Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

Ok, I have figured this out.

All this is, is rejecting society.

If that is what people want to do, that's fine, just don't use any of that societies advancements and you are all good. One cannot really separate themselves from society while living amongst that same society.

A long time ago, Mankind decided to live amongst each other by a set of shared rules. This became the first societies, those grew until it was necessary for laws to be written for the conduct of people within those societies. People in general agreed to those laws, which allowed those societies to flourish.

Now, we have countries, large societies made up of smaller communities.

But there will be those that will reject those laws that most everyone else has agreed to. They will say "I am above those agreements, I am better than you." and they will break those laws because they feel that it does not apply to them.

Running away from society is not something I would do, but I really don't see anything wrong with it overall. After all, you aren't hurting anyone else by rejecting society. But I don't think that rejecting society gives you the right to drive a car because you feel that you have a personal right to do so in society.



[edit on 6/27/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


Nope, you haven't figured it out, and obviously either did not watch the video, or ignored it in order to reach the conclusion you did. If you want to control other people Wuk, then be honest about it, and stop pretending that those who resist your ambitions to control them don't want anything to do with society. Society is not about controlling other people, it is about co-operation.

Originally posted by whatukno
Ok, I have figured this out.

All this is, is rejecting society.

If that is what people want to do, that's fine, just don't use any of that societies advancements and you are all good. One cannot really separate themselves from society while living amongst that same society.

[edit on 6/27/2010 by whatukno]

It appears to me to be more of a rejection of an overbearing governance of a society, rather than a rejection of a society itself.

But I've been reading up on this 'strawman' argument that seems to be a basis of the Freeman movement, and it seems to me to be nothing more than a puff of smoke - someone's really bad dream. I've as yet been unable to uncover any factual basis for that claim, or the attendant convolution and complexity it involves.

It seems to hinge on funny name spellings, and a claim that a birth certificate is really a title to a person, rather than a certification that an individual was born. This title, then, according to the story, is owned and retained by the powers that be, and bought and sold, used as loan security, et al., and is predicated on contract law - but a strange sort of contract law, where fraud is strangely legal, and an individual can give up rights to his own self to the state at an age so early that most contract law would disallow his legal standing to even enter INTO a contract. So early, in fact, that he can neither read, write, nor even speak.

Further, it then falls on the individual defrauded, according to their story, to extract himself from the predicament, not on those perpetrating the fraud to enforce their fraudulent contract.

It's all very strange, and I've found no legal basis for the claims made yet.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Exactly, cooperation, the idea that people can unite together for the betterment of the community as a whole.

If you have your own land, and want to drive a car without a license or proof of insurance, it's your land, knock yourself out.

If you drive on societies roads in transit or whatever, those roads are public roads, if you reject that society because you feel that you are above it, don't be surprised that people who uphold the society codes and laws stop you.

You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by whatukno

If you have your own land, and want to drive a car without a license or proof of insurance, it's your land, knock yourself out.

Doesn't work that way in NC. In NC, the state claims you must be licensed to drive even on your own land.

reply to post by nenothtu


How could they possibly stop you? If you own the land, well, they would have to trespass in order for them to ticket you wouldn't they?

Soon as you take that car onto a public road however, you are in society, and societies laws apply.

If people want to do this, they should go buy land off in the middle of nowhere, grow their own food, raise their own cattle, chickens, pigs, goats. Cut themselves free from everything.

It can be done, but if you think that it's ok to just ignore the laws that everyone else in society accepts, well, there are consequences for those actions.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by Grossac

 

But as one who drives...with full documentation, I don't WANT people driving cars on the road who don't have licence and insurance! Given the number of drunks and arses-at-large who could be making it dangerous for others...not to mention lacking the ability to take financial liability for any screw-ups they cause...I want drivers licenced!

You wanna 'travel' unbeholding and unaccountable to anybody else? Try 'two feet and a heartbeat'.

FYI, a drunk and "arse-at-large doesn't have insurance anyway. That's what makes them arses.

It's only the responsible people who pay these expenses and put up with this harassment.

reply to post by nenothtu

Originally posted by nenothtu
Why would you NOT be "allowed" that? In your statement, YOU have constructed your environment. Why should anyone else be allowed to regulate what you can and cannot do with your own creation?

Simple: Per @bigfatfurrytexan

You know, if we followed nature a little more, imagine how much better off we could be? Houses, for example....where else in nature do you see structures that come up in square, rectilinear shapes? And the way we construct them? If we want a cool, stable temperature, why are we not building underground?

As much as I would not actually disagree with BFFT the fact remains, his value judgments were projected onto the wider population. IF we followed nature. IF we only stopped using oil. IF we only stopped being evil capitalist consumers. IF we only stopped eating salt. IF we only stopped drinking soft drinks. IF WE ONLY STOPPED..... No, he didn't use the phase "if we stopped." He used the inverse: IF we only DID THIS..... He did not say "I" he said "we." The "collective we" which, for the sake of this thread I took to include *me*.

I may follow the laws of my society but I draw a very unequivocal line of trespass when someone suggest how I ought to live based upon *their* value judgments. Value judgments that have nothing to do with an "orderly society," rather, someone else's concept of how things *should* be.

Now, I have every confidence that BFFT would not *actually* impose *his* values on *me* but the thought line was there... "how things ought to be," but there are *plenty* of people who *would* impose this value judgment on all of us if they were given half a nanosecond's chance.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Regarding the "collective we", you've no doubt already noticed my signature. Let's not, however, confuse 'society', or 'A society' with a government instituted to promote it's own version of 'the collective' by abrogating the rights of the individuals that make up society at large. In other words, lets not confuse 'society' with 'government'.

I intellectually know what you are saying, and "intellectually" I do not disagree. However, society is inseparable from government, even if that government is only the tribal chieftain. Really, the issue of the tension between individual freedom and collective will enforced via government is not new. Blackstone himself acknowledged 1753 the "chaffing" that can and does happen between individual liberty and society's need and wont to constrain it...

The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature; being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will. But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obligos himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. And this species of legal obedience and conformity is infinitely more desirable than that wild and savage liberty which is sacrificed to obtain it. For no man that considers a moment would wish to retain the absolute and uncontrolled power of doing whatever he pleases: the consequence of which is, that every other man would also have the same power, and then there would be no security to individuals in any of the enjoyments of life. Political, therefore, or civil liberty, which is that of a member of society, is no other than natural liberty so far restrained by human laws (and no farther) as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public.(c) Hence we may collect that the law, which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow-citizens, though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind; but that every wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject, whether practised by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly, is a degree of tyranny: nay, that even laws themselves, whether made with or without our consent, if they regulate and constrain our conduct in matters of more indifference, without any good end in view, are regulations destructive of liberty: whereas, if any public advantage can arise from observing such precepts, the control of our private inclinations, in one or two particular points, will conduce to preserve our general freedom in others of more importance; by supporting that state of society, which alone can secure our independence.

You simply cannot have an orderly society without government. And by definition, government will tell us what we can and cannot do; how we will do it or how we will not do it. True in 1753. True today. True in 1800 BC. It will be true in 2900 CE as well. Even a bee hive has behavioral mandates. As does a pride of lions, a herd of elephants, a pod of dolphins, and a flock of geese. Though, to be sure, nature is a lot more harsh with its malcontents and miscreants.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Government is increasingly becoming a parasite on society. A certain degree of governance is of course necessary, but when it gets to the unwieldy degree of restriction we have now, making laws simply to justify it's own existence, or to further fleece the society it lives off of, then there is a problem developing. This is why, so far, no government has lasted forever. It always increases itself to the point that it collapses under it's own weight, and the ire of the individuals it seeks to subjugate.

No argument. No solution. But I do know this: The answer is NOT opting out if one is interested in at least trying to prove that history does not have to be future.

[edit on 27/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

reply to post by whatukno


What do you mean exactly? You aren't interested in co-operating with people, you want to control them. Controlling others is not co-operating with them. I gave you the opportunity to read that handbook I linked, I posted the Declaration of Rights from your own state constitution, I pointed to the 9th Amendment of the federal Constitution that mirrors Section 27 of your own state constitution, and I did so in an effort to co-operate with you, but as you always do, you ignore the facts in order reach your own conclusions, and those conclusion are always telling other people what they have to sacrifice in the name of a collective. You have no more respect for the rights of the individual than any other collectivist does, and your smug preaching about society is just a front for you own ambitions, which is to control those you fear.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by whatukno

If you have your own land, and want to drive a car without a license or proof of insurance, it's your land, knock yourself out.

Doesn't work that way in NC. In NC, the state claims you must be licensed to drive even on your own land.

Really? How odd. In SC you are not allowed to drive intoxicated anywhere, public or private, but as to just being licensed, no.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by nenothtu

 

How could they possibly stop you? If you own the land, well, they would have to trespass in order for them to ticket you wouldn't they?

Well, they just walk right up and require you to produce your Operator's license. No tresspass involved, as if they see a vehicle being operated, they have leave to check licensing. Sort of like if I were poaching deer on my own land, the game warden is alleged to be allowed to stomp all over my turf to prove his case, or if someone is screaming inside my house, they get to kick the door in.

You know, "police stuff".

Soon as you take that car onto a public road however, you are in society, and societies laws apply.

That would be the same society that denies me the right to use what they allege I pay for, all over a little slip of card stock that I'm just not willing to pay exorbitant prices for, at random intervals, as the state needs a couple extra bucks, right? Do you suppose I can get a refund from 'society' for the part of the taxes I've paid and not been allowed to use?

We ARE talking about 'society', right? Not 'government'. I mention this because you expressly state 'society', as if it were one and the same with the government.

If people want to do this, they should go buy land off in the middle of nowhere, grow their own food, raise their own cattle, chickens, pigs, goats. Cut themselves free from everything.

That's what I do, more or less. For some odd reason, the government STILL won't leave me be. Seems they think they have the right to regulate all THAT, too. I'm not sure yet where they get that notion from.

It can be done, but if you think that it's ok to just ignore the laws that everyone else in society accepts, well, there are consequences for those actions.

Indeed there are, and I DO live with the consequences of my actions. I live with the consequences of a lot of OTHER folks actions, too, and I've never had it adequately explained to me why I should do that. The only reason that I can figure out is that government must think it holds title to 'society', too!

[edit on 2010/6/27 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu

Indeed there are, and I DO live with the consequences of my actions. I live with the consequences of a lot of OTHER folks actions, too, and I've never had it adequately explained to me why I should do that.

Because...

If people want to do this, they should go buy land off in the middle of nowhere, grow their own food, raise their own cattle, chickens, pigs, goats. Cut themselves free from everything.

That's what I do, more or less.

There's your problem, doing things half assed.

[edit on 6/27/2010 by whatukno]

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by whatukno

It can be done, but if you think that it's ok to just ignore the laws that everyone else in society accepts, well, there are consequences for those actions.

Indeed there are, and I DO live with the consequences of my actions. I live with the consequences of a lot of OTHER folks actions, too, and I've never had it adequately explained to me why I should do that. The only reason that I can figure out is that government must think it holds title to 'society', too!

OMG! Made me spit my drink on my poor MacBookPro I laughed so hard and unexpectedly when I came upon that brilliant observation!! Touche!

[edit on 27/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

reply to post by whatukno


You are in a thread about a guy who was driving his car, he didn't stab somebody in the head, he was driving his car just like you or anyone else does, but because he opted out of the licensing scheme, you disingenuously attempt to frame him as if he is a head stabber, and it won't take you too long before you are equating him with Tim McVeigh, because that is your game. But it is a dishonest game, and it wasn't that guy driving without a license who was doing anything wrong, and in this instance neither were the peace officers.

That guy driving his car was co-operating with the police, not attacking them, but co-operating with them, but you enter this thread and decide it is your place to tell him and others who would opt out of the licensing scheme to "get out! Leave society!" As if you only people like you and those that agree with you are a part of society, and people like him aren't. That is just not co-operation on your part, it is the brutishness of a bully.

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

According to your logic if an individual opts out of the licensing scheme then suddenly their advocates of rape, as if it isn't self evident that rape is an abrogation and derogation of another persons right, and you have all ready gone on record in this thread as being dismissive of natural rights, so if anyone is advocating rape, it is you.

According to your logic, natural law doesn't work for the child anymore than it works for the individual who asserts their right to travel. You disingenuously pretend that it is you and the society that you alone claim to speak for, and the legislature you are running for that can protect that child with a civil right. According to your logic, a child does not have an inalienable right to their own body, only a statutory right. According to your logic a man or woman does not have an inalienable right to protect their own bodies from rape, only a civil right granted them by government, and according to your logic no person has an inalienable right to life, only a civil right granted by government, and by logical extension, if a government is granting people the right to life, they can take it away upon the whims of a legislature.

You are not advocating the right to life, liberty and happiness, you are advocating the right of the majority to bully the minority, and you do so quite whimsically, and when it suits your purposes, you will pretend otherwise. You pretend that anyone that would assert their Constitutionally protected natural rights can not see what is self evident, and then whimsically turn around and suggest that most people do, but only those people who agree to surrender to the collective. People in a co-operative society agree to institute governments to protect the rights of the individual, but the problem is bullies like you who want to dismiss that co-operation and make it about controlling everyone, and whimsically deciding who gets rights and who doesn't. You aren't for equality under the law, you are for the equal imposition of legislation.

You seem to think that the only way law can exist is by legislation, as if Newton legislated gravity, and is if you could protect earth from an incoming asteroid simply by writing a "law" making it illegal for asteroids to enter earth's orbit. Hell, you would probably attempt to write a law making Pi an even 3.0 to make doing the math easier if you thought you could get away with it. Law is law, and legislation is legislation, sometimes the two are in agreement, but with this licensing scheme, they just simply aren't, and you have to resort to fallacious arguments in order to defend legislation that has nothing to do with law.

Of course all you are saying is that "you can't half ass reject society", and what you mean by that is that either people surrender to the collective or get out. Hardly a defense of freedom, and certainly not equality under the law, merely equality of force by government to make people do what the whims of a legislature say they should do. You place the privilege of voting above all inalienable rights and pretend you are good and just for this, but you are just either a bully yourself, or a sycophant of bullies. Either way, you are about controlling other people.

You attempt to dismiss the guy in the video simply because he agreed to co-operate with speed limits, and traffic flow, and when it serves your purpose you would frame him as un-cooperative, until it suits your purposes to dismiss him as half ass, and then you use the fact that he is cooperative to support your argument, and this is the whimsical nature of the collectivist.

I expect we don't disagree as much as it would appear at first blush, it looks to me to be more a matter of degree. You're simply more willing to allow greater intrusion than I am, and in exchange you partake more deeply of the division of labor you mentioned above than I do. No harm with that, until it's required across the board.

I'll just skip over the part concerning your issue with BigFatFurryTexan, since it appears that you took him more literally than intended, for effect, rather than as a literal issue.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

I may follow the laws of my society but I draw a very unequivocal line of trespass when someone suggest how I ought to live based upon *their* value judgments. Value judgments that have nothing to do with an "orderly society," rather, someone else's concept of how things *should* be.

Which is what these freemen appear to be taking issue with as well. When it boils right down to it, the laws made by government are nearly always someone else's idea, though, but are imposed on society at large regardless. I don't know about you, but it's been a good long while for me since the government has enacted a law that was MY idea to begin with. Most of what I see being passed these days has nothing to do with 'good ideas', and is more along the lines of something the government does just so they can say to society "See? We really ARE necessary, because we do... stuff!"

Originally posted by nenothtu
Regarding the "collective we", you've no doubt already noticed my signature. Let's not, however, confuse 'society', or 'A society' with a government instituted to promote it's own version of 'the collective' by abrogating the rights of the individuals that make up society at large. In other words, lets not confuse 'society' with 'government'.

I intellectually know what you are saying, and "intellectually" I do not disagree. However, society is inseparable from government, even if that government is only the tribal chieftain.

As I said above, I think we only differ in a matter of degree. I've already admitted that a degree of government is necessary, but the degree to which it has grown now is, in my estimation, going to doom this current government to extinction, and take society with it, both my society AND your society. It appears to me to be headed the way of Rome, the various monarchies, and all governments previous to the current ones, and for the same reasons - overreaching their limitations. They've outgrown their boundaries, as all governments so far have eventually done, and will no doubt suffer the same fate, as will the societies that pay their upkeep.

And yes, as thick as I appear to be, I realize that what we have now is a good bit beefier than a tribal chieftain. So much beefier, in fact, that I believe it will, before long, collapse under it's own weight. When THAT occurs, it usually follows that the law so feared by 'society', the law of the jungle, comes into effect for a period, sometimes greater, sometimes lesser, but always it comes for SOME period. I don't worry too much about that myself, since 'society' brings it on itself by allowing such to take place, but the advancements lost in such collapses are always a terrible waste.

It seems to me that if 'society' really worried so much in the matter, they ought to properly be keeping government within it's limits - but general fear of freedom won't allow that limitation. Lots of people these days fear not only the freedoms that OTHERS seek, but appear to increasingly fear the responsibility attendant upon their OWN freedom. More's the pity. They bring this on their own heads thereby.

The quote from Blackstone was particularly applicable. It reads to me to be very similar to what I'm saying - a degree of government is necessary and healthy. Towards the end of the passage you quote, you'll no doubt notice what Blackstone has to say about a government that exceeds it's proper boundaries.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Government is increasingly becoming a parasite on society. A certain degree of governance is of course necessary, but when it gets to the unwieldy degree of restriction we have now, making laws simply to justify it's own existence, or to further fleece the society it lives off of, then there is a problem developing. This is why, so far, no government has lasted forever. It always increases itself to the point that it collapses under it's own weight, and the ire of the individuals it seeks to subjugate.

No argument. No solution. But I do know this: The answer is NOT opting out if one is interested in at least trying to prove that history does not have to be future.

Luckily, I have no such interest, hence my opt-out. History will ALWAYS be future until humanity learns the proper limits of government. They have not learned it this cycle, and one of me screaming in the wilderness of society is not enough to teach them at this late date in the game. Far greater minds than mine have tried in the past, to no apparent effect.


[edit on 2010/6/27 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by whatukno

If you have your own land, and want to drive a car without a license or proof of insurance, it's your land, knock yourself out.

Doesn't work that way in NC. In NC, the state claims you must be licensed to drive even on your own land.

Really? How odd. In SC you are not allowed to drive intoxicated anywhere, public or private, but as to just being licensed, no.

Well, I moved here in 1990 or 1991, and that's the way it was then, as stated in the Driver's Handbook. I took my license to the Sheriff's Office about 5 years ago now and told them to keep it, and so haven't been keeping up with the laws on the matter lately. I can only presume that it is now as it was then, since laws are rarely thrown away around here - just new ones made to pile on top of the old.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Indeed there are, and I DO live with the consequences of my actions. I live with the consequences of a lot of OTHER folks actions, too, and I've never had it adequately explained to me why I should do that.

Because...

If people want to do this, they should go buy land off in the middle of nowhere, grow their own food, raise their own cattle, chickens, pigs, goats. Cut themselves free from everything.

That's what I do, more or less.

There's your problem, doing things half assed.

[edit on 6/27/2010 by whatukno]

Well then Wuk, since you've apparently been keeping a pretty close eye on me to make the determination that I'm doing things 'half-assed', I'd appreciate your input on the specifics, so that I can address those problem areas and fix these little problems. You're all about co-operation, I hear, so you ought not to have a problem helping out!

Leaving things vague like that - 'half-assed', I believe was the phrase again - is just not sporting, or conducive to an orderly society!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by whatukno

 

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

If murder is so self-evidently wrong and against Natural Law that we are all endowed with by our creator or creation, then please do explain to me why we have so much murder? Why so much legal murder in societies that do not ascribe to Western Culture?

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

According to your logic if an individual opts out of the licensing scheme then suddenly their advocates of rape, as if it isn't self evident that rape is an abrogation and derogation of another persons right, and you have all ready gone on record in this thread as being dismissive of natural rights, so if anyone is advocating rape, it is you.

Put me on record as "being dismissive of natural rights" as well. It seems "Natural Rights" are just whatever one chooses to say they are. Conveniently, you frame them within Western Civilization's morals and ethics, but those are *far* from universal. In reality, they go pretty much only as far as Western Civilization.

No, I don't believe a person who subscribes to the Freemen philosophy is a sociopath, as in murderer or rapist or the like, but neither do I believe they would not commit these crimes because they were born with an innate understanding that they are wrong.

According to your logic, natural law doesn't work for the child anymore than it works for the individual who asserts their right to travel. You disingenuously pretend that it is you and the society that you alone claim to speak for, and the legislature you are running for that can protect that child with a civil right. According to your logic, a child does not have an inalienable right to their own body, only a statutory right. According to your logic a man or woman does not have an inalienable right to protect their own bodies from rape, only a civil right granted them by government, and according to your logic no person has an inalienable right to life, only a civil right granted by government, and by logical extension, if a government is granting people the right to life, they can take it away upon the whims of a legislature.

Bit of a stretch there don't ya think? @whatukno said no such thing, nor even intimated such.

You are not advocating the right to life, liberty and happiness, you are advocating the right of the majority to bully the minority, and you do so quite whimsically, and when it suits your purposes, you will pretend otherwise. You pretend that anyone that would assert their Constitutionally protected natural rights can not see what is self evident, and then whimsically turn around and suggest that most people do, but only those people who agree to surrender to the collective. People in a co-operative society agree to institute governments to protect the rights of the individual, but the problem is bullies like you who want to dismiss that co-operation and make it about controlling everyone, and whimsically deciding who gets rights and who doesn't. You aren't for equality under the law, you are for the equal imposition of legislation.

If these rights were so "natural" and unalienable, *why* did we need a Constitution to grant them to us? Why do we so jealously guard them? Why do we hold them so precious and dear and dare I say, sacred? If they were "natural" they would be as common as the very dirt in my yard. The fact that they are all of those things: precious, dear, scared, speaks to the very fact that they are *not* "natural."

You seem to think that the only way law can exist is by legislation, as if Newton legislated gravity, and is if you could protect earth from an incoming asteroid simply by writing a "law" making it illegal for asteroids to enter earth's orbit. Hell, you would probably attempt to write a law making Pi an even 3.0 to make doing the math easier if you thought you could get away with it. Law is law, and legislation is legislation, sometimes the two are in agreement, but with this licensing scheme, they just simply aren't, and you have to resort to fallacious arguments in order to defend legislation that has nothing to do with law.

Devolving into the ludicrous no more demonstrates a sound point of fact or logic than does rudeness and abusiveness. You, sir, are quite capable of better. I know, I've read such from you. We all know that not even President Obama can rewrite the rules of nature... though I'm sure he would if he could.

Sorry, it's late. Churlishness doesn't go down as well at 4am as it does at 4pm. Beliefs on this issue are rather passionately held by each side of the argument. And although I do not know the gender of @whatukno statistically I would lay odds that they are female. You see, females are *biologically* wired to *value* "orderly society" to a far greater extent than the male of the species. After all... it takes a "special kinda woman" to not only be able to wallow around in the mud with the men, but also one who has no compunction about doing so.


[edit on 27/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It's just reality my friend.

In natural law, murder is completely justified because of survival of the fittest. In essence, you are trying to justify why you shouldn't have to obey laws you don't like because of the law of the jungle.

In natural law, while murder may be condemned as the terrible act it is, society could not produce justice because according to you, there should be no law against murder.

According to natural law as you put it, the only recourse people could have is to file a wrongful death suit against the alleged perpetrator of the crime.

Sadly the whole premise of your idea of natural law is fallacy and complete twaddle. You would use such an idea as natural law to ignore society and ignore what most everyone has come to expect from each other because you feel superior in that you should be able to pick and choose what laws you obey or ignore.



As far as the person in the video goes, yes he was cooperating with the police, he was even polite. He gave the police enough bull [snip] to sort through so that they decided not to bother with it.

I understand that a lot of posters on here are anarchists to a certain degree, they don't like cops, they don't like governments, they don't like anything they see as an invasion of their own personal territory. "Government should deliver the mail and stay out of my life." Well, if government just did that, there would be people who complained about the mail being too intrusive.

I don't deal with hyperbole very well and frankly my friend, your argument is full of it.