The Free State Project: A Project for Idaho

Idaho Observer via Sierra Times ^ | 11/16/02 | Hari Heath

[newt]

I took a quick look at the LP website and their principles indicate that they are not opposed to the establishment of goverment per se; only the government taking of property. I fail to see how this argument over the philosophies of a particular party leverages the argument concerning FSP. FSP is not a Libertarian Party project...

[Roscoe]

I would have to study the project

You're assuming there's anything more to study.

[Roscoe]

I took a quick look at the LP website and their principles indicate that they are not opposed to the establishment of goverment per se; only the government taking of property.

"All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." -- Benjamin Franklin

[Roscoe]

However, that's not my point. I want to know if you know what a God-given right is.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you claiming that the so-called "Free State" has a "God-given" right to the infrastructure of Idaho?

[exodus]

To: newt
You can see it on this thread. Libertarians frequently assert that states have no rights, and that only individuals do.
# 376 by Roscoe
**********************

Since you're going to be picky-snot about the common usage of the word "right," I'm going to have to point out that "right," as used in regard to a government, MEANS "power."

Thus, in common usage, governments have the right (POWER) to make laws; governments have the right (POWER) to enforce laws; governments have the right (POWER) to regulate commerce.

ONLY individuals have God-given rights. Government has man-made laws that assign powers, NOT God-given rights.

If a "stupid, brain dead" libertarian can understand that, why can't you, Roscoe?

[newt]

All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition.

I guess then, that you and Ben Franklin agree that Collectivism is the only permissible type of self government.

My argument is with a Federal Government that has stepped outside of it's legal boundaries.

[Roscoe]

Main Entry: 1pow·er
Pronunciation: 'pau(-&)r
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French poeir, from poeir to be able, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin potEre, alteration of Latin posse -- more at POTENT
Date: 13th century
1 a (1) : ability to act or produce an effect (2) : ability to get extra-base hits (3) : capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect b : legal or official authority, capacity, or right

[The Green Goblin]

[quote]If you cant even reply decently to the arguments developped around car accidents [/quote]

Are you blind? I did reply to wimpy cat's argument 'developped" around car accidents. He didn't like the answer, to be sure, but that doesn't mean my argument was logically invalid. You have certainly yet to prove it so; you've done nothing but babble about goblins, trolls and Pol Pot...

[Roscoe]

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson

"And where else will this degenerate son of science [Hume], this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?" --Thomas Jefferson

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson

[The Green Goblin]

So what's your point?

[exodus]

To: Roscoe
Okay, Roscoe. I concede, the word "right" was used in different ways even by our Founders. However, that's not my point. I want to know if you know what a God-given right is. More to the point, I KNOW that you are trying hard not to answer. I'm trying to get you to honestly debate the issue before us, which can't be done if you keep denying that God-given rights even exist.
# 377 by exodus

To: exodus
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you claiming that the so-called "Free State" has a "God-given" right to the infrastructure of Idaho?
# 384 by Roscoe
**********************

I am saying this, Roscoe.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed..."

I can't give a stronger hint than that, Roscoe.

Now, tell me if you understand the concept of a God-given right.

[Roscoe]

What was yours?

[Roscoe]

I can't give a stronger hint than that, Roscoe.

You don't have to "hint" when you could just answer the question.

Are you claiming that the so-called "Free State" has a "God-given" right to the infrastructure of Idaho?

[newt]

Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson

I believe the rule of the majority was established in Article I Sec 8 and was uterly destroyed by the New Dealers, thus proving Jefferson as absolutly correct.... Life and property are his who can take them."

[The Green Goblin]

What was yours?

The follow-up quote you presented in no way altered the point of the one that I presented.

[Roscoe]

The follow-up quote you presented in no way altered the point of the one that I presented.

What point?

[exodus]

"...Are you claiming that the so-called "Free State" has a "God-given" right to the infrastructure of Idaho?..."

Of course not, Roscoe. No one has the "right" to a State's infrastructure. The infrastructure, the GOVERNMENT, of the State belongs to the people of that State.

They do, however, have the right to travel into that State, and adapt it as their own, and live there. Then the State government belongs to them, collectively, along with ALL THE OTHER RESIDENTS OF THE STATE.

Any State they move to is going to be in the United States. They are United States citizens. They can go wherever they want, and LIVE wherever they want.

That's known as the right to travel, roscoe.

Can you name ANOTHER, different, God-given right?

[Poohbah]

Tell me why should taxpayers pay and send money everywhere including the UN without a say?

What makes you say that the taxpayer doesn't have a say in these matters? Please be specific.

[Roscoe]

The infrastructure, the GOVERNMENT, of the State belongs to the people of that State.

The "people" have rights? Doesn't Libertarian theology hold that only individuals have rights?