• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Unconstitutional laws are constitutional until a court says otherwise

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
You may have a point but i'd rather focus on firearm rights myself. It is explicitly stated that this right shall not be infringed, therefore if there is a law infringing on the right to bear arms it is void
If it applies to one area it can apply to another.

If the, state, constitution does not allow for regulation of firearms (weapons/arms/guns) then the same idea applies.


As for the bad ruling, I believe that the burden of proof that a law is constitutional should rest firmly on the shoulders of government. All laws should be considered unconstitutional until vetted.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
If it applies to one area it can apply to another.

If the, state, constitution does not allow for regulation of firearms (weapons/arms/guns) then the same idea applies.


As for the bad ruling, I believe that the burden of proof that a law is constitutional should rest firmly on the shoulders of government. All laws should be considered unconstitutional until vetted.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

It seems that this would make governing impossible. While I am all for as few laws as necessary, the legislative branch is charged with creating and changing laws. If there truly is a problem with this, maybe we should elect better representatives and senators.

I lived in a small town where despite the city attorney telling the city council that doing a thing was illegal, the council did it anyway. They are rumored to have said something like, "who is going to stop us." Ultimately it was the voters and the state, but not until the damage had been partially done.

Rapid citizen intervention can be crucial in stopping injustice before the first rail car load of Jews is gassed. But in situations of lesser urgency, the courts can usually be tasked. My problem is that there usually has to be at least one injustice before the courts can actually hear a case. And I agree that burden of proof should be on the maker and enforcer of the laws, not the aggrieved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
As for the bad ruling, I believe that the burden of proof that a law is constitutional should rest firmly on the shoulders of government. All laws should be considered unconstitutional until vetted.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

It seems that this would make governing impossible. While I am all for as few laws as necessary, the legislative branch is charged with creating and changing laws. If there truly is a problem with this, maybe we should elect better representatives and senators.

I lived in a small town where despite the city attorney telling the city council that doing a thing was illegal, the council did it anyway. They are rumored to have said something like, "who is going to stop us." Ultimately it was the voters and the state, but not until the damage had been partially done.

Rapid citizen intervention can be crucial in stopping injustice before the first rail car load of Jews is gassed. But in situations of lesser urgency, the courts can usually be tasked. My problem is that there usually has to be at least one injustice before the courts can actually hear a case. And I agree that burden of proof should be on the maker and enforcer of the laws, not the aggrieved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not at all. Laws that are constitutional have to be obeyed. We are not talking anarchy here, we are talking about mass nullification of any and all laws which are not constitutional. We are not bound to obey anything else, therefore any attempts to force us to obey those laws should be met with mass resistance. And no I am not talking the overthrow of the government or another civil war. This isnt an all or nothing idea. The key is still to use the minimal force needed and this can well mean simply a heavily armed citizen militia that in some cases may not even fire a shot. Case in point Bundy Ranch. Though in the end he allowed himself to be kidnapped
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
The topic on this thread is a bit disturbing. They are not necessarily constitutional, but one is not free to disobey them without risk of consequences. That's like saying breaking law isn't illegal until you get caught. Which points out the irony: congress can make laws which violate the constitution and the resulting laws are enforceable by the executive branch until the courts say otherwise. Ditto with executive branch regulations. Maybe our checks and balances are a little slow in responding to the need for oversight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Of course. Which is why any hot head who tries it certainly will die. One person who decides to OC in L.A. Without a permit would get arrested or shot within 5 minutes or less. 1000 on the other hand and you have another matter. The police would either totally leave them alone or be far far more cautious. Why? Because they know they start go and fire, those 1000 people will fire back and it will be a bloodbath. Now imagine the same scenario in every major city across the country? Now imagine this happens daily. Thats what you call nullification.

Agree totally, if citizens refused to acquire a drivers license to freely travel or stop paying taxes on the fruits of their labor, the bogus laws would not be enforced... However if only a few patriots attempted such action, they would be labeled probably for lack of a better word a "terrorist" and sent to prison. However if thousands attempted said action, they would be called "Patriots"..

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Check your state constitution to see if that is allowed in your state.

If traffic laws are not covered in you state constitution then not even your state can regulate traffic laws.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

To the victor goes the spoils .... remember our founding fathers' words ... we have the right to dissolve our gov't ~ they did not make "peaceably" part of this process.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Scare-quotes?

Repugnant occurs five times in Marbury v. Madison, while null does not occur at all. So, what do you think that you are quoting? Only a libtard cherry picks through such a document to so completely misunderstand it as to not detect a misquote or excuse it as a paraphrase.
YOUR OPINION!

My .02 = My opinion-----

Here is a famous quote/ paraphrase just for you.. " Never argue with a rude idiot for they will be beat you down and kill you with experience"

My .02
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Actually Justice Marshall ruled that he is wrong, and law revues after agree with him. If a law is constitutional, it cannot be later ruled that it is not. I relate it to bad plumbing, the plumbing is not good until a plumber says it is bad. The courts are the plumbers. If the plumbing is not bad there is no need for the plumbers to fix it. This is what his ruling basically boiled down to. That a law that is contrary to the supreme law is void, and the court has the jurisdiction to fix it. Until the court fixes it, the law may be enforceable until it is taken up the food chain. But along that food chain someone has to realize that the law is (wait for it) unconstitutional. Or SCOTUS would have nothing to do.

The 13th and 14th Amendments, changed some so-called constitutional laws, into unconstitutional laws.

see- Scott v Sanford(not sandford) spelling error on the courts part. Also Justice Taney, bigot that he was, declared that The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.

It is widely held by some constitutional scholars that the 14th Amendment created a New Constitution, And I concur with them.

Always a pleasure WW to opine with you!
Regards
CCJ
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
As the law sees it he is correct. That is why cities like Chicago and D.C. can pass these obvious violations because they know even if it is illegal, it will be law for a few years.

What we need to do is start arresting the people that create these laws once they are found to be in violation of the constitution.

Right now we do nothing so they keep creating unconstitutional laws because they won't get in any trouble for it.

Your right, however the "OATH " they take for office is where "We The People " bind them down, but you can't
educate people who don't want to get involved.
Marbury V. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176, ( 1803)

Miranda V. Arizona 384 US 436 p. 491

There are may others also.
So its not a question of law, and who determines it, as its already been done.
Its a matter of we the people holding the "Oath takers " to keep their oath of office, OR
replacing them for "Bad Behaviour" :)
This can be done very fast, you do NOT have to wait to vote an new officer in.
Think about that !
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Your right, however the "OATH " they take for office is where "We The People " bind them down, but you can't
educate people who don't want to get involved.
Marbury V. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176, ( 1803)

Miranda V. Arizona 384 US 436 p. 491

There are may others also.
So its not a question of law, and who determines it, as its already been done.
Its a matter of we the people holding the "Oath takers " to keep their oath of office, OR
replacing them for "Bad Behaviour" :)
This can be done very fast, you do NOT have to wait to vote an new officer in.
Think about that !

I'm gonna take this in an entirely different direction. Its not a personal attack, Robin. I'm just sayin'.

---------------------------------------------------

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says, "To secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This was an old idea by the time Jefferson penned those words. John Locke had written about it in 1689 in Second Treatise On Government.* The reason for government is to secure the unalienable rights--see the Declaration of Independence. Not any old power government feels like giving itself; only just powers. And, where do these only-the-just powers come from? The consent of the governed.

Here's where I take it in a wholly unexpected direction (remember later that I was the good guy--I alerted you, reader, that I was headed in an unexpected direction.)

Wait!! What!?!?!? The consent of the governed? Hold on just a moment! I never consented. Did you? Lets look at contract law for a datum of comparable magnitude. (You cannot evaluate a piece of data without a piece of data to compare it to. And, that second piece of data must be of comparable magnitude.) No court would hold another party to your contract unless you could prove they consensually agreed to your contract. "Oh, you never got their signature?" The court would laugh you out of the building for trying to hold another to a contract you could not prove they entered into with you consensually.

Yet, on this monumentally important social question--government by consent of the governed--they will inflict government on you without your express consent (read to mean your signature agreeing to let them be the people to dictate regulations, laws, infringements of rights to you.)

I never consented. Did you? And, I don't mean some implication you consented because you voted after having been told when young by your teachers that it was your bounden duty as a citizen to vote. I mean same level as a contract on a question far more important than a mere contract--when did you sign a piece of paper agreeing to be ruled by them?

I never signed such a piece of paper. Did you?

But, wait! There is an even stiffer proof: you cannot un-consent. Ah-HAH!! There is their lie! They can claim seven ways to Sunday that you consented by this or that implication. All lies. The proof lays in the fact that you cannot withdraw your consent. Oh, ho ho ho. It takes no imagination at all to estimate what would happen if you sent a letter to your municipality, state, and the fedgov withdrawing your consent to be ruled by each of them. "Dear...and since I no longer consent to be ruled by you, I will no longer pay what you call "my" property tax." It takes no imagination to estimate the results of such a letter genuinely put into practice. No matter what they say, no matter how sophisticated their argument, the fact that you cannot withdraw your consent proves they never really believed in consent in the first place.

And, yet, that is exactly what the Declaration of Independence says: "...consent of the governed." And--mind this carefully--the second paragraph of Declaration of Independence gives the justifications for the break from England. The second paragraph is the legitimacy for the American Revolution. If those ideas are not legitimate, then the break with England was not legitimate. Consent of the governed is expressly, overtly, verbatim-ly a part of that justification. Yet, you are ruled. Whether you consent or not. As am I.

There are lots of angles to the foregoing discussion. For example--just one--can any five people legitimately depute a sixth person, by secret ballot no less, to rule a seventh person? Numerous angles to the foregoing discussion. But, here is where I swing back to Robin's post.

Every one of the people governing you (euphemism for ruling) is willing to do it without consulting you on whether you agree and consent to let them do it. They neither want nor consider they need your agreement to set themselves above you. They're going to do it whether you agree or not.

So, why on earth would anybody expect them to honor an oath? They don't even believe you're important enough--an equal--to first get your express, individual consent before inflicting laws, regulations, and ordinances on you. Why on earth would anyone believe for even one millisecond they sincerely believe any oath they offer? They don't believe your agreement/consent is necessary before inflicting themselves on you. There is no possible way they consider their oath is sacrosanct, much less important. Why make a sincere oath to somebody you don't even consider important enough to obtain his actual, genuine consent? Why make a sincere oath to somebody you demonstrably consider less than your equal? (Because, if you believed he really was your equal, you would know you cannot set yourself above him and rule him without his express, individual consent.)
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I'm gonna take this in an entirely different direction. Its not a personal attack, Robin. I'm just sayin'.

---------------------------------------------------

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says, "To secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This was an old idea by the time Jefferson penned those words. John Locke had written about it in 1689 in Second Treatise On Government.* The reason for government is to secure the unalienable rights--see the Declaration of Independence. Not any old power government feels like giving itself; only just powers. And, where do these only-the-just powers come from? The consent of the governed.

Here's where I take it in a wholly unexpected direction (remember later that I was the good guy--I alerted you, reader, that I was headed in an unexpected direction.)

Wait!! What!?!?!? The consent of the governed? Hold on just a moment! I never consented. Did you? Lets look at contract law for a datum of comparable magnitude. (You cannot evaluate a piece of data without a piece of data to compare it to. And, that second piece of data must be of comparable magnitude.) No court would hold another party to your contract unless you could prove they consensually agreed to your contract. "Oh, you never got their signature?" The court would laugh you out of the building for trying to hold another to a contract you could not prove they entered into with you consensually.

Yet, on this monumentally important social question--government by consent of the governed--they will inflict government on you without your express consent (read to mean your signature agreeing to let them be the people to dictate regulations, laws, infringements of rights to you.)

I never consented. Did you? And, I don't mean some implication you consented because you voted after having been told when young by your teachers that it was your bounden duty as a citizen to vote. I mean same level as a contract on a question far more important than a mere contract--when did you sign a piece of paper agreeing to be ruled by them?

I never signed such a piece of paper. Did you?

But, wait! There is an even stiffer proof: you cannot un-consent. Ah-HAH!! There is their lie! They can claim seven ways to Sunday that you consented by this or that implication. All lies. The proof lays in the fact that you cannot withdraw your consent. Oh, ho ho ho. It takes no imagination at all to estimate what would happen if you sent a letter to your municipality, state, and the fedgov withdrawing your consent to be ruled by each of them. "Dear...and since I no longer consent to be ruled by you, I will no longer pay what you call "my" property tax." It takes no imagination to estimate the results of such a letter genuinely put into practice. No matter what they say, no matter how sophisticated their argument, the fact that you cannot withdraw your consent proves they never really believed in consent in the first place.

And, yet, that is exactly what the Declaration of Independence says: "...consent of the governed." And--mind this carefully--the second paragraph of Declaration of Independence gives the justifications for the break from England. The second paragraph is the legitimacy for the American Revolution. If those ideas are not legitimate, then the break with England was not legitimate. Consent of the governed is expressly, overtly, verbatim-ly a part of that justification. Yet, you are ruled. Whether you consent or not. As am I.

There are lots of angles to the foregoing discussion. For example--just one--can any five people legitimately depute a sixth person, by secret ballot no less, to rule a seventh person? Numerous angles to the foregoing discussion. But, here is where I swing back to Robin's post.

Every one of the people governing you (euphemism for ruling) is willing to do it without consulting you on whether you agree and consent to let them do it. They neither want nor consider they need your agreement to set themselves above you. They're going to do it whether you agree or not.

So, why on earth would anybody expect them to honor an oath? They don't even believe you're important enough--an equal--to first get your express, individual consent before inflicting laws, regulations, and ordinances on you. Why on earth would anyone believe for even one millisecond they sincerely believe any oath they offer? They don't believe your agreement/consent is necessary before inflicting themselves on you. There is no possible way they consider their oath is sacrosanct, much less important. Why make a sincere oath to somebody you don't even consider important enough to obtain his actual, genuine consent? Why make a sincere oath to somebody you demonstrably consider less than your equal? (Because, if you believed he really was your equal, you would know you cannot set yourself above him and rule him without his express, individual consent.)

Hi

A bit of Spoonerism in your post. My theory is simpler, NO SIGNED CONTRACT TO BE GOVERNED. I do not consent to be governed, I consent to be left alone.. I consent to natural laws, I am not a number, I am a creature of God, just a simple natural man.. I respect other folks natural rights, and I expect other folks to respect my natural rights. I have never entered into a contract with any alphabet agency's of the G.

Simple motto, " I do unto others as I would have them do unto me"...

Regards
CCJ
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
Please stop quoting an entire diatribe.

But on topic, do you not see value in a social contract that generally applies? Government being the mechanism by which the group decides what is acceptable instead of every person making up what thy want and then negotiating with the thousand of people they might encounter in a day?
For most people, knowing that a red light means stop and a green light means go if it's clear is the difference between traffic anarchy and a smooth commute. And one of the biggest hindrances to economic development following the fall of the USSR was a lack of security of real property ownership governance.
Too many "natural men" don't think it through sufficiently for densely populated areas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Please highlight what you think is the Spoonerism.

A Spoonerism being being the switch of morphemes, vowels or consonants between words intentionally or in error.

He's referring to Lysander Spooner, a very freedom-minded fellow. Among his efforts was an essay titled No Treason. Along about 1870 there was an agitation to try certain former Confederate office-holders for treason. The essay was Spooner's response.

Here is what I wrote that is almost instantly recognizable as arising from Spooner's No Treason, "For example--just one--can any five people legitimately depute a sixth person, by secret ballot no less, to rule a seventh person?" Spooner writes it as Mssrs. A, B, and C getting together and voting to deputize D to govern E. And, he points out the secret ballot.

Spooner wrote a good bit. Another of my favorites is his Trial by Jury. If person reads just the first section, he will understand more about the function and protection of a jury than 95% of the population.

Spooner aside, I can't see trusting a government agent to honor his oath. Not even Thomas Jefferson, that massive champion of liberty--see the Louisiana Purchase for which there was no constitutional authority, see his advocacy of a bill of attainder against a loyalist during the revolution, see his embargo against France that nearly beggared the northern shipping interests and port cities. I'm not sure any politician ever honored his oath. Even George Washington violated his oath when he accepted Alexander Hamilton's doctrine of implied powers and signed into law the establishment of a quasi-central bank. Except, maybe Ron Paul and a very few others.

I can't see why I would even expect it--I can't enforce that expectation. About all I can do is point my finger and yell "oath-breaker!" Then I have to deal with all the lying explanations about how it wasn't really a violation of his oath, and the nodding acceptance of that explanation by others.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
He's referring to Lysander Spooner, a very freedom-minded fellow. Among his efforts was an essay titled No Treason. Along about 1870 there was an agitation to try certain former Confederate office-holders for treason. The essay was Spooner's response.

Here is what I wrote that is almost instantly recognizable as arising from Spooner's No Treason, "For example--just one--can any five people legitimately depute a sixth person, by secret ballot no less, to rule a seventh person?" Spooner writes it as Mssrs. A, B, and C getting together and voting to deputize D to govern E. And, he points out the secret ballot.

Spooner wrote a good bit. Another of my favorites is his Trial by Jury. If person reads just the first section, he will understand more about the function and protection of a jury than 95% of the population.

Spooner aside, I can't see trusting a government agent to honor his oath. Not even Thomas Jefferson, that massive champion of liberty--see the Louisiana Purchase for which there was no constitutional authority, see his advocacy of a bill of attainder against a loyalist during the revolution, see his embargo against France that nearly beggared the northern shipping interests and port cities. I'm not sure any politician ever honored his oath. Even George Washington violated his oath when he accepted Alexander Hamilton's doctrine of implied powers and signed into law the establishment of a quasi-central bank. Except, maybe Ron Paul and a very few others.

I can't see why I would even expect it--I can't enforce that expectation. About all I can do is point my finger and yell "oath-breaker!" Then I have to deal with all the lying explanations about how it wasn't really a violation of his oath, and the nodding acceptance of that explanation by others.


+1
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
...

But on topic, do you not see value in a social contract that generally applies? Government being the mechanism by which the group decides what is acceptable instead of every person making up what thy want and then negotiating with the thousand of people they might encounter in a day?
For most people, knowing that a red light means stop and a green light means go if it's clear is the difference between traffic anarchy and a smooth commute. And one of the biggest hindrances to economic development following the fall of the USSR was a lack of security of real property ownership governance.
Too many "natural men" don't think it through sufficiently for densely populated areas.

+1

Indeed, even in sparsely populated areas, lack of real property ownership governance significantly hinders economic advancement. Some years ago I read an article (can't cite it now) pointing out that a key difference between developed, first world Western nations and most third world nations was the registry of real property ownership. The article pointed out that in the US one of the most common means of acquiring capital to start or expand a small business was to mortgage one's home. This is possible, only because private property rights are well respected and because ownership is recorded and can be transferred in a way that is universally acknowledged.

In contrast, in many nations, property rights are well respected locally. Everyone in the community knows that Mr. "Smith" owns that particular plot of land and the home on it. But there is no universally recognized registry of ownership, no clear means by which a bank can safely lend money knowing that the loan is secured by a home and property that can be sold to cover the loan should default occur. And so, the third world resident has a much harder time than does his US counterpart tapping into the value of the real property he owns to obtain the capital necessary to start or expand a business.

In high population density areas, a host of other issues also come into play. To be succinct, almost everything a person living in a high-rise apartment building, sharing 2 walls, a floor, and a ceiling with neighbors does will affect his neighbors. Far more limits on conduct are necessary to live in peace in such a setting than for those living in rural isolation with the nearest neighbors hundreds of yards or even miles away.

I have relatives living on 90 acres with their neighbors all having similar spreads. These relatives can safely and legally shoot their guns from their back porch. I have other relatives living in an apartment complex with neighbors both above and below them. The apartment complex has rules against running the in-apartment clothes washer or dryer between the hours of 10 pm and 8 am. They just cause too much noise in those close settings.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
....

Wait!! What!?!?!? The consent of the governed? Hold on just a moment! I never consented. Did you? ....

I mean same level as a contract on a question far more important than a mere contract--when did you sign a piece of paper agreeing to be ruled by them?

I never signed such a piece of paper. Did you?

And the beat goes on.

Time and time again we see this straw man rolled out as if this were the magic talisman proving government illegitimate. Never mind that the same men who penned and ratified the words about the consent of the governed, within the same document also levied against King George the charge of imposing anarchy on the colonies right up there among the crimes of inciting Indians to violence, shipping in mercenaries to wage war against the colonists, depriving the colonists of their rights to due process and fair trials, and sending forth multitudes of agents to eat up their substance. Yup. To Jefferson and the signers of the DoI, anarchy was as serious a crime to inflict on another as was tyranny. And with good reason. As the early communists knew, anarchy leads directly to tyranny of one sort or another.

I don't really care whether someone gives personal consent or not. I don't care how British or free spirit they are feeling that day. When a person drives his car on the road I will happily use force of law to mandate that he drive on the right side of the road in this nation; that he stop at red lights, yielding the right-of-way to traffic with a green semaphore; and that other basic rules of the road be observed. When some little snowflake, or self-absorbed zombie in a drug-induced stupor decides to drive on the wrong side of the freeway without regard to the lives, limb, or property of his fellow beings, I will happily see that social reject forcibly removed from society and caged like the animal he has revealed himself to be. I don't care whether he "consented" to be "ruled" by traffic laws or not.

The difference between theory and practice is that sometimes, theory doesn't quite work out in practice.

When the snowflake or druggie drives on the wrong side of the freeway, there is no question in any rational person's mind about who is in the wrong. There is no need for personal negotiation, personal consent, or on-going consent about which side of the road we are going to drive on in this nation. There isn't even any rational debate about minority rights in such cases.

But keep showing us how inconsistent and unworkable is the theory founded on the grand principle of self-consistency.

Charles
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
And a further insincerity, the insincere honorific 'sir'. Words mean things, if YOU Country Club liberal Joe, don't mean them then don't write them.

The king of word salad, the pendantical poster has spoken and ones again displaying his acrimonious conjecture towards my post. Please cease and desist with your perfidious comments. Your solecism towards myself and other folks on this board clearly shows that you are a "troglodyte" and not the "polymath" you so pretend to be..

Is that not enough Word- Salad for you...
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
The king of word salad, the pendantical poster has spoken and ones again displaying his acrimonious conjecture towards my post. Please cease and desist with your perfidious comments. Your solecism towards myself and other folks on this board clearly shows that you are a "troglodyte" and not the "polymath" you so pretend to be..

Is that not enough Word- Salad for you...

Had to dust off the old Oxford dictionary on this one ...
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP But on topic, do you not see value in a social contract that generally applies? Government being the mechanism by which the group decides what is acceptable instead of every person making up what thy want and then negotiating with the thousand of people they might encounter in a day?

My goodness, how did I miss this earlier?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! What social contract? A contract is an agreement. Who is doing all this agreeing? I am part of that "social". I never agreed. Nobody was every consulted and asked to register their agreement in writing.

The final proof is that no one can un-agree. The govern-ers intend to inflict themselves on everybody within "their jurisdiction" whether any of the recipients agreed, and even whether they disagree. Agreement was never a part of the equation.

There is no social contract (nor Locke's version: social compact--also an agreement). Its just a nice-sounding explanation to justify inflicting monopolistic coercive government on everybody.
 
Last edited:
Top