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

[legaleagle_45]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Then you must love NFA34 and GCA68

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

 

[Sans Authoritas]

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]

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]

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]

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