Posted on 02/20/2006 6:24:40 AM PST by Shalom Israel
I remember OWK but nothing specific. Unless my memory fails me we did exchange a few posts.
Did "OWK" really stand for "One Who Knows"?
"anarchy does not work"
Seems like there's a bumper sticker or something that goes: If the anrachists get their way the rest of us can kill them.
Then let me ask again: did you really think "anything" meant "absolutely anything under the sun"? Hello.
There's nothing contractual about it, son. You're on my land. You have no right to be on my land (you may recall me mentioning that already). You received the privilege from me, but I've revoked it. You're now a trespasser. Per the original contract, if you comply with my demand to leave, I must give you enough time to get off my land, but that's the full extent of my obligation. If you refuse my demand, I have the right to eject you because you're on my land without permission.
You don't accept that (1) property rights are absolute, (2) only voluntary agreements can waive or alter property rights and (3) contracts entered under duress are invalid. If you accepted those facts fully, your thinking would not be so muddy in addressing examples like these.
By what I understand to be your standards, I don't see how you can disagree with that unless you try to prove I did sign up which I'm sure you'll try.
By coming on my land with my permission, we entered a contract. The terms bound me not to assault you, and to let you leave; the terms bound you to abide by the house rules--where, naturally, unusual rules need to be stipulated in advance. I can withdraw the privilege of being on my property more or less at will, but I must allow you to leave in that case. If you breach the contract, then you have lost the privilege of being on my land, and are now a trespasser.
You can't claim you made no agreement, since you actually walked onto my land. If you didn't wish to accept the contract, you refrain from walking onto my land.
Your muddy thinking is what confuses "entering my property" with "failing to flee the country". One is a voluntary action on your part; the other is an ultimatum on my part.
Seems like there's a bumper sticker or something that goes: If the anarchists get their way the rest of us can kill them.
You got it: --
Lysander Spooner argues in "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" that the Constitution is not and cannot be binding on people who did not explicitly consent to it - that the "we the people" in the preamble is a fiction.
Randy Barnett in his book "A Presumption of Liberty" argues for a view that a Constitution can be legitimate and binding in the absence of explicit consent if it incorporates appropriate limitations on government to safeguard individual rights.
Our Bill of Rights accomplished that task in 1791, and it has been ignored by many ever since.
I tell you again:
You're the one who went off sideways with gravity and angels and ghosts and such. I started out writing about banning life and liberty.
I put it in "bold." Can you see it now?
The 'absolutists' who think property rights trump our RKBA's are at it again:
Gun proposal to trigger clash over rights
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1586437/posts
Kriskrinkle wrote: "I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with those blanket terms,..."
In response to which Shalom Israel started with: "There's nothing contractual about it, son."
Then at various times throughout the post wrote:
"Per the original contract,..."
"contracts entered..."
"By coming on my land with my permission, we entered a contract."
"If you breach the contract,..."
"If you didn't wish to accept the contract,..."
Aw, come on.
You start out saying "There's nothing contractual about it, son" then bring in the contractual aspect five different times.
Your post lacks internal consistency big time.
Do you really think you made a worthy response?
You still miss my point. You pester me with your insistence that banning "anything he wants" does not actually encompass everything imaginable. You offered two counter-examples--and I explained why they are counterexamples, and followed up with several more counterexamples. Yet you remain convinced that you have a substantive objection here. Yeesh.
On the contrary. If I shoot you as a trespasser, that's an act of self-defense. Contracts have nothing to do with giving me the right of self-defense. That right is inalienable, and does not proceed from any human agreement or institution.
Back when you weren't a trespasser, a contract was what made your presence licit. That's what protected you from my fiery vengeance. When you breached the contract, the protection was removed, and you became a trespasser.
Being a trespasser, my right to self defense is back in force, and I plug you full of lead not because a contract says I can, but because it's my inalienable right as a property owner.
Kriskrinkle wrote: I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with those blanket terms, therefore I am not obligated to accept those blanket terms.
Begin what Shalom Israel wrote annotated with waht Kriskrinkle writes:
There's nothing contractual about it, son.
You're on my land. You have no right to be on my land (you may recall me mentioning that already). (Kriskrinkle writes: I recall your saying that but I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement that I have no right to be on your land if I am recovering personnel property you stole from me and I maintain the right to do so. By stating “you have NO right” you have once again made an overbroad statement that you must try to wriggle out of to justify a position you should have thought about more.) You received the privilege from me, but I've revoked it. You're now a trespasser. Per the original contract, (Kriskrinkle writes: 1. If Shalom Israel’s opening words “There's nothing contractual about it, son” are true then it is not possible for the words “Per the original contract” to be true plus those words are irrelevant. 2. If Shalom Israel’s opening words “There's nothing contractual about it, son” are false then it is possible for the words “Per the original contract” to be true but even so they are not true because I already denied “signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with those blanket terms, therefore I am not obligated to accept those blanket terms” and if I did not sign the contract by some means there is no original contract.) .if you comply with my demand to leave, I must give you enough time to get off my land, (Kriskrinkle writes: You may be glad to know that I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement that you must give me enough time to get off your land.) but that's the full extent of my obligation. If you refuse my demand, I have the right to eject you because you're on my land without permission.
You don't accept that (1) property rights are absolute, (Kriskrinkle writes: I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to that effect. You have no right to attribute that position to me.) (2) only voluntary agreements can waive or alter property rights and (3) contracts entered under duress are invalid. (Kriskrinkle writes: This statement is irrelevant in view of the opening comment “There's nothing contractual about it, son”) If you accepted those facts fully, your thinking would not be so muddy (Kriskrinkle writes: You keep making mutually exclusive statements and accuse me of muddy thinking? Show that the contradictory statements I’ve pointed out really aren’t contradictory) in addressing examples like these.
Kriskrinkle wrote: By what I understand to be your standards, I don't see how you can disagree with that unless you try to prove I did sign up which I'm sure you'll try.
By coming on my land with my permission, (Kriskrinkle writes: By the way, where did I say I was on your land with your permission? More on that later.) we entered a contract. (Kriskrinkle writes: 1. If Shalom Israel’s opening words “There's nothing contractual about it, son” are true then it is not possible for the words “By coming on my land with my permission, we entered a contract” to be true.” 2. I already denied “signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with those blanket terms, therefore I am not obligated to accept those blanket terms” and there is no contract.
The terms bound me not to assault you, and to let you leave; the terms bound you to abide by the house rules--where, naturally, unusual rules need to be stipulated in advance. (Kriskrinkle writes: In regard to the entire previous sentence, I already denied “signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with those blanket terms, therefore I am not obligated to accept those blanket terms” and there is no contract, there are no terms.) I can withdraw the privilege of being on my property more or less at will, but I must allow you to leave in that case. (Kriskrinkle writes: I deny “signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement in regard to whether or not you must allow me to leave.) If you breach the contract, (Kriskrinkle writes: 1. If Shalom Israel’s opening words “There's nothing contractual about it, son” are true then there is no contract. 2. I deny “signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement” and there is no contract.) then you have lost the privilege of being on my land, and are now a trespasser.
You can't claim you made no agreement, since you actually walked onto my land. (Kriskrinkle writes: I never claimed I walked on your land. More on that later.) If you didn't wish to accept the contract, (Kriskrinkle writes: 1. If Shalom Israel’s opening words “There's nothing contractual about it, son” are true then there is no contract. 2. I deny “signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement” and there is no contract.) you refrain from walking onto my land.
Your muddy thinking is what confuses "entering my property" with "failing to flee the country". One is a voluntary action on your part; the other is an ultimatum on my part.
End what Shalom Israel wrote annotated with waht Kriskrinkle writes
Note 1:
1. I wrote “I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with those blanket terms, therefore I am not obligated to accept those blanket terms.”
2. You wrote “There's nothing contractual about it, son. “
3. In spite of the above, you keep referring to contracts and terms and agreements and so forth that we both agree (Note 1 and 2 above) aren’t in play and then you denigrate my thinking.
Note 2:
In regard to “By coming on my land with my permission” and “You can't claim you made no agreement, since you actually walked onto my land” where I said “More on that later,” this is later. Those are your assumptions. My assumption was that I was on your land through no fault of my own, that I was run off the road or a passenger in a plane that crashed or blown there by a tornado—anything like that such that I was not on your land by choice.
Note 3:
What makes you think you have any property rights? Didn’t you say you subscribe to the “Chain of theft”? By your standard wasn’t any property you claim to own (you are in Pennsylvania aren’t you) stolen at some point and therefore you have no right to it and you should return it to its rightful owners?
Note 4
Consider that if you don’t agree to the social contract and I haven’t agreed to all the petty little contracts you’ve tried to force on me we are not joined in society. That would mean our relationship is the same as it would have been if we’d shared the same forest 10000 years ago.
Note 5
There are probably editorial errors and so forth in the above but you haven’t shown the wit to follow all this so it's not worth the effort it would take to find and fix them.
“On the contrary. If I shoot you as a trespasser, that's an act of self-defense. “
As I noted, using your standard our relationship is as if we shared the same forest 10000 years ago. If I think you are going to use force against me for some ridiculous reason of your own (you don’t believe in the social contract and I haven’t agreed to any of the contracts you say I agreed to so we have no commonality) then it is a matter of self defense to use force to prevent you from doing so.
“ Contracts have nothing to do with giving me the right of self-defense. That right is inalienable, and does not proceed from any human agreement or institution. “
Which is why I can use force as noted above.
“Back when you weren't a trespasser, a contract was what made your presence licit. “
There are no contracts between us.
“That's what protected you from my fiery vengeance. “
Yeah, right.
“When you breached the contract, the protection was removed, and you became a trespasser. “
What part of there is no contract between us do you not understand?
“Being a trespasser, my right to self defense is back in force, and I plug you full of lead not because a contract says I can, but because it's my inalienable right as a property owner.”
As I noted, using your standard our relationship is as if we shared the same forest 10000 years ago. You don’t believe in the social contract and I haven’t agreed to any of the contracts you say I agreed to so we have no commonality. That being the case, how do you claim any right as a property owner of land? Who agreed that you could mark off a section of the forest that everybody else was using yesterday and call us trespassers for using it today?
Yeah, I read the headline the other day but I didn't go into the thread and read the posts till you brought it too my attention again.
I don't recall seeing a convincing argument that property rights truly always trump other rights. It best the arguements rest on some assumption I believe is false. More frequently it boils down to property rights trump just because they are property rights and I don't buy that.
I could say more but I don't want to get started.
I will say: So much errot, so little time.
(Not that I'm never in error myself, but somebody needs to prove so, not just say so, before I agree there's an error.)
You persistently fail to recognize the existence of private property. That makes any sort of discussion rather pointless. Among other things, it means that when you find yourself on someone else's land, and he does something about it, you're confused enough to claim the right to defend yourself against the property owner.
What part of there is no contract between us do you not understand?
If there's no contract, and you're on my land, then you are an aggressor and I have the right to defend my self and property. You can't claim "self defense", since you're already in process of committing a criminal act.
Property rights are the only rights that exist. The "right" to KBA proceeds from the fact that you can't stop the owner of the ore from selling it to someone who makes steel, and you can't stop him from selling it to someone who makes guns, and you can't stop him from selling the guns to whomever he pleases. In turn, you can't stop the owner of the gun from using it in any way he pleases, except in the case that he uses it to violate property rights.
You can make a rule for your property, that nobody with a firearm is permitted on your land as a guest. That's your prerogative, because it's your land.
Everything proceeds quite neatly from one and only one assumption: the right to property is absolute.
(Note: one's self is one's property, so self-defense is a special case of defense of property. In particular, libertarians usually say that the only right is the right "not to be aggressed against"; that's equivalent to "property rights" as I've formulated them here.)
You are right, but do not take into account of what the Founding Fathers would have thought about a standing army in today's technological environment.
For example, they could never have thought that one missile could destroy ten cities in less than an hour, from 12,000 miles away.
Given that hard fact, their philosophy now would be different than it was then. You have a different threat, therefore you must have a different defense and a different active response to that threat.
It might be, but I don't think it's prudent to be too confident in projecting one's own opinions into dead people's heads. Of course, I'm sure if the founders were alive today, they'd universally hail me as the rightest guy in the world on every subject.
You wrote that not me. I write that I fail to recognize the validity of you making all the rules, setting terms and conditions, then declaring that I have agreed to an implicit contract you contrived for your own convenience when I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with the blanket terms you are trying to force on me, and you threaten me with violence for not meeting an obligation to which I did not commit to when all the while you refuse to acknowledge you have any obligation under the social contract because you did not agree to it in the same way that I did not agree to your unilateral ravings. You can’t have it both ways. That makes any sort of discussion rather pointless.
“Among other things, it means that when you find yourself on someone else's land, and he does something about it, you're confused enough to claim the right to defend yourself against the property owner. “
If I find myself on someone else’s land, the implication being that I did not intend to be there, and the something he does about it involves major bodily harm or lose of life to me, I do claim the right to defend myself against his acting on his delusions and I claim the right as a member of our society to explain myself to judge and jury.
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to that effect and its ridiculous on its face.
"The "right" to KBA proceeds from the fact that you can't stop the owner of the ore from selling it to someone who makes steel, and you can't stop him from selling it to someone who makes guns, and you can't stop him from selling the guns to whomever he pleases."
The right to KBA proceeds from the ability to take an object or objects (rock, stick, combination of both, etc) and turn same into personnel property that can be used as an arm (club, spear, etc).
The right to KBA is not dependent on a separate someone selling his personnel property to a second separate someone who turns it into something else and sells that to a third separate someone who turns it into yet something else and then sells that to anyone.
“Everything proceeds quite neatly from one and only one assumption: …”
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to the effect everything proceeds from your one assumption, neatly or not.
“the right to property is absolute. “
Which is not to say that property rights are absolute. The right to property is different than the rights you claim as a property owner and I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with the blanket terms you are trying to force on me.
"(Note: one's self is one's property, so self-defense is a special case of defense of property. In particular, libertarians usually say that the only right is the right "not to be aggressed against"; that's equivalent to "property rights" as I've formulated them here.)"
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to that effect.
One of the characteristics of property is ownership and ownership can change. When ownership of personnel property changes, it leaves you. When ownership of real property changes, you leave it. You can’t leave yourself and yourself can’t leave you. If you could give up ownership of yourself, someone else would own you. Normal people believe that when one person owns another, one is a slave and the other a slaver. Which would you be?
Re the link you sent:
They say “In this nation, people (sovereigns) obtain ownership to land by Land Patent.”
Since they used Blacks, I will too. Blacks says a Land Patent Is an instrument conveying a grant of public land.
In the section on land patents, they say the land within the United States of America came from England, France, Spain, Mexico, Russia, Hawaii, and from the Native American Indians.
I’d always thought land existed before the existence of any of those.
In the section on land patents they say the US acquired the land by, well basically coercion and fraud when you dig below the surface.
Later on they write about a land patent sealed under the signature of the President and write:
“Once the land is placed in trust under the sole disposition of the United States government it stands there until someone makes a proper claim for it and because the Constitution forbids the United States from owning it, they must grant it to the person that proves their proper claim to it; that is when the land is granted to the proper claimant and that grant is made patent under the hand and seal of the President.”
Looks like they are saying that the people in general, with the government they established to act as their servant doing so, took some land by coercion and fraud, then used their servant the Government to distribute that land among themselves based on some sort of proved claim which I’m not clear on, and with that as a basis and some other stuff they claim property rights which trump other rights.
If I’ve got this right, at bottom, their view is limited to this nation and this society, it’s circular in that the people as sovereign acting through their agent the Government give themselves something and claim that makes ownership of what was given legitimate and a basis for other things.
They use a lot of shiny two-bit words which might blind people but they do nothing I can see to establish a philosophical basis (which I believe should not only be broader than our nation and society but should reach across time) for property rights truly always trumping other rights. They don’t go to first principles.
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.