Posted on 06/12/2002 11:57:24 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:38:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
VICTORVILLE, Calif. (AP) - A man described by a judge as "an evil monster" was sentenced to 25 years in prison for using a baseball bat, metal pipe and golf club to attack a 12-year-old Halloween trick-or-treater on his doorstep.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
They want it both ways.. Fedgov out of their lives, by virtue of (states right's) and the States out of their lives (by virtue of something they can't explain and I can't figure out)
In short, everyones yard should be it's own little country.. We should defend ourselves with the bass boat navy and the hang gliding airforce and, somehow everything will wind up just peachy for all of us...
America is a nation, the LP is a mob. (A very small one.)
All around the cobbler's bench
The monkey chased the weasel
Several good reasons I can think of: 1) protection of people and property from other people, 2) decentralization of government, 3) competition.
What power do you confer on them? Why have comminities, town councils. Why have anything but fedgov? Obviously they aren't needed and people don't desire them.
Well, I would agree that there is much government that is unnecessary. There is far too much repetition from overlapping which results in inefficiency and waste.
The purpose of the fedgov is defined in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. It has very few duties.
Once again, you didn't aswer my question.
Some rights are conferred upon individuals by the public, some aren't. Depends on the right at issue.
So, is man the origin of rights? If so, by what measure does man determine rights?
Men have the right to form societies to protect their rights and promote their collective interests.
Agreed?
Non sequitur.
Your copy-and-paste quotes do not constitute an argument.
You still haven't explained where rights come from, how the public acquires rights to confer to others, or by what measure rights are determined.
How do ya figure?
Because you said, "the public has decided to establish such rights."
So if the public can establish righs can it also de-establish them?
Can the public confiscate your Bible, church, and guns?
I suggest you look up the word murder then.
The states, or fedgov and by what authority?
And who get's to make the definitions here?
Surely it's not the people of a mere state..
He is only subject to statute if his lease agreement is written and enacted using a statutory entity. (No state shall make any law ... impairing the obligation of contracts) otherwise the jurisdiction is the common law.
His rights to determine the disposition of his property are from where from his right to enter into an agreement is derived. Thus the lease agreement impairs his rights in no way whatsoever. The agreement is in fact his excercise of his rights. His rights have not been diminished in any way whatseover.
What difference does that make? Is murder different than self-defense or isn't it?
Who is going to kill me? A mere state?
The people of this BS state have the right to kill me? ME?
Yes. It is the question. If you want to pretend that you are arguing with what I am saying, then you must at least acknowledge that we have the same definitions for common words such as murder. If you are going to now argue that you can re-define murder as long as there is no state to prosecute you, then after laughing in your face, I'll tell you that you are advocating people getting away for murder as long as they do not get caught.
Either murder is going to be something we agree is wrong, state or no state, or we're not. Is murder (the taking of an innocent life) always wrong or isn't it?
If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. - Frederic Bastiat
A group of individuals has no more rights than they had as individuals. Incorporation of civil government does not engender rights which did not previously exist.
"It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately." — Thomas Jefferson, (letter to George Logan, 1816)
The militia Jimmy, the militia. All of us old guys get together with the weapons in our homes and stand in front of cruise missiles with Chinese writing on them thanking Klintoon for the missile technology.
I like your thinking . . . ;-)
And I don't mean it in disrespect..
But, armed civilians in their back yards should be the LAST line of defense
ROSCOE: Bacardi 151 is one of the most deadly alcohol concoctions out there, equivalent in destructive power to Marijuana. Do you, not the government, but you Roscoe believe it should be illegal? YES or NO?
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.