The Core
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Oh, I can concoct fantasy worlds for myself. But in the world I live in, I don't see it happening in any way.
That says it all right there.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Property Rights issue is not a fantasy. Google for new london eminent domain supreme court to read about property rights issue.
A world where there are no police and people just magically respect property rights, is the fantasy.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
A world where there are no police and people just magically respect property rights, is the fantasy.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Nobody said anything about not having police.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
The bedrock that our country should be built on. It's real simple. PROPERTY RIGHTS. PERSONAL LIBERTY. Those two things can be expanded to include every detail you could ever think of. Everybody has property rights and personal liberty, you cannot trample on other people's property rights or personal liberty nor can they trample on yours. It's a decentralized self-balancing system.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It's a decentralized self-balancing system.
Or in more realistic terms, a giant whine fest of self interested parties which makes the UN look efficient and well run. But let's look at this a bit more, personal liberty, as described in the constitution, was effectively only given to white land owning men. Sure, there's a lot of high ideals involved in some of the early documents, but the implementation was so far short of them it's painful. Before you start complaining that we should go back to that, go check for some land deeds in your name. If you don't have them, you'll have no say in that good ole constitutional government you want so badly. Wait, you say that's not how you would do it, it's your interpretation of the constitution which is correct, which you will support with cherry picked quotations from your preferred founding fathers? Oh, well, I can drag out the list of them that fall on my side too, and note that the constitution includes within it the means to change it, and without a change in the original interpretation just about anyone who claims the constitution is how the country should be run, would have considerably less rights under it.
-
How is it a complete answer ? You're saying that if three groups were given the constitution and asked to build a system on it, they would be identical in every way ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Yes. They already do. What's your point?
So who should pay for them ? If they are not privately funded, isn't that a form of government getting involved ?
josda1000 wrote:
No, private schooling can be paid for by grants from the government. We already do that. What's your point?
That you just involved the government, thus explanding their role
josda1000 wrote:
Private industry does this already. What's your point?
Really ? There's no rules protecting people from unsanitary kitchens, for example ? If I tin cats and call it beef, then so long as no-one ever knows the difference, that's OK ?
josda1000 wrote:
Local communities can come together and form volunteer fire departments. But I also think that this can be done by local governments anyway. This is very efficient when it comes to a local level, so I have no problem with this.
So, it involves government again ? See how your definition expands when you examine it ? This was my core point.
josda1000 wrote:
No, I have a private insurance plan, and it doesn't cost me a heck of a lot each month. Putting words in my mouth once again, Christian? You're really good at trying to break me down.
So, health is for people who can afford insurance ? That's what I was trying to say.
josda1000 wrote:
So saying that I'm only for the rich is extremely naive of you sir.
OK, I admit it was hyperbole. I meant, I'm sure you're not in favour of any sort of government backed health system.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Pertaining to schools: Schools can be BOTH private and public. However, it is definitely known to be better to have private schools. Take a look at testing and such. Look at Bernanke: He was schooled at Princeton and got a 1500+ on SATs. I'm not saying I like the guy, but I do believe him to be an educated man.
Christian Graus wrote:
That you just involved the government, thus explanding their role
Agreed. But I'd say that's a better thing for the states to get into, not the federal government. Each state can govern in its own way; the federal government is out of bounds when it intrudes and involves itself in matters such as that. There's no place in Article I section 8 that says it can.
Christian Graus wrote:
Really ? There's no rules protecting people from unsanitary kitchens, for example ? If I tin cats and call it beef, then so long as no-one ever knows the difference, that's OK ?
Yes, but you were asking if the government actually does it. To this extent that you're making now, yes, the government does have 'rules' for it. But again, the federal government has no right to do so. It's out of bounds, according to Article I Section 8.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, it involves government again ? See how your definition expands when you examine it ? This was my core point.
It's a valid thing for local government to do, yes. Local government is much better at organizing than a central government, especially when we're talking about 300 Million people in the United States. Again, under Article I Section 8, they have no right to deal with fires in buildings. That's a state issue, or even more to the point, it's a municipality issue.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, health is for people who can afford insurance ? That's what I was trying to say.
Not exactly; you make it sound like it's expensive, or impossible to get free care as it is already. That's why there are private free clinics as well as private hospitals and such. It doesn't necessarily cost anyone anything to get treatment. People can donate to those free clinics with no problem.
-
A world where there are no police and people just magically respect property rights, is the fantasy.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3373858/Re-The-Core.aspx[^] Did I somehow miss the word "police" in there? You've been making some real bogus arguments in this thread Christian, I suggest you rethink all of your arguments and take another try in the batter's box. Stop making crazy assumptions please. We're not talking about anarchy. We're talking about a republican form of government.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Liberty - freedom
Unless those freedoms you speak of infringe upon the freedoms of others, in which case, freedom needs a modifying influence to attempt to ensure fair play is achieved in the quest for mutual personal freedoms and liberties.
josda1000 wrote:
Property - the core of rights.
As long as you purchase/acquire outright the deed of ownership or you come to an enforceable agreement whereby you commit to continue to pay rent/mortgage otherwise does it not become a falsehood?
josda1000 wrote:
Look at dogs. Dogs bury their bones, love their houses, bark when hungry and know where to find food. They just have that level of instinct.
Yes they do, but, the instinct of dogs is one born of a pack and each pack member is subjected to the rule from the Alpha, thus the concept of ownership for the individual pack member of property again could be a falsehood.
josda1000 wrote:
They preexist governments
Order is required or chaos tends to ensue.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Unless those freedoms you speak of infringe upon the freedoms of others, in which case, freedom needs a modifying influence to attempt to ensure fair play is achieved in the quest for mutual personal freedoms and liberties.
Precisely. That's why we have a fifth amendment, and an executive branch. They are there as the protectors of personal rights, for both the accused and the accusers.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As long as you purchase/acquire outright the deed of ownership or you come to an enforceable agreement whereby you commit to continue to pay rent/mortgage otherwise does it not become a falsehood?
Are you saying that I need to have a deed of ownership to myself? Is that why there are birth certificates and such? I find this to be an inconsistency. I don't need anyone to tell me that I own myself. I don't need anyone to tell me that I own my car. I don't need anyone to tell me that I own my pasta back home. When it comes to major things such as a car, yes, contracts are very important.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Yes they do, but, the instinct of dogs is one born of a pack and each pack member is subjected to the rule from the Alpha, thus the concept of ownership for the individual pack member of property again could be a falsehood.
Is that alpha dog going to say, "you don't own that bone, i do"? If he does, there's going to be a battle. Therefore I still stand by my statement.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Order is required or chaos tends to ensue.
Yes, nature is chaotic. But I believe that governments create even more chaos, when abused. That's the point here. If you keep the republican form and stay within the confines of the Constitution, there's not as much chaos as there could be. But when you step out of it, when the people become enslaved, crime increases and chaos comes to fruition once again, even if it's by accident and the government meant well. You can't just enact order unto nature. It just doesn't work. You have to leave it alone; things have a way for working themselves out.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It's a decentralized self-balancing system.
Or in more realistic terms, a giant whine fest of self interested parties which makes the UN look efficient and well run. But let's look at this a bit more, personal liberty, as described in the constitution, was effectively only given to white land owning men. Sure, there's a lot of high ideals involved in some of the early documents, but the implementation was so far short of them it's painful. Before you start complaining that we should go back to that, go check for some land deeds in your name. If you don't have them, you'll have no say in that good ole constitutional government you want so badly. Wait, you say that's not how you would do it, it's your interpretation of the constitution which is correct, which you will support with cherry picked quotations from your preferred founding fathers? Oh, well, I can drag out the list of them that fall on my side too, and note that the constitution includes within it the means to change it, and without a change in the original interpretation just about anyone who claims the constitution is how the country should be run, would have considerably less rights under it.
I've seen some really good points made during this discussion that I personally wish would take place on the political stage. Policy debates would be quite something to behold on TV.
-
http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3373858/Re-The-Core.aspx[^] Did I somehow miss the word "police" in there? You've been making some real bogus arguments in this thread Christian, I suggest you rethink all of your arguments and take another try in the batter's box. Stop making crazy assumptions please. We're not talking about anarchy. We're talking about a republican form of government.
josda1000 wrote:
republican form of government.
As in the political party?
-
josda1000 wrote:
republican form of government.
As in the political party?
No... The word has been used since the Roman Republic. Article IV Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. This means that each state is its own republic. Property rights are protected in republics, and they are also, usually, split into subdivisions with its own government (we know them as counties). In republican governments, the smaller the government, the more efficient the government is.
-
Pertaining to schools: Schools can be BOTH private and public. However, it is definitely known to be better to have private schools. Take a look at testing and such. Look at Bernanke: He was schooled at Princeton and got a 1500+ on SATs. I'm not saying I like the guy, but I do believe him to be an educated man.
Christian Graus wrote:
That you just involved the government, thus explanding their role
Agreed. But I'd say that's a better thing for the states to get into, not the federal government. Each state can govern in its own way; the federal government is out of bounds when it intrudes and involves itself in matters such as that. There's no place in Article I section 8 that says it can.
Christian Graus wrote:
Really ? There's no rules protecting people from unsanitary kitchens, for example ? If I tin cats and call it beef, then so long as no-one ever knows the difference, that's OK ?
Yes, but you were asking if the government actually does it. To this extent that you're making now, yes, the government does have 'rules' for it. But again, the federal government has no right to do so. It's out of bounds, according to Article I Section 8.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, it involves government again ? See how your definition expands when you examine it ? This was my core point.
It's a valid thing for local government to do, yes. Local government is much better at organizing than a central government, especially when we're talking about 300 Million people in the United States. Again, under Article I Section 8, they have no right to deal with fires in buildings. That's a state issue, or even more to the point, it's a municipality issue.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, health is for people who can afford insurance ? That's what I was trying to say.
Not exactly; you make it sound like it's expensive, or impossible to get free care as it is already. That's why there are private free clinics as well as private hospitals and such. It doesn't necessarily cost anyone anything to get treatment. People can donate to those free clinics with no problem.
josda1000 wrote:
Not exactly; you make it sound like it's expensive, or impossible to get free care as it is already. That's why there are private free clinics
Older sicker people get quotes of upwards of $700+ a month for $2500 deductibles. Seen it first hand and dealt with it personally.
josda1000 wrote:
People can donate to those free clinics with no problem.
You expect people to donate? Would you like to get rid of medicare, medicaid, and social security?
-
No... The word has been used since the Roman Republic. Article IV Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. This means that each state is its own republic. Property rights are protected in republics, and they are also, usually, split into subdivisions with its own government (we know them as counties). In republican governments, the smaller the government, the more efficient the government is.
josda1000 wrote:
Property rights are protected in republics
Are you sure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_republic_%28system_of_government%29[^] The old USSR was a group of republics, that followed a (corrupt) communist form of government. The term itself, "republic," means only a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch. I assume that to mean that the head of state is elected, not appointed. It has nothing to do with property rights. Hence, in a "socialist republic," like the USSR was supposed to be, the government is republican (Elected leaders, not monarchs), but all property is owned by the state.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
josda1000 wrote:
Property rights are protected in republics
Are you sure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_republic_%28system_of_government%29[^] The old USSR was a group of republics, that followed a (corrupt) communist form of government. The term itself, "republic," means only a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch. I assume that to mean that the head of state is elected, not appointed. It has nothing to do with property rights. Hence, in a "socialist republic," like the USSR was supposed to be, the government is republican (Elected leaders, not monarchs), but all property is owned by the state.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
You're right, but in the original meaning of the term, republics protect property rights.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic[^]... No mention of property rights. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=republic[^]: "state in which supreme power rests in the people," http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Res:publica.htm[^] Eytmology: "Res publica" (Latin), meaning "thing of the people". In other words, something belonging to the public, not privately owned. If you still disagree, cite a source.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
You're right, but in the original meaning of the term, republics protect property rights.
I've seen this a lot, but I've never seen any support for it. Do you know where you got the idea or better yet have solid historical context? As far as I've ever been aware neither democracy or republic ever had anything to do with property rights being involved outside of occasionally defining who qualifies to hold office/vote. But it's also something I've never had much luck looking into.
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic[^]... No mention of property rights. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=republic[^]: "state in which supreme power rests in the people," http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Res:publica.htm[^] Eytmology: "Res publica" (Latin), meaning "thing of the people". In other words, something belonging to the public, not privately owned. If you still disagree, cite a source.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)I guess I'm wrong, I'm sorry, I take it back. The way I see it apparently, Rome was the first to recognize property rights, and the United States may be the best experiment to that end. Sorry about that. But the rest of that statement previously still stands, apparently.
-
I guess I'm wrong, I'm sorry, I take it back. The way I see it apparently, Rome was the first to recognize property rights, and the United States may be the best experiment to that end. Sorry about that. But the rest of that statement previously still stands, apparently.
You might be right about Rome and property rights. Not debating that part of the issue right now. This was just semantics :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
josda1000 wrote:
Not exactly; you make it sound like it's expensive, or impossible to get free care as it is already. That's why there are private free clinics
Older sicker people get quotes of upwards of $700+ a month for $2500 deductibles. Seen it first hand and dealt with it personally.
josda1000 wrote:
People can donate to those free clinics with no problem.
You expect people to donate? Would you like to get rid of medicare, medicaid, and social security?
wolfbinary wrote:
Older sicker people get quotes of upwards of $700+ a month for $2500 deductibles. Seen it first hand and dealt with it personally.
This is because we have "health insurance" regulated by government. if it were true insurance, we'd pay out of pocket for many things and use the emergency room a lot less. Insurance should only be used for the truly expensive things such as surgery.
wolfbinary wrote:
You expect people to donate? Would you like to get rid of medicare, medicaid, and social security?
Absolutely I'd expect people to donate. Many people donate for many different causes. How can you just write it off? And absolutely I'd get rid of medicare, medicaid and SS. I talk about that all of the time on my show. All three are bankrupt, and for SS that's not just rhetoric anymore. It's now in the red. Socialism doesn't work. Never did, never will.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Unless those freedoms you speak of infringe upon the freedoms of others, in which case, freedom needs a modifying influence to attempt to ensure fair play is achieved in the quest for mutual personal freedoms and liberties.
Precisely. That's why we have a fifth amendment, and an executive branch. They are there as the protectors of personal rights, for both the accused and the accusers.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As long as you purchase/acquire outright the deed of ownership or you come to an enforceable agreement whereby you commit to continue to pay rent/mortgage otherwise does it not become a falsehood?
Are you saying that I need to have a deed of ownership to myself? Is that why there are birth certificates and such? I find this to be an inconsistency. I don't need anyone to tell me that I own myself. I don't need anyone to tell me that I own my car. I don't need anyone to tell me that I own my pasta back home. When it comes to major things such as a car, yes, contracts are very important.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Yes they do, but, the instinct of dogs is one born of a pack and each pack member is subjected to the rule from the Alpha, thus the concept of ownership for the individual pack member of property again could be a falsehood.
Is that alpha dog going to say, "you don't own that bone, i do"? If he does, there's going to be a battle. Therefore I still stand by my statement.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Order is required or chaos tends to ensue.
Yes, nature is chaotic. But I believe that governments create even more chaos, when abused. That's the point here. If you keep the republican form and stay within the confines of the Constitution, there's not as much chaos as there could be. But when you step out of it, when the people become enslaved, crime increases and chaos comes to fruition once again, even if it's by accident and the government meant well. You can't just enact order unto nature. It just doesn't work. You have to leave it alone; things have a way for working themselves out.
josda1000 wrote:
Are you saying that I need to have a deed of ownership to myself? Is that why there are birth certificates and such?
A birth certificate does not imply ownership. All that does is confirm a recorded live birth. While you are alive you are indeed owner of your body subject to, for example, (1) parental control during your childhood, (2) the draft in times of war where your living body is subjected to the will of the POTUS. However, the taxation system could imply that a portion of your living body is never your exclusive own. Yet, ownership of your body is not what I meant in my posting above.
josda1000 wrote:
Is that alpha dog going to say, "you don't own that bone, i do"? If he does, there's going to be a battle
And more often than not, the rule by the Alpha is guaranteed even if a new Alpha succeeds.
josda1000 wrote:
confines of the Constitution
Some say the US Constitution is a living document. Others disagree. Yet where it is upheld you do have some degree of order but, there will always be those who break (or bend) the "law of the land" (the US Constitution or other US laws) and some degree of chaos does occur. Keeping that chaos in check is an art form that required constant vigilance and perhaps periodic modification of your laws.