Are "God Given" Rights the Pervue of the Government?

[RobertNashville]

It's not an insult, it's just an observation.

You can claim it's anything you want but the way you use of it makes it demonstrates that you intend it as a pejorative.

Edited November 22, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RichardR]

You can claim it's anything you want but the way you use of it makes it demonstrates that you intend it as a pejorative.

Our freedoms are infinately more important than your "feelings" if you do not like being part of the problem the solution is easy, ... stop being part of the problem.

[JayC]

Robert,

 

You're right, individual rights include the right to tell everybody else to take a hike...  that is called liberty.

 

As to why you need to go to court?  Because you're asking the government to infringe on another person's right to property...  you should be forced to show a judge there was actual harm done to you, and convince 6-12 of your neighbors as well before taking away your neighbors rights - due process of law.  And yes it's a high standard because it needs to be, peoples rights, all of them including property rights, should require such high bars to prevent infringement for petty issues.

 

Also, nothing is stopping you under this legal theory from building neighborhoods with deed restrictions.  If you want to live in a community where people can't be pig farmers...  go buy up some land, place deed restrictions to that effect and sell the land to like minded homeowners.

 

Since deed restrictions are entirely voluntary and as such don't violate peoples rights...  Then zoning laws and government enforcement (ie threat of violence) of those laws is an infringement of natural rights. 

 

Finally, show me the harm in this case:  http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/19/3764503/couple-sues-miami-shores-for-ordering.html

 

How is anybody going to suffer any real harm by allowing a garden to be grown in their front yard instead of the backyard?  This is a perfect example of petty government infringements.  Or how about the zoning ordinance that didn't allow people to park pickup trucks in their driveway at night?  You could park a ratty old car, but not a $50,000 brand new truck...  how exactly is that harming anybody?

 

The truth is you like the government solution because it's easier...  let the government use force to make your neighbors live like you want them to...  it's all about trying to control other peoples lives and coming up with theoretical boogey-men to blame for why the government needs all of that power.

 

As for your mountain reference, if you don't want somebody building a pig farm next to you, why don't you go live on top of a mountain 100 miles from nowhere?  Why is it I have to move to have freedom from your desire to control my life and property, instead of you having to move from my desire to live freely?  What makes your position the superior one?  Nothing, it's a thinly veiled desire to control others through the violence of government.

 

Why should I be forced to go to court every time some asshole does something irresponsible on his property that harms me when, if the person had two brain cells to rub together or cared even one tiny bit about the harm his actions might do he wouldn't do them in the first place. You can't "work things out" with people like that because if you could, they wouldn't do them in the first place.

 

And pray tell, what good dose it do to sue someone who probably has zero resources to pay or won't pay even if the plaintiff wins the suit?

 

The overwhelming majority of the laws we have regarding what someone can/can't do on his property, that ultimately harms others when he does it, exist because of assholes that do those things they shouldn't have been doing in the first place...if everyone always did the right thing and treated their neighbors with the same amount of respect and consideration they would want from them, most laws of any kind wouldn't need to exist.

 

If someone wants to go buy a mountain and live 100 miles from another human being then I don't give a #### what he does on his property...if he is going to live 50 feet from my property line then I do care and so should every other neighbor...that's why we and other neighbors chose to live in incorporated areas where we can pass and enforce zoning laws that says my next door neighbor can't turn his 1/3 acre lot into a pig farm or a junk yard or a trash dump...such is not theoretical, it's reality...it's not imagined harm...it's real harm...if my neighbor doesn't want to live with those kinds of restrictions then he should go buy that mountain and not force everyone else to put up with stupid, irresponsible things he wants to do just because it's his property (or property he rents and doesn't even own).

Frankly, what a lot of people here claim is "freedom and liberty" sounds a lot like the freedom and liberty to #### on everyone else...that MY rights to do what I want is the only right that matters and screw everyone else.

 

[wjh2657]

One of the original objections (Hamilton,  et al) to a Bill of Rights was that it could be construed as the limit of rights. It was understood by all that these rights were to be protected rights (protected by the government) to limit laws infringing on people.  The only "GOD given rights" anywhere in the founding documents are the three recognized by the Declaration of Independence; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If you try to fit other rights under any of these you end up with the sort of interpretation that I have the right to rape your teenage daughter if it makes me happy! That was never the intention of the founding fathers, to give everybody the right to do whatever they wanted. No "God Given Rights" are mentioned by specifics  anywhere in the Constitution including the  Bill of Rights.

 

It is a popular exercise these days to state the Constitution allows us to disregard Federal law. The Constitution was not written to strengthen the states, it was written to make a strong federal government, after the Articles of  Confederation experiment (1775-1786) failed. Reading the letters of those present at the beginning (The Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist Papers, also James Madison's Records of the Convention) further reinforces their intent to make a strong Federal Government through the Constitution.

 

The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are contractual rights between "The People" (All American Citizens, as a national body) and the Government of the U.S.

 

Many need to stop "waving" the Constitution and sit down and read it and the historical records about it. Too many politicians , in both parties, have no real desire to follow the Constitution, but warp its words to match their own political agenda.

Edited November 22, 2013 by wjh2657

[JayC]

wow, where to begin?

 

You're right Hamilton did have that concern in Federalist #84, but to answer that concern, we ratified the 9th and 10th Amendments.  Which basically placed all other natural rights outside the authority of both Federal and State governments.  Keeping in mind that the Constitution is binding to both the States and the Federal government in limiting their scope and authority over 'The People'.

 

Lets talk about the three big rights identified in the Declaration of Independance...  life, liberty and property.  Most people believe those are the only 3 rights we have, that all other 'rights' stem from those 3..  some will disagree with that assessment.  Nobody is suggesting that you have a right to initiate violence on another...  Nobody...  but we have a right to meet violence with violence to protect ourselves and our natural rights.

 

If you don't believe in God that's fine, you can believe your rights come from anywhere/anyhow you wish to believe...  as long as your beliefs don't come and try to take away my rights that do come from God.

 

As for the Constitution, I have a much more radical approach than even you are suggesting...  First, I don't accept the notion that I'm bound by an agreement made among men born 275 years ago.  I don't recognize their authority to condemn me to a life of slavery and servitude to the majority of society.  What gave them to right to inflict the Constitution and this government on me?

 

Even if I accept that I as a free individual can be bound by a contract they're not a party to...  I for sure don't agree to be bound by rules, regulations, and laws that don't follow the clear and simple reading of that contract.  If a government does something outside the authority granted to it, then by that very act the law is unlawful and can be disregarded.

 

As for 'The People', the way you say that leads me to think you mean that rights belong to the collective and not the individual...  and that just doesn't jive with either the federalist or anti-federalist papers.  Lets take a look at this quote from John Dewitt #2:

 

 

 

A person, entering into society, surrender such a part of their natural rights, as shall be necessary for the existence of that society. They are so precious in themselves, that they would never be parted with, did not the preservation of the remainder require it.

 

This clearly shows that a common held belief at the time of the Constitutional Convention was that natural rights can only be surrender if the very existence of society would be threatened if they were not....  

 

The Bill of Rights spells out those exact acceptable infringements that are needed to keep the States and the Country together, and permit nothing more to be taken from the individual.

 

One of the original objections (Hamilton,  et al) to a Bill of Rights was that it could be construed as the limit of rights. It was understood by all that these rights were to be protected rights (protected by the government) to limit laws infringing on people.  The only "GOD given rights" anywhere in the founding documents are the three recognized by the Declaration of Independence; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If you try to fit other rights under any of these you end up with the sort of interpretation that I have the right to rape your teenage daughter if it makes me happy! That was never the intention of the founding fathers, to give everybody the right to do whatever they wanted. No "God Given Rights" are mentioned by specifics  anywhere in the Constitution including the  Bill of Rights.

 

It is a popular exercise these days to state the Constitution allows us to disregard Federal law. The Constitution was not written to strengthen the states, it was written to make a strong federal government, after the Articles of  Confederation experiment (1775-1786) failed. Reading the letters of those present at the beginning (The Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist Papers, also James Madison's Records of the Convention) further reinforces their intent to make a strong Federal Government through the Constitution.

 

The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are contractual rights between "The People" (All American Citizens, as a national body) and the Government of the U.S.

-

Many need to stop "waving" the Constitution and sit down and read it and the historical records about it. Too many politicians , in both parties, have no real desire to follow the Constitution, but warp its words to match their own political agenda.

Edited November 22, 2013 by JayC

[RichardR]

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington.

[Guest TNSovereignty]

If we have a God given right, then no man can remove that right; no collection of men, and no government of men.  Anything less would make government the arbiter of "rights" and subject us to their whim.

 

What say you?

Great thread ... some thoughtful points, interspersed with a bit of idiocy, and a few folks who seem to have a limited grasp of man's naturally 'depraved' state.  If one's worldview includes that man is essentially good, or potentially perfectable, then their views on government will differ drastically from those who believe man to be essentially selfish, and absolutely imperfectable.  That's why there will be no clear 'winner' in this debate ... it's not about who's prose & oratory are best, but which worldview is correct.  

 

The Founders recognized this, and many were at clear odds with each other as they addressed the question in the original post.  They negotiated & argued, cobbling together a consensus they could put their names to, with hopes that future generations might grow w/ enough maturity/judgment to improve upon it.  And that didn't happen (IMO, and according to my worldview.  Some think the changes to present day are wonderful advancements in progressive liberty.)

 

So there's great history & competing governmental theories in this post, which are important ... but what of the original question and how this impacts our actions day-to-day?  What if (when?) the EPA starts regulating our ditches & farm ponds ... will you skirt the regs or yield your property rights?  What if your neighbor wants fresh (i.e. raw) milk - they must have it for health reasons & can't keep their own cow - but the 'law' says you cannot sell it to your neighbor ... do you sell the contraband milk or yield economic & bodily health rights?  You can go scenario after scenario, and then get into the aspects of gun control and how you would respond to it ... at this point we're beyond theory and into practice.  

 

For those that mindlessly succumb & yield to every 'law' and regulation that comes out, my heart goes out to them, because they're slipping further & further into a bondage ... some folks just seem content to yield liberty and wear their diamond-studded chains - just keep the checks coming & give me more TV channels.  However, my conscience, my faith, and my zest for a joyful life require me to assess each of these encumbrances, the consequences for transgression, and a decision on whether I will submit.   Hopefully we TGO followers are making similar, careful assessments.   

[East_TN_Patriot]

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

 

Do I really?  How about working on your writing skills so that your points are clear and not so ambiguous?  I still have no clue who you were directing your post to me, others posting here, or society in general.  I asked in a polite manner, you replied with a smart@$$ remark, so I think that speaks volumes about your attitude.  Thanks for clearing that up at least.

Edited November 24, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[East_TN_Patriot]

Yet another great example of the "authoritative mindset", if my comment's do not meet with "your approval" that's just to bad Robert.

I do not always color within the lines .... but I do always paint the picture that I want folks to see.

...and thanks for reaffirming what I said above.  One of the best measures of a person's depth of knowledge and maturity on a topic is found in how they respond to people who challenge what they claim to believe in.

[East_TN_Patriot]

The issue is the government does not have legitimate power to limit rights further than what is defined in the Constitution.  There is an absolute right to privacy, the 5th amendment allows the Government a very small window to legitimately infringe on that right.

 

How do we fight it?  There are a couple of method you can use to fight these illegitimate infringements by the government...  you must pick the one you're most comfortable.

 

1. Passive resistance - if selected for a jury trial, take the time to go on the jury, if you believe the government violated a natural right in the process of getting evidence - say using an exigent circumstance to discover drugs...  vote not guilty and stick to your guns no matter what.  The cost of a hung juries will help dissuade the government.

 

2. Speak out, call the government out when it oversteps...  try and educate people that the Government was only granted a very limited number of powers (both federal and state) and if the constitution in plain english doesn't explicitly authorize an action then the action in by it's very nature is unlawful.  There are a lot of things that disgust me that the Government isn't authorized to mess with...  I realize in a free society good people will die from time to time and while sad it's not a good enough reason to remove my freedoms.

 

3. Activate resistance - Question authority always...  When interacting with the government force them to follow the rules and the laws, refuse to give ground out of politeness...  going along to get along.  This obviously has more risk involved...

 

4. Finally, full resistance - if you believe the Government has so overstepped it's authority granted under the constitution then you are free to treat it was you would any other criminal enterprise...  stop paying taxes, refuse to allow the government access to your life and the lives of your family...  The reality is the government can't really enforce laws that even a very small part of the population refuses to take part in...  They can't charge 10 million people with tax evasion a year...  They can't arrest 15,000 people who surround a state capital and refuse to leave until the politicians repeal broken laws...  We're not to this step yet IMHO but it's one of the steps.

 

At the end of the day we need to educate people who have has such a poor education in the public school systems...  We need to question all propaganda we've been fed all of our lives, and question the very need for every government action that takes place...  The fact is we need a little bit of government, but we could take a chainsaw to the current government (federal, state and local) and still have too much left over.

 

The government is 12 times bigger today than it was 100 years ago, counting for inflation and economic growth....  That is crazy, we don't need 12 times the government our grandparents or great grand parents needed.

 

I hope these peaceful methods will result in the changes we need in our government, but I'm concerned we're running out of effective boxes (soap box, ballot box, ammo box) to solve these problems, and the only viable option may very well be the ammo box.

No, sir, there is no such absolute right to privacy.  The issue of privacy is dealt with in the Fourth Amendment, not the Fifth, and the text of the Fourth Amendment is clear that there is no absolute right to privacy.  In fact, there is no specific mention of "right to privacy" contained anywhere in the Constitution or in any subsequent case law.  What the Fourth Amendment protects the people from is "unreasonable searches and seizures" of our "persons, houses, papers, and effects."  The simple fact that they used the word "unreasonable" clearly indicates that the Framers did believe that there were times when government could search or seize people, homes, and property as long as the reason for the intrusion was "reasonable" in nature. The question of what constitutes a reasonable search or seizure has been the subject of over 200 years of debate, conjecture, and court rulings.  The standard for privacy is interpreted through the assumed right to privacy in your home and personal affairs where a reasonable person would possess a "reasonable expectation of privacy" unless an agent of the government has a warrant based on probable cause, reasonable suspicion in the case of stop and frisk, or some other warrant exception such as abandoned personal property, plain view, etc.  

The Fifth Amendment protects other rights including prohibition of double jeopardy, the right to remain silent, and the requirement that due process of law be applied before the government can take your life, liberty, or property.  There is no mention of "privacy" or protection from government intrusion into our "private" or personal affairs.  

 

I presume that we agree on a few points here, one of which is that the Fourth Amendment has become so watered down that it is becoming almost meaningless.  The final clause in the Fifth Amendment that is cited in support of the imminent domain concept has become so corrupted that it is also meaningless.  

Just a couple of other points about the Constitution that many people - not necessarily anyone who has posted here - fail to recognize.  One is that the Constitution originally only applied to the powers of the federal government, not the states.  This means that the states could ban guns, withhold due process, search/seize at will, limit speech, etc., depending on the content of the individual state constitutions.  The intent of that approach was to limit federal power at keep it at the state level, but it also meant that the rights that we assume are available to all of us were restricted to individuals based on their race/ethnicity, sex/gender, and socio-economic status.  Second, the "natural rights" philosophy assumes that all people have these rights, not just American citizens.  This is an important point for those who think it's OK to withhold rights from "terrorists", "illegal immigrants", and other groups that we like to exclude from the protections of the American legal system.
 

 

[East_TN_Patriot]

I have thought about these issues, and there are no easy answers. In my core I am a utopian but not a naive one. Much of the currently powerful will remain so, that can't be helped. The reason I called BS on your point about the redistrubution of amassed wealth is that it was the exact same sort of reasoning used in calls for reparations for slavery. What has happened in the past, though wrong as it may have been, cannot be addressed now through any sort of forced larceny on the inheritors of those enriched by that wrongdoing. To legitimize that sort of plunder under the auspices of "creating a level playing field" would simply be Marxism. I'm an ancap, not an ansoc. ;)
 

As I mentioned before, I have a large pragmatic streak and I understand most folks are scared of the idea of really being free, so in theory I could accept a return of our government to its initial state. The problem is that we know it doesn't work. Lysander Spooner summed up the problem quite nicely in his pamphlet "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority".
 

If people could mind their own business and go about living their lives instead of other people's lives then it would work. That just doesn't happen though as the world is filled with insufferable busybodies and wannabe petty tyrants who wish to control what other people do in thier lives, on their property and in their homes. Government gives them a framework to enforce their will on others and the mantle of legitimacy because they took a vote on the issue and called it "democracy in action". If the choice is between something that is known to not work and something untried, I will go for the untried every time. Our governmental framework, while more successful than any other so far, doesn't work. Lysander had it right, the Constitution either explicity authorizes what we have, or was powerless to stop it. It just didn't work.

If your idea of "really being free" is anarchy, then yes, I am scared of that, and for good reason.  Anarchy does not create a happy and peaceful society.  I've thought a while on this before typing my reply and I can think of no situation where anarchy resulted in a peaceful and productive society.  In the absence of law and order, there is chaos and misery.  Just think about the aftermath of Katrina or any scene of a natural disaster.  There is crime, disorder, and vigilante justice.  There's a reason the Wild West is called the "wild" west.  

It's also interesting you mentioned slavery because I had planned to talk about that anyhow.  Slavery is the perfect example of what I am talking about in regards to my point on the distribution of wealth and power.  Following the Civil War, former slaves were freed, but the pre-existing power and wealth structure was still in place.  The result was another form of slavery that was created and implemented at the state and local levels of government in the South.  Former slaves who lacked the resources to purchase their own land, start their own businesses, or leave for more favorable conditions were required to be sharecroppers and were subject to legal restrictions under the "black codes" that were simply "slave codes" that had been tweaked a bit.  Under these revised legal codes, blacks were commonly arrested for simple "crimes" like loitering, "wandering about in idleness," leaving a sharecropping plot without permission of the landlord, and many other illegitimately defined crimes.  As punishment, they were fined amounts that were as much as one or two years' wages.  When they couldn't pay, they were imprisoned and "leased" to private employers who needed cheap labor to work in the fields, mine coal and other resources, work on railroads, and other forms of hard labor.  Many of the people subjected to this convict-lease system were beaten, abused, starved, and not given medical care.  The result was that many died from the terrible conditions and the attitude held by many businessmen who used convict-lease labor was described as "one dies, get another."  This is the same sort of outcome we could expect in a society as you call for without a redistribution of wealth, resources, and power.  Wal Mart wouldn't suddenly stop doing what it does now, including its practice of leveraging their massive economic power to artificially lower prices in order to drive smaller businesses out of business or intimidating workers.  George Soros and Warren Buffet would not suddenly become generous and let people live their lives as they want.  It's just not possible.
 

Clearly, we are not going to agree on this point, but I do think we agree on many points.  This discussion has also inspired me to do more reading on your perspective because my knowledge on it is not as good as it could be.  I may be completely misunderstanding the perspective, so I want to know more.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="East_TN_Patriot" post="1068707" timestamp="1385334142"] If your idea of "really being free" is anarchy, then yes, I am scared of that, and for good reason. Anarchy does not create a happy and peaceful society. I've thought a while on this before typing my reply and I can think of no situation where anarchy resulted in a peaceful and productive society. In the absence of law and order, there is chaos and misery. Just think about the aftermath of Katrina or any scene of a natural disaster. There is crime, disorder, and vigilante justice. There's a reason the Wild West is called the "wild" west. It's also interesting you mentioned slavery because I had planned to talk about that anyhow. Slavery is the perfect example of what I am talking about in regards to my point on the distribution of wealth and power. Following the Civil War, former slaves were freed, but the pre-existing power and wealth structure was still in place. The result was another form of slavery that was created and implemented at the state and local levels of government in the South. Former slaves who lacked the resources to purchase their own land, start their own businesses, or leave for more favorable conditions were required to be sharecroppers and were subject to legal restrictions under the "black codes" that were simply "slave codes" that had been tweaked a bit. Under these revised legal codes, blacks were commonly arrested for simple "crimes" like loitering, "wandering about in idleness," leaving a sharecropping plot without permission of the landlord, and many other illegitimately defined crimes. As punishment, they were fined amounts that were as much as one or two years' wages. When they couldn't pay, they were imprisoned and "leased" to private employers who needed cheap labor to work in the fields, mine coal and other resources, work on railroads, and other forms of hard labor. Many of the people subjected to this convict-lease system were beaten, abused, starved, and not given medical care. The result was that many died from the terrible conditions and the attitude held by many businessmen who used convict-lease labor was described as "one dies, get another." This is the same sort of outcome we could expect in a society as you call for without a redistribution of wealth, resources, and power. Wal Mart wouldn't suddenly stop doing what it does now, including its practice of leveraging their massive economic power to artificially lower prices in order to drive smaller businesses out of business or intimidating workers. George Soros and Warren Buffet would not suddenly become generous and let people live their lives as they want. It's just not possible. Clearly, we are not going to agree on this point, but I do think we agree on many points. This discussion has also inspired me to do more reading on your perspective because my knowledge on it is not as good as it could be. I may be completely misunderstanding the perspective, so I want to know more.[/quote] I too think that we would find ourselves in agreement on many points. I passed through libertarianism on my way to my current position as an ancap. I would encourage you to read the works of Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard and Benjamin Tucker. This graphic actually represents my progression quite well. P.S. Please take note that all of your examples of the mistreatment of former slaves was done by using the government to commit said violence. ;)

Edited November 24, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[JayC]

In all fairness I really meant the 5th Amendment...  that nobody can be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law...  In this case, liberty encompasses many natural rights including the right of privacy.  The point being, that unless you're found guilty of a crime then you can not be deprived of a natural right except for the very limited number of exceptions outlined in the Bill of Rights...  If the right government was not granted the power to infringe upon a right, then by the 9th Amendment those rights belong solely to the individual people.

 

The 4th amendment spells out the limited path to violate the privacy/property rights granted to the government in the Constitution, the the 5th plays a critical role as well.

 

And I agree the 4th amendment allows for reasonable search but only upon oath and a warrant being issued, all other 'exigent circumstance' searches in my mind are unconstitutional in all cases.  For me that means if such a search is part of a case where I'm on the jury, then I can not in good faith convict a man based on that evidence.

 

And we're in agreement that natural rights exist for all living persons not just Americans.  And I understand that concept is foreign to most people and can generate some Solomon cutting babies in half moments.

 

As for your suggestion that the Federal Constitution placed no limits on the States, I'd argue that it did...  or how else do you explain the 10th Amendment?  Rights clearly define as belonging to The People were restricted from both the states and the federal government.  So under the plain reading of the Constitution it was no more lawful for any state to infringe on 2nd amendment rights than it was for the federal government to do the same.  Because the 10th Amendment reserves that right directly to the people, and the States by ratifying the Constitution became bound by the 10th amendment just as the federal government had.  Truth is very few states don't have their own version of the 2nd Amendment, so it's probably a mute point.

 

No, sir, there is no such absolute right to privacy.  The issue of privacy is dealt with in the Fourth Amendment, not the Fifth, and the text of the Fourth Amendment is clear that there is no absolute right to privacy.  In fact, there is no specific mention of "right to privacy" contained anywhere in the Constitution or in any subsequent case law.  What the Fourth Amendment protects the people from is "unreasonable searches and seizures" of our "persons, houses, papers, and effects."  The simple fact that they used the word "unreasonable" clearly indicates that the Framers did believe that there were times when government could search or seize people, homes, and property as long as the reason for the intrusion was "reasonable" in nature. The question of what constitutes a reasonable search or seizure has been the subject of over 200 years of debate, conjecture, and court rulings.  The standard for privacy is interpreted through the assumed right to privacy in your home and personal affairs where a reasonable person would possess a "reasonable expectation of privacy" unless an agent of the government has a warrant based on probable cause, reasonable suspicion in the case of stop and frisk, or some other warrant exception such as abandoned personal property, plain view, etc.  

The Fifth Amendment protects other rights including prohibition of double jeopardy, the right to remain silent, and the requirement that due process of law be applied before the government can take your life, liberty, or property.  There is no mention of "privacy" or protection from government intrusion into our "private" or personal affairs.  

 

I presume that we agree on a few points here, one of which is that the Fourth Amendment has become so watered down that it is becoming almost meaningless.  The final clause in the Fifth Amendment that is cited in support of the imminent domain concept has become so corrupted that it is also meaningless.  

Just a couple of other points about the Constitution that many people - not necessarily anyone who has posted here - fail to recognize.  One is that the Constitution originally only applied to the powers of the federal government, not the states.  This means that the states could ban guns, withhold due process, search/seize at will, limit speech, etc., depending on the content of the individual state constitutions.  The intent of that approach was to limit federal power at keep it at the state level, but it also meant that the rights that we assume are available to all of us were restricted to individuals based on their race/ethnicity, sex/gender, and socio-economic status.  Second, the "natural rights" philosophy assumes that all people have these rights, not just American citizens.  This is an important point for those who think it's OK to withhold rights from "terrorists", "illegal immigrants", and other groups that we like to exclude from the protections of the American legal system.
 

 

 

[DaveTN]

And I agree the 4th amendment allows for reasonable search but only upon oath and a warrant being issued, all other 'exigent circumstance' searches in my mind are unconstitutional in all cases.

Evidence will be ruled on in pretrial motions; you have nothing to do with that.
 

For me that means if such a search is part of a case where I'm on the jury, then I can not in good faith convict a man based on that evidence.

Then in good faith you should make that clear during the selection process if you feel that strongly about it.
I could not convict a person when the death penalty is an option; I would make that clear so I would not be on the jury.

[Chucktshoes]

Evidence will be ruled on in pretrial motions; you have nothing to do with that.

Then in good faith you should make that clear during the selection process if you feel that strongly about it.
I could not convict a person when the death penalty is an option; I would make that clear so I would not be on the jury.

Having someone else do the deed for you doesn't absolve you of culpability in that deed. If you have the opportunity to serve on a jury where you can prevent the state from committing an immoral act and actively have yourself removed from that jury, you share responsibility just the same as if you voted to convict.

I believe that jury nullification is not only a right of the people, it is a duty. If the lawyers don't ask about my views on the subject, I am not going to volunteer that information and remove myself from a position of being able to actually do something about it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[DaveTN]

Having someone else do the deed for you doesn't absolve you of culpability in that deed. If you have the opportunity to serve on a jury where you can prevent the state from committing an immoral act and actively have yourself removed from that jury, you share responsibility just the same as if you voted to convict.

Nonsense, both the accused and the state have a right to fair and impartial jury. But I am not required to give up my beliefs because I’m called for jury duty. Setting a murderer free would be an immoral act if I had not disclosed.
 

I believe that jury nullification is not only a right of the people, it is a duty. If the lawyers don't ask about my views on the subject, I am not going to volunteer that information and remove myself from a position of being able to actually do something about it.

I was called for jury duty a couple of years ago. Not one of the 15 defense attorneys in the room questioned me about being a former cop, even though I put in on the jury questionnaire. When the Judge ask me something to the effect of was there anything else that they should know; I told him I was a former Police Officer. He asked if I had investigated these types of cases before, I said I had. He then asks if I could make an impartial decision based on the evidence; I said I could. I didn’t have a problem with serving on a jury; but I sure thought the accused and their defense lawyers should have that piece of information.

[Chucktshoes]

Nonsense, both the accused and the state have a right to fair and impartial jury. But I am not required to give up my beliefs because I’m called for jury duty. Setting a murderer free would be an immoral act if I had not disclosed. I was called for jury duty a couple of years ago. Not one of the 15 defense attorneys in the room questioned me about being a former cop, even though I put in on the jury questionnaire. When the Judge ask me something to the effect of was there anything else that they should know; I told him I was a former Police Officer. He asked if I had investigated these types of cases before, I said I had. He then asks if I could make an impartial decision based on the evidence; I said I could. I didn’t have a problem with serving on a jury; but I sure thought the accused and their defense lawyers should have that piece of information.

Here is an example of how this sort of situation would play out with me. I believe that if there is not an identifiable victim, there is not a crime. Any prostitution, nonviolent drug, or other consensual act offense I would vote not guilty. I'm not telling the lawyers involved because if I did, I wouldn't be able to stop the state from committing the immoral act of putting someone in a cage for a consensual act.

[DaveTN]

Here is an example of how this sort of situation would play out with me. I believe that if there is not an identifiable victim, there is not a crime. Any prostitution, nonviolent drug, or other consensual act offense I would vote not guilty. I'm not telling the lawyers involved because if I did, I wouldn't be able to stop the state from committing the immoral act of putting someone in a cage for a consensual act.

In a murder case there is a victim. In the case I was called for there were multiple victims, but they were not murdered and the death penalty was not an option.

In a drug case I’m pretty sure you would be asked if the evidence showed they were guilty could you return that verdict. You would either have to answer truthfully or perjure yourself.

[East_TN_Patriot]

In all fairness I really meant the 5th Amendment...  that nobody can be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law...  In this case, liberty encompasses many natural rights including the right of privacy.  The point being, that unless you're found guilty of a crime then you can not be deprived of a natural right except for the very limited number of exceptions outlined in the Bill of Rights...  If the right government was not granted the power to infringe upon a right, then by the 9th Amendment those rights belong solely to the individual people.

 

The 4th amendment spells out the limited path to violate the privacy/property rights granted to the government in the Constitution, the the 5th plays a critical role as well.

 

And I agree the 4th amendment allows for reasonable search but only upon oath and a warrant being issued, all other 'exigent circumstance' searches in my mind are unconstitutional in all cases.  For me that means if such a search is part of a case where I'm on the jury, then I can not in good faith convict a man based on that evidence.

 

And we're in agreement that natural rights exist for all living persons not just Americans.  And I understand that concept is foreign to most people and can generate some Solomon cutting babies in half moments.

 

As for your suggestion that the Federal Constitution placed no limits on the States, I'd argue that it did...  or how else do you explain the 10th Amendment?  Rights clearly define as belonging to The People were restricted from both the states and the federal government.  So under the plain reading of the Constitution it was no more lawful for any state to infringe on 2nd amendment rights than it was for the federal government to do the same.  Because the 10th Amendment reserves that right directly to the people, and the States by ratifying the Constitution became bound by the 10th amendment just as the federal government had.  Truth is very few states don't have their own version of the 2nd Amendment, so it's probably a mute point.

All of the amendments are important and are interconnected.  The logic was that all of the rights in the Bill of Rights were especially important to preserving a free society.  The key due process rights are discussed in amendments four, five, six, and eight.  

I think that some exigent circumstance are legitimate, ones like the ability of a LEO to enter a residence without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that someone's life is in immediate danger.  I'd sure hate to think that me or one of my family were being beaten, raped, or about to be murdered and the police could not enter the residence with out a warrant.  I also think that hot pursuit would be legitimate.  I certainly think that the police should be able to come on in to apprehend someone who was running from them and came into my house to hide.  It happened many times while I was a LEO, so it's not as uncommon as you might think.  

I also understand what you are saying, but the Constitutional protections we refer to in our daily lives did not apply at the state level originally.  That is why the 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments were passed.  There have been several Supreme Court decisions dealing with this as well, perhaps the most notable being the Gideon v. Wainwright case.  Even if your interpretation of the 10th Amendment is correct, it was never treated that way by courts or governments.  This is why states have their own constitutions in the first place.  

 

[RichardR]

Do I really? How about working on your writing skills so that your points are clear and not so ambiguous? I still have no clue who you were directing your post to me, others posting here, or society in general. I asked in a polite manner, you replied with a smart@$$ remark, so I think that speaks volumes about your attitude. Thanks for clearing that up at least.

There was nothing unclear or ambigous about my comments, everyone (including Dave) was able to follow them without any confusion, it was obvious that you feigned ignorance/confusion to purposely misrepresent my statements to create a strawman arguement in order to bolster your own.

Something you seem to do with regularity.

Loved the fact that you tried to "call me out" for being rude about it though ...

[East_TN_Patriot]

I too think that we would find ourselves in agreement on many points. I passed through libertarianism on my way to my current position as an ancap. I would encourage you to read the works of Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard and Benjamin Tucker. This graphic actually represents my progression quite well. P.S. Please take note that all of your examples of the mistreatment of former slaves was done by using the government to commit said violence. ;)

I appreciate that graphic, but it confirms my previous thoughts.  The problem isn't the state, it's power, more specifically the misuse and abuse of power.  The economic organization of a society is as much a source of power as the state.  Anarcho-capitalism appears to presume that a free-market will somehow prevent anyone from gathering and abusing power.  That is simply not the case.  The closest our society has been to a society organized in a manner similar to anarcho-capitalism would be during the late 19th and early 20th centuries during the age of industrialization and the era of Rockerfeller, Carnegie, Morgan, et al.  These powerful business leaders were subjected to virtually zero regulation, the power of the federal government was still very weak (so weak in fact that J.P. Morgan loaned money to the US Treasury to keep the government solvent), and free markets were the order of the day.  When these business leaders exploited their workers, these individuals rose up and demanded better treatment.  When they did so, these business leaders used their power and wealth to form private armies (much like what anarcho-capitalism supports in lieu of a government supported police force).  Where was justice and benevolence when these so-called "robber barons" were using privately funded armies to shoot unarmed free men?

 

In a state completely organized around completely unregulated economic relationships, power will ultimately be concentrated in the hands of those who have the most wealth.  When these people misuse or abuse their wealth/power, there will be no law to refer to as a statement about the rights afforded to individuals or the obligations of those who have power.  With no state, there will be no entity to which to turn for arbitration or protection.  We will simply return to a feudal state with the new nobility being the Warren Buffets and George Soroses of the world.  We will all be serfs working in the factories and farms owned by others clamoring for freedom and justice until we are beaten, shot, or imprisoned to keep us quiet.  If anarcho-capitalism presumes that the role of the contemporary state would be adopted by private business interests, then all would be accomplished would be to create a de-facto state held in private hands not guided or restricted by an established legal system, and even more prone to corruption that the government we have now.  At least in our current government, individuals who have limited wealth and power do have the ability to vote for politicians and hold them accountable by voting them out of office.  If the problem is a government that is corrupted by private business interests, I see no logical way how abolishing the state would end that corruption.

On a side note, Karl Marx actually advocated a system similar to what anarcho-capitalism appears to support.  Communism was not intended to be a totalitarian state.  Rather, it was intended to be a stateless society organized around mutually beneficial economic activities.  The key difference is that Marx envisioned property held in common rather than concentrated in the hands of a few successful free-market capitalists.  I've read a lot of Marx and was rather shocked at what he said and how it totally did not fit what I thought I knew about Marx.  He actually supported free-market capitalism.  Yes, I said that, and it's true.  He believed that free-market capitalism was a beneficial and necessary step in the progression to a communist society.  He believed that the production and technological advancement spurred by capitalism would provide the resources necessary to support a transition to communism and allow all people to live a life of freedom and relative comfort.  I am not saying Marx was correct, just that he talked about many of the same ideas as what I have seen in my brief look at anarcho-capitalism.  The reason there are so many similarities is because communist philosophy has its roots in anarchism.

[East_TN_Patriot]

There was nothing unclear or ambigous about my comments, everyone (including Dave) was able to follow them without any confusion, it was obvious that you feigned ignorance/confusion to purposely misrepresent my statements to create a strawman arguement in order to bolster your own.

Something you seem to do with regularity.

Loved the fact that you tried to "call me out" for being rude about it though ...

I do it with regularity?  Please do tell how you can support such a claim.  That is something I have never been accused of before.  

I even made the statement up front in that post that if I had misinterpreted your comment, to ignore what followed.  That being the case, it's simply not logical that I would be trying to "purposely misrepresent" your statement.  You were free to say that I had misinterpreted your comment, to which I would have acknowledged and apologized.  Instead, you decided to insult me.  That speaks volumes in my book.  You also responded the same way to others who disagreed with you, call them an example of the "authoritarian mindset", and completely fail to recognize that you are demonstrating the same sort of attitude towards others.

I am done with this silliness. 

Edited November 25, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[RobertNashville]

...You were free to say that I had misinterpreted your comment, to which I would have acknowledged and apologized.  Instead, you decided to insult me.  That speaks volumes in my book.  You also responded the same way to others who disagreed with you, call them an example of the "authoritarian mindset", and completely fail to recognize that you are demonstrating the same sort of attitude towards others.

Oh...but he isn't calling people names; just making observations. ;) 

[RichardR]

I do it with regularity? Please do tell how you can support such a claim. That is something I have never been accused of before.

I even made the statement up front in that post that if I had misinterpreted your comment, to ignore what followed. That being the case, it's simply not logical that I would be trying to "purposely misrepresent" your statement. You were free to say that I had misinterpreted your comment, to which I would have acknowledged and apologized. Instead, you decided to insult me. That speaks volumes in my book. You also responded the same way to others who disagreed with you, call them an example of the "authoritarian mindset", and completely fail to recognize that you are demonstrating the same sort of attitude towards others.

I am done with this silliness.

Your "up front disclaimer" was clear evidence that was what your intent was from the beginning.

But yea, my attitude is obviously the problem ...

[JayC]

I would answer all questions truthfully that were asked of me during jury selection... but I would not explain my beliefs in God (and by extension natural rights granted to me and all persons by their Creator) to a judge, or lawyers...  As it is none of their business.

 

I would weigh all evidence on it's merits, if it was collected in a manner that violated a person's natural rights, that fact would weigh heavily on whether the evidence could or could not be trusted.

 

Evidence will be ruled on in pretrial motions; you have nothing to do with that.
 
Then in good faith you should make that clear during the selection process if you feel that strongly about it.
I could not convict a person when the death penalty is an option; I would make that clear so I would not be on the jury.