EclecticIdealist

Because smaller collectives don't have the authority or permission to do so. Don't make the mistake of attempting to universalize Communist ethics or morals in the same way that you might universalize libertarian ethics. Communist ethics are inherently about subjugation of individuals and groups to the will of the collective as decided by the leaders of the collective; not as decided by the individual members or sub-groups.

No, there are no individual, autonomous or semi-autonomous collectives within a greater state collective. Only once one gets to the state level does one have semi-autonomous collectives which may or may not be part of a greater Nation of state collectives (Such as the former USSR, or the PRC).

No, they did not as far as their government was concerned. All property belonged to the State and the individual members of the state were simply permitted to use specific land for their residence, etc. What you are recognizing is the Communist assertion that property may not be owned individually, that for an individual to assert exclusive ownership of property is selfish and therefore, immoral. You will find that such a premise can be universalized in the sense that one can assert that no individual or group within the whole of society can morally exclusively own property, In other words, the idea is that all property belongs to everyone collectively, and to no individual or group individually. Individuals are permitted to exclusively use property by the state, but such permission may be revoked at any time for virtually any reason, and the permission to use the property given to another. Naturally, the state wishes to reward "loyal behavior" and so rewards the party members, especially the leadership with permission to exclusively use things, especially nicer things and more things, than those who are not party members, etc.

How many person's are a fertilized egg? If a fertilized egg is destroyed, is it murder? Every time a woman has a miscarriage, should she be charged with involuntary manslaughter? What is the proper sentence for a woman who gets an abortion? 15 years? Life? So if my child justifies hitting another child, does that make my child complicit in the Jewish Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis, or only those that were weaker (smaller children and babies)? What about those who adopt infants, as well as fathers, are they ill-equipped or unequipped to care for an infant, since they did not go through pregnancy and birth? Is it really our most fundamental reason for existence to perpetuate the species? If so, shouldn't women have as many children as they possibly can? How can one aggress against oneself since aggression requires the person being aggressed against not consent to the aggressing action?

It's impossible to argue with you when you keep insisting your delusional fantasies are reality. The state does not claim they own you, but in your delusional mind, they claim they do. I guess the joke is on me, since you're the only one that pointed to anything and called it rape. And good job at muting my voice and supporting censorship. I hope you're very proud of your smug little self.

The problem is, you automatically assume that government means you and the unborn must be stolen from, whereas in your delusional fantasy, that can't (not just won't) happen with your anarchic utopia. Again you ignore the reality that lone and disorganized will always become prey of the predators, including the predatory wolves in sheep-dogs clothing known as DROs and private protection firms. Thank you for engaging in projectile vomiting of your lunacy driven fantasies, irrationality, and hypocritical ad hominem attacks on everyone's integrity and character but your own.

Bzzzt! You don't preserve something by destroying it. Good luck preserving your rights and liberties from infringement on your own. Oh wait, I know, you're going to hire someone to protect your rights and liberties. Let me know how well that works for you when another nation comes and bombs the crap out of your town. Bzzzt! "Hands off as possible" means hands off. Just look in the mirror at how many people you're NOT laying hands on for proof. Oh, I get it. Let me know how well you're doing when the less hands-off government comes and takes over your country. Or maybe your country will be more like Syria or Somalia where Warlords (formerly known as DROs) will be fighting each other for territory and "customers". Begging the question and poisoning the well. In your deluded fantasies. The irony is that saying it's the best rape we had at the time proves that it was the worst. With reasoning like this, it's a wonder everyone isn't fully convinced. Because at least the ones that you would describe as worse was overtly so. "best the world had at the time" refers to best at concealing the gun in the room. Yeah, there really was no difference in the rights and liberties one was able to enjoy from one government to the next. It only looked like people had more liberty and freedom in America because the American government was so much better than all the other Nations at concealing the tyranny and oppression. I prefer the wolf over the wolf in sheep's clothing because the first step to wisdom is calling things by their proper names. Well you're a long way from wisdom then because you've yet to call anything in this post by their proper names. You mean because people like yourself refuse to reject that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. No. Because, there are many people unlike myself who will seek to impose their religious ideals and political aspirations on people like myself, and like yourself; but unlike you I recognize that simply because I would like people to live freely and you would like people to live freely, and most (if not all) people on this board would like people to live freely doesn't mean that there aren't those who would not like that, and who would and do use violence to get their way. And I maintain that simply hiring private protection firms and DROs and the like will not prevent other nations and powers from engaging in acts of aggression, terrorism, and war to get their way unless such firms and DROs are as powerful as such nations, etc. Since you've put forth time and time again that assertions are acceptable, I'll make one. Most people who espouse the conclusion that you have do so because they do not trust other people. But governments are made up of people. So are DROs and Private protection firms which typically are far too small to prevent the aggression of foreign states and other entities. Furthermore, there's little incentive for them not to consolidate their forces, becoming mega DROs and protection firms able to make the same demands and fend off rival forces as government organizations and other organized crime families and organizations did in the past. In short, you haven't made a good case for why private protection firms and DROs are significantly different from warlords or better than limited constitutional governments (which I agree the US no longer is, and hasn't been since the early 1800s). I don't trust people, but I'm not convinced that anarchy and private DROs and protection firms are a better solution than government.

To say there was nothing virtuous about the origins of the Constitution is to say there is nothing virtuous about attempting to preserve the rights, liberties, and property by forming a Constitutional Republic intended to be as hands-off as possible while still fulfilling the necessary responsibilities of a representative National Government and providing Courts of last resort for mediating disputes between the states and the people. It is certainly not a perfect system, it certainly has flaws, but it was the best the world had at that time, and was almost certainly necessary for preserving the liberties and freedoms won by the Revolutionary war from being lost 25 years later (if not sooner).The notion that the country would have flourished without the unification of the states is an unwarranted, speculative assertion. Do I think we could do better today? Absolutely. Do I think we will, unfortunately not likely for the very same reasons they didn't do better back then.

I agree that that is one of the purposes of this forum, but certainly not the only one; and possibly not even the primary one. I agree that the founding fathers did not persuade the whole nation, but they did persuade a significant minority, if not a majority to throw off the rule of Britain, and establish new guardians of their liberty, freedoms, and property only to see their property taken from them due primarily to a currency shortage preventing the farmers from paying their just debts with currency obtained through fair trade. Instead, their property was confiscated and sold to pay their debts, primarily to merchants and other wealthier lenders who arranged to have themselves running the State governments. Consequently, many called for a stronger Federal government to, among other things, solve the monetary crisis facing the young confederacy of states after the war and reign in the oppressive, aggressive tax and debt collection practices in the states. You believe that the Constitution was a nearly "perfectly designed scam when in reality, it was quite the opposite.

You have a singular definition of ownership; and no, you did not use the word, contract only to refute my claim within my own premise, you used it because you keep on trying to force your own unique definitions in order to create the appearance of reality conforming to your delusions. It's not about who is more responsible. I already demonstrated to flaw in your logic with EVERY OTHER KIND OF INITIATION OF THE USE OF FORCE. You are simply making an excuse for lying, and it makes one wonder why. What lies are you so committed to telling and not be considered immoral? To borrow your flawed way of thinking, lying is stealing an accurate perception of reality from others without their knowledge. No. Theft has a very specific definition. Your notion that everything is a violation of property rights is forced and demonstrably flawed; but you're so committed to your erroneous beliefs that you'll never allow yourself to see it and change your thinking to conform with reality, which is why you will always be stuck in your delusions.

A binding contract is not an ownership claim. Only in your deluded fantasies. Involuntary contracts are invalid, not binding. Commands backed by threats of violence are the only recourse to those who refuse to cooperate peaceably or leave. That's all huh? I guess they can engage in all manner of lying and deception 'cause that's not an immoral initiation of the use of force, huh? And one doesn't have to worry about anyone trespassing in or upon, or destroying another's property, or inciting others to violence against them, or invading their privacy or destroying their reputation. No laws forbidding the destruction of the environment through pollution. No laws against child neglect and abandonment, or the cruel mistreatment of animals. No laws against disturbing the peace with loud noises, especially at night. They first begin learning this in the microcosm of society known as the family where they have the unchosen positive obligations Only in your deluded fantasies.

I wonder if you ever consider what you write and how it applies to yourself and your own actions. The down votes are examples of your lack of integrity. the appeals to insecurity and manipulation are nothing more than what you have done time and again. A binding contract is not an ownership claim, especially not over the unborn. The Constitution is a binding contract upon the employees of government to the People of the United States of America, their employers. The Laws of this Nation are a binding social obligation for all members of society who wish to live peaceably in cooperation with the other members of society. Refusal to do so results in violence used against them to compel them to live peaceably, either among other members of society if they show the disposition to do so, or in prison or some other country, if they do not. Parents have a duty to teach their children to be responsible members of society. They first begin learning this in the microcosm of society known as the family where they have the unchosen positive obligations of doing their chores, helping out around the house to keep it orderly and clean. etc. This is not abuse. That you are either unwilling or unable to discern the difference speaks volumes to your lack of personal integrity. The only intellectual sloth and deflection is yours in refusing to identify specific points of evidence supporting your position. Citing an entire thread on the premise that the evidence is so prevalent that it needs no citation is simply more of your projecting and seeing bias confirmation where none exists except in your own hollow words. There you go again make unsubstantiated claims pertaining to your own twisted fantasies about reality. The Constitution is indeed a contract, between those hired as guardians of our rights and liberties and the People whose rights and liberties are guarded. The commands that are backed by threats of violence in the Constitution are against those who initiate violence and seek to violate the rights and liberties of the People. ANY EXCERCISE OF POWER THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE CONSTITUTION IS AN UNJUST USURPATION OF POWER. That means it is NOT anything I am supporting, defending, or approving of anymore than you are supporting, defending, or approving of beating children. There is not ASSUMPTION of OWNERSHIP of all the land and people within geographical borders. What there is, is a claim of jurisdictional oversight or supervision granted to the employees of the government entities and institutions limited by the geographical borders. This is so basic that you cannot be ignorant of these facts, you are simply willfully intellectually dishonest and a liar about it because it runs contrary to the delusional fantasy you prefer entertaining instead. That many elements in our government have begun acting as masters rather than servants to the people is without question. That it is our right and responsibility to correct this usurpation of power and breach of authority is also without question to any reasonable and rational person. That this seems to escape your cognition is simply an indictment on the fact that you are either unreasonable or irrational, or very likely both. You're an idiot and a fool if you think I was ever asserting that a parchment bound the unborn The fact that there is disagreement on this point of contention that you call truth but is in fact nothing but your twisted and delusional fantasy ought to signify the absurdity of your position to you; but you are two willfully blind to see it. There is absolutely no point in discussing it further with you since you are unwilling to budge from your misguided misperceptions and embrace reality and the truth. I refuse to embrace your delusional fantasies.

Oh, I get it. Your argument isn't strong enough to stand on its own, so you resort to down-voting posts that you cannot successfully refute with logic and reason. How very mature of you. False accusation and Strawman. I never said Nations had any ownership claim over the unborn. Come now, you must argue the points that are being made, not the points you wish were made. Another false accusation of moving the goalposts. Pointing out the common familial obligations of children to their family members is not discarding family for abusers. Gratuitous assertions of the existence of empirical evidence is not the same as citing evidence. Are you ever going to address a single assertion or argument that I've made, or are you going to continue arguing against the Strawmen you create in their place? Non-abusive families do not claim to own their children. Only employers of slave labor claim to own their employees. Non-despotic nations do not claim to own their people. Only psychopaths and sociopaths make such claims. Who besides you and these despots and tyrants are making such claims? You're an idiot and a fool if you think I was ever asserting that a parchment bound the unborn to any individual, group, or political organization. Strawman after strawman after strawman... never an actual substantive response to what was actually asserted. With all the straw men you've made, it seems all you're able to do is grasp at straws.

You keep trying to deny the obvious, that humans can NOT help but be born as residents and citizens of the nation of their birth. You must do as your parents tell you to do. Failure to do so results in punishment, loss of freedom, loss of opportunity, and so on. You are quite clearly wrong, not merely mistaken, but deliberately, willfully wrong. When you stop having anything to do with this country, you won't have to worry about armed American thugs throwing you in a cage, stealing your stuff, or threatening to kill you either. On the contrary, leaving a job and renouncing Citizenship are equally valid comparisons as well. When you quit, you're expected to leave the premises, not continue inhabiting your office or cubicle (for example). There are a multitude of other equally valid points of comparrison between renouncing citizenship and quitting a job. I know. So when your thinking has matured, we can revisit the topic. Until then, you can live in your fantasy delusions that things are different than they are.

Only when threatened by anti-social individuals who have chosen violence over cooperation for mutual benefit. On the basis of self-preservation and a willingness to be cooperative with likeminded individuals and hostile to any who do not share my interests of self-preservation and cooperation for mutual benefit. Owning a portion of an abundant resource denies no one, but all land is scarce in the sense that no parcel of land is equal to all other parcels of land. What then shall we do with the scarce resource of land if all need land to thereby subsist? I am a joint tenant on this planet, just as they and every other person is, and quality land is inherently scarce. Who are they to hoard such a scarce resource thus depriving others of its use? If they do not wish to live coopertively with their fellow man, they will live at odds with them. That is the law of society. If they are denying it to you, it makes no difference in that respect; however in the marxist and crony capitalist systems, it is the strong and well connected oppressing the weak and poorly connected. Consider carefully which system you support. The libertarian system offers the average joe the best chance of opportunity. Then by definition, you cannot trust a marxist system because such a system offers among the least flexibility in choosing who to trust.

Nobody chose to be born, and yet they become members of a family. This is an unchosen positive obligation, unethical and fully comparable to citizenship. A person cannot just declare they've left their parents' home and continue occupying their bedroom, eating their parent's food, etc. They also have to move and leave behind everything they've ever known, and a bunch of other steps. It's not the same as saying, "I will no longer live under your rules, Mom and Dad!" where all other aspects of one's life persist, because it was a VOLUNTARY relationship that only BEGAN as an involuntary one; the parents can kick the free-loading child out on their butt to fend for themselves once they turn 18. There is as difference between a legal fiction and a fantasy. Perhaps you're simply not capable of reasoning like a reasonable, educated adult. Once you've grown up, come on back and we can actually discuss things as they are rather than as you fantasize them to be.

When I speak of the term contract with respect to the Constitution of the United States specifically, and Constitutional governments in general, I am speaking about an agreement between the members of society who have entrusted representatives to represent their interests, especially, their interests in preserving their liberty and property; and those representatives who shall act on their behalf, and the other elected and appointed officers which collectively constitute the employees of the state. I am speaking of the agreement of continued employment and the extension of benefits while such employees exercise their duties according to the just powers entrusted to them. In short, I am referring to the type of government envisioned by Thomas Jefferson as embodied by the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. I am suggesting that the kind of government most (but not all) anarchists would find most acceptable to live under (no anarchist ever wants to live under any government, but there are some which are inherently less inclined to despotism than others) is one similar to the kind Thomas Jefferson and others of the Enlightenment Era envisioned but never fully implemented (there was still slavery, for example).

No, they are not contractually obligated to follow through with such terms. That's a great question. The answer is probably yes, as long as they remain residents within the jurisdiction where the bond was located. No. If there was an implied question, there, the inferred answer is, no, that would not be okay. I agree. I suspect that you are laboring under the misapprehension that a Constitutional Government operates under a common law contract pertaining only to the named parties who signed the document. If that is your misapprehension, you've likely been listening to some very silly people, or you've been misunderstanding what some intelligent people have been saying. I couldn't say which it is; but you would certainly be incorrect to suppose that a Constitutional Government is based on common-law contracts or even a "social contract". You can choose to renounce your Citizenship and become a citizen of another Nation (or no nation, if you choose to live in a boat on the ocean or as an illegal resident of another nation. Trusts are legal fictions (concepts) and they can own property. You're speaking of a fantasy world of the way you want things to be dsayers, not the way things are. Arrest and Deportation are things that members of a society do as a result of the initiation of the use of force by individuals who have chosen not to be members of a society but invade the land controlled by that society. The initiation of the use of force occurs when you don't voluntarily leave when asked. The notion that the term "illegal" is not a philosophically sound conclusion is true under your imaginary fantasy world, not under the state of affairs in the United States of America. It is philosophically sound to engage in threats of violence to encourage those who do not wish to live under the laws of the society to leave that society peaceably.

Illegitimate children is not a valid concept except when it comes to inheritance.

Me thinks thou doest project too much. No. A breach of contract only occurs if a contract actually exists; but you were never contending a breach of contract at all. You were contending that no such contract exists in the first place because you never signed anything. Now we could get into a discussion as to why the the 2nd Contract with America (the first being the Articles of Confederation) is valid, but since you wouldn't accept any argument put forth, I'll simply concede that any further discussion on these points is beyond resolution at this time.

No, what you did was dishonestly create a straw man, claim it was the argument I was making, and then illustrate how it would be a dishonest comparison had that been the argument I was making. I clarified the argument that I was making and you continued to represent your own straw men as the argument I was making. Also, I continue to speak of the Constitution as a valid and binding contract between the People of the United States and the government instituted to serves as guardian of our rights and liberties despite the fact that the government has breached the contract with their continual violations, but it is up to the People to act, to remove from power and authority those empowered to do our will as they obviously will not remove themselves. I have never suggested, as you have so dishonestly implied that I have, that the government has just powers which the people do not individually hold, or that they may justly engage in acts of robbery, or initiate acts of violence against others. If you take the position (as you seem to) that the governmental officers that are elected and appointed as servants of the people are exercising unjust powers in an illegitimate manner, then you would be a hypocrite not to be actively opposed to such individuals and their organizations. What have you done to put an end to their reign of terror? Have you made any appeals to DROs for assistance in regaining any property you've lost? What about steps you have taken to ensure they don't continue to victimize yourself and others?

No, my comparison is not dishonest, your assertion that it is may be, however. The State is no more a mere concept than the family or a couple. Are you suggesting that neither a family nor a couple can own anything jointly? But that's beside the point really. There's no question that in many instances the State is acting outside of the just powers allotted to them by the Constitution. The problem is, they are not acting outside of the unjust powers allotted to them by the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of government. Clearly, the problem is not simply the employees of the State, but also, the unConstitutional actions of the legislators, judges, and executive officers of the state and federal governments. Now, since we have essentially hired these people to guard our liberties and freedom, we the People are to blame for not removing them from their positions when they act extra-Constitutionally and unConstitutionally; and when we do NOTHING, what are those who do not understand or respect the Constitution to think but that THEY are the masters and We the People the servants. They may even get to the point of getting most of the People to believe it. IT DOES NOT mean that what they are doing is right, just, or moral; just that it happens and will continue to happen until We the People put a stop to it.

There's no objective reason why one should or should not try. I simply contend that there are more worthwhile pursuits.

When you are born or adopted as a minor, you are unable to give informed consent. Once you grow to adulthood, if you continue to live under your parents' or guardians' roof, you are giving tacit consent to their continued governance. It is the same with the State. No, you didn't, which is why I found it absurd. The government is an entity that has existed in perpetuity since before anyone alive today was born. The Constitution is the contract between the People of the United States of America and the government. That the officers and agents have gradually been replaced over time and the People have gradually changed to different people does not nullify the contract. If you don't like the contract, you're free to attempt to alter or abolish it or extricate yourself from it by going elsewhere and renouncing your citizenship.

Of course "Jefferson sez" is not an argument; I was illustrating a point that may or may not have been lost on you. If a woman gives consent, it's not rape UNLESS she retracts her consent because you cross the line by getting violent or taking liberties not previously discussed and allowed (like trying to go in the back door when you only have only been given a pass for the front door). Now you're being absurd. Consent is implied to continue after it has been given until consent is revoked. There is no consent to do something that was not consented to. So no, implied consent is not the same thing as unlimited consent. The constitution is the consent. The extra-Constitutional and unConstitutional behavior is not consented to, but until the People say stop, it will continue to be presumed that it is consented to because we've allowed the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to take liberties not extended without saying no.