ALL GUN LAWS ARE ILLEGAL IN THE USA. DECODED: THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS. KNOW THEIR DUTIES.

Here is the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And here is how to read it:

[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [since] a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state [is made from the people, who are all individuals, voluntarily].

The second amendment is one of the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. All of the Bill of Rights declare that the U.S. Government never can infringe upon aspects of being an individual, in short, the U.S. Government cannot tread over any of these personal rights.

The Bill of Rights limit what the agents of Congress can do and not what individuals can do. As I showed you in CASHING IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY, all of the Bill of Rights deals with the duties the then newly formed federal government had with respect to any individual.

The biggest failing in discourse over the Bill of Rights is the lack of talk emphasizing the duties of Congress and agents of government has to any American. It is quite clear what is meant by Congress shall make no law as we see in the opening salvo to protect any individual from an overreaching government.

All laws that infringe upon the right of any individual to keep and bear arms such as requiring permits of any kind are illegal and against the Constitution of the United States of America.

In jurisprudence, which is what we're talking about here, liberty means that realm where the law (politicians) is content to leave you alone. Where politicians make laws, there are duties and rights. Always, there can be no right without a corresponding duty and thus no duty without a corresponding right.

The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with the states in compact, which is what the rest of the Constitution details. The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with conferring rights to states.

Many phrases of every day English spell out the reality of limiting government while identifying some of the weightier aspects of being an individual. In all cases, the phrase the people means anyone, even you.

The Bill of Rights is chock full of these phrases that deal solely with any American individual. The Bill of Rights does not confer rights to groups nor does it impose duties upon individuals. Congress and the states alone have duties imposed by the Bill of Rights.

• the people to keep and bear Arms
• without the consent of the Owner
• The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
• the persons or things to be seized
• No person shall be held to answer 
• nor shall any person be subject for
• nor shall be compelled 
• nor shall private property be taken 
• the accused shall enjoy 
• to be informed of the nature and cause 
• to be confronted with 
• to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
• the right of trial by jury shall be preserved
• Excessive bail shall not be required
• retained by the people
• or to the people

Read more ...

GO FREE-RANGERS GO! FREE-RANGERS AND REASON.COM

The crypto-republican handlers of Reason.com strive for group cohesion by spinning tale after tale of their favored topics — gay marriage, illegal immigrants, illicit drugs, and of course, free range kids. For stories of the former three, Reasonoids call for legalization, which is an anti-libertarian stance. In stories of the latter, parents being arrested for leaving alone their children unattended, Reasonoids deride police action against parents.





In STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES AND THE STUPIDITY OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY I wrote,

Most Americans favor living by liberty over totalitarianism. Most Americans want to live within their own sphere of activity in which the law is content to leave them alone. Most Americans would much rather live this way than live by having government in every aspect of their lives, which we know as totalitarianism. 

and

Libertarians pride themselves on what they call the non-aggression principle (the NAP) though some call it the zero aggression principle (the ZAP). To them, the initiation of force against persons or property is illegitimate. Who could disagree?

In REASONOIDS OF REASON.COM, AMERICA'S CRYPTO-REPUBLICANS, I wrote,

In jurisprudence, which is what we're talking about here, liberty means that realm where the law (politicians) is content to leave you alone. Where politicians make laws, there are duties and rights. Always, there can be no right without a corresponding duty and thus no duty without a corresponding right.
Libertarianism boils down to liberty over duty and right. In short, libertarianism means living by fewer laws and thus fewer rights and duties.

Leading the charge for Reason.com is Reasonoid Lenore Skenazy, ex-columnist for the New York Daily News, who gained a bit of fame for letting her 9-year old ride the NYC subway alone.

On August 6, Reason.com published a work by Skenazy titled, Mom Arrested for Letting Kid Play in Lego Store While She Shopped.

A mom, Patricia Juarez, dumped her kid off at a mall store for an hour and 20 minutes, while Juarez indulged herself elsewhere in the mall. Upon mom Juarez' return to fetch her kiddo, the cops slapped cuffs on her. Indoctrinated Reason.com readers flailed over the arrest.

Reason.com readers failed to see the mom violated the NAP. She pushed her kid rearing upon the owners of the store without gaining agreement from the owners first.

The store manager was under zip obligation to supervise another's child without prior agreement. The store manager could have shoved little Juan out the door, telling him, "Little boys can't be in the store without their mommies or daddies. Off you go!"

True enough, the child could have been brought to the information booth at the mall and an announcement could have been made alerting mom Juarez to fetch her child. That would have been a much more sensible stance.

Some Reason.com readers argued the store manager lured children into the store merely by having an open for business sign. Yet, under law, any child lacks capacity as well as authority.

Any child cannot enter into contracts. All jurists would agree that a store's owner isn't making offer to a minor child and no minor child can give acceptance. Thus, never could there be a valid contract.

Reason.com readers failed to see reality. Mom Juarez abandoned her child to his own devices.

On August 14, Reason.com published another work by Skenazy titled, Another Mom Thrown in Jail for Letting Kids Play at Park. Once again, Reason.com readers commented collective gasps on cue at the abuse of the system.

As to the story, mom Ashley Richardson of Winter Haven, Florida, let her kids wander to a park on their own, crossing over a four-lane boulevard with few crosswalks. Mom Richardson sought to do her chores without the burden of her children tagging along.

Two and half hours passed between the time a cop of Winter Haven first met with the children to rescue one stuck in a swing set chair and when later the same cop discovered the children in a more precarious environment. Who knows how many hours the children were left to their own devices by their mom Richardson?

Mom Ashley Richardson violated the NAP.  She imposed duty upon the residents of Winter Haven to incur costs without first gaining agreement with those residents. Without doubt, through action Ashley Richardson reveals herself to be anti-libertarian.

It's one thing to have free-range kids in exurbia or on one's farm. It's another thing to let little kids supervise themselves in an urban park in the 21st century.

Today, Reason.com published yet another Skenazy piece, Poll: Most Americans Want to Criminalize Pre-Teens Playing Unsupervised. And once again, Reason.com readers chime in with their indoctrination-induced whines.

According to the cited poll, 83% of Americans say there ought be a law that prohibits kids 9 and under from playing at the park unsupervised and 62% feel the same way about 12-year-olds.

From this, Skenazy wildly jumps to the crazed claim that Americans would like to criminalize all pre-teenagers playing outside on their own.

In law, where there is a right, there must be a duty. Freedom, also said, liberty by those who favor the Old French in English, is the realm where politicians are content to leave alone anyone from law.

In law, property means the right of ownership and not what is owned, ever. In law, liability imposes facing right of action in civil matters and right of prosecution in criminal matters.

Municipalities are incorporated entities chartered under law within their respective states. Municipalities own parks. Residents do not parks within their cities.

Under incorporation, those who legislate for municipalities grant rights for residents to enjoy lands in which municipalities have ownership. These same legislatures impose duty upon themselves with respect to the rights granted residents.

Likewise, legislatures grant rights to municipalities and impose duties upon residents.

There is no compelling argument that incorporated entities of any kind, including municipalities ought to impose duty of particular kinds and thus subject those municipalities to liability. Thus, no one can argue rightly that managers of municipalities ought to open their respective municipalities to liabilities.

Libertarians are right to defend individuals from the erosion of freedom, say regarding the rearing of their children anywhere where individuals have property such as houses and cars. However, libertarians have no legs upon which stand with respect to incorporated entities.

Forcing municipalities to watch over unsupervised children is akin to forcing store owners to watch over unsupervised children. Both acts are anti-Libertarian and violate the NAP.

And look what happens when managers of municipalities open their municipalities to liability. The dopey parents of five children in Brooklyn let their kids swing on swings, likely unsupervised, until the kids managed to break their own legs.

Perhaps, criminalizing temporary abandonment isn't the way to go. Rather than imposing criminal penalties, stiff civil penalties could be imposed, akin to walking one's dog without a leash. Perhaps only habitual violators ought to be considered for criminal action.

Accidents are the leading cause of death for children under age 21. For boys between 1 and 4, accidents account for 35.3% of all deaths, 3.75 times the next cause, congenital malformations. For boys between 5 and 9, accidents account for 36.5% of all deaths, twice the next cause of malignant neoplasms (cancers). For boys between 10 and 14, accidents account for 32.9% of all deaths, 2.3 times the next cause of malignant neoplasms. For boys between 15 and 19, accidents account for 40.7% of all deaths, double the percent of next cause, homicide by assault.

For girls, 1 to 4, accidents are the leading cause of death, 1.89 times more than the next cause of congenital malformations. For girls, 5 to 9, accidents account for 27.4% of all deaths, 1.38 times the next cause of malignant neoplasms. For girls, 10 to 14, accidents account for 25.9% of all deaths, 1.35 times the next cause of malignant neoplasms. For girls, 15 to 19, accidents account for 44.1% of all deaths, 3.97 times the next cause of suicide.

To indoctrinated Reason.com readers, though, children are safe everywhere, all the time. Of course, the master handlers at Reason.com go strive to trigger emotion because they play on an important fact about psychology. The indoctrinates at Reason.com see themselves as the children playing and can't understand why anyone needs supervision since they don't. The master handlers at Reason.com rely on triggering childhood memories of the indoctrinates who conclude they are alive today and thus how bad could it be to leave children unattended in the wild.

And then there is this ... Teenager arrested in connection with death and rape of 6-year-old

The little girl was frequently allowed to wander and play on her own in the fenced-in community.
Jenise was last seen going to bed the night of Aug. 2, but her parents, James and Denise Wright, did not report her missing until a day later because they had assumed she was off playing.

I have been quite moved by the Jenise Wright story. Her precious face reminds me so much of my daughter when my daughter was at the same age.

Read more ...

REASONOIDS OF REASON.COM, AMERICA'S CRYPTO-REPUBLICANS

"Imagine, if you will, a country in which government ... embraces things such as gay marriage, drug legalization, and immigration." ~ Nick Gillespie, Leader of Reason.com Reasonoid "Libertarians"

The marketers behind Reason.com and Reason TV, promote Reason.com as "the libertarian magazine of Free Minds and Free Markets." Well known for his 1970s retro TV Fonzie look, as the editor-in-chief of both, Gillespie stands as the living embodiment of all things Reason.




Gillespie advocates for more laws — for more rights and duties — when he champions legalization of gay marriage, drugs, and illegal aliens. Gillespie advocates the stance of progressive liberals and not authentic libertarians. Thus, Gillespie advocates for less liberty. In short, Gillespie cannot be libertarian by definition nor can his followers.

Someone should tell the Reasonoids of Reason.com truth. They are Liberal Progressives falling somewhere between antiquated Rockefeller Republicans and the more recent Clinton New Democrats.

They are not Libertarians. They have yet to awaken to this truth about themselves.

Reasonoids suffer from the equivalent of Stockholm syndrome and thus they defend their cult leader Gillespie. Gillespie has conned his many followers into a cult of crypto Republican progressivism.

In jurisprudence, which is what we're talking about here, liberty means that realm where the law (politicians) is content to leave you alone. Where politicians make laws, there are duties and rights. Always, there can be no right without a corresponding duty and thus no duty without a corresponding right.

Libertarianism boils down to liberty over duty and right. In short, libertarianism means living by fewer laws and thus fewer rights and duties. Adding ever more rights and duties is how you lessen freedom and expand political control over everyone through legal means!

Libertarianism is not anarchism, however. The absence of law in the presence of government is liberty, not anarchy. Anarchy means no government at all. It means without (a) an overlord (archy). In anarchy, anything goes.

Regardless of the cause, any authentic libertarian opposes reduction of liberty and the expansion of rights and duties as the means to fix so-called societal ills. As the authentic libertarian position is liberty over law, the authentic libertarian stance is to rid marriage licensing as a legal determinant for anything, including welfare and taxation. The authentic libertarian stance is to decriminalize drugs. The authentic libertarian stance is to decriminalize illegal immigration. The authentic libertarian stance is to end welfare and subsidy.

More rights and duties means less liberty. If you are for more rights and duties, you cannot  be a libertarian. By supporting more rights and duties, you advocate for bigger government. Most likely, you are free-markets liberal who doesn't like the Democratic Party.

Being an anti-war, pothead, pro-gay champion fails to make anyone libertarian. All the so-called libertarians who chat up on Reason in favor of legalized gay marriage, and legalized drugs are little more than libertines championing the expansion of the size and scope of government. They do so precisely because they are clueless about jurisprudence and all of the attendant concepts of rights, duty, power, liabilities and disabilities.

Giving X authority to decide duties and rights stands opposed to the non-aggression principle (NAP) and thus libertarianism. Granting rights and imposing duties is the anti-thesis of liberty and thus libertarianism. Expanding duties and rights is the polar opposite of liberty and libertarianism.

Anyone who can reason straight can see the bizarro absurdity of these:

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." ~ unnamed U.S. officer on Ben Tre, Vietnam War

"I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." ~ George W. Bush

and

"It became necessary to abandon principles for liberty by supporting expanding rights and duties enforced by government through X in order to save liberty." ~ Typical Clueless American

where X is Obamacare, Gay Marriage, Permanent Residency to Illegal Aliens, and many other pet causes.

Thus, the straight-reasoner should see the equal absurdity of this:

"It became necessary to abandon principles for liberty by supporting expanding rights and duties enforced by government through Obamacare in order to save liberty." ~ Typical Liberal

and this:

"It became necessary to abandon principles for liberty by supporting expanding rights and duties enforced by government through gay marriage in order to save liberty." ~ Typical Pro Gay Marriage Reasonoid

Legalization of gay marriage, drugs, and illegal aliens is the stance of meddlers who believe in forcing individuals to behave according to their Utopoian visions. In America, those meddlers go by the moniker of progressive liberals.

Federalized gay marriage decreases liberty. Federalized gay marriage increases duty and rights. Federalized gay marriage increases to whom authority is granted and to whom capacity is granted.

Gays now have authority to order people to associate with them in commerce. Gays now have capacity to marry in order to secure welfare from politicians.

Authentic libertarians know better. Every victory against liberty no matter how big or small nonetheless is a victory against liberty. Every authentic libertarian opposes marriage licensing as a determinant in legal relationship. From a taxpayer perspective, this one is a huge victory against liberty.

No one should misconstrue the foregoing as an attack on gays, on drug users or on illegal aliens. It's not.

Facts remain. Marriage licenses, passports and prohibition are legal fictions created politicians who impose duties and rights.

Politician-sanctioning of behavior fails to increase freedom. Politician-sanctioning of behavior increases officialdom and their power.

Rather than walking into Utopia, incessant meddling keeps everyone in perpetual Dystopia. We're living in the 21st Century. The goal should be to have the least governance as needed rather than the relentless pursuit of the most governance tolerable.

Reason.com boosts a progressive Republican agenda. In short, Reasonoids stand with the feel-good progressive liberalism of the Democrats — legal gay marriage, legalized illegal immigrants, legalized drugs — as well as with the pro big business, anti-welfare side of the Republicans.

Gillispe and the Reasonoids ought to join Democrats or Republicans since the latter are all about rights and duties. They love telling people what to do and they love granting privileges masquerading as rights in furthering their efforts to gain a permanent lock-hold on power.

Reason.com has nothing to do with authentic libertarianism, except masquerading with the word libertarianism.

Jurisprudence. Learn it.

Read more ...

PAY UP ... BITCHES.

A while ago, 18 year old Rachel Canning of Lincoln, New Jersey flipped off her mom and dad, moved out and moved in with the parents of a girl friend. Now, the perhaps precious, perhaps ungrateful young adult has sued her parents hoping to get a court to force her parents to fund her post-secondary education holiday. In short, Rachel has said to her parents, "Pay up, bitches!"

Alicia Silverstone in Clueless (left). Rachel Canning in court (right).

All matters of civil jurisprudence are matters of rights and duties. There can be no right unless there is a corresponding duty.

So, does Rachel Canning have a legal right to a post-secondary education and do her parents have the legal duty to pay for such a legal right?

If judges of courts were to rule stupidly and upon no previous basis of Anglo-Norman-American jurisprudence that such a right and thus duty exists, then what exactly is that right and duty?

Do the parents get the right to decide the post-secondary education and if so, is Rachel under duty to complete the post-secondary education under terms and condition set forth in a contract? Perhaps Canning's parents would pay only for a trade school such as cosmetology school.

As it stands now, both the U.S. and various states' governments claim the right on behalf of the citizenry to impose the duty upon parents to pay for the rearing of their children, should parents' incomes exceed a sum tallied in cash. Otherwise, politicians claim the same right to impose duty upon others to pick up those costs. However, until now, no legislature has claimed the right and thus imposed the duty for parents to pay post-secondary education bills.

It's unlikely Canning prevails because codified law doesn't support her claim of right nor do any precedent rulings. Then again, the robed one Chief Justice Roberts idiotically ruled that a fine is a tax and therefore Congress can make people buy medical bills paying insurance so that everyone must pay for rec sex pregnancy control pills for women, gays must pay for pregnancy care for women and births of their children and so on.

Seemingly, Rachel Canning hates her parents and yet she wants them to give up something, buying power, without herself giving up anything in return, respect, devotion. Wanting to get something without giving up something in honest exchange is the picture perfect essence of greed.

Read more ...

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECREES ITSELF AS MASTER PIMP FOR ALL SEX WORKERS IN EUROPE

On Wednesday, February 26, the European parliament voted for resolution to criminalize the purchase of sex but not the sale of sex. In Europe, this is the known as the Nordic model of prostitution. The resolution passed by almost a 2.5 to 1 margin (343 for, 139 against, 105 abstained). You can read all about the silliness in the U.K.'s Guardian.

Mary Honeyball a spokesman for the labor party of the EU parliament called the continuance of prostitution "exploitation of women," the new measure a "nuanced approach" to tackle prostitution by purportedly "punishing men who treat women's bodies as a commodity" and doing all this without punishing women "who are driven into sex work."

By fining men while letting women work as paid whores, the irony here is that government has become the pimp, the pimp who wants his girls working and who wants to collect fees from customers called fines.


Women aren't driven into sex work. Prostitutes like the work. It's fast, easy, and has a high-pay to low-skill ratio. 

Worse, these silly European parliamentarians suffer from the false belief that bodies are being traded as commodities. Bodies aren't being traded as commodities, pleasure is. For a people who earn their living trading votes for favors, one would think parliamentarians would fully understand prostitution and how it works.

What is the real problem? Government, the created creature has grown beyond society, the creator. This is the true evil.

When a people live under a law for everything, that living is called totalitarianism. That is what totalitarianism means. It doesn't mean communism or socialism, though those kinds of collectivism tend to lead to totalitarianism. 

For people to be free, there must be freedom, or those realms for individuals where there is no officialdom. Said another way, there must be liberty, or where the law (government) is content to leave all alone and thus not create duties and rights.

Government should be tiny, hardly noticeable in the lives of the people. Instead, the lives of the people are tiny and government is all pervasive. 

People get what they deserve. This is what people deserve for wanting government to provide income-giving welfare instead of merely protection of any individual and his property (ownership in stuff) from foreign mobs and domestic ones.

The right act of course, is to de-criminalize prostitution and restore it to its rightful place, liberty, or that arena where The Law is content to leave individuals alone.

Of course, the real reason for regulation and condemnation of anything is revenue for over-sized salaries and pensions for bureaucrats and politicians. If they fine prostitutes, they look evil. There aren't that many working whores so the total take is small. 

However, if they fine the johns, revenues shall increase. There are tens of thousands of potential fine-paying johns. 

By claiming to stamp out yet another evil, politicians can pander to feminist sympathizers as well as religionists. And this is the driver for the latest trend sweeping Europe.

If you want to better understand prostitution from the minds of prostitutes, read The Honest Courtesan. This woman, a former prostitute, blogs about prostitution.

Of course, web cam workers who masturbate on cam engage in a kind of prostitution, trading pleasure for bank credit convertible into cash. So too, porno video sex workers engage in prostitution, working with other prostitutes and having their work recorded to video, also trading pleasure for bank credit convertible into cash. 

The advance of government toward totalitarianism never leads to progress. True progress arises from autonomy, or that which is self-rule.

Read more ...

STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES AND THE STUPIDITY OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY

Most Americans favor living by liberty over totalitarianism. Most Americans want to live within their own sphere of activity in which the law is content to leave them alone. Most Americans would much rather live this way than live by having government in every aspect of their lives, which we know as totalitarianism. 

The Libertarian Party is a tiny political party in the USA having been around for decades. The members of this party claim to be for liberty rather than totalitarianism. To most Americans that should sound pretty good since the Democrats and the Republicans seem to pass ever more laws, which looks ever more like American-branded totalitarianism. 

Yet it is little wonder why most Americans ignore the Libertarian Party? Big "L" LPers seem quite confused about liberty — the absence of law in the presence of government — and right — diminished liberty of others on one's behalf. 

Libertarians pride themselves on what they call the non-aggression principle (the NAP) though some call it the zero aggression principle (the ZAP). To them, the initiation of force against persons or property is illegitimate. Who could disagree?

A review of official Libertarian Party platform reveals a muddled mess and incoherency. Early on in the platform one can read this bit of Libertarian Party comedy  gold:

We believe ... that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships...

How do they propose to banish? Banishing requires force, that which is against the NAP / ZAP! To banish means to proclaim as outlaw, to forbid. It's late 1300s Old French into English.

What good anyone can find in the Libertarian Party platform is merely a re-wording of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, but a re-wording that lacks clarity. A deeper reading of the platform reveals troubling Libertarian Party thought.

Under the heading titled 3.5 Rights and Discrimination, the Libertarian Party reveals contradiction. In the second sentence, the party platform is:

"We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that "right.""

which follows the first sentence: 

"Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights."

There can be no right without duty. That is the reality of more than 799 years of Anglo-Norman and American jurisprudence. 

Obligation means duty. One must fulfill duty by either doing X or not doing X so that another can exercise one's right. That is jurisprudence.

The right to life is a natural right. The right to life imposes the duty on everyone else to not violate that right of anyone. The natural right to one's life imposes a duty upon all others to not murder.

Doing one's duty of not violating another's right fulfills one's duty. One can only enjoy the right of living, of not being murdered if everyone does his or her duty, fulfills his or her duty of not killing. 

If a right is inherent, it is natural. That which is natural is by birth. That which is inherent is closely connected as with those qualities arising from being born and alive.

Claiming that a natural right cannot ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that right and then claiming that people have inherent (natural) rights is contradiction. There can not be right without duty. It's impossibility.

If one supports the LP belief that a natural right cannot ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that right, then one must support the the idea of murdering anyone on a whim for any reason, any time in the absence of government and criminal law. From the LPs own manifesto, they reject natural rights because they reject natural duties.


If one supports 3.5 of the LP manifesto, that no one has duty to fulfill the natural right of another, then one supports anarchy. In anarchy, no one has duty not to kill another. Thus, no one has a natural right to life. Only under anarchy, does anyone not have any rights as no one has duties. 

Before there is government, there is society and before society, only individuals. If there were but one individual on earth, that one would be free to go and roam wherever, live wherever, eat whatever. He would be free even to kill himself. He would be right to do all of those acts.

Anyone can conceive of there being the best land on earth, the most productive, yielding the best food and the best climate.

As soon as two exist, there can be contention for that best land. As both have equal rights in themselves as described in the foregoing, both can not occupy the same land at the same time and derive the same benefit. 

One fix for this is for one to murder the other. As both have the right to live, with the advent of both, both have the duty to not murder the other. So while murder would solve one guy's problem, he could not do so without failing in his duty while at the same time violating the right of another in an egregious manner.

The only failing of this, of course, is that if only two existed, there would be no one left to punish the murderer, in any manner including banishment (ostracism) from those in society of property.

So rather than resort to murder, they could agree that one would take the next best land and the one taking the best land would compensate the one taking the second best.

Now we can see this scenario happening as more individuals arise on the earth. As each cannot occupy the same land at the same time and derive the same benefit, each succeeding one could agree with all others occupying better land to be compensated. The alternative is murder and the more who exist, the greater the scale of that murder.

However, if one murders another with better land, rejecting compensation, the rest who are in this society of property, where property means right of ownership and never the thing owned, could impose upon the one disrupting harmony, banishment at minimum or death at maximum.

It seems that some libertarians reject the belief that fulfilling duty means not doing an act as well as doing an act. One can fulfill a duty by not doing X.

You have a duty to not trespass on my land. You fulfill that duty every day you refrain from trespassing. You have a duty to not steal the fruit growing upon my trees. You fulfill that duty every day you refrain from stealing my fruit.

I have the right to have my land free from trespassers. I have the right to have my fruit not stolen by others.

My property, that is my right of ownership in my land and my fruit, makes it so, whether I live with others in society of property under customary law or in conjunction with others in society, also with government, which establishes civil law and criminal law.

Civil law requires court in administration of justice. It is a creature of legislators. Customary law, or law of society, that which proceeds government is a creature of agreed upon custom of persons. Where there is law, whether civil law or customary law, and where there are rights, there must be duties.

It's impossible to support natural rights and then reject natural duties. To do so is to be muddled in mind, to live illogically, to live absurdly.

LPers are free to reject reality and jurisprudence. Who should stop them? Who should violate their NAP/ZAP? 

It's no wonder why they can't make headway in America. Stupid is as stupid does or so said Forrest Gump. 

Read more ...

LAW VS LIBERTY AND THE AMERICAN WAY.

Because many fail to understand civil jurisprudence, they don't understand the American Way. Most Americans will live from cradle to grave without understanding the system under which they live. 


Most Americans have heard these words — liberties, rights, duties, disabilities, liabilities, wrongs — but only through TV shows and movies or worse from public educators, you know, unionized school marms.

RIGHTWAY ROGER


Government sponsored marriages?  Meh.  There should be no federal or state government sponsored advantage or disadvantage to marriage.  The less government defines us, the more freedom we have. 

ME

Agreed. Law is about making uniform ruling for judges in sorting out matters of duty and right, or that what gets called civil jurisprudence.

If individuals can be held to duty to members of group, there exists only dictatorship. It is the essence of dictatorship — that some can enrich themselves from the outlay of more merely by having membership. 


LOST LEFTY LARRY

Government should keep their noses out of what is essentially a cultural institution.  The only exception is where civil liberties are being violated.

ME

But only government — politicians and bureaucrats — can violate civil liberties.

Liberties are acts of doing what one pleases, acts one can do without being prevented by law. The sphere of legal liberty is that sphere of activity within which law is content to leave oneself alone.  Liberty is when the law allows to one's will a sphere of unrestrained activity. Liberty is the absence of duty imposed upon oneself. Liberty is what you may do innocently.

Right is when law limits the liberty of others on one's behalf. Right is what others must do on your behalf, that is, their duty.

Power is what you can do effectively. Power is when law assists one actively in making one's will effective. 

One uses one's liberties without protest from the law. One enjoy's one's rights through law by controlling the acts of others over one's behalf. One uses one's powers with active assistance from the law in making itself the instrument of one's will. 

Liberties and rights are not the same. Right and power are not the same. These words are not synonyms under law. 

LOST LEFTY LARRY

No, civil liberties can be violated by both public and private entities.

ME

When an overzealous cop stops you from doing something for which there is no law, your civil liberty has been violated. Yet, if someone trespasses on your land, your right has been violated and the trespasser has failed in performing a duty not to trespass. 

If you live next door to Camp Pendleton and while practicing war games, marines wander on your land and blow up your cabin, those marines violated your civil rights but not your civil liberties. The Marines had duty to not trespass.

Say, you are walking on Venice Beach promenade taking pictures of a cop arresting a druggie and the cop tells you to stop and produce identification for which you refuse. Subsequently, on your refusal, the cop arrests you. Your civil liberties have been violated as there are no laws empowering police in California to make you produce I.D.

You are at liberty to be in California without I.D.

Only agents of government can violate your civil liberties. Liberty means absence of law, that which government otherwise has no concern.  

Private entities can violate civil rights, but not civil liberties. Others can violate your rights by failing to do duty to you. For every right there must be a corresponding duty. If you have the right to X, that means, someone else has the duty to perform X or refrain in their behavior from you getting to do X.


LOST LEFTY LARRY

What about the FLSA? Doesn't that protect civil liberties?

ME

FLSA is law and establishes rights and duties.  Law only ever establishes rights and duties. The absence of law is liberty.

FLSA establishes rights to such thing as overtime pay in particular occupations if such occupations involve interstate commerce. Employers have duty imposed upon then to fulfill rights of those granted and established under law, e.g., employers must pay overtime to those who have worked under overtime rules of the FLSA.

Employers who are obligated by law (have duty) to abide by FLSA and failing to comply open themselves to liability, which gives legal remedy to others. 

LOST LEFTY LARRY

Civil liberty is actually defined as the freedom of a citizen to exercise customary rights, as of speech or assembly, without unwarranted or arbitrary interference by the government which is an important distinction.

ME

Customary rights deals with customary law, which is any rule of action to which men voluntarily conform their action. It involves de facto observance. Customary rights of customary law do not have the nature of civil law since the essence of civil law is recognition of a state in the administration of justice.

Civil law, which is custom of the state, to a big extent finds basis on precedent customary law, which is merely custom of society.

Again, the absence of law defines civil liberty. The sphere of legal liberty is that sphere of activity within which law is content to leave oneself alone. Liberty means absence of law, that which government otherwise has no concern. 

LOST LEFTY LARRY

Just wow. The absence of law is the definition of anarchy not liberty. You're a damn anarchist! 

ME

Wow, just wow. The absence of law in the presence of government is liberty, not anarchy. 

Anarchy means no government at all. It means without (a) an overlord (archy). 

Maybe this will help you sort out your beliefs. 

One with disability lacks power to determine the legal relations of others (authority) or the ability  to determine one's own (capacity). When politicians don't establish law giving themselves authority (power) to do X and then do X against anyone, they have violated that one's civil liberty.

Sometimes politicians voluntarily bind their agency to the law, thus imposing duty upon their agents. If their agents fail to do their duty, they have violated the civil rights of others.

So for example, the U.S. adheres to its own employment law, which gives workers rights and imposes duties upon employers, in this case, the U.S. itself.

Anyone has the duty not to commit murder or not to defraud another. Anyone has liability in debt such that another who holds the right of action can sue for collection of said debt. 

In civil law, liability is right of action. In criminal law, liability is right of prosecution. 

Jurisprudence doesn't change because you want to misinterpret it your way.

Read more ...

CASHING IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY.

The American way of life is the way of liberty. Said another way, it is the way of self-rule, of autonomy. At least it used to be. 

There were Americans long ago who had it right. Government is a creature of men and women living in society of property, a creature that must be controlled and contained. The creature never should never grow bigger and stronger than its creators. 

That is why those Americans gave us the Bill of Rights. All of the Bill of Rights deals with the duties the then newly formed federal government had with respect to any individual. 

However, since World War 1, successive Congresses have stripped Americans of the American way, little-by-little. Many Americans have been content to let this happen as long as they have gained income through subsidy, welfare or monopoly. 

The biggest failing in discourse over the Bill of Rights is the lack of talk emphasizing the duties of Congress and agents of government has to any American.

The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with the states in compact, which is what the rest of the Constitution details. The only mention of states within the Bill of Rights is in the 10th.

A reading of the Bill of Rights with the words of then-prevailing English explained reveals how far many Congresses have gone against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What most fail to see is how the U.S. Supreme Court works in favor of its employer, Congress.

Acts in the 20th Century and even more so in the 21st Century have been disastrous to Americans and our Bill of Rights.

There isn't a United States without full adherence to the Bill of Rights. The Constitution becomes null and void without full compliance by Congress and its executive in their duties to our rights and their prohibition from our liberties.

1st Amendment

Congress can't make laws and thus diminish liberty (autonomy, or self-rule) regarding religion, public speaking, public congregation, public petition.

2nd Amendment

Congress and its executive have a duty not to interfere in anyone's expressly stated right both to possess (keep) weapons of any kind (arms) — guns, knives, spears, axes, shields — and to bring forth (bear) those weapons whenever. 

3rd Amendment

Congress is denied the right and thus any individual lacks the duty to house any soldier during peace — when Congress has not declared war. Only owners of houses have the duty to house soldiers during times when Congress has declared war, but Congress can only exercise this right if describing the exact manner of such housing with law.

4th Amendment

Congress and its executive have a duty not to interfere in anyone's expressly stated right of possession (secure) over themselves, their houses and contents thereof, their documents and everything they have produced (effects). Only when an agent of the Federal Government has a warrant that specifically and in detail describes exactly where should be searched, exactly what should be taken in possession (seized), and exactly who should be taken in possession (seized), can such an agent act. 

5th Amendment

Congress and its executive have a right to assemble a Grand Jury but have a duty to present legal document containing a charge (indictment) against anyone for a capital crime. 

Anyone has the right to ignore any claims of having committed a capital crime, unless Congress exercises its right to assemble a Grand Jury and perform its duty of indictment. 

Congress and its executive have the right to ignore the foregoing involving military personnel during times when Congress has formally declared war or when there has been decree of public danger. 

Anyone has the right not to be tried twice for the same crime. Anyone has the right to not testify against himself. 

Thus, government has the duty to not attempt to try anyone twice. Anyone of government has the duty to not try to force someone to testify against himself. 

Therefore, government lacks authority for torture. Anyone of government has the duty not to try to trick anyone into testifying against himself.

Congress and its executive have the duty to establish law and then perform in adherence to that law before taking anyone's life or right of ownership (property) in anything or before restricting anyone's liberty (autonomy, self-rule).

When Congress and its executive have fulfilled their duty to establish law to take away anyone's right of ownership (property) in something so that all Americans can use it (public), Congress must pay that one the prevailing market price (just compensation; equitable weighing of one thing against another) and not merely any sum they feel like paying.

6th Amendment

Congress and its executive have the duty to prosecute anyone (liability) in open court (public) and to do so swiftly (speedy; without delay). Thus, anyone has the right to be prosecuted only in open court and in short time from when being charged with a crime.

Anyone accused has the right to be judged by an impartial jury. Congress and its executive have the duty to assemble an impartial jury.

Congress and its executive have the duty to define legal districts and prosecute anyone only in that district.

Anyone accused has the right to be judged only within the court district where the alleged crime has been committed. 

Anyone accused has the right to be told the reason for action (cause) and what supposedly happen (nature; course of things).

Congress and its executive have the duty to present witnesses.

Congress and its executive have the duty to create law which establishes the means for anyone accused to have supporting witnesses (witnesses in his favor). 

Congress and its executive have the duty to create law which establishes the means for anyone accused to have a lawyer (Assistance of Counsel for his defence).

Anyone has the right to have supporting witnesses (witnesses in his favor). Anyone has the right to have lawyer.

7th Amendment 

Anyone has the right to a jury at trial when facing a loss of more than twenty dollars as the outcome.

Anyone has the right to not face twice in subsequent court the same facts presented in a case when that one faces a loss of more than twenty dollars as the outcome.

8th Amendment 

Congress and its executive have the duty to not impose oppressive (excessive) bail. 

Congress and its executive have the duty to not impose oppressive (excessive) fines.

Congress and its executive have the duty to not impose neither rude, unfeeling, bloody (cruel) punishment nor not ordinary, not custom (unusual) punishment.

9th Amendment

Merely listing the foregoing rights does not give Congress the right to later define duty upon anyone in other matters not contained in the Constitution, stripping anyone of liberty and imposing duty upon them.

10th Amendment

Unless expressly stated in the Constitution, Congress and its executive lack the authority (power)  to override the capacity (power) anyone has in liberty (autonomy, self-rule). 

As well, when the Constitution prohibits the States' legislatures and their executives from having authority (power), anyone keeps his capacity (power) in liberty (autonomy, self-rule). 

Only when the Constitution fails to prohibit the States' legislatures and their executives from having authority (power), can the States' legislatures and their executives take it upon themselves to establish law and thus imposing duty and conferring right.

For a crash course in jurisprudence, read here:

LAW VS LIBERTY AND THE AMERICAN WAY.

Read more ...