- Joined
- Aug 26, 2012
- Messages
- 8,247
- Reaction score
- 2,713
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It's not the term that is the problem. You're coming at the problem from the wrong end. We could agree what aggression is, but calling not getting a tip aggression or having to service some you're prejudice against simply doesn't qualify. Neither does getting a fine. It's you unreason application of the word that is at issue. Not the word.
The fourteenth amendment would only deal with the titles that deal with the state, so really I have no idea what you are talking about. Furthermore, your claim about the founders trying to form a strong government with the constitution is false. They were trying to form a federal government "stronger" than the AOC, not a strong federal government. Really, I can't find one thing you said that is true.
What we call aggression would depend upon the definition of aggression, which you assiduously avoid providing.
By your definition, you miscalled. If you can't even make a judgement with your own definition, what good would another one do? If you can answer that, I might concede we need one.
As a legal term, you're correct. But in the world, something established, done from day one, sets the course of things (precedence for lack a better word). And it does work tis way. There's nothing new here. Nothing that hasn't already been challenged. So, the pattern, the functional way of things has long since been established (precedence). I'll accept a better word if you have one. The concept s what's important here.
The means by which the federal government usurped any authority over states, not to mention the private citizens of the state, should have been challenged and denied long ago.
Unfortunately, it was introduced under the premise that it was doing something beneficial to society as a whole, by the emancipation of slaves, and ensuring the rights of those emancipated blacks, and in so doing the government found that by that corrupt authority, it might even deny the most unalienable right of citizens to their freedom of association, in the dictation of the terms of integration.
It's long overdue to return government to its 10x10 box, and restore the Constitution. Precedent really does not account for any standing, any more so than you or I having successfully exceeded the speed limit repeatedly might undermine the inevitable speeding ticket..
wrong, there are no civil rights, becuase the government cannot create rights per the 14th amendment, they are civil privileges.
yes the articles of confederation were weak becuase the government could not enforce certain laws, like commerce, states enforced the rights of the people, becuase the constitution did not apply to the states at all.
there are rights and the are privileges, as listed in the constitution.
you dont have rights to be served by other people, ...becuase such a right would place a burden on a fellow citizen, and that is unconstitutional.
healthcare is placed under the........ taxing clause
Stronger yes. Which led to reasonably strong, also true. They sought a balance. As we do today. From day one the federal government was dealing with issues as they arose. They were not absent from the issues of the day.
An ability to tax that is extremely limited in scope and an ability to deal with trade disputes is extremely weak actually.
As noted above, it extends beyond those two.
You keep saying, "That's not aggression". Okay, so please define aggression.
No, it doesn't. Business is not a member listed and the clause in question only deals with trade disputes. There is no trade dispute between the listed members if a business doesn't do business with certain people. The court was wrong.
That doesn't answer me. We have your definition, using it, it doesn't describe what is taking place. So what good would another definition do that you still would see?
Land yet, we see the courts ruled differently? Can't you see this?
That doesn't answer me. We have your definition, using it, it doesn't describe what is taking place. So what good would another definition do that you still would see?
Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.
In order to determine whether an act constitutes an initiation of aggression, we first need to agree upon a definition of aggression. Do you agree with the following definition from the Wiki article on the non-aggression principle?
Link that definition.
Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Agree? Or do you have an alternate definition you'd like to suggest?
Don't know about shoulda, woulda, coulda. But the challenges didn't stand. The government has been overall reasonably consistent in how it has worked from the beginning. So we have a measure of certainty on how things work, just as we have a reasonable idea of how and when to navigate the traffic laws.
Actually the only "consistency" in how the government has worked from the beginning, actually began 78 years into the country's history, only after the Civil War, and involves the repeated expansion of illegitimate federal authority into entire areas deliberate prohibited by the Constitution, resulting in Court illegitimately whitewashing what the other hand of government was doing.
The claim of any federal authority over to enact laws in the states, much less authority over civil rights, is one of this gross corruptions which is a subversion of the Constitution to its very core.
And again, the sound you hear of citizens arming up is them preparing to indicate these conditions are no longer acceptable.
So you pay lots of taxes like me. Is it because we're white and married? I thought my government likes me because I pay them so much. Would I pay less taxes if I was black, gay and unmarried and made as much money as I do now? I'd think I'd pay more. But, please instruct me.Well, how do you deal with the fact that I am treated as a second class citizen by my government every single day? I am white. I am male. I am married. I pay lots of taxes. My government despises me and treats me as a cash cow.
First, we need to have these laws in place because of historical experience in our republic. I do not trust mankind enough to pretend we are that much more civilized, and icertainly would not trust fanciful rhetoric when our rights are on the line. De Jure segregation did not start segregation, it later accompanied de facto segregation.
That changes when you open for business to the PUBLIC.No one has a right to enter peoples property against their wishes
No one has a right to force others to do them a service.
Allowing discrimination would bring back Jim Crow with bells on... And you either know that or you are pathetically naive.No libertarian in this thread spoke in favor of Jim Crow laws.
As I said before the two titles in question are the very heart and legs of the legislation.:roll:Who said anything about the repeal of the CRA? We are talking about two titles in the law, not the entire law.
That changes when you open for business to the PUBLIC.
Allowing discrimination would bring back Jim Crow with bells on... And you either know that or you are pathetically naive.
As I said before the two titles in question are the very heart and legs of the legislation.:roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?