Posted on 04/04/2017 9:30:05 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
In “A History of American Political Theories,” Charles Merriam stated, “The Revolutionary doctrines of an original state of nature, natural rights, the social contract, the idea that the function of the government is limited to the protection of person and property - none of these finds wide acceptance among the leaders in the development of political science.”
To illustrate this erroneous line of reasoning, New Zealand’s legislators recently passed a law giving the Whanganui River the legal status of a “PERSON.” The river now has its own rights and the ability to represent “itself” through human representation. Although New Zealand’s legislators are elected by the governed, a change in the meaning of one single word modified their entire structure of government – a government created by natural born persons.
A young Center for Self-Governance student, when asked to define “person” during a Level 1 training class, said “I would walk up to one and say hello.” It seems pretty straightforward and logical to most of us. However, it’s not so logical if the law re-defines the meaning of “person” and the meaning is different than our understanding.
Presently in New Zealand, the governed are now defined as categories of persons, such as “a legally generated juridical person,” “an artificial person,” and “a legal person,” just to name a few. The direct result is that the government is now used by the elected governors to protect and defend more than just natural-born persons, witness the Whanganui River.
The New Zealand legislature’s action did not constrict the expansion of government and the control delegated to those who are elected, but rather, EXPANDED IT. By changing the definition of words, rights for natural born persons are nullified in favor of increasing the size of government. Is it not the primary purpose of government...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...
It’s a three headed beast named Fluffy.
Whether it’s certain death or a good dog, is ultimately up to voters.
Meanwhile Trump appears to have the dog mostly obedient and productive.
Hmmm. According to some “so called” judges in India, glaciers are living things with rights so, yeah, based on that I suppose the govt is a living thing. LOL! They move about the same speed.
Kind of like a cross between an octopus and vampire bat.
“Words Matter” to lawyers, journalist, and writers. To the rest of us ‘actions matter’...
The brass ring for the greedy, corrupt, ethically challenged, and pure evil. That’s the new civil servants.
Government is a living creature—a whorganism!
and you wonder why I left...
It’s a livin’ thing
It’s a terrible thing to lose
It’s a given thing
What a terrible thing to lose
1) Our actions are reactions to words. A political candidate is all words.. promises, spinning of the past, obfuscation of the present.
Based on words we act to vote hoping the candidate’s future actions are consistent with past campaign promises.
2) Citizens United defined a corporation as a person with the corporation having Bill of Rights freedoms. A corporation is, of course, a collection of human persons. When does a collection of human persons have the rights of the individuals within that collection?
A “church” does not have rights? But the individuals inside the church have rights individuallly. And then they have rights collectively as the “church”?
Do Hobby Lobby, Sisters of Charity, etc have rights?
The direction of the left is to grants rights to collections of individuals and reject them for individuals. Thus to the left, a church has freedom or religion inside its church walls. But an individual does not have freedom of religion except inside the church walls as part of the church.
An established, “legitimate” newspaper has freedom of the press. But an individual blogger does not have freedom of the press, except inside the “legitimate” newspaper.
1) Our actions are reactions to words. A political candidate is all words.. promises, spinning of the past, obfuscation of the present.
Based on words we act to vote hoping the candidate’s future actions are consistent with past campaign promises.
2) Citizens United defined a corporation as a person with the corporation having Bill of Rights freedoms. A corporation is, of course, a collection of human persons. When does a collection of human persons have the rights of the individuals within that collection?
A “church” does not have rights? But the individuals inside the church have rights individuallly. And then they have rights collectively as the “church”?
Do Hobby Lobby, Sisters of Charity, etc have rights?
The direction of the left is to grants rights to collections of individuals and reject them for individuals. Thus to the left, a church has freedom or religion inside its church walls. But an individual does not have freedom of religion except inside the church walls as part of the church.
An established, “legitimate” newspaper has freedom of the press. But an individual blogger does not have freedom of the press, except inside the “legitimate” newspaper.
We have the same freedoms the press has - AND then some. How so? We're not held to as high a legal standard as they are...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.