Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2011, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,867 posts, read 14,055,650 times
Reputation: 16573

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
1. A "republican form of government" is not a "republic", so stating that a "republic" is a form of democracy is not a rebuttal, but a deflection.
So let's get the background covered, fast.
[] USA was unique because of its republican form of government (people were sovereigns)
[See Below]
[] USA was infiltrated and slowly transformed into a democracyHow did I deflect what you stated above, You seem to think the Republic was transformed into a Democratic form of government. FYI we are not a true Democracy, only a small city state could do that since all the people need to vote on all actions taken, cannot work in the modern world at this time.
[Republican form and democratic form are mutually exclusive]
[] USA was further infiltrated and transformed into a socialist democracy, via consent, obtained by fraud (via FICA)I see you are against anything Socialist in leaning, I assume you are against SS, Medicare, Wellfare, Foodstamps, Public Education, good highways, ..... and the list goes on and on. I disagree there are many programs that have a place in our society and and yes we as a People have agreed to have them, a small minority may not want some or even any of them, but this a nation built on
the idea of the greater good for all not just a handful that want to live the life of a backwoods trapper.
[What you assume is socialism is not in harmony with the definition, see below]
[] USA was bankrupted by usurers, reorganized to prosecute the bankruptcy against the peopleWell it seems like some have done very well and the vast majority are doing pretty good, especially if you compare them to the rest of the world.
[So you do not object to being bankrupt and 'human resource' pledged as collateral? Okay...]
[] USA has been "ruled" by the usurer / collectivist alliance for generationsThat happened long ago, because we allow it, capitalisim does that.
[Capitalism has been dead since 1935. Without private property ownership, there is no capitalism.]
[] USA is about to enter a terminal collapse, due in part to an impossible to repay public debt, an interest burden that is ever rising, the drain of deficit spending, widespread rebellion against the imminent increase in tax burdens, restrictions on liberty, and unWar costs.Nothing is impossible, we can spend more wisely, we can collect revenue is a more fair method and even pay off our debets. What freeedoms have you lost? NONE. What tax increase? They just passed a continued tax decrease. FYI we had higher taxes under Clinton, the economy did not crash and there was no rebellion, in fact we were far better off. In fact it was Bush that said the People wanted tax reductions when at the time it was waaaay down on the list of what people wanted, it was a Neo-Con lie to pay back the rich for their support.When you claim we cannot do it as a People you are part of the problem and not the solution
[A debt denominated in gold dollars cannot be paid with paper promises to pay dollars in the future. Read the law yourself.]
[] The aftermath, if nothing changes, will be the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America, absent that "pesky" U.S. Constitution.Provide facts that show the Constitution is in danger or that anyone is trying to change it. Last person that wanted to change it was Bush so that he could deny gays the right to marry, but he gave it up since he knew he could not get the support by either Dems or Repubs.

[The constitution has been sidestepped since 1933. But the "State of Emergency" cannot be maintained for much longer.]
See above replies, Yours in red and mine in blue. Oh, I would not call them Facts they are your POV.
You may claim that they are not facts, but the references were already posted here:
Sovereignty and Republican Form -
//www.city-data.com/forum/16979442-post18.html

Regarding socialism:
//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...c-america.html
In case you forgot Marxism 101:
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
- - - Webster's Dictionary.

SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary
Socialism and communism = COLLECTIVE ownership.

From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
But American law protects private property
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Communism, Socialism, and Marxism abolish private property ownership and replaces it with collective ownership, with the superior rights in the State.

America's republican form of government cannot co-exist with collectivism.
“PRIVATE PROPERTY – As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels.”
– - – Black’s Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

“OWNERSHIP – … Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it… The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. ”
– - -Black’s Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
In American law, individual absolute ownership is recognized as one of the inalienable rights protected by government.... until surrendered.
Since the vast majority of Americans have voluntarily surrendered their birthright to absolutely own private property, failure to comply with socialist taxes and regulations often results in confiscation of their property without just compensation being paid. That is prima facie evidence that no enumerated American owns private property.
Welcome to the collective, Comrade.

How the USCON was sidestepped:
Emergency Powers Statutes, Senate Report SR 93-549, November 19, 1973
Senate Report 93-549
War and Emergency Powers Acts

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2011, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,867 posts, read 14,055,650 times
Reputation: 16573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
Simple questionnaire:
[1.] Do you have Creator endowed rights, or
[2.] Do you only have government endowed privileges?
No. 1

According to the Declaration of Independence, it's #1.
According to the collectivists / progressives, it's #2.
Nope, according to the Creator

Which is preferable?
A government that secures your rights to life, liberty and property, or a government that controls your life, liberty and property?
The first of-course, but the question is misleading because you act as if the second were fact, which it is not. Are you for total personal freedom or just for those things that You want to be free to do, what about my freedoms, can I do whatever I want?
See: natural liberty.
LONG answer here:
//www.city-data.com/forum/17128320-post43.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
If that's still too hard to comprehend, how about this choice:
[a] Freedom (i.e., natural and personal liberty)
[b] Slavery (obligation to labor for the benefit of another)
Once again this is not an honest question, plus a little attempt at an insult, we are not talking about being slaves since none of are, you may consider yourself one but I am not.
If you do not own yourself, your labor or the fruits of your labor, you're a slave. A part time slave is still a slave.
According to the government, you're a slave.
Collective Ownership by the State -
http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/c...ender.shtml#q2
"Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."
If the government can take your property and labor to underwrite their notes, you are not a free man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
There I addressed your request, clear enough for ya? If not just ask.
So what are your solutions to the issues you think we have or are you just venting your frustrations?
In the first post, I pointed out that the "Wise Ants" will accumulate a store of supplies to ride out the worst of the crisis.

Hopefully, the survivors will not make the mistake of surrendering their birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence, for the lies of collectivists and usurers. But I wouldn't rely on wisdom winning the day.

It's going to be bad, folks. And it will get worse.

OR

Things might actually be improved, socialism abolished, the burdens on the productive removed, and the rewards to the non-productive ended. The Federal government might be scaled back by 93%, as would taxes. The national debt would be abolished, on the grounds of fraud. No recipient of public funds could vote for at least two years (beggars can't be choosers). Limited liability would be abolished (no more immunity for corporations, or investors). No contract for usury shall be enforced in any court.

All partisan politicking and government meddling would be removed from the private sector.

Instead of "making money", folks will build prosperity - the old fashioned way: produce, trade, and enjoy surplus usable goods and services. Productive people and businesses create private money with which to purchase that which they make, and are no longer trapped by "money madness" nor need access to "credit" from the usurer.

To save on energy and increase arable land, suburban sprawl would end. People would settle in more concentrated high population density developments, and have access to energy efficient, frugal electric traction rail mass transit.

With unfettered productivity, America rebounds, building ever greater prosperity.

(The post continues with links to other solutions)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2011, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,288 posts, read 20,647,776 times
Reputation: 9324
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
m/7647779-post84.html
SO NOW WHAT DO WE DO?

.

Read "Atlas Shrugged" and you will likely see what the future holds for us. At some point, the leeches overwhelm the producers and the producers check out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2011, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Gone
25,231 posts, read 16,869,022 times
Reputation: 5932
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
You may claim that they are not facts, but the references were already posted here:
Sovereignty and Republican Form -
//www.city-data.com/forum/16979442-post18.html

Regarding socialism:
//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...c-america.html
In case you forgot Marxism 101:
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
- - - Webster's Dictionary.

SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary

Socialism and communism = COLLECTIVE ownership.

From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

But American law protects private property
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Communism, Socialism, and Marxism abolish private property ownership and replaces it with collective ownership, with the superior rights in the State.

America's republican form of government cannot co-exist with collectivism.
“PRIVATE PROPERTY – As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels.”
– - – Black’s Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

“OWNERSHIP – … Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it… The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. ”
– - -Black’s Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106

In American law, individual absolute ownership is recognized as one of the inalienable rights protected by government.... until surrendered.
Since the vast majority of Americans have voluntarily surrendered their birthright to absolutely own private property, failure to comply with socialist taxes and regulations often results in confiscation of their property without just compensation being paid. That is prima facie evidence that no enumerated American owns private property.
Welcome to the collective, Comrade.

How the USCON was sidestepped:
Emergency Powers Statutes, Senate Report SR 93-549, November 19, 1973
Senate Report 93-549
War and Emergency Powers Acts

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
Wow! You sure took one giant leap there. Sorry to burst your bubble but
We are Not a Communist Country, no matter what you may claim. We are not truely a socialist country but we do have social programs for its citizens and there is no a single advanced nation on the planet that does not also have them, most have more. Know why, because they do good, they help feed people, they help people from having to live on the streets or sticking a gun in your face to survive, they help the old get thier medical needs met and allows for a small monthly payment depending on how much you paid in to help make your later years more liveble. I know you are probably against helping anyone outside your little circle, that is your problem not mine, the vast maority disagree with you. You have lost no rights and no one is coming to take everything you own, not even the evil government. Living in fear and paranoia is a hard way to go through life, no thanks I'll pass. I asked what your solutions would be, did I miss your answer? Oh wait I see it, once again, no thanks.
Casper
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2011, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,867 posts, read 14,055,650 times
Reputation: 16573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
Wow! You sure took one giant leap there. Sorry to burst your bubble but
We are Not a Communist Country, no matter what you may claim.
I made no such claim. You are making that assertion. In fact, no "communist" country admitted to having reached true communism. At best, they only achieved "socialism".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
We are not truely a socialist country but we do have social programs for its citizens and there is no a single advanced nation on the planet that does not also have them, most have more. Know why, because they do good, they help feed people, they help people from having to live on the streets or sticking a gun in your face to survive, they help the old get thier medical needs met and allows for a small monthly payment depending on how much you paid in to help make your later years more liveble. I know you are probably against helping anyone outside your little circle, that is your problem not mine, the vast maority disagree with you.
Since socialism is defined as collective ownership, and the Federal government has first claim on "all goods and services", I think that answers your objection.

I have no objection to voluntary charity.
I object to compulsory charity.
Slavery is never a viable solution to the ills of mankind.
But don't let me stop you from being a "voluntary" socialist slave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
You have lost no rights and no one is coming to take everything you own, not even the evil government. Living in fear and paranoia is a hard way to go through life, no thanks I'll pass. I asked what your solutions would be, did I miss your answer? Oh wait I see it, once again, no thanks.
Casper
You can live in denial and close your eyes and plug your ears. Say "La la la la la la..." But the facts are facts, available in any county courthouse law library.

But if you do not know what rights you had, how would you know if you lost them?
Here's a hint - - -
If you now need government permission (license and/or registration) for something that was once not licensed, you've LOST THE RIGHT TO DO IT.

Do free men need permission slips to:
Contract Marriage?
Enter Occupations?
Operate Business?
Transmit?
Drive a car?
Fly a plane?
Build a house?
Trade in medicine or health care?
Hunt?
Fish?
Own a dog?

I think that answers your objection about 'not losing any rights'. (Feel free to check the legislative history for the initial implementation in your own state.)

Here's a short refresher on the nature of our dilemma, in case you missed it the first time around.

What the Gov says:
http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/c...ender.shtml#q2
"Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."
(They changed the link : http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx)
TITLE 12,CHAPTER 3,SUBCHAPTER XII,sec. 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
" Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in LAWFUL MONEY on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States..."
Title 12 United States Code, Sec. 152.

MONEY - In usual and ordinary acceptation it means coins and paper currency used as a circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate. Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky. 319, 133 S.W. 2d 74, 79, 81.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1005
Is that clear?
Since 1933, no money (as in lawful money) has circulated. Notes are not money - by law.

The 14 trillion DOLLAR national debt is not payable with "dollar bills" (notes). By law, that debt requires 700 billion ounces of gold, stamped into coin.

In 1933, the government TOOK away all privately held gold money, and exchanged it with worthless notes. When that wasn't enough - the government enacted FICA / Social Security. And in case you didn't know, "contribution" is not "donation" - it refers to equal liability for paying a claim.
What claim?
The impossible to repay national debt.
Why is the national debt impossible to repay?
World wide estimate of above ground gold is only 5.3 billion ounces.
That's a shortfall of 694.7 billion ounces (roughly).

At current mining rates, it will only take 87,000 years to mine enough gold - if the debt was frozen right now.

By law, each enumerated "human resource" is an obligated party on that debt. Which is how worthless notes became "legal tender". And that is how "all your goods and services" now belong to the collective STATE.

If you are content with being a chattel pledged as a surety on an impossible debt, owing a portion of your life's work and possessions to the collectivist State, don't let me stop you. But please refrain from rattling your chains - it annoys your neighbors.

Last edited by jetgraphics; 01-12-2011 at 12:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2011, 11:56 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,867 posts, read 14,055,650 times
Reputation: 16573
Updated link
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
References:
Collective Ownership by the State -
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
"Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."
" Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."

From the "money reference" link:
NOTE - An instrument containing an express and absolute promise of signer (i.e. maker) to pay to a specified person or order, or bearer, a definite sum of money at a specified time. An instrument that is a promise to pay other than a certificate of deposit. U.C.C. 3-104(2)(d)
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1060

TENDER - An offer of money ... Legal tender is that kind of coin, money, or circulating medium which the law compels a creditor to accept in payment of his debt, when tendered by the debtor in the right amount.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1467
Since 1933, the government's note (promise to pay) has been worthless.
TITLE 12,CHAPTER 3,SUBCHAPTER XII,sec. 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
" Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in LAWFUL MONEY on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
By law, we can see that the U.S. government must accept their own worthless notes in lieu of lawful money.
And by voluntary participation in FICA, those worthless notes are "legal tender" on the American people, because each enumerated "human resource" is an obligated party on said notes.

If you do not mind participating in such a magnificent fraud, don't let me stop you. But if you have objections, feel free to write a polite questionnaire to "your" government servants, asking for copies of the law that compels all Americans to enroll in FICA, or the law that punishes any American who does not participate, or the law that compels you to accept that which is not lawful money as tender in payment of debt.

They stopped answering my letters, decades ago. Maybe you'll get lucky...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2011, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,867 posts, read 14,055,650 times
Reputation: 16573
For a quick refresher on the difference between land held with absolute ownership (private property ) and land held with qualified ownership (real estate), see:
//www.city-data.com/forum/16975311-post119.html

As mentioned before, if 51% of Americans withdrew consent, the socialist regime would implode. This would also affect the state and local governments as well.

In a post-SHTF America, where the government has been reduced to a small shadow of its former self, sovereign Americans will not suffer taxation of rights endowed by their Creator.

Ironically, all the remedies exist now, in the law.



Quote:
"A constitution is not the act of a government,but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are not other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either."
- - - Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

Last edited by jetgraphics; 02-10-2011 at 03:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2011, 10:40 AM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,345 posts, read 18,480,930 times
Reputation: 22210
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory00 View Post
freedom and independence mean not having to answer to no one and doing what's in your best interest even if it screws another.
This is an absolute lie and the basis for absolute evil.

Your argument is logically flawed as well. THINK! Why can't people think these days? You say freedom means "screwing" others in your own best interests. This is a CONTRADICTION and antonym to the word "freedom." Again, THINK, would you? Please think. When you "screw" someone else in your own best interests, it's not called "freedom," it's called tyranny. You are tyrannizing the freedom of someone else when you do this. So, by definition, it CAN'T be freedom. Why can't people see this? To discuss freedom, you have to understand the definition of the word. Tyranny is tyranny. Selfishness is selfishness. Freedom is something different from either of them. Freedom is freedom. And if you understood the concept, you certainly wouldn't be making the comment that you did above.

You do NOT understand what freedom really means. All you understand are the lies you've been fed by the enemies to true freedom. In a true "free society," Freedom, liberty, free agency, etc, applies to everyone, not just you. In such a society, you'd have no right to deny the rights of others (screw them). If you weren't looking at it from such a shallow and selfish perspective, you'd see this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2011, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,867 posts, read 14,055,650 times
Reputation: 16573
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
You do NOT understand what freedom really means. All you understand are the lies you've been fed by the enemies to true freedom. In a true "free society," Freedom, liberty, free agency, etc, applies to everyone, not just you. In such a society, you'd have no right to deny the rights of others (screw them).
It might help to read this:
//www.city-data.com/forum/17128320-post43.html

What the founding generation knew about "liberty"
" Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind, of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men."
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary

NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p.919
Natural liberty is absolute freedom, limited to one's own property (outside of one's property, it would be a trespass). This does not mean there are no consequences for actions that escape one's domain and injure another person or his property. But for all intents and purposes, this is the core of America's republican form of government - the sovereignty of the people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2011, 10:40 PM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,345 posts, read 18,480,930 times
Reputation: 22210
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
It might help to read this:
//www.city-data.com/forum/17128320-post43.html

What the founding generation knew about "liberty"
" Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind, of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men."
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary

NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p.919
Natural liberty is absolute freedom, limited to one's own property (outside of one's property, it would be a trespass). This does not mean there are no consequences for actions that escape one's domain and injure another person or his property. But for all intents and purposes, this is the core of America's republican form of government - the sovereignty of the people.


Indeed. And as always, a very informative and well-thought-out post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top