government is the creation of the people and its powers are limited to what we as individuals can do and that we grant power to do.

As an individual I have no authority to tell anyone else what kind of medical procedures they can or can't have, whom they may or may not marry, what drugs they take, what type or number of guns they can or can't own, etc. This means that I can't grant this power to government. Nor can any of you. Nor can all of the people in America combined.

As individuals, we do not have the right to physically harm or endanger non-consenting others or their property. Only when this happens has a crime truly happened.

In the case of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you are endangering others. Your speech is not being infringed. You are free to say fire anywhere you like, but if you do so in a way that endangers others, the crime isn't what you said, it's that you endangered others with your actions. If you didn't say a word but set off smoke grenades and people ran out because they thought there was a fire and trampled others to death, it would be the exact same crime.

Undertoad · 10-07-2005, 08:01 AM

You are free to say fire anywhere you like, but if you do so in a way that endangers others, the crime isn't what you said, it's that you endangered others with your actions.

The Constitution only protects speech. It sounds like you have determined that there is reason to abridge freedom of speech. I am not sure what section of the Constitution makes it a crime to shout Fire. Please point it out to me and explain why it trumps the first amendment.

Radar · 10-07-2005, 10:21 AM

As I just said, it's not a crime to shout fire. It's a crime to endanger others. Shouting fire isn't a crime. Doing something to endanger people such as drunk driving, setting off fire crackers in a crowded theater (the same thing as shouting "FIRE"), etc. is a crime. As I said, there is nothing that trumps the first amendment. Free speech means you're free to say what you want, but you are still responsible for the consequences of your actions. If you use your speech to harm others, such as the "FIRE" example, or to threaten people, or to libel or slander people, your actions have consequences. The consequences are not for what you said, but rather for the results of what was said. It's a very important distinction.

10-06-2005, 10:16 AM	#34
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	The Constitution is very clear. It's not ambiguous or vague in any sense. It doesn't require "translation". It means exactly what it says; no more; no less. If an amendment says "Congress shall make no law", it means "Congress shall make no law". If it says, "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", it means "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". If a law is created that infringes our right to keep and bear arms, for instance a law requiring us to wait a certain time period before buying a gun, or one that limits what type of guns we may buy, we know that this law is unconstitutional in its face and we have no obligation to follow it. The Constitution limits the powers of government, not the rights of the people. Any laws which attempt to limit our rights, are illegal ones. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

10-06-2005, 11:54 AM	#36
marichiko Guest Posts: n/a	(Takes 5mg of Wolf's suggested Haldol dose and steps into hypothetical land) The men who framed the Constitution expected that both the governed and the government would act with common sense. In fact, I believe Thomas Paine authored a tract entitled just that - "Common Sense." I have freedom of speech. Does this mean I am free to give military secrets away to the enemy in time of war? After all, I have the right to speak freely to whomever I please. Do I have the right to shout "FIRE!" where there is none in a crowded theater? What if I stand on a soapbox downtown on the corner of 1st and Main and shout "FIRE!"? In both instances I am telling a lie. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to bring others harm by my use of it. If it did, then there would be no laws about deceptive banking practices, truth in advertizing, inciting riots, on and on. Falsely shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is an act of coercion, even agression. The people in the dark, crowded theater are unable to judge the validity of my words for themselves. The unwritten social contract in all human societies is that we will not knowingly harm one another. That's why we are shocked by acts of murder or the abuse of an innocent child. The warning shout is taken at its face value. No one would willingly jump up in a mass stampede for the exits when no need for such an action exists. If I have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," the man falsely shouting "FIRE!" has infringed on all three of these rights. My life is in danger since I may be trampled by the fear crazed crowd, my liberty to make a rational choice has been taken from me, and I'm certainly not happy as I struggle with the mob to escape. In this sense, the shout of "FIRE!" is far from being a constitutional right. It is in fact, an unconstitutional act. In my world, even a six year old has more common sense then that. Last edited by marichiko; 10-06-2005 at 05:02 PM.

10-06-2005, 04:32 PM	#40
BigV Goon Squad Leader Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,063	Gold versus silver, friend. __________________ Be Just and Fear Not.

10-07-2005, 10:21 AM	#45
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	As I just said, it's not a crime to shout fire. It's a crime to endanger others. Shouting fire isn't a crime. Doing something to endanger people such as drunk driving, setting off fire crackers in a crowded theater (the same thing as shouting "FIRE"), etc. is a crime. As I said, there is nothing that trumps the first amendment. Free speech means you're free to say what you want, but you are still responsible for the consequences of your actions. If you use your speech to harm others, such as the "FIRE" example, or to threaten people, or to libel or slander people, your actions have consequences. The consequences are not for what you said, but rather for the results of what was said. It's a very important distinction. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

10-06-2005, 09:53 AM	#32
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Returning to this thread, this question was not answered: How do the citizens determine whether something is unconstitutional? How do they express that?

10-06-2005, 10:06 AM	#33
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	For the most part, the citizens are sheep. A handful of really smart or creative people determine constitutionality. Then it's a matter of convincing the masses.

10-06-2005, 10:44 AM	#35
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Nevertheless, there is great disagreement over what is and what is not Constitutional. The most common example is probably whether or not you can shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre/gathering/whatever. The Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Yet if you incite a riot by faking a disaster through your speech, you'll rightly be charged and locked up. What's the deal there? Ls would agree that fraud is aggression. But the C says speech can't be abridged. Doesn't say anything about truth of that speech. Somebody has to resolve this question. Who does it in your world?

10-06-2005, 12:36 PM	#38
SCHUNE OLD MAN ON THE HILL Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: KY. THROUGHBRED COUNTRY Posts: 7	Lookout123 is very funny and I agree with the golden rule----I think.

10-06-2005, 03:54 PM	#39
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	If the Constitution is the be all end all, what is the point of further laws?

10-07-2005, 08:01 AM	#44
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	You are free to say fire anywhere you like, but if you do so in a way that endangers others, the crime isn't what you said, it's that you endangered others with your actions. The Constitution only protects speech. It sounds like you have determined that there is reason to abridge freedom of speech. I am not sure what section of the Constitution makes it a crime to shout Fire. Please point it out to me and explain why it trumps the first amendment.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)