Greetings to all (Dale Eastman)

[notorial dissent]

You mean even the pork chop didn't help???

[wserra]

I wasn't going to plow through the crap any more than any other sentient being would. I thought I would pick a single post; Famspear has shown more patience with this prolix dolt than others of us - you've gotta work on that, Famspear - so I picked one of his.

Again, Natural rights, in some sense, may exist without the existence or protection of a government. Legal rights (whether property rights or other kinds of rights) exist only in contemplation of government, and only to the extent recognized and protected by government.

I want to point out that I actually agree with most of what you've stated.

Kinda takes the adversarial out of the debate when we agree on things.

However, I do have issue with your statement: "Natural rights, in some sense, may exist without the existence or protection of a government."

Natural rights exist. Period.

An issue about which philosophers have debated for centuries and our resident bleedin' genius disposes of it in four words.

Sorry. I'm outta here.

[notorial dissent]

Well, you wasted 30 seconds more on him than I intend to from this point onward. Purely pointless, except for his head that is.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sorry. I'm outta here.

Bad part: Mr. Erroneous will now proclaim, loud and long, that he entered the Quatloosian Lion's Den and challenged us to disprove his fantasies (excuse me: "profound legal scholarship"); and that we were unable to give him a straight answer based on fact and logic.

Good part: Mr. Erroneous can fit all of the people who take him seriously on the average city bus; and there will be seats left over.

Hopeful part: that bus will never come anywhere close to me.

[Imalawman]

Sorry. I'm outta here.

You lasted longer than I.

[Dr. Caligari]

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Mr. Eastman:
Perhaps you would care to comment on some other things Thomas Jefferson said:

"Many of the opposition [to the new Federal Constitution] wish to take from Congress the power of internal taxation. Calculation has convinced me that this would be very mischievous." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788. ME 7:248

"I approved from the first moment of... the power of taxation [in the new Constitution]. I thought at first that [it] might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789. ME 7:300

"Calculation has convinced me that circumstances may arise and probably will arise wherein all the resources of taxation will be necessary for the safety of the state. For though I am decidedly of opinion we should take no part in European quarrels, but cultivate peace and commerce with all, yet who can avoid seeing the source of war in the tyranny of those nations who deprive us of the natural right of trading with our neighbors?... War requires every resource of taxation and credit." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1788. ME 7:224

[LPC]

Bad part: Mr. Erroneous will now proclaim, loud and long, that he entered the Quatloosian Lion's Den and challenged us to disprove his fantasies (excuse me: "profound legal scholarship"); and that we were unable to give him a straight answer based on fact and logic.

He'll proclaim that regardless of what any of us say or do.

[grixit]

Yeah, it's time for the Amish Death Penalty.

[jg]

It's not that government can NOT exercise powers that are denied to individuals, governments do that all the time. It's that government SHOULD NOT exercise powers that are denied to individuals.

The power to enact laws is given to the legislature even though that power is not possessed by the individuals (or even by the collective group of individuals). The legislative power is excercised by the government, as it should be.

Mr. G, you state: "The power to enact laws is given to the legislature even though that power is not possessed by the individuals (or even by the collective group of individuals)."

The Office of the Law Revision Counsel states that the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence are ORGANIC LAW.?

My statement is not a mathematical or scientific theorem that is refuted by the existence of an exception or a conterexample. The exception is noted; but does not change the general truth of the statement, as it applies to the laws passed in our country.
That you choose a counterexample of organic law, and do not challenge my statement in more general terms , is indicative to me that you do not have a refutation of the general principle.

Your assertion that: "The legislative power is excercised only by the government" is contradicted by showing that the legislating of the founding ORGANIC LAW was done NOT by government, but by the people.

My addition of the word only is to plainly state what you are implying. If it is only government that can legislate, then no others can. If it is NOT only government that can legislate, then others can.

If you challenge my inclusion of the word only, you admit that the people can legislate.
If you don't challenge my inclusion of the word only, you admit that I've correctly stated your intent.
Said intent is already refuted.]

The people may be able to legislate, in certain manners; but that does not change the fact that the government legislates (as that term is commonly used) and that people do not.
Neither you, nor I, personally or collectively can pass a law that is valid or recognized by our justice system. Only the government can pass a law that is valid and accepted as such.
See above for the reason the exception you provided is not a refutation.

Mr. G, you introduced section 134 of Locke's work to support your assertions. I thank you for the inclusion of the source link.

In doing so, you allowed me to read Locke's work to fully understand the context of your quotation. I'm abridging the quote and the casual reader can get section 134 unabridged from the link you thoughtfully provided: http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.txt

Sec. 134. THE great end of men's entering into society, being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society; the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society, and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it.

This particular highlighting is to bring attention to the fact that the fundamental natural law applies to the legislators and the laws they create.

Sorry, but no it does not make a general statement regarding fundamental natural law.
The quotation states that the first and fundamental natural law is to preserve the society and that law of preservation governs the legislature (at least in theory even if not, evidently, in recent practice).
The preservation of every person in society "as far as will consist with the public good" is the second stated goal of the first and fundamental natural law.

Simply stated, the purpose of LAW is to protect Life, Liberty, and Property.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

As a point of logic: There can be no collective right if there is no individual right. It makes no sense to say you don't have a right to not be robbed and I don't have a right to not be robbed and then turn around and say WE collectively do have a right to not be robbed.

Returning to what Locke stated in section 134: "the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself", Therefore, the legislative itself should NOT "harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions"..

Except, as Locke stated, when that is not consistent with the public good.
Preservation of society and not personal preservation is the primary goal of the first and fundamental natural law (as stated by Locke).

Which upon reading the prior, brings Jefferson's words into sharp focus.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

Thus a very solid, objective law examining yardstick is exposed: Does this law violate or protect Life, Liberty, or Property?

The first fundamental natural law is to preserve society and, when consistent with the public good, to preserve each member of the society. So, before applying that yardstick one must first determine if the law is consistent with the public good.

Indeed, your opinion may be that your personal liberty is more important than the public good; but that is not in keeping with the first and fundamental natural law.

[Brian Rookard]

Wow ... I feel like I've entered a time warp and been taken back in time.

I used to refute Dale Eastman's gibberish when he was posting on the usenet/google group misc.taxes. Dan Evans will remember those days fondly ... (where's agent86 when you need him?!)

Nothing appears to have changed with Dale.

[notorial dissent]

Well, actually, I think he has gotten even loopier, if that is possible. Still boring, but loopier.

[Brian Rookard]

I think (irrationally). I analyze (haphazardly). I consider (unknowingly). I conclude (illogically).

Edited to clarify what Eastman meant.

[Brian Rookard]

Unclear thinking results in unclear writing. Unclear writing results in my having to spend a bit of time deciphering what is actually meant in order to address the intended communication.

Dale, here's the mirror so that you can look at yourself while you're saying that.

[Brian Rookard]

Two points: first of all, no one says that individuals passed on or ceded to government any power that they ever had. Individuals convened as representatives and agreed that government would possess certain powers, precisely because they as individuals lacked the power "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". That agreement was then ratified by more representatives. You want to argue that those individuals were unable lawfully to accomplish that vis-a-vis you, and that therefore as far as you're concerned government is illegitimate? Fine, but you have just nullified all government. Embrace your anarchy. But explain what relevance the concept of law has to an anarchist.

I won't hold my breath. Moreover, as I wrote earlier, there really is no point in responding to sophistry. Abide the day when Eastman actually adopts some principles.

Eastman wants to pretend that he can stand up and say "I don't consent" to being governed. What Eastman cannot understand is the concept of "tacit consent" whereby the mere fact that he chooses to remain (and enjoy the benefits of government) is his consent to the rules and laws of the government he lives under.

It would be no different if I were to walk into Eastman's house ... If I should be allowed to stay I would expect to live under the rules of his household, and if I didn't like those rules, I don't just say "I don't consent to your rules" and continue to live there. My option is to move out if I don't like the rules.

Likewise, Dale does have a manner of "not consenting" to be governed here ... he can expatriate ... and we provide a basis for expatriating ... however, in order to expatriate, he must leave the country. That's the rule. You don't like living in our house ... fine, you don't have to like it ... but you have to leave ... and you can be free of your imagined tyranny.

[The Observer]

But people like Eastman never do leave. That would require that they have a modicum of intellectual honesty. So to deal with the Eastmans of the world, I really do support bringing back the process of outlawing so that the government could grant Eastman the freedom that he really craves.

[notorial dissent]

Eastman is free to believe any stupid, foolish, and utterly fallacious thing he wants to. He is free to say that "I don't consent" til the cows come home for all that matters. There is nothing however that says anyone else has to give a damn whether he does or not. He is free to build whatever fantasy realm he desires out of Locke, or Square Pants Bob, for all that it matters, but there is nothing that requires, that I, or anyone else pay him any attention, or give him any credence-which pretty much seems to be his lot in life. As to intellectual honesty, he has none, so don't hold your breath. As it is, he has wasted more than enough of my time, and murdered far too many innocent electrons with his driveling jabber.

[nattyb]

[quote="Mr. Eastman"]

Can you give anything to anybody else that you do not possess?

Eastman is absolutely correct. The answer is no.

1 = 1, that is logical.
Individual A can not force individual B to do anything against his will especially since that Colt 45 has been deemed the "great equalizer". That is Eastman's utopia.

But, 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 > 1 are also logical.
There is nothing Eastman or anyone else can do to stop individuals from ganging up and spoiling Eastman's utopia.

[agent86x]

Wow ... I feel like I've entered a time warp and been taken back in time.

I used to refute Dale Eastman's gibberish when he was posting on the usenet/google group misc.taxes. Dan Evans will remember those days fondly ... (where's agent86 when you need him?!)

Nothing appears to have changed with Dale.

Golly, gee, Brian, it's nice to be remembered....

[Gregg]

Somalia has no income tax, and not a lot in the way of oppressive rules, either. Of course, government services (like police to keep bad guys from just taking everything you own, killing your family when you protest and such) are lacking also. So if you go, enjoy it, and take plenty of firepower to substitute for the government you're fleeing.

[grixit]

... So if you're going to Somalia, bring your own security and a lot of cash. Because they don't take emergency calls and they don't take American Express.