Now that I have briefly explained how we can create a right to own land and stay within the confines of Natural Law (you can read it here), I suppose I should also address the issue of corporations. As with my first post on a right to own land, this post is a general outline. It is intended to give the idea and not cover every possible aspect of this subject. And as with land ownership, it starts with the Natural Right to Contract.
Now, if society wants to create corporations, I see no reason it cannot do so, but there are many more things that need to be addressed in the process than with creating a legislative act allowing people to claim ownership (i.e. exclusive use rights) of land. By its very nature, a corporation is an artificial entity: a created fiction that acts and is treated like an individual. At the same time, the creation of a corporation inherently includes – because it must – a notion of ownership by a real person or persons. This relationship is wrought with peril, as our modern system of corporations has clearly demonstrated. To create a corporation and stay within the boundaries of Natural Law, it requires great care and careful diligence to maintain. The founders managed it by issuing charters.
A charter functions like a corporation. It creates a corporation that can be owned and operated like a private business, but the government retains ultimate control of the corporation formed by the charter. Charters usually have limited life times, after which they must be renewed or they automatically dissolve. Charter companies were usually intended for public works. In return for accepting the restrictions associated with a charter, the owners were allowed to make a certain profit, but they were still held accountable. This is why, no matter how many shares an individual may have owned in the charter company, every share holder had an equal vote in the operations of the charter. As you can see, such an arrangement is tightly controlled and, in our modern times, would be resisted by the corporate elite within our society.
The primary complaints would be three-fold. First, people will argue that there is no private ownership in a charter company. This is true, but that is because a corporation is a public creation. It can only exist after the people pass a law to create it, and can only survive if it has the continued support of the people. This is why there can be no ‘property right’ in a corporation; only a right in the ability to operate a corporation. What we do not want to accept but must because it is inherent in the definition of ‘corporation’ is that a corporation is a legally created thing. It comes into being as a social act, and therefore, it remains under the ultimate authority of society, without whose support, the corporation ceases to exist. It is impossible to have private ownership in something that exists only in the public realm. At best, you can be granted the civil right to exclusive control of such a creation. For those who understand Scripture, this is derived from the principle of stewardship.
The second objection is that modern business requires huge organizations, and that it is impossible to raise the necessary sums of capital outside the corporate structure. Well, technically speaking, this is not true. Before the rise of the modern corporation, people used co-ops. Co-ops are autonomous entities formed by voluntary association. Farmers’ co-ops may come to mind. An example of how a co-op could work in our modern world, let’s look at the cell phone industry. Suppose there are hundreds of cell phone companies, and they all operate in small regions of the nation. Now suppose we want to build a national tower network so each regional company can operate as though it were national. The way we do it today, we create a few huge corporations and they consolidate everything: control, plans, profits, etc. But a co-op would consist of a hundred different owners who all contribute cash to build the national tower network, and in the process, they all share a claim to the use of that network. Yes, there will be details to be worked out there, but this is no different from any other contractual matter. The point here is that the capital can be raised without having to use corporations. In this example, every small company could be privately owned and operated, yet the same sort of national system we know today will still exist – only it will be in accordance with Natural Law.
There is an added benefit to co-ops: they actually strengthen the economy. Whereas the system we use now allows people to buy stock in a company, stocks are volatile and do not really represent true ownership of a corporation. In a sense, you are just buying the right to gamble on the company, which is little different from the objections that Natural Rights corporations do not allow for private ownership as mentioned above — but we will not get into this at the moment. The point here is, there is real ownership in co-ops. This then leads to a stronger middle class as, instead of concentrating the profits from the cell phone industry; they are distributed among the hundred or more owners who, depending upon their personal beliefs, may actually provide for better wages than the major corporations. Contrary to what the media likes to tell us, small businesses do tend to pay their people as well as they can – often better than corporate America.
The final objection will most likely be associated with the assertion that corporations are also formed by the Natural Right to contract. The problem with this objection is that it is not true. What ‘contract’ are you entering into when you buy stock in GM? What you are really doing is gambling, nothing more. If you had bought part of the company, then you could enter any of its facilities and use any of its assets as though you were the owner. Go try that sometime and see what happens. In truth, the modern corporation is little different from the government. The government gives you the ‘right’ to pay taxes and hope that you get some value in whatever return the government delivers. The corporation is the same way: you give them money and hope you get a return you value. Yes, there are differences, I am well aware of this. But the point is that both are socialized in nature.
You have to learn to look past the personal and particular of any given issue and look to the principle, the form and function. Once you can do that, you will see what I am trying to explain. And once you see it, you will understand how and why we are in such trouble. You will also understand that we will not extract ourselves from this trouble unless we return to the principles of Natural law.
39 thoughts on “FUNDAMENTALS OF NATURAL LAW: The Proper Way to Create Property Rights in a Business”
I have come back to apologize from our debate. You and I are not going to agree on the methods on how to institute government is clear, but you’re a worthy opponent that at least articulates debate in a linear fashion. Also you and I in most cases see the ends the same but the means differently, which after discussing an afternoon with some liberals the ends are not the same. As I debated many liberals today, and the circular logic was so rapid that I literally wanted to beat my head into the wall. It was so rapid, and so circular that I attempted myself not to make fallacies but at alas failed do to the constant rehashing of old refutations.
Then of course, when they started to attack my typing mistakes on a comment board… I thought… you know…The Guy from The Road to Concord, did have integrity, and would have never done this.
Again, my apologies, a lesson was learned today… As Madison and Hamilton worked together to forge the Federalist, I do need your help with our plight today in our nation.
So any who venture here, A worthy man of honor resides.
Thanks, but your kind words are unnecessary. In fact, it is I who should apologize to you. I did not keep my own desired standards with you, and for that, I am sorry and hope you will forgive my trespasses against you. :*)
That said, welcome back. I have been sort of dormant the past coupe weeks, but that should end soon. I have just been taking some time to re-evaluate things.
Now, about those ‘liberals’ you were trying to debate. You do realize they are irrational from the start, don’t you? And, as Jefferson said, trying to reason with the irrational is about as useful as administering medicine to the dead 🙂
Haha! Indeed, I really thought if I could explain the history that surrounded the 2nd amendment I could show them what’s it’s intent and purposes is for but no matter what I quoted from Madison, Hamilton, Marshall or the state conventions they wouldn’t listen! Not one of them!
I even tried to explain present participles, and comma splices, but nope not interested.
Have some pity for them (but only to a point). They are ignorant victims of the very people who developed the ideology to which they now so blindly follow and defend. The same men who came up with the nonsense they spout also used the schools to create drones who would defend their ideas. The people you were talking to are the result of those polices, and they testify to just how effective the programs have been.
The truly sad part is that these people cannot be rescued from themselves. They must be suffered until they pass, but while suffering their existence, they must also be isolated lest they cause even more harm. The problem there is how to isolate a human cancer without then becoming the very cancer you are trying to isolate. And do not for a moment think that this dilemma escaped the notice of the people who designed this societal trap.
I understand where you’re coming from, As I have attempted to meet them in the sphere of debate and even seek true compromise only to find resentment, and even hate. I have honestly looked for ways within the realms of the constitution, and throughout the history of conservatism to be able to co-exist but the shame is is that these do not wish to co-exist but to eat away the life just as cancer does.
I do like how you mentioned the education system, during the debate when I speaking in regards to how in the public school system which I did attend in English, mind you I took “College Prep” English, they didn’t cover any parts of grammar really, which after debating with some of these liberals I thought, “Is this intentional?” I studied Classics in college, which actually taught me a bit of grammar, so when talking to them about what a present participle was, as well as what a participle phrase was and its connection to a main clause that followed its I have I landed a Starship and tried to communicate a Alien concept to them. I kept saying please refute how it isn’t a present participle, and all they could circle into was, “Well-regulated” is plenty clear. I thought, “Yes, the language is clear with a understanding of grammar…” I even attempted to break it down in small elementary type sentences to show present participles used in children’s stories, what was the reply, back to ” Well-regulated, is plenty clear. ” Some of these folks claimed to be retired teachers, I thought…”my God, you educated people? ”
I’ve been watching “turn” on AMC, it’s fairly slow but interesting. I also just recently read the book it was based off of by Alexander Rose, “Washington’s Spies” What I realized is that there are those with more ardent principles of libertarianism than myself, as for myself believing in the government founded within the constitution I strive to see that government work, until lines must be drawn, and “new guards” for the security of the people must be instituted.
However, my position will serve those who are more ardent maybe not in the way exactly as Abraham Woodhull or Ben Tallmadge but none the less if the time comes, I know which side in my heart for which I will stand.
Does anyone in your debate realize that “well-regulated” does not ‘necessarily’ require government? That is begging the question (assuming that only government can regulate the militia). In truth, many militias at the time the 2nd Amendment was written were privately raised, equipped and lead. The government did little more than send out the appeal for the militia to come out.
Still, the full context of the debate, which includes the congressional records surrounding the debate over the Bill of Rights makes it VERY clear that the founders intended to keep arms in the hands of every individual citizen. We know this because they nearly all said so, and in perfectly plain language. What’s more, they used the word “arms,” which means so much more than ‘firearm.’ There is another fallacy in this debate (that of equivocation).
But, sadly, you are dealing with people who have not the foggiest idea of what logic is, let alone how it works. You will not get anywhere with them. They are little more than trained animals. The tragedy is that they have been trained to think they are the ‘intellectuals’ in this debate. It is one of the greatest tragedies in human history (at least, in my opinion). 😦
The issue at hand is that they’re liberals, so without government is completely is completely foreign idea to them,(this is the assessment by a Hamiltonian Conservative!! 😀 Are you kidding me!?!) So of course when they speak of regulation, it’s government regulation.
I did bring over the great debates, I wrote what Hamilton said in Federalist 28, What Madison said about Standing Armies, contrasted it with Hamilton’s Federalist 29 to show that in his mind a standing army would allow veterans to walk among civilians to have a sense of regulation among citizenry. However, they were not interested in the history, as I pointed out that it was not their side. They then spoke of the “living constitution”, (I might have called them frauds at this) Even so, I articulated that in era with their theory of a living constitution, because of the Heller case, they lost in that regard as well.
I attempted to explain to them they couldn’t possible be ardent supporters of a living constitution if they supported Separation of Church and State and not recognized that it was a product of Brown v. Board of Education ( I don’t know if you agree with that assessment, but it was to illustrate a point). If they believed that the wisdom of the court in the regard, it question’s their principles in regard to that if they believe the court to be wrong with the “original” intent with the Heller case. As explained to them they can’t call for a living constitution and still be a supporter of original intent, those are contradicting of principles. This was followed by a deer in the headlight look. Which this led to that Judicial review isn’t even apart of the Constitution, which they said it was in article III, I said negative, have you read article, III. Judicial Review exists because of Marbury v. Madison case!!
What happened next may make you laugh out loud, literally, because I did. After I cornered them with logical linear debate, as they kept trying to circle me back in, but failed. They called me mean spirited, narcissistic, and smugish because I hurt their feelings. You’re right with the assessment of trained animals, they attempted to say that my continual attempts to call them out for their fallacies (which I explained to them how they committed it, learned from you, give credit where its due) was clouding the language because I was creating a logic 101 class. My reply, Yes it grows tiresome to dodge circular logic and explain the 101 principles of logic, I agree, but when I say you’re taking us off track with a red herring, and you don’t know what a red herring is…
You can understand the frustration, because they do believe they’re enlightened because of what the liberal arts colleges taught them. My liberal arts college taught actually very little to be honest, it taught me that if you want to accomplish things in society be prepared to do busy work.
I keep learning from reading the newspaper, reading books. If you look at my library, I have the writings of Jefferson, Hamilton Marshall, Washington, Franklin, and will add Madison at some point even thought I own several copies of the Federalist.These re first source accounts( sadly more are used than others, as I have barely cracked Ben Franklin, he’s there though!!), which as a Classicists when I attempted to explain to them that I don’t care what this professor said in this magazine article (Which this article never citied any original sources) because he isn’t even a secondary source, they were puzzled as I explained to them we in this great nation have the opportunity to read from those who created this government and to form our own opinions from what they wrote, so all though professors have the ability to break things down into simpler context, you can judge for yourself.
Man this was long, I needed to get it all out, I feel better now.
You must understand that — whether people like to admit to this or not — humans are made to worship. ‘Liberals’ have chosen to worship themselves and their government(s).
As for the ‘living constitution’ garbage: the next time someone gives you that, tell them cool, thanks. So you are a sub-human piece of meat that can and should be enslaved if not out-right killed and the “living constitution” says so. After all, “living” means that it says whatever YOU want it to say (which is how they are using it), so tell them we need our guns so we can enforce OUR version of what the Constitution says and if they disagree, it is only because they are racist, bigoted, intolerant heterophobes. See how that goes over. I promise you this, it will be good for a laugh 🙂
In reality, anyone who mentions “living document’ is a tyrant who seeks to justify their tyranny over others — period! Either something means what it says or it cannot be a law. And if there is no law, then there is no need for govt. If a person does not recognize this fact, they are also a tyrant who simply wants a justification to dominate others — period! (note: not applying this to you. I think you understand we are on the same side on this point).
You cannot teach logic to these people. Their brains are not wired to understand it. Trust me on this one, I have beat myself silly trying to do it and never get anywhere.
Phadde, I like your library list, but do yourself a favor and add the Anti-Federalists to it. You may gain a better appreciation of your own position when you understand what the Anti-Federalists feared…and why. Especially when you realize that history has proven the A-F’s correct on nearly every point.
I do own a copy of the Anti-Federalist papers, what I know about it is that it wasn’t quite cohesive effort so it’s organization makes it less easier than the Federalist to understand, as I have perused it. I have the Signet Classics edition, is there a better edition? I got this one because I do enjoy the signet version of the Federalist, as it has the constitution with the page numbers of where things are discussed in the Federalist.
Also if edition doesn’t matter are there particular essays to highlight such as in the Federalist No. 51 or 78?
No, no special edition (least not as far as I am concerned). In fact, not even a specific essay. I am thinking more of the Anti-Federalists complaints in general: that the arguments Hamilton and the others advanced for why the new Federal govt. would never become tyrannical were flawed — mostly because there was too little consideration given to the fundamental flaws in human nature. As it turns out, the A-F’s have been vindicated by history and it may have been a good idea to have placed even tighter controls on the federal govt. to insure it would never dominate the States — as it now does.
That said, I do not entirely fault Hamilton and the Federalists. In fact, I place much more blame on Abraham Lincoln. Rather than one of our greatest presidents, I count him the worst — even more so that Wilson or even Obama. Lincoln destroyed the federal govt. and replaced it with a national govt. HE is the single greatest source of our national decline.
Hamilton, I believe foresaw the British or perhaps another power coming (1812) again for a weak United States. I believe his decisions and beliefs are more reflective of his pragmatic approach to living in his own world., and protecting the interest of that time. The Anti-federalist approach looked more to the distant future. Right now I am watching the PBS special on The United States of Secrecy with my mouth wide open, I don’t why…I shouldn’t be a surprised.
If you don’t mind, can you elaborate more on your position on Lincoln. I consider him keeping the Union intact and emancipating slavery which led to the 13th amendment good things that occurred because of his administration. Is this more of a position that he voided that principles of Federalist 51, and the creation of compound republic ? I believe that has harmed the nation, but slavery is such a contradiction to the liberty espoused by the republic that what were the alternatives? Even Andrew Jackson, a southern slave owner, threatened war with S. Carolina nullification. I was born and raised around Springfield, IL so the Lincoln legend I would say is encountered on a daily basis.
Had Lincoln allowed the States to secede (as they had legal right to do), then slavery would have — eventually — died a natural death, as Jefferson foresaw. In that case, the South would have — eventually — sought reconciliation with the North (again, as Jefferson foresaw) and the racial animosity we have today would most likely not exist.
Now, to the point politically: what Lincoln did was exactly what the A-F’s said would happen: he encroached on the rights of the sovereign States, thus destroying the federation and creating a national govt. where the States are subordinate and no longer sovereign. In short: Lincoln was our first dictator.
It’s an interesting take,It’s really hard to separate admiration of Lincoln having lived literally in his backyard. As an Eagle Scout grow up I attended the Lincoln Pilgrimage walking from his tomb to the capital in Springfield ever last weekend of April. My father was great admirer of Lincoln, I of course don’t know what type of relationship you had with your father, but I always felt my Father to be a man of great wisdom, so it’s hard to actually come to terms with saying well Dad it appears you’re mistaken. Part of my Dad’s admiration is the story of Lincoln is that any one can become president, even his children or grand-children. Harder even since my father passed away when I was still young 24. Even on an intellectual level I hope you can sympathize with my plight.
Your assessment it’s hard to say it’s wrong simply because we cannot now know for sure what the alternative world would have been had Lincoln let the states leave. I did read a biography on Jefferson Davis by Cooper, which painted Davis as a pro-Union southerner who became president of the Confederacy, so it’s not so far fetched to see that even the states that seceded with such leadership could have made amends at later dates with far less blood. This all of course is speculation, as Davis is often vilified in short in the U.S. public education text books, I did come to admire him after reading the biography, he was an American veteran, who fought for his nation in the Mexican war after reading about his circumstances history can not be painted so black and white.
There are some things to be admired about Lincoln’s character. But his example as President is an excellent illustration of how the ends do not always justify the means.
Had slavery been left to die naturally, the South would have had to come back to the North just because of the coming industrial age. The South would have needed the machinery to switch their mode of farming, then they would have needed markets for the greater yield. Without the war, the North and South would have remained on friendlier terms, making a reconciliation far easier and likely inevitable.
As a side note my favorite founding father and interest is Alexander Hamilton, who is often shown opposed to that of Jefferson. James Madison though I find his writings to the most useful in debate, as I quote Federalist 51 probably more than any other document, because he seems to often argue the pros of the Federalist, and the concerns of safeguards of that of Anti-Federalist. He being connected with Jefferson acknowledges the cons with centralized government.
I would suggest you look past Madison. At the time of our founding, he was not nearly so important as we’ve made him today. Others were much more influential in the making of the Constitution. Madison’s primary contribution here was to use his friendship with Jefferson to sway Jefferson to the Federalist side. Had that not happened, I doubt the Constitution would have been ratified in the form which it was.
Interesting I always thought of Jefferson swaying more of Madison, so you’re saying it was the opposite?
Jefferson sided with the Anti-Federalists until Madison won him to his side. At least, this is what I have gathered from reading what is available to me from that time period.
From what I know of Jefferson, I would expect as much. Jefferson was not as kind toward strong government as the Federalists, but I think Madison won him over for the sake of preserving the union and the work done on the Constitution. Jefferson’s endorsement was influential among the other leaders of the time.
Is there any letters written between the two the indicate this as my opinion was formed through historians perspectives?
I’ll have to search for them again. Sadly, I do not have a great deal of time to do that at the moment. But a word of caution about historians. DO NOT trust them — from any side. If you can find original documentation, please read that first.
that said, do not dismiss the fact that Jefferson was reading the Federalists, so there is one source of persuasion that may not be accounted for by most people but would certainly have been by Jefferson 😉
I guess you’re right in that regard, Madison wrote a lot of the Federalist, Jefferson read it.
You’ll be happy to know I used your example of what I’ll call the “conservative” living constitution. As I received a message that because I believe in constitutional government my views are obsolete…haha We’ll see the reply ! I also explained that their own ideas couldn’t possible be progressive, as to be progressive they must be legislating forward. Well since they cannot predict the future, or how future civilizations operates their own ideals are then obsolete by their quest of wanting to be progressive. (I wonder if they’ll even understand)
Attempting to compromise is really futile I see, I have one friend who I would say leans liberal but is a logical thinker so you can reason him to see your view and compromise. This has however lured me into a false sense of security, as I have realized through this last debate I might as well just be the devil that liberals think I am ( as I view myself to be a bit moderate, I guess not?) because I can’t reason them to see otherwise. Maybe that will be my next essay topic! Compromise when possible, but never sell your principles.
In principle, I cannot disagree with anything you said in this last comment. You’ve just discovered what so many others on our side have discovered before us. The sad reality here is that those who think they are the enlightened moral compass of society (i.e. ‘Liberals’) are nothing but irrational drones who are totally out of touch with objective reality. As such, they are a ‘clear and present danger’ to both society and the rule of law (i.e. individual rights and liberty).
Sadly, unless we on our side become them, we cannot ‘get rid of them.’ We must find a way to convince the rest of society that can still be reached that there are such things as truth and universal moral law. And once we on our side understand this, we have come face to face with the very reason our founders tried to tell us that there can be no liberty without a public recognition of the Creator…
Oh Christ Joe, check out this blog from those who I was debating… … …
My apologies, I found where you can comment. I did so, but tit will do little good. You are dealing with people so ignorant of history on that site and so totally devoid of any understanding of how to reason or use logic that you will not be able to rescue them from their ‘self-protect’ programming. They are hopelessly lost in their ignorance.
If you have always been taught ‘what’ to think instead of ‘how’ to think, then you can’t see the real picture — ever. No matter how clearly someone paints it for you, you will always see something that contradicts the picture you were taught, so you will instinctively reject it. This is part of the indoctrination process. I call it the ‘self-protect’ protocol: it conditions the drone to protect his/her programming. This is why you and I cannot get them to see reality: because objective reality is very different from the picture they were taught as children.
Oh love the most recent comments by this Joseph character! I love how you brought up equivocation fallacy and his reply on how Hamilton was wrong was because he wasn’t aware of “modern” democracies… Hahahahahaha what? Did he just ignore your comments completely!?
I like the part where the guys asks how I missed the definitions given in the post, and then asks for proof that the education system does NOT teach reasoning and critical thinking. The fact that he does not understand the equivocation and straw man in the definitions presented in the post testifies against him. It is made all the worse when you consider that he implies he is somehow connected tot he school system.
These people are the worse kind of blind: they are not only blind, they cannot see enough to know they are blind.
I especially love the Bill of Rights is put into the liberal camp…wow.
I’ll read it a bit later, but it is not surprising they would take credit for the BoR. They do not realize that ‘Liberal’ then meant the opposite of what they believe now. It is the fallacy of equivocation, and as we know, they do not understand logic. So we should not expect them to understand their mistake.
Whoever wrote the post you linked to has absolutely NO idea what they are talking about — NONE! If they had allowed comments, I would have been happy to tell them so, but since they are ‘Liberal,’ true to form, they do not invite dissenting opinion.
That post is a sad, sad commentary on the state of our education system… 😦
Hey Joe, I want you to take a look a debate I was having with a liberal again, I should really stop this, but at this point in the debate is was all ready devolving into logical chaos. I was struggling to keep it on logical grounds but it was horrendously tiresome to do it. I wanted you to take a look and input whether there was a way to combat someone of this nature, or it was lost cause. It’s a bit long, but if you have time.
Me: I have to also say this as well, most likely would be correct; as if this was to occur it would fail to be the constitution. I have played around with you for a little bit but “living constitution theory” is absurd and more dangerous than law abiding gun owners. As I have noted with ratification requirements, progressives that I will refer to now as subversives need this theory because the Constitution is not their ally, but their enemy. The Supreme Court has in recent time shifted meaning of the constitution through Judicial Review but this in itself is unconstitutional, because nowhere in Article III does it state that they have this power. Chief Justice John Marshall seized this power unlawfully through Marbury v. Madison case Since you deal often with conjecture it’s just as likely as there are so many gun owners in this nation that if the Supreme Court attempted to eliminate such a core pillar of the Constitution that those same gun owners would seize that power back with such unilateral power grab of the state.
Liberal gun grabber: Since we the people would have a military and the police to force people to obey the Constitution and the law, I would win the argument. If you use the argument “same gun owners would seize that power back with such unilateral power grab of the state” that would be done outside of the provisions of the constitution and therefor be a criminal act. We have places for people who take the law into their own hands.
Me: you said, “Since we the people would have a military and the police to force people to obey the Constitution and the law, I would win the argument.”
Wow, Slaves “obey” not freemen. I don’t know who “we” are or what “constitution” you’re following as I am quoting the United States Constitution in reference to its citizenry that has the inalienable right to liberty, as well as the history that belongs to it.
You said, “Historically the police and military have always followed orders.” Except this wasn’t a valid defense during the Nuremberg trials, was it?
You said, “Since we the people would have a military and the police to force people to obey the Constitution and the law, I would win the argument.”
Which let’s play with this statement, it could be said through history with a few different words, “Since the we, “The Third Reich” would have a military and the SS to force people to obey the Fuhrer and his law, I would win the argument.”
“Since we the Soviet Union, would have a military and the KGB to force the people obey Stalin and his revolutionary principles, and the law of marx, I would win the argument.”
You’re not advocating for liberty, it appears more and more you’re advocating for fascism.
You said, “If you use the argument “same gun owners would seize that power back with such unilateral power grab of the state” that would be done outside of the provisions of the constitution and therefor be a criminal act.”
However, Alexander Hamilton in his Federalist Essay N. 28, this also has Stare Decisis within the Supreme Court, totally contradicts your statement.
“if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority”
A Nation that is founded as Constitutional Republic through democratic means does not make it’s citizens “obey” they do not follow the rule of any leader, or Army. They follow the rule of law, which the law contradicts your point of view entirely which I have illustrated by those who wrote the law. It is only made “criminal” in your mind by those who seek to enslave a populace, not liberate them.
Heed Hamilton’s words:
“Man is either governed by his own laws — freedom — or the laws of another — slavery. Are you willing to become slaves? Will you give up your freedom, your life and your property without a single struggle? No man has a right to rule over his fellow creatures.”
It seems slavery is your destiny
Liberal: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia
Me: “when called into the actual service of the United States; ” As they would usurping the powers given by the Constitution, no way would they have the authority to call for the service of the nation.”
and Freedom is very dangerous, most can’t handle it, you’re prime example.
Liberal:I am advocating to keep dangerous people like you away from law abiding people like me.
Me:You’re right as I am possession of knowledge and free thought this would be very dangerous to your Fascist way of life, many throughout history have thought so. It’s always been dangerous to those who wish to keep freemen in chains.
Liberal:You seem to have the same “free thought” and rationalization as Elliot Rodgers. (Recent Mass Shooting Murderer) You have this bizarre way to turning everyone you disagree with into a “fascist”. You sound like a weirdo similar to Rogers than a rational person
Me: It’s pretty apparent you’re void of any intellectual ability, as when presented with logical refutations you can only resort to ad hominems
Liberal: Actually I thought the same thing about you. You are not formally educated and have a bizarre sense of self. (Strange how having principles, this isn’t the first time this comment has been made, it’s very appalling to the left to be unapologetic for your convictions.)
Either way, I have a police force and military to defend my consititution from anti-Americans like you who do not respect it and would criminally take matters into their own hands.
“ad hominems”. The phrase used by the uneducated (WTF?)
Me: Yeah I suppose matriculating through 160 hrs of University course work constitutes as uneducated. As my field was Classical studies your idea that’s using Latin terminology is indication of being uneducated is absurd. You being the true definition of Americanism is equally absurd and indicating you need a police state to force your “living constitution theory” to subvert its rule of law is fascist by it’s very nature. You sir are pseudo intellectual, that should be jailed for impersonating real Liberty loving Americans. As you would most certainly have been a Tory that would have sought to jail or execute Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Paine and among others.
Liberal: Many of those people on your list held slaves or allowed for them. Where were their consitutional rights
Me: Many of them didn’t, this is a red herring, as our discussion has nothing to so with slaves or slavery but the need for the right to bear arms. However, I’ll explain that the constitution was a pragmatic agreement between slave states and non slave states. Madison spoke in Federalist 42 how the looked to put a sunset date on the institution that was cultural fixture. In fact the slave trade article led to Jefferson to have the ability to abolish the slave trade during his presidency.
Perhaps by formally educated you mean “indoctrinated”, which in that case your 100% correct, I was not indoctrinated by any means.
Liberal: Just as I thought. You did not go to college. ( lol What is wrong with these people?, How does his thought jump to such conclusion, when I’ve specified otherwise, and he is truly wrong about “his” new found assumption )
Me:Lol I said i studied a 160 hrs. Which in most Universities is two degrees. Perhaps you didn’t graduate high school as you couldn’t pass a basic comprehension test. (Ad hominem, but this jerk was getting on my nerves, his intention no doubt) However your fallacy ridden thought process is reminiscent of Saul Alinsky’s Rules of Radicals so there’s doubt in my mind that you’re using such tactics because you cannot use fact to support your argument.
Liberal: You didn’t go to college and have a giant chip on your shoulder. Maybe Pol Pot should be your hero. ( At this point I was truly dumbfounded on to how to converse with this guy, his lack of logical debate was so amiss that honestly I felt as if I was losing the argument because he wouldn’t recognize reason.)
Me: Think what you want, you obviously do.
Liberal: I have the police who enforce the laws which you hate (What the hell? I never said this at all? I only advocated for constitutional government, I object to a police state that has voided the constitution,yes )
Me: Never advocated such a thing, any police who abide by their oath to the constitution is fine. Although in alternate universe of police state of America I would have objection. However I should tell my good friend who is a state trooper to watch out for me, he’d laugh at your absurdity.
Liberal: Their oath includes “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia” AND The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States. (back to this again? Didn’t I already refute this by telling you that you omitted the next part of the article! A bit of circular logic?)
He continued to call me uneducated and lacked knowledge of knowing the difference between having a strong opinion or intellect. I actually wanted to know is there a tactic that I could employ that could better regain the high ground or is this just complete senselessness that I couldn’t avoid? Even attempting to call him out on fallacies to redirect the conversation to what the founders actually said and my refutation seemed futile.
I read through the ‘exchange.’ You are wasting your time. Not only do they not understand logic, they are dishonest and cowards. They do not care about the truth. They just want what they want, but then, they do not even have the courage to do it themselves. They send the government to do it and never realize it is the government of the people they want to control.
In short: you are dealing with evil, and evil does not understand self-restraint. You are engaged in a lost cause. You can only eliminate evil, but then, that makes you into them. So all we can do is suffer it until they force our hands, because it is ONLY in legitimate self-defense that you can ‘fight back.’
Joe, I was really at a lost for words. I was called un-American and dangerous to their way of life, which you know I am a firm believer in the constitution, what it actually says, and I probably am one the least dangerous person they could meet. The danger I suppose is my ideas threaten that way of life.
The weirdest part of it was and I always hate to draw upon nazism or fascism which eventually I got to that point with this individual but if I was somehow transplanted back into time and spoke to Nazi or Soviet I believe that the conversation would have been very similar, and that scares me. We live among people with that mentality still!
They have redefined what it means to be an American. What they mean is you are anti-Communism — and they are (apparently) correct. But they will never understand this because they have been indoctrinated and part of that indoctrination is a ‘self-protect’ program that resists any and all attempts to educate and enlighten them.
As for the references to NAZIs and Communists, you do realize the only real difference — as practiced — is the NAZI is nationalistic and the Communist is a globalist. Otherwise, Hitler said there is little difference.
And, sadly, we MUST come to this discussion — because our nation is now FASCIST! And yes, I mean we are now a Fascist nation. Keep in mind, I make my living from the WW II era of history. I have a little expertise here, and, if you read my posts explaining the similarities between then and now, it is — to me, anyway — VERY difficult to disagree with my assertion.
So, what you are dealing with is the same thing those few people who tried to defend decency had to face in 1930’s Germany. If you ever wondered how an entire nation goes dark, you are seeing it.
Now here is what may be the greatest challenge for you. Do you see the implication of God and Spiritual warfare in all this? Because it is there. It is why this pattern repeats throughout history — and why the goals of evil are always the same.
I remember as a child learning about Germany; I thought how did the Germans let this happen, and why would they not resist? Some did; paid the price with their lives, as others bided their time either to go underground to fight in the shadows or just out of fear.
Yet, I personally know people right now that are not resisting, they are embracing! This debate really startled me as it made me realize that this progressive movement is a true movement of indoctrination in a way that the plebs have no idea they’re being brainwashed, and even higher up officials probably do not realize it as well.
In recent events we heard Michelle Obama say at a commencement ceremony that young folks should look out for “thought crime”, what she said read out of a George Orwell novel. I just had a progressive tell me that I will be forced to obey by the police and military, basically at gun point! I do see the nation going dark, and I never thought it could happen again.
On your last point the progressives have seemed to vilify religion, and morality in this nation, claim it to be followed by those who aren’t true intellectuals. This isn’t new, its been done before in history. In fact, Lenin made known quite clearly that religion was a competitor to his revolutions principles for the hearts and minds of the populace.
The question arises how to resist?
BINGO! If you believe in and obey God, then those who wish to be our masters have very little –if any — control over us. Which is why our founders said that the only free society must — MUST — be a moral one, and that there is no such thing as morality without religion. hence, freedom comes from religion — but not just any religion. There is one and ONLY 1 faith that has ever advocated for the freedom of man, and that is the 1 faith under growing attack in this world. This is not a coincidence, my friend 🙂
I don’t know if you’re familiar with blog, but this post reminded me of your last comment. As you can see I attempted to illustrate our talks with some of the elements of your blog.
Of course there is refutation, but I wanted to you to see, as I know in the realm you are better qualified to refute in regards to Natural Law and Rights.
See my replies on that blog page.