I said legality is a statement by silence of the government not liberty. Governments create laws, laws create the state of legality
That's what you're still confused about - you yourself characterized legality as the "status quo" that is "accepted" NOT created.
or its reverse and thus the legal status quo.
No government, no laws, no laws no legality
Now who's haggling over idiomatic English? No government means EVERYTHING is legal.
or illegality and thus no legal status quo.The government creates the default position by the standard that whatever is not forbidden is permitted
Show us the governmental enactment that whatever is not forbidden is permitted. If you can't then the government did NOT create that default position.
You should first establish how any of those differences are relevant to the point - which is simply that there is such a phenomenon as shared ownership that is not created by law (although there may be laws regarding it to assist in dispute resolution) but is an extension of the natural individual rights to own property and to enter into mutual agreements.
You brought up stocks and I established that it was a poor comparison to public ownership because of those differences..
Wrong - you merely listed some differences, and have yet to establish that any of those differences are relevant to the point above.
”Accumulation of private ownerships” is a strange way of putting it - maybe that points to the source of your problem. I'm simply talking about mutiple persons all sharing ownership - a concept well known in the private sphere.
And shared ownership is the basis of public property but by using the same terms it does not follow that the two concepts are variations or extensions of one from the other. Public ownership is not “...an extension of the natural individual rights to own property and to enter into mutual agreements.” as those differences show. The one is quite dissimilar to the other.
You conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Your list of differences proves only that private and public ownership are not identical (which I never said or implied they were) not that they are not variations or extensions.
You failed - you simply pretended that the rights of mutual ownership were identical to those of sole ownership.
Nope. No pretending involved, just high lighting the lack of logic in some of your arguments.
Wrong - all you highlighted was your hamhanded misrepresentation of my argument.
Private rights precede public rights according to the foundational Declaration of Independence and being Creator endowed cannot be removed.
Where exactly does the Declaration of Independence say that private rights precede public rights?
Ahhhh...you might try paragraph one and two.
Those say that anything created by law is preceded by private rights. They do not contradict the point that the rights of the public are not created by law, but are the natural rights of each individual that makes up the public - that each has the right to disallow others from defacating or lovemaking on his property, so the public has that right on public property.
If you want to speak of personal motives....What I said was that favoring restrictions or banning and disapproval went hand and hand. Others may have their own calculus but I am not that way.
So your calculus excludes limits to governmental authority?
So as to your question of limitations on government power or authority, of course there are and should be limitations.
So it's possible in theory that there might be something of which you disapprove but the banning of which exceeds limitations on government authority?
No answer?
As to burdens of proof and medical marijuana cards, I think what I did cite
Please point out any evidence you cited - I see none, only claims by you.
How is that relevant to the fact that my defecating in private infringes on nobody else’s rights? Note that the right to defecate in no way implies the right to do with one’s feces whatever one pleases.
Infringing on other’s rights while practicing your own rights and needs are what sanitation regulations are designed to avoid and that without such regulations some people do tend to do whatever they please, endangering all.
None of that addresses my point.
And “lovemaking on his property”? Do I really need to point to laws against incest and bestiality?
No, since “the already mentioned example of lovemaking” I cited was “make love with their spouses.” Can you cite any restrictions on that private act?
I simply responded to the phrase you used.
After taking it out of context - which I have now restored. Can you cite any restrictions on the private act of making love with one's spouse?
And they were right - private acts of sodomy infringe on nobody else’s rights.
Well, we've seen where that leads.
No, we've seen you engage in the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. That one thing followed another chronologically simply does not establish a logical connection between them.
And that brings up the question of why incest and bestiality should not be legal on the same basis..
Animals have no rights, and incest as it exists in the real world is rape without the overt threat of force.
the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.
“Animals have no rights, and incest as it exists in the real world is rape without the overt threat of force.”
By your own criteria then both should be legal as no one’s rights are violated and acts between consenting adults in private are not the governments business.
By the bye, did you find what you were looking for in the Declaration?