- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Individuals are being denied nothing. Business don't have the same rights as individuals.
We're talking about businesses here, not your personal transactions and social groups.
BTW - I think you'll find the Constitution is also technically statute law.
LOL! What right to property?!? LOL!
Once you open Ito the public, you change the relationship and are subject to different rules. Sorry, but this was a good and proper move. Courts agree.
I don't like victimless crimes, either. It's too bad your example isn't one of them.I argue in favor of eliminating victimless crimes. I'm sorry if that annoys you.
Making it a "crime" for someone to engage in trade without first acquiring a government-issued permission slip is a violation of his right to use his property. That's why I argue for the elimination of such laws, as well as all victimless crime laws.
the DOI being organic law, and the foundation of the constitution, that all rights are unalienable, and right property is there taking its place among the wording of that document.
Article 1, Section 8 says nothing about individual or business property rights.just 1 example......OK i dont feel like listing a page full......according to the constitution, .....the federal government has no authority on private or state land, unless the state approves of it, or unless, piracy ,counterfeiting or treason is taking place.
article 1 section 8 next to... last para....
Article 1, Section 8 says nothing about individual or business property rights.
I don't like victimless crimes, either. It's too bad your example isn't one of them.
I don't like victimless crimes, either. It's too bad your example isn't one of them.
Your anarchistic interpretation of property rights has no bearing here. All land is acquired under certain contractual obligations know as laws. If you don't like the obligations then don't buy the land. No one is ever forced to buy land or live where they don't want to live.
Article 1, Section 8 says nothing about individual or business property rights.
They have since been labeled "intellectual property" but that's only because of the laws Congress established. It says nothing about those rights specifically, other than Congress can - not must - establish them, nor does it refer to them as "property".copyright clause for one.
It violates the contract under which the property was obtained.How is it not?
It violates the contract under which the property was obtained.
They have since been labeled "intellectual property" but that's only because of the laws Congress established. It says nothing about those rights specifically, other than Congress can - not must - establish them, nor does it call refer to them "property".
Have you now conceded that Congress can, indeed, dictate property laws based on that clause? :lol:
We're not talking about a person. We're talking about a business.If a person commits the "crime" of trading without a permission slip, who is the victim? And in what way was the victim's person or property damaged?
All laws can be changed one way or another, even the Constitution. As far as I know, the only exception to that is Senators per State.Or, the law could be changed to repeal the law prohibiting the victimless crime. That's what I propose.
We're not talking about a person. We're talking about a business.
Business licenses are required for a wide variety of reasons, most of which have already been mentioned in this thread. Certainly someone opening up a truck stop across the street from my quiet, sidewalk cafe will put me out of business. That's why we have zoning laws and business licenses.
We're not talking about a person. We're talking about a business.
Business licenses are required for a wide variety of reasons, most of which have already been mentioned in this thread. Certainly someone opening up a truck stop across the street from my quiet, sidewalk cafe will put me out of business. That's why we have zoning laws and business licenses.
Your translation is bogus, as usual.you said government does not violate property rights... yes they do!
you did not read well..but no matter i will post it for you.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
translation:
this part of the constitution states that the federal government only has authority within a 10 sq mile area of D.C. and only where states and the federal government agree where needful buildings are to be built and used for the federal government, anything away from those areas, government has no authority, unless as i stated before piracy ,counterfeiting or treason is taking place.
Only according to your bogus translations. The EPA and no doubt these "other institutions of government", too, operate under a different Section. You can look up the court cases themselves for that information, I'm not going to do your homework for you.we know very well the EPA, and other institutions of government have crossed on to state and private lands, without consent...these are property rights violations
It doesn't matter what you may believe about motivation. If you don't like the property and the laws that govern it then simply don't buy. No one is forcing such a transaction upon you.What contract? Was this contract perhaps put in place with these conditions so it can be controlled?
It doesn't matter what you may believe about motivation. If you don't like the property and the laws that govern it then simply don't buy. No one is forcing such a transaction upon you.
Then the founders should have called it property in the contract we call The Constitution. They didn't. But that's OK, Congress later covered their ass when it made the laws dealing with intellectual rights.According to the founders and even Locke himself what is protected under the copyright clause is property.
Then the founders should have called it property in the contract we call The Constitution. They didn't.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
its unconstitutional.
No, not really.Same thing really.
If that's all you think about a truck stop you've obviously never been to a real one.What post are these reasons given? Noise pollution isn't much of a reason, sorry.
You think pollution isn't damage? :lamoBut who is the victim of the "crime" and what damage did the victim sustain to his person or property?
Your translation is bogus, as usual.
Only according to your bogus translations. The EPA and no doubt these "other institutions of government", too, operate under a different Section. You can look up the court cases themselves for that information, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
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?