Second Amendment is completely general (applies to states and federal government)


PDA






Michael Courtney
February 1, 2008, 08:15 AM
In several threads I have read ignorant statements asserting that it was the intention of our founding fathers to only restrict the federal government with the second amendment.

The authors of our Bill of Rights knew well how to write amendments that only limited certain branches of government and did begin some amendments with the phrase "Congress shall make no law . . ." The original intent and strict construction of this phrasing clearly applies only to Congress.

However, it is a grave hermaneutical error to infer these words into amendments where they are not present. The second amendment does not limit Congress alone. It is completely general, ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Thus it applies to any and every agent of governmental authority.

Michael Courtney

If you enjoyed reading about "Second Amendment is completely general (applies to states and federal government)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
February 1, 2008, 09:04 AM
Yes, and so . . .?:confused:

I'm sorry, Mike, I missed your point.

hugh damright
February 1, 2008, 10:38 AM
Sorry, but the ignorant statements are the ones that assert that the USBOR was intended to limit the States. A Constitution frames a government and a BOR limits that government, it doesn't have to say with every clause that the intent is to limit only the government framed by the Constitution in question. We cannot just infer the words "no State shall" when the USBOR says no such thing. To do so would be to infer federal powers when there is no such delegation. If the Second Amendment had been intended to bind the States, it would say "no State shall" and "Congress shall have power to enforce this provision".

RP88
February 1, 2008, 11:15 AM
I've missed both the point and Hugh's counterpoint here.

The bill of rights doesnt bind anything; it states the essential freedoms that both the federal and state governments cannot infringe. Due process, right to property, privacy, freedom of speech, etc. and of course the 2A are all nonspecific amendments that protect the rights of the people, and not impose any balance or such on powers between state and federal government. Neither has the right to interfere with these rights. The Bill of rights in its entirety is meant to protect the people by limiting the government, fair and simple. Separation of church and state, enumeration and reservation of powers, etc. that strengthen and balance the rights of both governments come later are not in the bill of rights, and none of those amendments give any level of government the explicit power to override--on any level--any right found in the bill of rights by their personal choosing to begin with.

romma
February 1, 2008, 11:30 AM
Why would Founding Fathers that were constucting a Country "Of The People, For The People and by The People" create and establish a Bill Of Rights for the Goverment and not the People? :scrutiny:

It makes ZERO sense absolutely ZERO sense.

hugh damright
February 1, 2008, 11:57 AM
I understand it to be a principle of constitutionalism that a constitution frames a government and a BOR limits that government. A BOR of one government does not limit other governments with their own constitutions and their own BOR. In this view, the USBOR doesn't limit Virginia for the same reason that the North Carolina BOR doesn't limit Virginia. And of course, we should not take the fact that the NCBOR was not intended to limit Virginia, and conclude that the NCBOR is useless, or that Virginia is not bound by a BOR. Each government, VA, NC, and US, is framed by its own Constitution and limited by its own BOR. The point of the USBOR is to limit the US government framed by the US Constitution.

Of course, if the US were a wholly national government such that the States had no sovereignty, then the USBOR would naturally be binding throughout the US just as the Virginia BOR is binding throughout Virginia. But our constituted frame of government preserves the States' sovereignty, such that Virginia and the US are both considered sovereign, and the USBOR wasn't intended to limit Virginia just as the Virginia BOR wasn't intended to limit the US.


"The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes." - Barron v Baltimore

rantingredneck
February 1, 2008, 12:04 PM
Doesn't the simple fact that each ammendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states mean that the states are thereby bound by them? I can't envision a system where 3/4 of the states say yes to the amendment and then go off and do what they damn well please.

hugh damright
February 1, 2008, 12:11 PM
Doesn't the simple fact that each ammendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states mean that the states are thereby bound by them?
Not at all. The States' concern was that the US Constitution was creating a federal government that was too powerful. They intended the USBOR to limit the federal government, and that is what they ratified.

Just the other day I read something in the Congressional record where a Congressman from Vermont stated the reality rather plainly:

"in the minds of those who framed the Constitution probably no belief was firmer than that for all time it was much safer to leave the states to protect the rights of the people than to place that duty upon the General Government."

Gordon Fink
February 1, 2008, 01:04 PM
This nonsense again?

Article VI



This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.



The Bill of Rights has always applied to the several states, despite legal shenanigans to the contrary.

~G. Fink

gc70
February 1, 2008, 01:26 PM
In several threads I have read ignorant statements

:)

The Bill of Rights has always applied to the several states, despite legal shenanigans to the contrary.

The Bill of Rights was not applied to the states until (piecemeal) incorporation under the 14th Amendment. One would think that the Founders would have noticed and mentioned such "shenanigans" in the nation's first century of existence... if they had existed.

From the preamble of the Congressional resolution that presented to the states the first 12 proposed amendments to the Constitution:

Congress OF THE United States,

begun and held at the City of New York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The purpose of the amendments that became the Bill of Rights was to "prevent misconstruction [of the Constitution]" or to "prevent... abuse of [the Constitution's] powers." There is no mention of the states demanding amendements to the federal Constitution that would limit state powers.

Gordon Fink
February 1, 2008, 02:46 PM
Yes, the federal and state governments routinely break the law. What else is new?

~G. Fink

gc70
February 1, 2008, 03:12 PM
Yes, the federal and state governments routinely break the law. What else is new?

Rather than a non-answer that ignores available evidence, it would be enlightening if you could provide references to early federal court decisions, writings of the Founders, or discussions during state constitutional ratifying conventions that show the Bill of Rights was intended to limit, constrain, or remove state powers. Otherwise, I appreciate your opinion but respectfully disagree.

hugh damright
February 1, 2008, 03:24 PM
it would be enlightening if you could provide references to early federal court decisions, writings of the Founders, or discussions during state constitutional ratifying conventions that show the Bill of Rights was intended to limit, constrain, or remove state powers.
Indeed. And it might also help to explain this constitutional theory whereby a BOR limits governments other than the one framed by the Constitution which the said BOR is part of.

ctdonath
February 1, 2008, 03:39 PM
The bill of rights doesnt bind anything;
"Congress shall make no law..."
"...shall not be infringed."
"No Soldier shall..."
"...shall not be violated..."
"No person shall be held to answer ... nor shall any person be subject ... nor shall be compelled ... nor be deprived ... nor shall private property be taken ..."
"...the accused shall ... be informed ...; to be confronted ...; to have compulsory process ..., and to have the Assistance ..."
"...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."
"...shall not be required, nor ... imposed, nor ... inflicted."

Sounds like a whole lotta binding to me (to wit: the gov't shall or shall not do a whole lotta things; gov't is obliged, as contrasted with gov't doing whatever it wants).

USAFNoDAk
February 1, 2008, 04:01 PM
The 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So this would seem to indicate that there were certainly powers of the states which were limited or "prohibited" to the states by the constitution. The Bill of Rights are a part of the Constitution. Thus, they could be shown to limit state powers. I don't know of any legal cases where that thought process was decided to be valid. However, there is a USSC case where the finding was that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Second Amendment, nor is it in any way dependent upon it for it's existence. Is the right then dependent upon state powers for its existence?

hugh damright
February 1, 2008, 04:42 PM
The 10th Amendment ...would seem to indicate that there were certainly powers of the states which were limited or "prohibited" to the states by the constitution. The Bill of Rights are a part of the Constitution. Thus, they could be shown to limit state powers.
I do not think the Tenth can be construed to mean that the USBOR prohibits the States.

Of course a federal constitution limits the States. By delegating powers, the States are often limited from exercising that power themselves ... for instance, the US Constitution delegates the power to declare war, to make treaties, and to coin money, and then it goes on to say that no State shall engage in war, or make treaties, or coin money. There is no doubt that the clauses which begin "no State shall" bind the States, but the USBOR says no such thing, and quite the contrary, the Preamble says clearly that the intent is to prevent misconstruction and abuse of federal powers, and the First Amendment specifies that it is Congress that is being prohibited.



the right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Second Amendment, nor is it in any way dependent upon it for it's existence. Is the right then dependent upon state powers for its existence?
In the same case, the SCOTUS said that the States' gun control powers have federal limits, not from the Second Amendment, but that no State could disarm its general population.

gc70
February 1, 2008, 04:45 PM
Is the right then dependent upon state powers for its existence?

IMO, the RKBA is a natural human right, the existence of which transcends governments. Governments may or may not choose to recognize or honor the RKBA, but the right still exists.

The constitutions of 44 states recognize the RKBA, although the scope of the right that is recognized varies from state to state.

Gordon Fink
February 1, 2008, 04:53 PM
I gave you Article VI, where it is written very clearly. Everything beyond that is unconstitutional obfuscation.

~G. Fink

gc70
February 1, 2008, 05:20 PM
Oh, yes, Article VI - the supremacy clause. Let's take the supremacy clause and see how many improbable scenarios we can build.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States
Check - no need for state legislatures; the US Congress takes care of legislative functions.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Check - no need for state governors; the President takes care of executive functions.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Check - no need for state courts; the federal courts take care of judicial functions.

I need go no further because you will provide totally accurate rebuttals to the above scenarios. Your rebuttals will prove that the Constitution applies to the federal government and federal issues, except when it specifically states otherwise. However, when the language of the Second Amendment - as part of the very same Constitution - is examined, you claim a different standard for the scope and application of the Constitution. Quite confusing.

USAFNoDAk
February 1, 2008, 05:35 PM
There is no doubt that the clauses which begin "no State shall" bind the States, but the USBOR says no such thing, and quite the contrary, the Preamble says clearly that the intent is to prevent misconstruction and abuse of federal powers, and the First Amendment specifies that it is Congress that is being prohibited.

I don't disagree with you, however, if the founders wanted only the federal government to be limited in infringing against the right to keep and bear arms, why didn't they, as they did in the first amendment, say that congress shall make no law abridging the right to keep and bear arms? I believe the founders whole heartedly believed in an individual right to keep and bear arms and wanted to protect that individual right. The Bill of Rights was a means to keep the federal government from abusing their powers. I agree with you there. However, I also believe that they were concerned about abuse of power against not only the states, but against the citizens. Thus, they created the Bill of Rights to protect the citizens from federal abuse. We seem to agree on that part. Now, what protects the citizens rights against abuses by state power? Their state constitutions? Maybe so. However, the feds seemed to be miffed at how the southern states were abusing the freed blacks in the south and so created the 14th amendment to fix this situation. Why shouldn't the 14 amendment apply to all of the Bill of Rights if it applies to even one? The southern folks argued that if we ratified the 14th amendment that it would allow freed blacks to be armed everywhere they went. Even without being part of the state militia? Apparently, that wasn't a concern at the time.

gc70
February 1, 2008, 06:37 PM
However, the feds seemed to be miffed at how the southern states were abusing the freed blacks in the south and so created the 14th amendment to fix this situation.

Correct. The Congressional debate about the 14th Amendment strongly suggests that it was specifically designed to extend the coverage of the Bill of Rights to the states. Of couse, that presents the question of why bother adopting the 14th Amendment if, as some claim, the Bill of Rights had already covered the states.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court rejected the 14th Amendment's blanket extension of the Bill of Rights in the Slaughterhouse Cases and later only extended coverage incrementally on a right-by-right basis. Some have suggested that the court initially minimized the 14th Amendment's impact due to discomfort that the amendment had been ratified under duress by the Southern states.

USAFNoDAk
February 1, 2008, 06:54 PM
Correct. The Congressional debate about the 14th Amendment strongly suggests that it was specifically designed to extend the coverage of the Bill of Rights to the states. Of couse, thats presents the question of why bother adopting the 14th Amendment if, as some claim, the Bill of Rights had already covered the states.

Just to make it more clear, possibly. There were many instances where the founders seemed intent on specifically clarifying certain portions of the constitution. I believe they created the Bill of Rights for the same reason. They wanted to specifically put a check on government power, even though the constitution itself limited federal government power. I am guessing that they didn't feel the need to specifically address the states in the Bill of Rights because they trusted the states to more closely guard and protect the general well being and safety of their own citizens than a large federal government would. That thinking turned out to be wrong after the civil war. Thus, they had to move to specifically spell out the protections for "the people" with the 14th. This time they specifically protected the people's rights from state power abuses.

Even so, was there ever any existence of state power to disarm their citizens, even the citizens who were not part of the state militia? I don't think so. Also, I thought that by joining the Union, each state was to obey the consitution of the United States. Didn't the representatives of each state swear an oath to uphold the consitution of the United States?

USAFNoDAk
February 1, 2008, 07:12 PM
Minnesota has no provision in it's bill of rights to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Zip. Zero. Nada. Would this mean that Minnesota could ban all firearms possession for all of its citizens except for those who serve in the Minnesota Reserves or National Guard? Some folks say the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. Some say that, since the 14th amendment has never been found to apply to all of the Bill of Rights (only the Second Amendment seems to be in question) that any of the states would be free to ban all firearms ownership within the state if their own constitution didn't stop them from doing so.

So, would Minnesota be within it's powers to ban all firearms in this state, as the federal and Minnesota State constitutions exist today? I wonder what the Supreme Court would have to say about such an act. We may never know. Just like finding out how many licks it takes to get to the chocolate center of a Tootsie Pop.:D

gc70
February 1, 2008, 07:25 PM
This time they protected the people from state power abuses.

I agree, within the context of different purposes at different times.

When the states ratified the Bill of Rights, the states did not fear themselves, but did fear the possibility that the "new" federal government would get out of control.

Following the Civil War, the treatment of blacks by the Southern states offended the Northern states. The Northern states proposed the 14th Amendment and forced its ratification to give the federal government power to overrule the actions of the Southern states. Whether viewed as right or wrong, the Founders' original fears that the federal government would become all-powerful and dictate to the states were essentially realized.

Michael Courtney
February 1, 2008, 07:27 PM
Sorry, but the ignorant statements are the ones that assert that the USBOR was intended to limit the States.

So you are arguing that states (including state militias and state agencies)have the power to take private property for public use without just compensation, quarter soldiers in private homes in times of peace, and conduct searches with neither warrants nor probable cause?

So you are also arguing that states have the power to try people twice for the same crime, deprive people of life, liberty and property without due process, and convict people without a trial by jury?

Furthermore, you are arguing that states are not bound by the 8th amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, excessive fines, and excessive bail?

Are calling me ignorant, but at the same time arguing that all these protections only limit the federal government and not the states?

It is not a "Bill of Limitations of Federal Power" it is a "Bill of Rights."

Only the 1st Amendment is constructed in such a way as to limit only the Federal power.

Michael Courtney

gc70
February 1, 2008, 07:31 PM
So, would Minnesota be within it's powers to ban all firearms in this state, as the federal and Minnesota State constitutions exist today?

If the Second Amendment only limits the federal government and the Minnesota constitution provides no protection, what would prevent such a law?

hugh damright
February 1, 2008, 08:07 PM
all these protections only limit the federal government and not the states?That was true prior to the reconstruction era, but today much of the USBOR is held to be binding upon the States.

It is not a "Bill of Limitations of Federal Power" it is a "Bill of Rights."The Preamble, by definition, defines the intent, and it says that the intent is to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the powers created by the US Constitution. Is it your assertion that the Preamble is incorrect, or that I am misconstruing its meaning somehow?

DKSuddeth
February 1, 2008, 08:46 PM
Murdoch v. commonwealth seems to have applied the entire BoR to the states.

'A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. The fact that the ordinance was imposed indiscriminately does not save it from being unconstitutional.'

Ieyasu
February 2, 2008, 12:50 AM
Murdoch v. commonwealth seems to have applied the entire BoR to the states.

'A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. The fact that the ordinance was imposed indiscriminately does not save it from being unconstitutional
Except the Second Amendment "is not a right granted by the Constitution" (U S v. CRUIKSHANK).

Ieyasu
February 2, 2008, 12:55 AM
I am guessing that they didn't feel the need to specifically address the states in the Bill of Rights because they trusted the states to more closely guard and protect the general well being and safety of their own citizens than a large federal government would.
Whether they trusted the states more or not to protect their citizens' rights, they didn't want to cede that particular power to the federal government.

mekender
February 2, 2008, 03:31 AM
The authors of our Bill of Rights knew well how to write amendments that only limited certain branches of government and did begin some amendments with the phrase "Congress shall make no law . . ." The original intent and strict construction of this phrasing clearly applies only to Congress.

However, it is a grave hermaneutical error to infer these words into amendments where they are not present. The second amendment does not limit Congress alone. It is completely general, ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Thus it applies to any and every agent of governmental authority

i couldnt agree more... im fairly sure that in the time of the founders, there were lots of rumblings about communities being able to set up their own church based communities, thus including religion in their day to day life and the running of their towns... so they made it clear that "congress shall make no law..." with the intent that other legal bodies could legislate how they pleased, but that a church of the United States would never be established...

and the 2nd was intended to be a supreme law, "shall not be infringed"... to me that means: "by anyone, for any reason"... and as such, the states commonly violate the 2a...

jlday70
February 2, 2008, 11:50 AM
First of all Michael is right The bill of rights is there to limit all government agencies from taking NATURAL Rights form the people.

The problem is that the governmtent has forgotten that they derive thier power from the Constitution and most of them could not tell you what that document says, they just assume that they are in charge and they are above the law.

It will go on until the sheep who elect these dirt bags finally wake up and vote right.

Sans Authoritas
February 2, 2008, 02:53 PM
JlDay70 said: The problem is that the government has forgotten that they derive their power from the Constitution and most of them could not tell you what that document says, they just assume that they are in charge and they are above the law.

The problem is that the government is funded coercively, through tax dollars. Therefore, government leeches have no incentive to "keep government small," or "work for the people who voted them in." Once they are in, they do not care. They have no reason to. They have power, and they will keep it. There will always be enough fools to re-elect them, once they throw their subjects a few bones in the form of millions of dollars of other people's money.


JlDay70 said: It will go on until the sheep who elect these dirt bags finally wake up and vote right.

It will go on until the sheep realize that they do not have the "right" to force other people, by proxy, to monetarily subsidize the policies they would like to see implemented. It will go on until people stop voting. No matter how politicians get power, whether by voting, by dictatorial decree following being voted in, ancestral succession, the thread is the same. They assert that they possess some superhuman morality that allows them to take your money through force or the threat thereof, and use it to implement policies that temporally benefit the majority (or the powerful few) but that the individual who has his money or other property taken from might not necessarily want. That is robbery.

-Sans Authoritas

mewachee
February 2, 2008, 06:02 PM
very interesting arguments. However, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated much like this debate; each state requiring there own have to have's. The Bill of Rights is a compromise of delegates from different states. They did not argue that we want our state to have this rule, for our people, in the constitution. That's just silly. I am a big states rights guy, but of course there should be a general set of rules. This is not a confederacy.

Sans Authoritas
February 2, 2008, 06:18 PM
Mewachee said: However, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated much like this debate; each state requiring there own have to have's. The Bill of Rights is a compromise of delegates from different states.

Yes, those delegates compromised the rights of many individuals. They themselves did not have the right to do that. A delegate may speak for those who completely and voluntarily support him. He may not speak for the majority, then impose the will of the majority on the minority.

Living peacefully in a particular geographic region does not morally bind any individual to monetarily support whatever "ruler" one's neighbor chooses to endow with the power to take money at gunpoint, for whatever ends, be they good or evil. The end is moot if the means are evil.
-Sans Authoritas

gc70
February 2, 2008, 08:50 PM
Living peacefully in a particular geographic region does not morally bind any individual to monetarily support whatever "ruler" one's neighbor chooses to endow with the power to take money at gunpoint, for whatever ends, be they good or evil. The end is moot if the means are evil.

This appears to be an eloquent rejection of political authority. Do you advocate anarchy?

Sans Authoritas
February 2, 2008, 09:08 PM
Sans Authoritas wrote: Living peacefully in a particular geographic region does not morally bind any individual to monetarily support whatever "ruler" one's neighbor chooses to endow with the power to take money at gunpoint, for whatever ends, be they good or evil. The end is moot if the means are evil.

gc70 wrote: This appears to be an eloquent rejection of political authority. Do you advocate anarchy?

If, by "anarchy," you mean chaos, immorality, libertinism and sulky, black-clad molotov cocktail-chucking goth teenagers at WTO meetings, then no, I do not advocate "anarchy."

If, on the other hand, by "anarchy," you mean the idea that other people are not your property to be coerced into monetarily supporting socialist/communal programs, I absolutely advocate anarchy. Yes, I advocate anarchy, because it is contrary to human nature to impose "order" from the top down by violence, because order naturally rises from the individual heart of man, who, by nature, finds common goals and a workable system of thriving with his fellow men. I advocate anarchy because the only place violence has is in defense of one's life, family, liberty and property: not as a means to accrue loot in order to provide communal "services."

Finally, I advocate anarchy because I know and firmly believe that, without the power to tax, no individual thug, group of thugs, or corporation would possibly have the means or incentive to slaughter 200,000,000 people in the span of a single century. But that is precisely what taxation-based government did in the 20th century.

Oh, yes, sir. I do advocate anarchy. In it is the surest security men have from violence and destruction in this passing world. That is because anarchy, unlike coercively-funded government, mandates the principle of non-aggression, and voluntary cooperation between men in order to achieve their common ends of prosperity, amity, and freedom. The worst enemy of these ends has perennially been coercive government itself.

-Sans Authoritas

ConstitutionCowboy
February 2, 2008, 09:24 PM
Well said, Sans. Well said. And insightful, too.

Woody

Those of us who are armed stand in the way of something terrible. I don't know what it is, but it is damned scared of us. Let's keep the fear in its heart, not ours. B.E. Wood

legaleagle_45
February 2, 2008, 10:10 PM
Living peacefully in a particular geographic region does not morally bind any individual to monetarily support whatever "ruler" one's neighbor chooses to endow with the power to take money at gunpoint, for whatever ends, be they good or evil.

Morality has nothing to do with it. Legality does. Now take out some of your money and look at it. Who's name is on it, yours or that of the Government? Some great person once said "give unto Caeser that which is Caesar's..."

The social contract is either express or inferred. You can signify your acceptance by word or action. Accepting the benefits of society (look at that money again) you accept the social contract by inference... indeed, there are fundamental rights that can not be alienated either through express word or inference, such as life, liberty and happiness. But many other rights found in nature we voluntarily forgoe, because the benefits of the contract far exceed the detriment. Look at your money again.

gc70
February 2, 2008, 11:00 PM
"anarchy: the absence of government or political authority"

That is because anarchy, unlike coercively-funded government, mandates the principle of non-aggression, and voluntary cooperation between men in order to achieve their common ends of prosperity, amity, and freedom.

Wouldn't we all like to reap the benefits of the social contract and return only that which we wished to contribute.

But we digress. Unfortunately, the current social contract in the United States includes some rather repugnant constraints on our freedom to keep and bear arms.

ctdonath
February 2, 2008, 11:33 PM
So, Sans, do you use public roads? You know, those ribbons of asphalt built by tax moneys collected at the implied point of a gun, and built upon the ruins of homes confiscated by the state for the alleged greater good? Surely as a noble philosophical anarchist, you refrain from using them, traveling only on private lands by permission and payment?

I advocate anarchy, because it is contrary to human nature to impose "order" from the top down by violence

Nay, such is hardly the case. It may be human nature to establish order, but when conflict between mutual perceptions of order arises without a mutually beneficial solution (and yes, this is the natural order of things), only violence or the threat thereof will truly impose order.

I know and firmly believe that, without the power to tax, no individual thug, group of thugs, or corporation would possibly have the means or incentive to slaughter 200,000,000 people in the span of a single century.

May I contend that the slaughter of 200,000,000 people in a single century was perpetrated not so much because of the power to tax, but to achieve and maintain it. Actually, it's a chicken-and-egg issue.

Social order is rarely achieved purely by mutual respect and contract. That we live in a very polite society comes ultimately from the fact that so many of us are armed - and have organized a group to maintain order through threat of overwhelming violence. That some abuse that group & power is, of course, human nature.

ConstitutionCowboy
February 3, 2008, 12:07 AM
... That some abuse that group & power is, of course, human nature. ... and not acceptable nevertheless, and must be removed from power...By the ballot or the bullet, the choice is theirs. Take away the bullets and there is no need for the chicken to lay the egg or the egg to hatch the chicken, because all it will take from that point on is the tyrant with his mercenary forces.

Woody

hugh damright
February 3, 2008, 12:15 AM
I seem to be missing the integrity in this thread ... what has the USBOR got to with anarchy? It seems to me that bills of rights declare principles of government, what Madison called "dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the government". I don't see how an anarchist can possibly believe in any frame of government, any constitution, or any bill of rights.

legaleagle_45
February 3, 2008, 12:26 AM
If the Second Amendment only limits the federal government and the Minnesota constitution provides no protection, what would prevent such a law?

The ballot box.

Sans Authoritas
February 3, 2008, 12:43 AM
Sans Authoritas wrote:
Living peacefully in a particular geographic region does not morally bind any individual to monetarily support whatever "ruler" one's neighbor chooses to endow with the power to take money at gunpoint, for whatever ends, be they good or evil.

legaleagle_45 wrote: Morality has nothing to do with it. Legality does. Now take out some of your money and look at it. Who's name is on it, yours or that of the Government? Some great person once said "give unto Caeser that which is Caesar's..."

Laws, both natural and civil, exist to guarantee the rights of individuals. Coercively-funded governments invariably contradict the rights of individuals, both in the act of accruing their fuel, and through directly harmful legislation.

I took out some of my money and looked at it. Andrew Jackson is dead, and he can have as much of my money as he wants. ".999 fine silver" also decided to pass on these inflationary shares in the government's debt.

In all seriousness, yes, a great person (God, as some people believe) said "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Did he ever say that anything actually belonged to Caesar?

Another great person, (God himself again) was particularly displeased when his people clamored for an earthly king to rule over them. Read 1 Samuel 8: 1-21. Here is a little excerpt: "But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do." God then goes on to list what "the manner of king" would to do them, including taking a tenth of essentially everything they owned, sending their sons to war, and their daughters to be cooks and bakers, finally culminating with "you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." This is the "manner" of every ruler, except for the fact that modern rulers aren't satisfied with "only" a tenth of other people's property.

Does it sound like God approved of the "social contract" the Israelites wanted to form? It does not sound that way at all, to me. Read the whole text, meditate on it, and pray over it.

legaleagle_45 wrote: The social contract is either express or inferred. You can signify your acceptance by word or action. Accepting the benefits of society (look at that money again) you accept the social contract by inference..."

I owe the individuals who comprise society nothing more than to treat every person I meet in a just manner. They owe me nothing but the same.

The benefits of society are garnered by voluntary, mutually-beneficial actions. That is precisely what society is made up by: voluntary actions between individuals. If someone initiates violence, violence should be used to neutralize the threat. If someone is fraudulent, the society should exclude that person from their daily dealings.

legaleagle_45 wrote:
"indeed, there are fundamental rights that can not be alienated either through express word or inference, such as life, liberty and happiness. But many other rights found in nature we voluntarily forgoe, because the benefits of the contract far exceed the detriment."

Life, liberty and happiness are alienated on a daily business by governments all over the world, sir. It's their business, and has been since 10,000 B.C.

Living in a particular area that has been annexed by a ruler is not "consent," sir. I have not surrendered my right to the fruits of my own labor because I am obliged in either justice or charity. I pay the money they tell me I owe because if I refused, men with guns would come to my door, kick it down, and imprison or kill me, and possibly my family. There is no justification for that, sir.

In order to enjoy the benefits of society, one does not require a taxation-funded government. A government funded by force or the threat thereof is the antithesis of a civilized society, not the guarantor.

legaleagle_45 wrote:Look at your money again.

No, sir, you look at your money. What do you see? Is money the creation of government, or of society? The two are not the same. The ability to barter, trade, and exchange goods and services on a free-will basis is not helped by a coercively-funded government. On the contrary, government has always been the archenemy of the free market. Tariffs, special interest subsidies, and central banks printing fraudulent counterfeit bills that devalue the rest of the currency have always been the bane of voluntary interaction. People are not so stupid nor so bestial that they need to have an overseer with a gun breathing down their necks in order to make a fair trade in goods or services. Money, as you know, is nothing but a medium of exchange for goods and services. It can be anything that anyone perceives as being valuable. The creation and use of money preceded and is not dependent upon the existence of any taxational government. The number-laden pieces of linen in your wallet are devaluing at a current rate of about 11% per year, thanks to the government's counterfeiting. As a side note, I suggest you cut your not-so-long-term losses by engaging in a free-will exchange of those scrip for some perennially valuable commodities, such as gold and silver.

Taxation-based government has already and ubiquitously broken whatever contrived, nebulous, intangible "contract" it ever pretended to create, whether it manifested itself in the Constitution, or any other collection of words on paper. Basic contract custom grants that if one party breaks a contract, the other party is no longer bound. Given that a government, by its nature, cannot protect the life, liberty or property of those it contracts to protect, it seems no one is bound by the tenets of taxational government. Men are only bound by the tenets of the natural and Divine law, which existed before the government, and will exist after government. Men enforce the tenets of natural law pertaining to men. God takes care of enforcing his law.

-Sans Authoritas

Sans Authoritas
February 3, 2008, 01:14 AM
ctdonath wrote: So, Sans, do you use public roads? You know, those ribbons of asphalt built by tax moneys collected at the implied point of a gun, and built upon the ruins of homes confiscated by the state for the alleged greater good? Surely as a noble philosophical anarchist, you refrain from using them, traveling only on private lands by permission and payment?

As an anarchist, you can be sure that I certainly do travel on roads that were built with stolen money upon the ruins of homes that were confiscated and razed by the state for the alleged greater good. Why? Because the damage is already done, and I continue to pay the taxes that repair the roads. Does that make taxation to keep the roads up a moral thing to inflict? No. Is it moral to pay taxes to keep government confiscation-men from killing you, or to contribute to the upkeep of that which you use? Certainly. The latter is even obligatory. But it is not moral to formally participate in the continuance of the taxational system.

How about you, donath? Do you believe in human rights? Do you use life jackets when you go out on the water? Improvements were made to life jackets everywhere after the Nazis discovered how to tweak them to ensure longer survivability, after testing them with Jewish test subjects in hypothermic tanks of water. Do you see why your argument is flawed?

Sans Authoritas wrote: I advocate anarchy, because it is contrary to human nature to impose "order" from the top down by violence.

ctdonath wrote: Nay, such is hardly the case. It may be human nature to establish order, but when conflict between mutual perceptions of order arises without a mutually beneficial solution (and yes, this is the natural order of things), only violence or the threat thereof will truly impose order.

Yes, violence will certainly impose order, if it is justly used. Note that I clearly used the words "Top down." That means that a taxationally-funded government is, by nature, phenomenally incapable of meting out true justice, while private arbitration is a much more just way to solve disagreements. If, of course, someone's life is immediately threatened, one may defend it with violence. Again, in such a situation, it is not violence imposed from the top down.

ctdonath wrote: May I contend that the slaughter of 200,000,000 people in a single century was perpetrated not so much because of the power to tax, but to achieve and maintain it. Actually, it's a chicken-and-egg issue.

To achieve and maintain what, sir? As soon as a group of individuals give the power to tax to a group of men with guns, they are already on the natural trajectory of individuals in governments: to kill people for their own personal benefit, using other people's money to do it.

ctdonath wrote:

Social order is rarely achieved purely by mutual respect and contract. That we live in a very polite society comes ultimately from the fact that so many of us are armed - and have organized a group to maintain order through threat of overwhelming violence. That some abuse that group & power is, of course, human nature.

Social order is augmented by the fact that there are arms in the hands of peaceful people. That is precisely why D.C. is such a chaotic locale. The government took power out of the hands of the people, while promising to protect the lives and property of its subjects. It cannot deliver, but that does not stop fools from continuing to support their government. It's really a delightful cycle.

There is nothing wrong in having arms to back up breach of contract. As you say, it is beneficial to keeping peace. What I cannot understand is why you want to keep in existence an entity that invariably disarms and slaughters the very people it was created to protect. It is truly unconscionable.

-Sans Authoritas

Sans Authoritas
February 3, 2008, 01:27 AM
hugh damright wrote: I seem to be missing the integrity in this thread ... what has the USBOR got to with anarchy? It seems to me that bills of rights declare principles of government, what Madison called "dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the government". I don't see how an anarchist can possibly believe in any frame of government, any constitution, or any bill of rights.

Hugh, the Bill of Rights has very little to do with anarchy, true. However, I think it is entirely fitting to discuss the subject in light of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Why? Because the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, as everyone acknowledges, have failed to do what they were intended to do. As Ron Paul keeps repeating to deaf ears, "If you make a mistake in the diagnosis, you don't continue to give the same treatment." The Constitution and Bill of Rights were a noble, albeit unsuccessful "experiment" (the Founding Fathers' word, not mine) in how to create a government that serves its people well. It's like trying to find a way to drink methyl alcohol and not have it kill you. It's insane to try that, when you can safely drink grain alcohol.

For 9,000 years, slavery was accepted and practiced all over the world, with few moral qualms: hardly anyone questioned whether it was moral or not. It didn't matter. It was just "how things worked," for them. Then, finally, when enough people woke up to the fact (at least in part) that every human being is endowed with the same nature and dignity as every other, slavery disappeared from the face of the civilized world. For centuries, people thought "love apples," or tomatoes, were dangerous, while they blissfully continued to eat their rat-feces-encrusted bread. Anarchy is today's "love apple." Doesn't that bread taste a little funny to you?

-Sans Authoritas

legaleagle_45
February 3, 2008, 11:55 AM
I owe the individuals who comprise society nothing more than to treat every person I meet in a just manner. They owe me nothing but the same.

Which is the fundamental reason to form a social contract. Justice does not exist is ananarchy. Justice does not exist in the natural world. It is a construct of the social contract. Does a deer have the natural right to be treated justly by the mountain lion? Hobbes explained that the natural state of things is eternal war. That the social contract is formed primarily to enhance and protect the first law of nature, that of self-defense and self-preservation. In the natural world the deer has no "right" to be treated justly by the mountain lion... he will be eaten. The deer does have the right to self-defense, whether that merely amounts to trying to out run the lion or involves kicking and stomping the lion to deter attack.

The benefits of society are garnered by voluntary, mutually-beneficial actions. That is precisely what society is made up by: voluntary actions between individuals.

Inspiring words, but totally devoid of merit. The nature of the world is self interest. In order to establish mutually-beneficial actions, rules must be established, rules that are enforced by society by virtue of sanction or reward... the carrot and the stick.

If someone initiates violence, violence should be used to neutralize the threat. If someone is fraudulent, the society should exclude that person from their daily dealings.

Without rules established by a social contract, such a proposal is meaningless. The rules need not be written down in a formal text, it may merely be an understanding known by society and observed by society. You are merely proposing that the "rules" of the social contract be less onerous, not that the rules should not exist.

I took out some of my money and looked at it. Andrew Jackson is dead, and he can have as much of my money as he wants.

You merely look at the image and ignore the text. The text clearly reads: The United States of America". Can the United States of America have as much of "your" money as it wants?

Is money the creation of government, or of society?

Government is the creation of society, so your question is irrelevant.

The ability to barter, trade, and exchange goods and services on a free-will basis is not helped by a coercively-funded government.

Totally incorrect. The creation of a "legal tender" infinitly increases your ability to barter, trade and exchange goods. The latter without the former necessarily requires an individual connection, the former allows the latter to occur without an individual connection.

Life, liberty and happiness are alienated on a daily business by governments all over the world, sir.

Indeed they are. Does it shock you that unalienable natural rights have the capacity to be violated? That tyranny exists? That is no less shocking to me than that crime exists and criminals exist. No allegiance is owed to a society which violates unalienable natural rights and you are free, perhaps even obligated, to resist such violations.

I have not surrendered my right to the fruits of my own labor because I am obliged in either justice or charity. I pay the money they tell me I owe because if I refused, men with guns would come to my door, kick it down, and imprison or kill me, and possibly my family. There is no justification for that, sir.

Your logical disconnect is to equate all natural rights with a select subset of natural rights. Not all natural rights are unalienable. The social contract can properly, and indeed must, require the surrender of certain natural rights of the non unalienable nature.. we barter away these things in return for a society that respects and protects other things you value.

In order to enjoy the benefits of society, one does not require a taxation-funded government. A government funded by force or the threat thereof is the antithesis of a civilized society, not the guarantor.

Incorrect. A government can only exist... a society can only exist, by force or threat of force. Who says? You do:

If someone initiates violence, violence should be used to neutralize the threat. If someone is fraudulent, the society should exclude that person from their daily dealings.

ConstitutionCowboy
February 3, 2008, 12:34 PM
I have a point that might help. We do not elect rulers(even though many of those elected see themselves as just that), we elect servants to occupy positions of responsibility to handle the business of our common defense and general welfare, to include only those things specified in the powers granted in Article 1, Section 8, to wit: Lay and collect taxes to those ends which include to deliver the mail and build post roads, regulate(not limit or prohibit) commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and Indian tribes, coin money(not delegate to a private enterprise), etc, etc.

The only power granted to Congress to enforce the collection of that tax(enforce the law) is via Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. Most people will pay voluntarily, however. There is no power granted to Congress to create a force armed for coercion. The use of the militia to collect tax or enforce any other law is not to say "Comply or we'll shoot you," but to say "We're here to collect this tax(or enforce this law) and we're armed in the defense of ourselves if you resist with harmful force". It's no different for your local police. No one gets shot for J-walking unless they threaten to harm the police officer issuing the ticket or restraining the offender.

That said, we certainly had Ruby Ridge, Waco, New Orleans, and others I can't recall at the spur of the moment or haven't learned of yet. That tells me that some forget that they are servants or they ignore the fact that they are servants and wish to rule instead.

So, does that make our Union's governing body coercive? No, not on paper. But in current practice? Yes, it is. That is why we retain our arms. That is why our Founding Fathers did not grant any more power than they did to Congress; so that we may and can resist when such usurpations occur.

I'm armed to that end. I'm as a ram. Should our shepard and sheepdogs abandon us, or turn on us, I'm ready to butt heads with the wolf or them. Ewes have horns, too, don't they? There is, therefore, no reason why your wife(or husband or partner), your daughters and sons shouldn't be armed as well.

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

RealGun
February 3, 2008, 12:40 PM
The 14A says that States cannot infringe upon the RKBA. The legal profession has made a science from the assertion that such is not true.

First, one must acknowledge that the US was redefined by the Civil War. States' rights is an arcane concept...get over it. The final blow was the 17A and the income tax. The federal governement is the supreme authority and uses State allocations to leverage that rather than explicit constitutional provisions. Just follow the money, and it will all be clear.

What the country needs is to prohibit leveraged mandates by Congress. We are stuck in this middle ground where many still pretend that a State is any more than an administrative level of the US government.

Actually, I like federal authority, because when I cross State lines, I want to take my rights with me.

legaleagle_45
February 3, 2008, 12:46 PM
There is no power granted to Congress to create a force armed for coercion.

The necessary and proper clause, Woody.

The use of the militia to collect tax or enforce any other law is not to say "Comply or we'll shoot you,"

Yes it is.

So, does that make our Union's governing body coercive? No, not on paper.

Yes on paper.

hugh damright
February 3, 2008, 01:16 PM
States' rights is an arcane concept...get over it ... We are stuck in this middle ground where many still pretend that a State is any more than an administrative level of the US government ... I like federal authority.
And yet you pretend to respect an amendment which says that militia is needed to secure free States. Or do you pretend that the amendment declares some other thing ... maybe in your world the Second Amendment says that a standing army is necessary to secure federal supremacy??

RealGun
February 3, 2008, 03:10 PM
And yet you pretend to respect an amendment which says that militia is needed to secure free States.

I didn't say that and am not pretending anything. I am not even agreeing that the 2A means any such thing. For starters, it says "State", not "States". In the singular, it can refer to the United States as a single entity. The context is, after all, the federal government, not the States. It took the 14A to clearly enough declare that the 2A applied to the States. Then it took the SCOTUS to declare that Congress was just kidding and that any literal reading was quite inconvenient and embarassing.

gc70
February 3, 2008, 03:10 PM
Actually, I like federal authority, because when I cross State lines, I want to take my rights with me.

Then you must love NFA34 and GCA68 - there's nothing like a federal law to smack down the inconsistency of the laws of 50 different states.

RealGun
February 3, 2008, 03:27 PM
Then you must love NFA34 and GCA68

I don't consider abuse of interstate commerce authority as legitimate.

Sans Authoritas
February 3, 2008, 03:58 PM
Sans Authoritas wrote:
I owe the individuals who comprise society nothing more than to treat every person I meet in a just manner. They owe me nothing but the same.

legaleagle_45 wrote: Which is the fundamental reason to form a social contract. Justice does not exist is ananarchy. Justice does not exist in the natural world. It is a construct of the social contract.

Justice absolutely does exist in anarchy. It appears that you believe "chaos" is synonymous with "anarchy." Anarchy is not the antithesis of justice and order, nor is it preclusive of these ends. There can be organizations of men governed by other men in anarchy. The trouble starts when you start to think that men can be forced to support those who govern.

You keep on mentioning a "social contract." I call it the "natural law." If you mix your labor with an unclaimed resource, as Locke says, it becomes your property. Someone stealing it is violating the natural law of reason, not some indefinable "social contract" that nobody drafted and nobody signed.

legaleagle_45 wrote: Does a deer have the natural right to be treated justly by the mountain lion?


I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that the deer need to form a taxation-based government that will invariably take their property, dignity and lives on a massive scale, while in the process dining upon their substance, in order to keep a few random predators off their backs?

If you believe in scripture, first blood was shed only after the Fall. Death and sin are unnatural. Do they manifest themselves? Yes. Should they? Absolutely not. Nature was warped after the Fall. Animals, being lesser than human beings, may be eaten by humans. It is not a moral evil to kill and eat that which was put here for us. Other humans are equal to you. That applies to anyone in government, as well. They have no right to your property unless you voluntarily cede that right. Taxation-based government does not create or preserve society. Society does just fine on its own, or with volitionally-funded government established to protect the equal rights of life, liberty and property of every individual. Nothing more. You don't have a natural human right to have public schools, a currency created by a government, or roads built with other people's money.

legaleagle_45 wrote: Hobbes explained that the natural state of things is eternal war. That the social contract is formed primarily to enhance and protect the first law of nature, that of self-defense and self-preservation.

Hobbes was a freakishly paranoid man who believed that he couldn't walk out in the street without being armed to the gills at all times, for fear of being jumped by brigands. He said of himself, "Fear and I were born on the same day," referring to the fact that government forces, in the form of the Spanish Armada, appeared on the British coastline on the day he was born. He lived during the English Civil War, and adored the tyrannical viper that was Oliver Cromwell. If what he believed and espoused concerning the "evil of men" were anything close to the truth, men would have to live in bunkers.

In Realityville, people are able to leave their houses without a severe panic that it will be broken into. Is it because criminals fear being arrested by police who will show up in 20 minutes? Hardly. It's because humans are not nearly so evil as poor Mr. Hobbes believed. Because neighbors watch out for neighbors, and because the criminals know that the next house they break into might be their last.

Locke, on the other hand, was phenomenally more reasonable than Mr. Hobbes. Locke believed that men could get along well without government, but that convenience, and convenience alone, brought men to form governments. He doesn't even say that it needs to be a taxationally-funded government to protect these ends. Government merely means an ordered system of protecting justice. It doesn't say it needs to be funded by violence or the threat thereof. Can a volitionally-funded government justly use violence to uphold the rights of individuals? Absolutely!

Sans Authoritas wrote:
The benefits of society are garnered by voluntary, mutually-beneficial actions. That is precisely what society is made up by: voluntary actions between individuals.

legaleagle_45 wrote: Inspiring words, but totally devoid of merit. The nature of the world is self interest. In order to establish mutually-beneficial actions, rules must be established, rules that are enforced by society by virtue of sanction or reward... the carrot and the stick.

I responded to this point above.

Sans Authoritas wrote:
If someone initiates violence, violence should be used to neutralize the threat. If someone is fraudulent, the society should exclude that person from their daily dealings.

legaleagle_45 wrote: Without rules established by a social contract, such a proposal is meaningless. The rules need not be written down in a formal text, it may merely be an understanding known by society and observed by society. You are merely proposing that the "rules" of the social contract be less onerous, not that the rules should not exist.

Ibid.

Sans Authoritas wrote:
I took out some of my money and looked at it. Andrew Jackson is dead, and he can have as much of my money as he wants.

legaleagle_45 wrote: You merely look at the image and ignore the text. The text clearly reads: The United States of America". Can the United States of America have as much of "your" money as it wants?


The United States of America did not give me my money. Money is not pieces of paper. Money is a means of exchange of goods and services. It is a sign of value, and as I said, whether it is captioned with the word "Monopoly" or captioned with the words "Federal Reserve Note," it makes no difference. The U.S. government did not give me the ability to make money. My labor, and peaceful interactions with my neighbor, gave me both the ability to make money, and the money itself. Life would be phenomenally improved if men voluntarily used gold coins of a certain weight, with no image or inscription besides "This is gold of a certain purity and weight, verified by this company [whose reputation is solid.]" With a government monopoly on money (pardon the pun,) why should anyone bother using commodities of real value, when they can be forced to accept pathetically devaluable pieces of linen with numbers printed on them?

Sans Authoritas wrote:
Is money the creation of government, or of society?

legaleagle_45 wrote:
Government is the creation of society, so your question is irrelevant.

Society is a conglomeration of individuals. Individuals who have no right to create a system that forces other people to surrender their property. Money is the result of our human nature: it is merely a means of transferring wealth, and not dependent on any taxation-funded government.

Sans Authoritas wrote: The ability to barter, trade, and exchange goods and services on a free-will basis is not helped by a coercively-funded government.

legaleagle_45 wrote: Totally incorrect. The creation of a "legal tender" infinitly increases your ability to barter, trade and exchange goods. The latter without the former necessarily requires an individual connection, the former allows the latter to occur without an individual connection.

The creation of some pieces of paper that everyone is forced to accept as payment for goods or services is a CONTRADICTION of the free market, sir. The free market mandates that payment be made according to the agreement between the two parties. Whether it be in caviar, cigarettes, or ammunition, justice is served, if the two parties agree. If you are forced to accept inflationary pieces of paper printed out of thin air with nothing to back them up, it is a violation of the free market.

Sans Authoritas wrote:
Life, liberty and happiness are alienated on a daily business by governments all over the world, sir.

legaleagle_45 wrote:
Indeed they are. Does it shock you that unalienable natural rights have the capacity to be violated? That tyranny exists? That is no less shocking to me than that crime exists and criminals exist. No allegiance is owed to a society which violates unalienable natural rights and you are free, perhaps even obligated, to resist such violations.

No, it does not shock me. What shocks me is that individuals continue to establish tyrannies over other people, with a claim to rights and authority that they don't have.


Sans Authoritas wrote:
In order to enjoy the benefits of society, one does not require a taxation-funded government. A government funded by force or the threat thereof is the antithesis of a civilized society, not the guarantor.

legaleagle_45 wrote: Incorrect. A government can only exist... a society can only exist, by force or threat of force. Who says? You do:


The Boy Scouts of America is a form of government. They have rules that are established by members who all share the same goals. The BSA forces no one to monetarily support them, though they provide services to the general populace. The same goes for the Red Cross, various clubs and religions over the world, including the Roman Catholic Church, and other entities. They accomplish their good ends without forcing anyone, through violence, to support them. Yet still they exist. A miracle? Hobbes would think so.

-Sans Authoritas

Sans Authoritas
February 3, 2008, 04:10 PM
As for the 14th Amendment, if anyone could figure out what its author, who claimed that legal language should be "beautiful," not merely practical, intended, it doesn't matter anyway. It was never ratified. The Northern states, who claimed all along that the Southern states never actually seceded, mandated that as a condition of returning (but how can they return if they never left? What?) to the "Union," the Southern states must ratify the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. So, it was ratified by coercion, but also by men who apparently could not vote because they had not yet returned to the "Union!" But I digress. Nobody cares about these documents anyway, whether they be the Constitution of the early 1800's, or the Constitution post-1865, 1911 or 1913. It doesn't matter. They're all equally ignored.

-Sans Authoritas

RealGun
February 3, 2008, 04:25 PM
As for the 14th Amendment, ...... It was never ratified.

That is a tendentious reading of history. The 14A has full legal effect, absolutely ratified. Many elements held dear by modern law depend upon it.

Coupled with the anarchy thing, this begs the question of whether one believes in the rule of law. One ignores the law at considerable risk. Not only that but is easily considered a sociopath if believing oneself immune to society's rules.

Sans Authoritas
February 3, 2008, 05:37 PM
Sans Authoritas wrote:
As for the 14th Amendment, ...... It was never ratified.

RealGun wrote: That is a tendentious reading of history. The 14A has full legal effect, absolutely ratified. Many elements held dear by modern law depend upon it.

"Full legal effect." In other words, "We believe it is a legitimate amendment, therefore we treat it like such, and therefore, it is a legitimate amendment."

RealGun wrote: Coupled with the anarchy thing, this begs the question of whether one believes in the rule of law. One ignores the law at considerable risk. Not only that but is easily considered a sociopath if believing oneself immune to society's rules.

I know you will never admit that that delicately-worded statement contains the possibility that you are suggesting that I am a sociopath. That's all right. Your statement appeared less of a question and more of a feinted backhand. I will respond anyway.

I, sir, am against all aggressive (as opposed to defensive) violence. I have already clearly stated that. I believe that every human being is created equal by God, and as such, are due the respect that is proper to beings created in the image and likeness of God. I believe in donating time and money to worthy causes to help one's neighbor, whether they live next door, or on the other side of the world. I believe that stealing is wrong, and that if anyone has unjustly taken anything from his neighbor, he is obliged to return it. I believe that contracts between individuals should be upheld, whether it pertains to rent, business, or mere promises. I believe that great care should be taken to never injure one's neighbors or their property, even accidentally, and that when injury has been given, that remuneration should be offered. I believe that when it is necessary to speak, one should speak the truth, for that is the purpose of free speech.

If, sir, any of these beliefs are contrary to the rule of any just law, please tell me now. If, sir, these are the creeds of a sociopath, let me know, because I am sure that people such as Jesus, Daniel Levin, Martin Luther King, Miguel Pro, Mohandas Gandhi, Maximilian Kolbe, Harriet Tubman, St. Paul, and Raoul Wallenberg would have instantly ceased their respective activities if only they had known that they were perceived as "not believing in the rule of law," or if they were being perceived as "sociopaths." Perhaps I could let them know, if you did me the honor of telling me what it means to be a "sociopath," sir. But then, I'm sure they already know what other people thought and now think of their actions: they have all either been killed or endured great suffering for being perceived as scofflaws and sociopaths by the intellectuals of the day. Ultimately, they were or will be proven right.

-Sans Authoritas

If you enjoyed reading about "Second Amendment is completely general (applies to states and federal government)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!