cobra2411

It's a personal call on how far to take the search for relief. The state and it's minions, aka the health care industry don't make it any easier. I believe there are quacks out there selling snake oil, but I also believe there are people with bona fide cures who are simply labeled quacks and who most people who still believe in the state wouldn't even consider. There's no money in a cure... Only prolonged treatment.

Powder, I think your last point is the most powerful - who indeed gets to decide what is and what isn't rational. As far as chemical imbalance in the brain, last time I looked, they didn't even know what "normal" was. How can you say there's an imbalance without knowing what it's supposed to be in the first place? As far as the possibility that a cure could be found, it may not. I feel that if someone is in pain and there is nothing on the radar it would be irrational to think something would come along in a timely manner.

There are valid and invalid reasons for being not in the labor force. For starters I'd like to see details of retirement aged people. That could be a valid reason to not be in the labor force anymore. Does a breakdown of age ranges exist for that data? I firmly believe it's being used as a scam to make things look better. All the presidents I can remember have done similar things. I would say true unemployment is at least double their claimed number.

In my view the ultimate value comes from production, not service. Therefore, buy american will benefit america the best. That's why real estate is so crucial to our economy and why with the exception of 2 times, every real estate downturn in the last 100 years has resulted in a recession or worse. The lines blur when it's a foreign owned company with manufacturing in the US. There is a benefit to the workers creating the service, but the ultimate profit goes out of the country. Not sure how that differs from local companies because local companies have bailouts and fraudulent pension liabilities. Without a state or boarders, in my mind raw materials would make their way to final assembly close to where they are going to be used / sold. Not shipped around the world twice to get the advantage of the different tax farms... Now, intellectual property can be a form of creation, but also a curse. Take Adobe's rental program. You develop with their software and they hold your developments hostage. If you stop paying your monthly fee you can't alter your existing documents. Because of the state and patent laws there are no real competitors. My biggest issue with avoiding the chinese used to be their quality. It's much better now, but still spotty at times as I feel they have an attitude of "who's going to pay to return it for an exchange." As long as they can continue to sell enough, who cares if you piss off 20-30% of your buyers. What are they really going to do in today's society.

Firstly, I'm surprised that anyone here would cling to the notion that they have any right to interfere with someone else's life. I think tattoo's are irrational, particularly one's not easily hidden. Should I tackle people going into tattoo shops to save them from themselves? We can not ever know fully what's going on inside someone that is contemplating suicide. We need to acknowledge and accept that we have no right interfering with another person's life or their decisions - even if they decide to kill themselves. Given the freedom to discuss their decision without fear of being ushered into a padded cell I believe we will finally get a true insight into why people want to commit suicide. I would have to believe that most people who would go into such a business would not simply kill people on the spot. I have no problem with people wanting to end their lives, but I feel it would be important to talk out that decision with a counselor first. Rational or irrational, as long as they're not under external influence, if their decision is to end their life - who are we to stop them? In the case of external influence such as drugs with side effects, I, as a business owner would require they wean themselves off and if their decision remains the same I would then go through with the procedure. Dsayer's offered up the decision of his grandfather. One of my aunt's had cancer that metastasized to her bones. It was increasingly painful and the pain meds were growing ineffective. She was given a 6% chance of survival but everyone told her to fight anyway. So she went though chemo which only weakened her and caused her more pain. When she finally had an aneurysm, the doctors pressed her children to give the ok to save her. They were very torn and I was one of the few on the side of letting her go. Fortunately the time to act passed with indecision and my aunt passed a few hours later. There are many terminal illnesses that are ultimately debilitating and painful that there is a perfectly rational reason behind suicide. Old age is another one - I have a few older relatives in their mid 90's who are disappointed that they get up in the morning. They've seen their children grow up, their grandchildren grow up, their loved ones and close friend die... They feel they've done everything they've wanted to do and see no reason to remain. Then there are those who've been emotionally scarred and see no end to the misery. I'm least accepting of those, but in the end it's their decision.

Dsayers, why couldn't someone go into the suicide business and offer a painless end with cleanup and disposal? Well, at least once the state is out of the way. Next question, should you stop a suicide because it is about to create a positive obligation on someone else? I think there are multiple issues at play here. If acceptable, services could be contracted. Anyone not contracting services would be committing theft. Is using force to prevent theft consistent with UPB? And lastly, is there any moral obligation to save someone from themselves?

Why is it anyone's business what I chose consume?

If I'm not mistaken, cocaine was banned over fear that slaves chewing coca leaves would rise up and overthrow their masters. The first drug law in this country was against smoking opium - something only the heathen Chinese did. That was in California and when it failed, a year later it became the first federal drug law. Tobacco is more addictive than cocaine, yet is legal because of the support of the tobacco lobbyists. I wonder if there are any drug laws actually based on health and safety.

That's an excellent question. I for one think suicide should be ok and it should even be ok to assist someone. Now I would hope that only people with terminal illness would choose such an option, but it is your body after all, so you should be able to do what you want with it. On the other side of the coin are things like the "safe" SSRI medication that's given that has the side effect of suicidal and homicidal thoughts. If someone is taking that and they are under an unknown influence, then can you save them from that? I feel that self defense of another is valid and moral and consistent with UPB and NAP. In a case where someone is clearly being threatened and unable to defend themselves and I step in at that moment, I'm merely responding to the attacker's initiation of force. In that same vain, if a drug is given and the person reacts badly to that drug I feel that I can defend them from that drug. However, that assumes that I know their behavior before and can recognize that it's changed and identify that it's likely the drug. I think the first step would be to accept suicide as valid and a personal decision. Then people could openly talk about it and if they are acting without first being open about it then it could be assumed they are under some outside influence and there could be an intervention. If they actually are choosing to commit suicide then you could let them proceed. But since they have to hide that fact it's very difficult today.

There is a book... http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/drivers_manual/pa_driversman.shtml Don't crash is easier to do when everyone is on the same page. So simple things like everyone driving on the same side of the road help. As do rules about red, yellow and green lights. I view the "rules" as more of suggestions - it makes it easier for me to follow them. While the state might disagree, I have supreme court case law that supports my belief that I can do whatever I want, whenever I want on the road as long as I don't place anyone in immediate harm or that I don't actually harm anyone. I follow them because I don't want to feed the state and I also don't want to crash. They've certainly gone overboard IMO with the "rules". I never had time for things like "don't park 15 feet from a stop sign" and stuff like that. When I was visiting my father I got into a major argument with a cop because I had parked the wrong way - I was facing traffic. I informed him that here in Philly they park in the middle of the street, facing both directions. Too bad it was before Google maps... Put Broad Street and Passyunk Avenue, Philadelphia Pa into Google maps and look up and down Broad St. That's valid parking. I drove my first car at 11, went on mini road trips at 13 and got my license without much effort at 16. My problem was all the technical stuff about parking and what not. The useless stuff IMO. Then there's the stupid stuff, like how they'll let you take the whole test without your seatbelt and fail you simply because you didn't put on your seatbelt. When I took my test, in the snow BTW, the officer told me I passed and said to pull directly up to the building. The problem was, there was a stop sign in between and if you ran it, you failed. I know people who've done that and he even told me, after I stopped, "good, you passed the last part". For me, getting a motorcycle made me a better driver as it taught me to be much more aware of my surroundings and to try harder to predict the intentions of the other drivers. I've joked many times that drivers should be made to drive a motorcycle or scooter one day a year in normal traffic... It really goes toward James' idea of "don't crash"...

I used to be in the same camp you are in - what's the problem with a few spankings, it teaches respect. Except it doesn't. How does "Do as I say or I will physically cause you pain" foster respect in a person. It teaches fear. Fear that if you don't do what's expected someone will hurt you. It's generally taught by someone who you trust and with the belief that it's somehow ok. I can't imagine that does anything positive for someone's psyche growing up. The fact that some people appear to have normal lives or even actually do have normal lives in my mind doesn't justify the potential that it all goes wrong. I suspect that Miley Cyrus's problem isn't that she wasn't spanked, it's that she was used as a product and not allowed to enjoy a normal childhood. Spanking won't fix that - it would only teach her to fit in or else...Maybe this officer was spanked a few times too, you know, to teach him respect. When he didn't get respect from that little girl after a few spanks he may have thought that kicks would get respect. If pain = respect, then more pain = more respect. Why should we worry, she'll probably thank the office in 20 years for straightening out her life. And I don't mean that to be directed to you - it's a common response to the spanking debate; I'm thankful I was spanked... Rubbish. The people who we rely on for life did this and now years later we're faced with the conflict of either admitting they were wrong or giving them a pass. So we thank them - which is easy if you survived without any debilitating problems. I don't care if their life turned out to be roses and rainbows, inflicting pain to get what parents want is simply wrong. Back on topic, I see a dangerous trend with power hungry people becoming police officers. There was a story not long ago about an office beating and torturing a puppy. A puppy... Then he sent pictures to his ex girlfriend - it was her dog. What does that say about the inner working of someone. They're not the only ones out there with a badge and gun. Then there are the liberal nutters that believe they're the only ones responsible to have guns for protection... It won't end until we accept the initiation of force for what it is - wrong. It doesn't matter what label you put on it.

I'm moving to the Honey Brook / Parkesburg area which isn't that far away from Lancaster Pa. I'm in Delaware Co. at the moment.

I was speaking figuratively. I like animals more than golfers... There's no reason that they have to be exclusive. I know around me, the deer are all over the golf courses, particularly at night. Those and cemeteries are the only real open spaces around.

Human's and animals are different enough that you can't use the same rational and logic for both. Sure, there is some overlap, but arguments made for or against one can not automatically be used for the other. This isn't to say we simply have a higher IQ, there is a fundamental difference. We can make up a rule for something, say the formation of a sentence, and use that rule to make an infinite number of different sentences. We can also combine multiple rules together and make sentences in a different language, or discuss biology in a philosophical setting. We also have the ability for abstract thought were we can perceive things that can not be sensed. We can rationalize, empathize and we employ ethics in our decision making. Sure, animals care for their young, but we actually study to find the best way to care for our young and how to fix things when our young don't get the best care while being raised. Sure, animals have language, but our language is at least 10 times that of animals. I could go on and on, but the key point here is that you can not automatically apply one principal to both classes - animal and human. Now, with government, there is no fundamental difference, there are no government humans and non-government humans - we're all the same; therefore, you have to apply all principals equally. So, does this mean we should not respect animals and nature? I don't believe so, I believe that morally we have some responsibility to animals and nature. For one, I don't believe animals should be tortured or made to needlessly suffer. However, I am ok with slaughtering animals for food. I don't agree with anyone who pollutes the atmosphere needlessly. I have a heating and air conditioning business and the EPA has said that the chlorine molecule in refrigerant is evil. Sure it's the same chlorine molecule used elsewhere, but lock it up in an air conditioner it becomes evil and causes global warming... I don't believe that for a second; however, I do believe that since it's not naturally occurring we should not simply dump it into the atmosphere. So that's why I own the equipment to recover the refrigerant - in fact it was one of my largest single purchases I made when starting. So can I buy land and clear it for a golf course? Sure, it's mine. Can I clear it and dump medical waste right out in the open? I don't think anyone would want to have medical waste just thrown around, so I would say that's not a universally preferred behavior and therefor would not be a moral action to take. Now if I could demonstrate how I was going to process the waste so it wouldn't be a threat to anyone? Different story. As for changing the environment and it's impact on animals, lots of cities now support growing falcon populations. The high rise buildings are perfect for their nests. I believe there is more that could be done to peacefully co-exist with nature as well, but regulations many times get in the way.

I don't either. I don't regret filing mine, but I've never used it and doubt I ever will. It was a neat exercise and it did teach me about how they twist words around and manipulate the system. Just do a little research on what a person is in the legal system or look up Capitis Diminutio Maxima... I think they're well past keeping it all hidden. Now they'll just stomp on your throat to keep you silent and to keep all the other chattel in line. In my opinion it's a sign of the end for them. The system is collapsing under it's own weight and those in the know understand that so the gloves have come off and they're going to use their power now before they lose it.

They already do tax the oxygen we breath - carbon tax. They tax us when we exhale. Well not yet, but after all the income tax was only for the very rich... I'm not a fan of solar or wind turbine. They're not in tune with demand so you have to store them and that gets prickly. I'm a huge fan of LFTR type nuclear reactors. We had one running in the 60's in Oak Ridge. It was so safe they used to leave it alone on weekends. Fueling accidents are the major source of potential mishaps. You can also use the abundance of heat to make synthetic gasoline and diesel from anything carbon based. That's 1940's technology... Without the state in the way, within 10 years we could be completely energy independent. That would end our need to be in the middle east and would cut the money we spend on oil there that fuels terrorism. But no, we had to pursue heavy water reactors because of their wonderful use as a breeding ground for weapons grade nuclear material... Can't do that with LFTR's. Can't collect the rain or your stealing the king's water, can't collect the sun or your stealing the king's light... We already know the king owns all the land, don't pay your tribute and you'll find that out quick enough... I keep wondering if people will wake up...

I became an anarchist by way of becoming a constitutionalist, and when I was going through that the concept of sovereignty came up. There is much discussion about when and where it all went wrong, but for me it was a slow erosion that killed the constitution, just like every other form of government that I know of that proceeded it. In a nutshell the assertion is that the rules changed at some point and we no longer are under common law with the concept that all are equal. We are now under UCC jurisdiction which has some key differences. That's where UCC 1-308 comes from. It says if there are conflicts between common law and UCC then you can select common law, but only if you reserved your right to that in a timely manner. Fascinating and somewhat intoxicating stuff - thinking there may be some magic elixir that will fix everything. One of the biggest things I see wrong with it is that most people are no versed enough to catch the nuances and the state isn't as concerned with hiding what it does. So you may be 100% right, they'll still speak double speak and steam roll right over you. I recently was issued a ransom note (citation) for having the wrong sticker on my truck. Here in the tax farm known as Pennsylvania, we have to have our vehicles inspected annually. The inspection station was out of stickers and I forgot to go back. When I showed up in court to fight it, the officer who wrote the ticket was nowhere to be found. Now, by rights, since the detective who showed up wasn't an attorney and couldn't represent them I could have moved for a dismissal. However, the judge would tell me that this is normal and we have to be mindful of our public servants and that he has to be out saving the world - blah blah blah... Then he would find me guilty and that would be that. One bug quickly squashed. I could have tried my right to travel arguments, etc and still would have been chasing my tail. So armed with a letter from the mechanic who inspected the truck I simply talked to the Judge and asked him to understand. It's not a safety issue, the truck was inspected. I simply forgot to go back to get the new sticker. Since it was inspected I put it off in my mind till next year. He moaned and groaned and did my a favor... And I thanked him for his understanding. Had I played the sovereignty angle I could still be sitting in jail for contempt or some other BS charge... So I don't know... It's very frustrating. I see people all the time that fully support the system. With the Boston marathon upon us again I'm reminded of people chanting "USA - USA - USA" while the city was shut down and military troops were going door to door in a state of martial law... I see the Free Stuff Army - the welfare entitlement gang every time I go to the city and it sickens me. They're never going to vote to do away with the theft of my money. Same with the public unions. With a private union you have the workers uniting against the greedy boss with the customer as the final say. Look at Hostess, Management knew what the customer would pay and when the union demands exceeded that they shut down. You don't have that with public unions because the taxpayer is the customer and they'll force you to pay through threat of violence. My answer is now to go Galt. Reduce and reuse and minimize your earnings. I'm keeping my old cars running, I'm moving to a place that costs less, I'm doing what ever I can to reduce my income needs. That will reduce what I have to pay in taxes and there's nothing they can do about it. If enough people do it at a time that they are consuming more and more money it will choke them off and make them die faster. The only question is what happens then...

I did back in 2007. I filed it at my local courthouse. It does change the way you think, but it's still just a piece of paper that can be ignored. I find the best way to deal with the state is to simply keep your head low.

Gun control; working as intended, turning you into helpless children dependent on the safety of your benevolent parents - the state. It amazes me how many people refuse to see the connection and see the state for what it is. They cause the problem and have people convinced they offer the only solution. Worse, they make people believe that logical and rational actions are pure lunacy. And there are people who call Stef a cult...

Yeah, it is a bit extreme and I don't think we need to go that far, but it does show that without traffic signs/signals things to get along and people try to not hit each other.

Ohh... HOT topic for me... First, the state has agreed that we have a right to travel; including automobiles. They also say that rights can not be converted to a privilege for the purpose of issuing a license and charging a fee. That's supreme court case law that's never been challenged or overturned. You only need a license if you make money directly by using the roads - aka a taxi driver or package delivery driver. Anyway, I don't think anyone here will be surprised that the state doesn't even follow it's own laws... I ride a motorcycle and many times the smart lights don't work as there's not enough mass to activate them. What to do? Simple, if ever stopped for going through a light remember this line: "I felt the light was malfunctioning so I treated it as a stop sign and proceeded when it was safe to do so." I do run lights, speed, drive the wrong way down one way streets, etc. I'm doing it less and less because the state is hungry for money and eager to take it from wherever they can get it. I believe in safe and prudent driving and that we should all agree to follow the same basic rules for harmony on the road. You can not have an absolute set of rules however, because what's safe today on a sunny day with little traffic is completely unsafe tomorrow when it's raining and there's lots of traffic. The "rules" are simply suggestions and from there you base your behavior on the principal of safe and prudent actions. For example, when I have ample forward visibility I frequently drive in the middle of the road if there is no on coming traffic. It gives me the most room to maneuver if there is a surprise like a deer running onto the roadway. As traffic approaches or other conditions change I return to my lane. I wish I could find it again, but there was a psychology paper that talked about how the proliferation of signs has changed how drivers interact. There is more of an us against them attitude now. The sign says I can do this so piss off! Also there's a numbing affect where you begin to rely on the signs and technology to keep you safe. Here in the snow belt there are tons of accidents from people doing the speed limit relying on their car's all wheel drive, traction control and anti-lock brakes to save them. You usually find those idiots in the ditch. Sometimes dead. A few years ago a jeep rammed a plow truck on the highway from behind. The jeep was estimated at 55mph, the speed limit and the plow truck was doing 15mph. But but but, he was doing the speed limit and he had 4wd and anti-lock brakes! Yawn... It's a giant revenue scheme. The PA state police where the first state police in the US and they were formed under the department of revenue. That should tell you everything you want to know right there. They sell the idea of police issuing tickets as "public safety". However, they frequently offer deals where you pay the fine but there are no points. If it's about safety wouldn't you want an accurate record of people's driving history? Wouldn't the "deal" be a reduction in the fine, but an accurate reporting of your driving history? Then there's the real idiotic stuff like the fact in PA you can be fined for not wearing a seat belt, but there is no helmet law. They actually repealed the helmet law around the same time they enacted a seat belt law. It's for your safety you know... I know, all the statists are thinking "How can we drive without government, police, traffic lights, etc???" Take a look at this from Ethiopia. Looks like sweet, beautiful anarchy right there baby! It's funny, I had learned about the right to travel and the scam that is the motor vehicle code long before I was an anarchist. It takes some rethinking - ok, a lot of rethinking and yet I still this "that idiot should get a ticket..." It's hard to let go, but what I realized is that I'm not bothered that some idiot broke a traffic law, it's that they were simply rude and ignorant. Take for example a power outage where you have a main road and a cross street with a traffic light. The light isn't working, but normally would be. The drivers on the main road speed through the intersection like it's their right. Very few will stop and follow the rules. I get pissed not because they're breaking the rules but because it's ignorant to the other drivers on the road. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox for now...

I'm going with the "yes, men can have female friends." So what if there's sexual tension there. I have gay male friends and we joke around and I suspect there's some tension there at least from a couple of them. I know one asked a mutual friend if I was gay because he wanted to hit on me. For me it comes down to one thing - respect. If I have a female friend and there's not to be any "with benefits" we just don't go there. Same thing with my gay guy friends. They know I'm straight and it would never work out so beyond a few innuendo's here and there that's it. It's similar with girls I know who are married. There's one I work with that I would ask out in a heartbeat if she wasn't married. I won't ever cross that line. So my single and dating female friends just go in that unavailable section of my mind that married women go into. As Buford T Justice once said "You can think about it, but don't do it..." I also have a few ex-girlfriends that I still see. We just weren't compatible and after a cool down period, since we run in similar social circles we'll hang out and chat if we run into each other. Hell, one of my ex's is going through almost the same thing I'm going through with my mother and I spent a few hours talking and listening to her the other night because her fiance was tired and he doesn't really understand. I have another friend that when I call and her husband answers the phone he'll says "hold on, I'll get your girlfriend for you" and in the background I hear him say "Steph, your BF's on the phone..." I think we all knew if the situation were different I'd be all over her.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthy_kids/Why-you-should-circumcise-your-newborn-boy.html Saw this link in my FB feed. Any validity to their points?

Theory and reality are getting mashed up and mixed together here. What rights are currently considered to be and what they are in my opinion are two different things. I started this thread because I disagreed with the idea Stef put forward that rights are a creation of the state. I used the states definition to show they exist outside of the state. The founding fathers also had the believe that rights were superior to the state. See the declaration of independence. I've offered my definition of what a right is, based both on moral beliefs and legal ones - well, at least constitutional law. You have the power to use your body without the influence of external control. If we assume that all humans are equal and logically apply that definition then since everyone has the same power to use their body without the influence of external control, initiation of force against someone violates their rights and thus can not be a right. In my mind that is the simplest definition that fully explains rights. You can then build from there. To use Dsayers kidney example, I can do anything and everything to get a kidney except use force. The state nor anyone else may interfere. Rights cease to be rights when force is involved since everyone has the freedom to be without external control. Now, how does it work today? Poorly because we're in a corrupt statist system. Of course people want to say they have the right to take from others. I contend that just like saying god is real, saying you have a right to use force against someone is false no matter how many times you say it. The state does care though. I feel that people are saying my definition is wrong because of the state has abused and manipulated what rights are. I disagree that the right to counsel includes free service. I know that's what it says, but I disagree with it - it's another perversion of the state and it fails my definition of what a right is. There are two types of law, malum in se, and malum prohibitum. Malum in se is wrong in itself and covers things like murder, theft, rape, assault, etc. Malum prohibitum is what the state calls "laws", they are wrongs prohibited. Those are also called consensual crimes and in my opinion constitute slavery. The fact that it's labeled a "legal right" doesn't make it a right. Refer to my main point above - when force is involved, it's not a right. I have a right to travel. That's been upheld and never overturned by the supreme court of the US. I don't need a drivers license, I don't need to register my cars, and I don't need to follow the motor vehicle code. There's a bunch of case law on this. What happens if I do drive without a license or registration? I'll be kidnapped at gun point and my property stolen and sold. Does that mean I no longer have a right to travel? I believe I still do, it's just the state is abusing their power and not respecting it. It's my damn body and I'll move it wherever and however I like. Just as long as I don't infringe upon another. The state uses their "legal right" to protect people but that fails my definition and thus is an invalid right. Legal rights under today's uniform commercial code are much different than legal rights under common law. Common law is much more in line with my definition and requires voluntary, knowledgeable and intelligent interactions to be valid. Under UCC you can have adhesion contracts where the simple enjoyment of the benefit constitutes the acceptance of the terms - even if you don't know what they are. Then there are the perversions. On the back of a traffic citation it tells you that you have to check a box for a guilty or not guilty plea. Failure to check a box will enter a guilty plea by default and by checking a box you acknowledge that you are doing so intelligently, knowledgeably and voluntarily. You are either guilty or you accept their contract voluntarily. Good luck arguing right to travel then as you've accepted the system and the terms and restrictions of the motor vehicle contract and you just testified that you did so knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. I know there are lots of people with lots of convoluted explanations of what rights are and what they aren't. Occam's razor states that the simplest definition that satisfactorily explains something is usually the correct one. I offered the simplest definition that I could that I feel works. To me that has served as a great tool in understanding rights. I always look for the initiation of force and once found that so called right is invalid. Why do we need a constitution or a bill of rights? Well first, there was a lot of debate about the bill of rights, which is why it wasn't released till years later. The main fear was if they listed some rights it could be interpreted that that's all the rights there are or that the state was the source of said rights. Which is the reason behind the ninth amendment. Why the constitution then? It was an attempt to control government. There have been many failed arguments about how "I didn't sign the constitution, why am I bound by it?" and the simple answer is - you're not. When you become a part of the government you swear an oath to uphold the principles contained within the constitution - thereby agreeing to be bound by it. Not comfortable with that? Don't go into government. The problem is it's been so twisted and contorted that it's about useless now, maybe worse. Take for instance the Bundy ranch issue. The feds seized state lands citing the property clause, but the property clause was the extension of the northwest ordinance that prevented states bordering the northwest territory from simply expanding till they hit the ocean. The federal government had authority over the territories up until they became states; however that's been twisted and the feral government now owns 30% of this country, mostly in the west. They own 80% of Nevada... So a document that was intended to protect the sovereignty of the states is now being used to enslave them.

I listed the definition from blacks law dictionary in my first post, it says nothing about free service, nor does the sixth amendment. Can you cite one that does? Please define what a right is. I have offered both my definition and black's laws definition and I fail to see your conclusions. It seems like you are arguing from the opinion of what a right is.