It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No I rely on licensing schemes because people will lie about absolutely ANYTHING.
When people check into the hotel I work at, I take down the information on their ID, why? Because when they trash the room, I want to know who to send the cops after.
Someone steels your car, can't prosecute John Smith now can you? Oh that's right, no prosecution whatsoever, it would be up to you the individual to file a claim in a civil court. Course you would have to get hold of John Smith, but since he doesn't have to carry ID, well, good luck in a nation with 350 million people in it.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces
No one needs a "legal" definition for happiness in order to pursue it. If you are asking because "(We) people seem to be giving legal definitions" of terms such as driving and travel, you are missing the point. If there is a legal definition then that definition has to be considered when operating within the confines of the law. If there is a legal definition, it is not "(we) people" who imposed this definition, but rather a legislature that did.
In terms of the "legal" definition of the term happiness, the first thing that should be noted is that what is protected is the right to pursue it. Pursuit or pursing is no more defined by the California constitution then happiness is, and since it is not defined by constitution, then the legislature can not at a later date seek to define it, which is why you are having difficulty finding a "legal" definition of the term happiness.
When there is no "legal" definition supplied by constitution or statute, then we must turn to the ordinary usage of the word. Webster's online dictionary provides:
Main Entry: hap·pi·ness
Pronunciation: \ˈha-pē-nəs\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 obsolete : good fortune : prosperity
2 a : a state of well-being and contentment : joy
b : a pleasurable or satisfying experience
3 : felicity, aptness
Webster's defines pursue as:
1. Main Entry: pur·sue
Pronunciation: \pər-ˈsü, -ˈsyü\
Function: verb Inflected Form(s): pur·sued; pur·su·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French pursure, pursiure, from Latin prosequi, from pro- forward + sequi to follow — more at pro-, sue
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1 : to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat
2 : to find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish : seek
3 : to proceed along
4 a : to engage in b : to follow up or proceed with
5 : to continue to afflict : haunt
6 : 2chase 1c
Given the context of the word, both the second, and third definitions would be most applicable.
Since you wish to quibble over what legal definitions are, perhaps you would be interested to note what the legal definition of license is:
The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.
So you are basically saying it means nothing. Right?
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces
So you are basically saying it means nothing. Right?
Obviously this is what you are saying, but cowardly so.
The way you put effort into passively attacking everyone who questions your position shows that you are the weak coward here.
From my position, it appears that you have no idea what you are talking about.
It's almost as if you are giving out some information and saying "believe it or you are wrong" and then just attacking anyone who is questioning you.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces
The way you put effort into passively attacking everyone who questions your position shows that you are the weak coward here.
There is nothing passive in my attacks at all, I bring them head on without apology. When freedom is being attacked, I defend it. Clearly you have a problem with this, but this is your problem, as I care little what cowards think.
From my position, it appears that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Right, this is coming from one who claims to be "just a generally curious poster", but whatever it is you are curious about, the facts of law I have posted and linked, you fail to speak to intelligently and instead, "generally" dismiss my knowledge of law by claiming it "appears" I have no idea what I am talking about. It may "appear" this way to you, but then again, I have no interest in how things appear to a coward.
It's almost as if you are giving out some information and saying "believe it or you are wrong" and then just attacking anyone who is questioning you.
When I give out information, I take the time to post a link so people can read that information for themselves and make their own conclusions. Further, when I joined this thread, I did so responding to assertions Whatukno made, and I posted information, provided links to that information and asked him what he thought of this.
Wuk "reserved" the right to consider it and speak to that information at a "later date", but has not yet spoken to it and instead has attacked people for relying on the law in order to assert their inalienable rights.
Now you come in and obsequiously pretend to be "just a generally curious poster", but your agenda is clear and your cowardly attacks are evident.
[edit on 27-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
I'm sure my agenda is "clear" to you. After all, anyone who generally questions your position is a coward, a liar, and not fit to a freeman.
So you are basically saying it means nothing. Right?
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RestingInPieces
I'm sure my agenda is "clear" to you. After all, anyone who generally questions your position is a coward, a liar, and not fit to a freeman.
I did not take the time to post and link several definitions to make the point that they mean nothing, and yet, you smugly responded to that effort by saying:
So you are basically saying it means nothing. Right?
Had you responded by saying you thought that those definitions meant nothing we could have had a conversation about that, but instead, you chose to take the cowards stance and claim that what you believe is what I was saying.
As to me calling Wuk on his deceptions, they are deceptions that Wuk is relying upon in order to make his argument, and if they are deceptions they should be called out, just as your cowardly deceptions should be called out.
For a "generally curious poster", you don't seem at all interested in discussing the law and much more interested in attacking those who you disagree with, just cowardly so.
You might have this pie eyed view of the world where everyone is honest and upstanding citizens, where everyone is all good, and everyone can be completely trusted. But I deal with reality, and reality dictates that if you think that way, you are going to be ripped off.
This freeman anarchy society doesn't work because people will lie to get out of trouble, if you say to people, oh no, no id required to drive a car, no worries, you also get this.
Are you sure you aren't working for the "other side" and attempting to make the freeman movement look like a bunch of idiots?
... because that is what you are doing. Congratulations if you are doing it on purpose; if you are not doing it on purpose, I would seriously suggest that you change your approach. I've been a freeman for 5 years.
Can you give me the legal definition of happiness? You people seem to be giving legal definitions of driving, traveling, etc... etc... How about the legal definition of happiness? Can't find it? Maybe it's just semantics, a "trap" to make you think a certain way, just like all the idiots who think driving a car and traveling in a car are the same thing. Both sides end the same.
The point of giving people the benefit of the doubt is that when you do so you allow the other person to either earn this benefit or remove all doubt. Once doubt has been removed, then it is easier to act accordingly. Of course, you can take the cynical view and decide that "without a doubt" all people are criminals and not worthy of being trusted, but such a dim view of people in general will only alienate others from you.
Originally posted by verylowfrequency
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
As has been mentioned - fuel taxes are what pay for our highway infrastructure. At least that which isn't siphoned off for other uses by parasites.
Once that fact destroys your argument, you speculate that he might be making his own fuel - thus bypassing fuel taxes.
So, he paid for his share to use the highway. If you're still jealous, find a better argument.
There are many here that have earned that trust, but they earned it, I did not just give it up to be burned. I don't work that way.
I assume that everyone is a con artist, and then they prove to me that they aren't. I am not a court of law, I do not have to hold to the standard of innocent till proven guilty.
This freeman anarchy society you are advocating is much like the honor bar system, except in your society there are no housekeepers to inventory the stock and no credit card to guarantee payment.
You are assuming that there aren't a lot of people that would just go around committing crimes because there would be zero way they could get caught, and no responsibility if they happen to get caught.
However, your contention that you are a not a court of law would be fine if it weren't for the fact that you are running for a Congressional seat. If elected, you will be legislating statutes, and codes based upon your perception of reality.
Except you are blurring the line between the Judicial branch, and the Legislative branch of government, if elected, I won't be a judge now will I? I will be a congressman. There is a HUGE difference, a congressman cannot judge you guilty.
Listen, don't get me wrong, go ahead, drive without a license, hell you can go murder someone. Just don't come crying to me when you get put in jail for it.
I have a hard time imagining myself actually murdering someone, and even have a hard time imagining that I would be arrested and charged with the crime of murder while being innocent of the crime charged, but it is far easier to imagine being falsely arrested for a crime I did not commit than actually committing that crime. If I ever was falsely arrested for a crime I did not commit, you are the last person I would come "crying to", as I would want to be able to rely on competent assistance of counsel, which means someone who understands the law. Tragically that is not you.
Originally posted by whatukno
You are assuming that there aren't a lot of people that would just go around committing crimes because there would be zero way they could get caught, and no responsibility if they happen to get caught.