Law

[numinus]

Arguably, the purpose of any law is to control all other people. For instance, I would never commit murder, but I think you may murder me, so I think that there should be a law against murder. Following that logic, there comes a flood of laws that will "control" all people until there is very little freedom left.

Although I can cite example after example, I will cite only one: I grew up on the east shore of Lake Michigan. In this area, there are several county parks that have access to the lake. At that time the parks were "unimproved" being nothing more than a flat gravel parking area. As a teenage my Friends and I would while away time at these beaches. At night we would build a drift wood fire and cook hot dogs and such. I remember staying until the sun came up on one occasion. It was heaven. Now the parks are gated, and a sign indicates that the gate will be closed at 10:00 PM. There is no pressing reason to enact that type of law, except by the reasoning that someone might make a noise nuisance after dark.

If I were a teenage, I would feel no obligation to respect that law...I would sneak in anyway. Or, even as an adult if I were inclined. It is public property...it belongs to me.

As stated by an earlier poster, everyone knowingly breaks some law. Many are pointless, many are ridicules, many are just means of additional taxes (try to dig a hole in your backyard without a permit).

Even government entities break laws. The CIA now admits to illegal domestic spying. Police have been frequently involved in burglary, assault, and even murder. The people who make laws break laws (congressmen, senators).

I break many laws. For instance, to ensure that my geese are not having their eggs eaten out from under them in the spring I have and will continue to kill raccoons by the dozens. To do it "legally" I would have to prove there is a problem and get a permit. By the time I prove there is a problem, the eggs would have been eaten.

The average human I.Q. is 100. A 100 I.Q. is that of a dullard. Consider that the people you elect often have only slightly above average I.Q. They are easily convinced that any new restriction is a "good idea".

"...Freedom is just anther word for: there is nothing left to lose..."?

You are talking about HUMAN LAW.

There is also the operation of nature, which is also LAW.

All laws derive their authority from principles that are immutably and logically true.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

You are talking about HUMAN LAW.

There is also the operation of nature, which is also LAW.

All laws derive their authority from principles that are immutably and logically true.

Well, well, well, you seem to be changing your tune over in this thread.

Unfortunately, it's hard for you to detemine what's logical, when you're completely irrational.

I should have the freedom to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that I choose. As long as I do not use force, fraud or coercion against another human being, no one should interfere with my liberty. That is a logical truth. So why don't you support my right to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that I choose?

 

[Coyote]

Well, well, well, you seem to be changing your tune over in this thread.

Unfortunately, it's hard for you to detemine what's logical, when you're completely irrational.

I should have the freedom to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that I choose. As long as I do not use force, fraud or coercion against another human being, no one should interfere with my liberty. That is a logical truth. So why don't you support my right to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that I choose?

Why? ...

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Why? ...

I asked the question first. Why do you fail to answer my questions and instead ask a new one? Not that it was even directed at you to begin with.

 

[Coyote]

I asked the question first. Why do you fail to answer my questions and instead ask a new one? Not that it was even directed at you to begin with.

Who cares who it was directed to? This is a public forum. I am simply asking WHY...

"I should have the freedom to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that I choose. As long as I do not use force, fraud or coercion against another human being, no one should interfere with my liberty."​

It's a pretty simple question. And since you haven't asked me any questions in this thread, I have not failed to answer any.

 

[Coyote]

So...I'm still wondering WHY....?

 

[ArmChair General]

Actually, the founders acknowledged that inalienable rights derive from the creator. Its there in the declaration of independence.

Actually if you read it, they did use the word creator (Though that word was originally left out, and only added later), but taken in context with the rest of the document its quite obvious they were referring to Natures God, more of a paganistic form of belief.

 

[numinus]

Actually if you read it, they did use the word creator (Though that word was originally left out, and only added later), but taken in context with the rest of the document its quite obvious they were referring to Natures God, more of a paganistic form of belief.

Actually, if you read it, you would notice that the declaration is a plagiarism of the concepts expounded by john locke in the 2nd treatise of civil government.

Natures god indeed!

 

[numinus]

Well, well, well, you seem to be changing your tune over in this thread.

No such thing.

Unfortunately, it's hard for you to detemine what's logical, when you're completely irrational.

And I suppose you erroneously think that the creator is not a consequence of logical thought, hmm?

You're in way over your head if you wish to argue this with me.

From the looks of it, your a one-trick-dog. I know you're ENTIRE repertoire of arguments.

I should have the freedom to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that I choose. As long as I do not use force, fraud or coercion against another human being, no one should interfere with my liberty. That is a logical truth. So why don't you support my right to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that I choose?

And I support you on this.

What I don't support is your INSISTENCE on evading your taxes.

By all standards, that is FRAUD.

 

[palerider]

Actually if you read it, they did use the word creator (Though that word was originally left out, and only added later), but taken in context with the rest of the document its quite obvious they were referring to Natures God, more of a paganistic form of belief.

It doesn't matter so much where the rights come from or even whether or not they actually exist as it does that they instituted a government whose responsibility it was to protect them.

 

[ArmChair General]

Actually, if you read it, you would notice that the declaration is a plagiarism of the concepts expounded by john locke in the 2nd treatise of civil government.

Natures god indeed!

Are you disputing what I said or agreeing with it?

 

[numinus]

Are you disputing what I said or agreeing with it?

I'm disputing it.

Paganism was never part of john locke's political philosophy, nor is it part of the declaration of independence, which is patterned after that philosophy.

 

[ArmChair General]

I'm disputing it.

Paganism was never part of john locke's political philosophy, nor is it part of the declaration of independence, which is patterned after that philosophy.

have you read the declaration?


obviously not.

 

[numinus]

have you read the declaration?


obviously not.

I have.

Have you?