Oklahoma Highway Robbery

[algernon]

http://www.news9.com/story/32168555/ohp-uses-new-device-to-seize-money-used-during-the-commission-of-a-crime

 

 

OKLAHOMA CITY -

You may have heard of civil asset forfeiture.  

That's where police can seize property and cash without first proving a person committed a crime; without a warrant and without arresting them, as long as they suspect that the property is somehow tied to a crime.

 

Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money on prepaid cards.

 

It's called an ERAD, or Electronic Recovery and Access to Data machine, and OHP began using 16 of them last month.  

 

Here's how it works. If a trooper suspects a person may have money tied to some type of crime, the highway patrol can scan and seize money from prepaid cards.  OHP stresses troopers do not do this during all traffic stops, only situations where they believe there is probable cause. 

 

"We're gonna look for different factors in the way that you're acting,” Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent said. “We're gonna look for if there's a difference in your story. If there's someway that we can prove that you're falsifying information to us about your business."

 

Troopers insist this isn't just about seizing cash. 

 

"I know that a lot of people are just going to focus on the seizing money. That's a very small thing that's happening now. The largest part that we have found ... the biggest benefit has been the identity theft," Vincent said.

 

"If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," Vincent said about any money seized. 

 

State Sen. Kyle Loveless, R-Oklahoma City, said that removes due process and the belief that a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He said we've already seen cases in Oklahoma where police are abusing the system. 

 

"We've seen single mom's stuff be taken, a cancer survivor his drugs taken, we saw a Christian band being taken. We've seen innocent people's stuff being taken. We've seen where the money goes and how it's been misspent," Loveless said.

 

Loveless plans to introduce legislation next session that would require a conviction before any assets could be seized.

 

"If I had to err on the side of one side versus the other, I would err on the side of the Constitution,” Loveless said. “And I think that's what we need to do."

News 9 obtained a copy of the contract with the state. 

 

It shows the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash forfeited through the courts to the highway patrol. 

 

 

 

 

What I find interesting is politicians think they need to pass some more legislation to prevent the police from doing things which are already expressly illegal under the constitution. Every time something like this happens it just reaffirms more and more the constitution is completely useless. If they pass a "constitutional carry" law saying you don't need a permit to carry a gun, they are once again saying the constitution does not apply.

 

 

[EclecticIdealist]

What I find interesting is politicians think they need to pass some more legislation to prevent the police from doing things which are already expressly illegal under the constitution. Every time something like this happens it just reaffirms more and more the constitution is completely useless. If they pass a "constitutional carry" law saying you don't need a permit to carry a gun, they are once again saying the constitution does not apply.

Yup, the Constitution only matters when people are willing and able to hold those acting under color of law to account for their extra-Constitutional and unConstitutional actions.

[dsayers]

I'm not glad to see stuff like this, but I am glad the ways the psychopaths are getting so far gone that even the apologists have nothing to stand behind. They need to see that stuff like this isn't an isolated incident, but the eventuality of mass-hysteria pretending people have super-human powers for any reason.

 

Yup, the Constitution only matters when people are willing and able to hold those acting under color of law to account for their extra-Constitutional and unConstitutional actions.

Even if people were willing and able, it wouldn't matter. Because you're referring to redress (which comes after) whereas the Constitution itself dispenses with consent. Something that is required BEFORE an action can be moral.

[EclecticIdealist]

Even if people were willing and able, it wouldn't matter. Because you're referring to redress (which comes after) whereas the Constitution itself dispenses with consent. Something that is required BEFORE an action can be moral.

You're supposing that consent is permission that is only given prior to action; not an on-going permission to act that may be retracted. As Jefferson penned it in the Declaration of Independence, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." It is the People's silent consent to tyranny which allows the tyrants to act as they do. It is not dissimilar to reason why some have said, "the only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." The actors of government are acting on the premise of the prior consent of our forefathers and our current lack of objection to their rule. If we don't like the governance, we can leave or we can persuade the whole of the nation to throw off the oppressive rule and establish new guardians of our liberty and freedom as we see fit as our forefathers did 

 

Now you might suggest that all government that does not obtain the specific consent of each person it governs is exercising illegitimate jurisdictional authority over that person. That is like saying a person is not allowed to presume authority over their children as they are born for as long as they live under their roof, that they must formally request and obtain such permission from them. But of course this is not possible at the time of their birth as they are incapable of granting informed consent. By the time they are able to grant informed consent, they are adults (or emancipated minors), and can be forcibly ejected from the home if they do not agree to such governance. Perhaps the same rule should apply in the case of US and State citizenship while such governance continues?

[dsayers]

As Jefferson penned it in the Declaration of Independence, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

"Jefferson sez" is not an argument. If there's consent, it's not rape. If it's rape, there's no consent.

 

If we don't like the governance, we can leave

This is also something that occurs after and therefore does nothing to presume consent before. If consent could be implied, then it would always be moral to punch you in the face. He MUST HAVE consented; he was standing within arm's reach...

[EclecticIdealist]

"Jefferson sez" is not an argument. If there's consent, it's not rape. If it's rape, there's no consent.

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).

 

This is also something that occurs after and therefore does nothing to presume consent before. If consent could be implied, then it would always be moral to punch you in the face. He MUST HAVE consented; he was standing within arm's reach...

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.

[dsayers]

If a woman gives consent, it's not rape UNLESS she retracts her consent

Irrelevant. You said consent of the governed. One cannot retract consent that was never given.

 

Now you're being absurd.

That was the point. I say what you said in a way that helps you to understand how absurd what you said is.

 

The constitution is the consent.

Bzzzt! A piece of paper cannot embody consent of anybody that doesn't sign it, let alone people who aren't even born yet.

[algernon]

Now you might suggest that all government that does not obtain the specific consent of each person it governs is exercising illegitimate jurisdictional authority over that person. That is like saying a person is not allowed to presume authority over their children as they are born for as long as they live under their roof, that they must formally request and obtain such permission from them. But of course this is not possible at the time of their birth as they are incapable of granting informed consent. By the time they are able to grant informed consent, they are adults (or emancipated minors), and can be forcibly ejected from the home if they do not agree to such governance. Perhaps the same rule should apply in the case of US and State citizenship while such governance continues?

 

Legitimate authority does not exist, I would suggest reading this book - https://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Rose-ebook/dp/B00UV41W2U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465653521&sr=8-1&keywords=the+most+dangerous+superstition

[EclecticIdealist]

One cannot retract consent that was never given.

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.

 

I say what you said in a way that helps you to understand how absurd what you said is.

No, you didn't, which is why I found it absurd.

 

A piece of paper cannot embody consent of anybody that doesn't sign it, let alone people who aren't even born yet.

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.

[dsayers]

You're just repeating yourself, with assertions and no arguments. Inaction not only doesn't equal action, but CAN'T equal action.

 

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.

Your comparison is dishonest. The State is a concept and therefore cannot own anything, let alone anybody. Comparing commands backed by threats of violence in the name of the State to somebody dispensing with their property as they see fit is inaccurate. If I say to you that you can borrow my car if you do not smoke in it, I can do that because A) it's MY car and B) you consented to it voluntarily in advance. Standing still is not the same as, "Yes, you can steal from me, boss me around, threaten me, harm me if I don't coalesce with your arbitrary edicts, kill me if I protect myself, and engage in all levels of atrocities in my name with the moneys you've stolen from me, my community, my tribe, and my loved ones." Not only does it NOT mean that, but I cannot give to another that which I don't have to give. Which means even if I consented to all of that with regards to me, I cannot consent on your behalf.

[EclecticIdealist]

Comparing commands backed by threats of violence in the name of the State to somebody dispensing with their property as they see fit is inaccurate. If I say to you that you can borrow my car if you do not smoke in it, I can do that because A) it's MY car and B) you consented to it voluntarily in advance. Standing still is not the same as, "Yes, you can steal from me, boss me around, threaten me, harm me if I don't coalesce with your arbitrary edicts, kill me if I protect myself, and engage in all levels of atrocities in my name with the moneys you've stolen from me, my community, my tribe, and my loved ones." Not only does it NOT mean that, but I cannot give to another that which I don't have to give. Which means even if I consented to all of that with regards to me, I cannot consent on your behalf.

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.

[dsayers]

No, my comparison is not dishonest, your assertion that it is may be, however.

THIS is an assertion. I pointed out the way in which your comparison was dishonest. You did nothing to reconcile the discrepancy. Therefore, simply saying "nuh uh" is an assertion.

 

Also, you continue to speak about the Constitution as if it's anything more than what a few people wrote down one time. This does nothing to substantiate your previous assertions that it functions as a binding contract for the unborn.

[EclecticIdealist]

THIS is an assertion. I pointed out the way in which your comparison was dishonest. You did nothing to reconcile the discrepancy. Therefore, simply saying "nuh uh" is an assertion.

 

Also, you continue to speak about the Constitution as if it's anything more than what a few people wrote down one time. This does nothing to substantiate your previous assertions that it functions as a binding contract for the unborn

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?

[dsayers]

The government has breached the contract

You're talking in circles. This was the initial point of contention. Thank you for revealing that you are output only on this topic.

[EclecticIdealist]

The government has breached the contract.

You're talking in circles. This was the initial point of contention.

Me thinks thou doest project too much.

 

...whereas the Constitution itself dispenses with consent. Something that is required BEFORE an action can be moral.

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.

[algernon]

So if I create a contract with someone agreeing to their terms, and also include my unborn children in the contract, are they contractually obligated to follow through with these terms they had no choice in agreeing to?

 

If I vote for a school bond, something that doesn't mature for 30 years, are my children contractually obligated to pay for that in 20 years once they're an adult and earn money?

 

What about if I never have children, can I go ahead and include your children in a contract?

 

How about this, I will move into a new mansion, and the terms of the loan with the bank will be your children will work for them for 20 years as indentured servants once they are physically capable. Now of course it would only be fair that they will get to use one of the rooms of the mansion if they choose, if they choose not to, that does not absolve them of their contractual obligation to pay it off though, mind you. And if they don't like it, they can run away and hide.

 

The Law Dictionary

 

A contract is An agreement between two or more competent parties in which an offer is made and accepted, and each party benefits. Agreements can either be formal or informal, written, oral, or implied for example, by long term business relationship. Examples of contracts include leases, promissory notes, rental agreement etc. There are four necessary components to make a contractual agreement; an offer, acceptance of the offer, the intention to enter into a legally binding agreement, and consideration.

 

 

There is some very specific things that must be met for a contract to be valid, originating in common law, and a blind, one sided contract made with the unborn certainly does not qualify. I'm sorry but a "social contract" is just mind-fuck BS that propagandizes people to accept their enslavement.

[labmath2]

So if I create a contract with someone agreeing to their terms, and also include my unborn children in the contract, are they contractually obligated to follow through with these terms they had no choice in agreeing to?

 

If I vote for a school bond, something that doesn't mature for 30 years, are my children contractually obligated to pay for that in 20 years once they're an adult and earn money?

 

What about if I never have children, can I go ahead and include your children in a contract?

 

How about this, I will move into a new mansion, and the terms of the loan with the bank will be your children will work for them for 20 years as indentured servants once they are physically capable. Now of course it would only be fair that they will get to use one of the rooms of the mansion if they choose, if they choose not to, that does not absolve them of their contractual obligation to pay it off though, mind you. And if they don't like it, they can run away and hide.

 

 

There is some very specific things that must be met for a contract to be valid, originating in common law, and a blind, one sided contract made with the unborn certainly does not qualify. I'm sorry but a "social contract" is just mind-fuck BS that propagandizes people to accept their enslavement.

I have thought about this topic extensively and i continue to find it difficult to resolve. The problem with governments is that they are a form of geographic contracts, very much like land ownership. Its not so much a contract, but a set of conditions that trigger an event. Can a contract exist such that consenting to one thing creates the condition that you consented to a bunch of other things? I think such contracts do exist and a very common form is employment. Are geographic contracts valid? The arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants is analogous to apprehension and eviction of trespassers from private property. Citizens cannot be deported, but they are saddled with a bunch of responsibilities. The assumption is citizenship is the consent. The main problem with this approach is the creation of the geographic contract in the first place.

[dsayers]

I think such contracts do exist and a very common form is employment.

This is not comparable. You can choose to cease your employment.

 

Are geographic contracts valid? The arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants is analogous to apprehension and eviction of trespassers from private property.

No it is not. Government is a concept and therefore cannot own property. Both "arrest" and "deportation" are words used to conceal the initiation of the use of force. Also, you beg the question and/or poison the well when you specify "illegal," which is not a philosophically sound conclusion, but rather the arbitrary command backed by threats of violence. So even the actors in your examples are not comparable.

[EclecticIdealist]

So if I create a contract with someone agreeing to their terms, and also include my unborn children in the contract, are they contractually obligated to follow through with these terms they had no choice in agreeing to?

No, they are not contractually obligated to follow through with such terms.

If I vote for a school bond, something that doesn't mature for 30 years, are my children contractually obligated to pay for that in 20 years once they're an adult and earn money?

That's a great question. The answer is probably yes, as long as they remain residents within the jurisdiction where the bond was located.

What about if I never have children, can I go ahead and include your children in a contract?

No.

How about this, I will move into a new mansion, and the terms of the loan with the bank will be your children will work for them for 20 years as indentured servants once they are physically capable. Now of course it would only be fair that they will get to use one of the rooms of the mansion if they choose, if they choose not to, that does not absolve them of their contractual obligation to pay it off though, mind you. And if they don't like it, they can run away and hide.

If there was an implied question, there, the inferred answer is, no, that would not be okay.

There are some very specific things that must be met for a contract to be valid, originating in common law, and a blind, one sided contract made with the unborn certainly does not qualify. I'm sorry but a "social contract" is just mind-fuck BS that propagandizes people to accept their enslavement.

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".

This is not comparable. You can choose to cease your employment.

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.

No it is not. Government is a concept and therefore cannot own property. Both "arrest" and "deportation" are words used to conceal the initiation of the use of force. Also, you beg the question and/or poison the well when you specify "illegal," which is not a philosophically sound conclusion, but rather the arbitrary command backed by threats of violence. So even the actors in your examples are not comparable.

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.

[algernon]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

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".

 

Please elaborate on what type of "contract" you're referring to then. If you're using a word which has an understood meaning, differently than everyone else who uses it, we aren't going to be able to communicate very well with each other. In law a "contract" has a very specific definition and meaning, you might want to use something else.

[EclecticIdealist]

Please elaborate on what type of "contract" you're referring to then. If you're using a word which has an understood meaning, differently than everyone else who uses it, we aren't going to be able to communicate very well with each other. In law a "contract" has a very specific definition and meaning, you might want to use something else.

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).

[dsayers]

You can choose to renounce your Citizenship

Most people didn't choose to take it on. This is an unchosen positive obligation, unethical, and not comparable.

 

Also, a person can NOT just do that. 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 work for my former employer" where all other aspects of one's life persist, because it was a VOLUNTARY relationship.

 

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.

LMAO! How does one accomplish regarding fiction as valid while accusing somebody else of adhering to fantasy?!

[EclecticIdealist]

Most people didn't choose to take it on. This is an unchosen positive obligation, unethical, and not comparable.

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.

 

Also, a person can NOT just do that. 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 work for my former employer" where all other aspects of one's life persist, because it was a VOLUNTARY relationship.

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.

 

LMAO! How does one accomplish regarding fiction as valid while accusing somebody else of adhering to fantasy?!

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.

[dsayers]

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.

You keep going back to family as if humans can NOT be born or just pop up fully formed.

 

There is no unchosen positive obligation in having been born. Also not comparable to citizenship. When I stopped having anything to do with my mother, I didn't have to worry about armed thugs throwing me in a cage, stealing my stuff, or threatening to kill me.

 

A person cannot just declare they've left their parents' home and continue occupying their bedroom

I probably have as much of an idea of what you're on about as you do. Your claim was that leaving a job is comparable to renouncing citizenship. This is moving the goalposts once your assertion was refuted.

 

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

Assertion followed by ad hominem. I'm sure convinced!

[EclecticIdealist]

You keep going back to family as if humans can NOT be born or just pop up fully formed.

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.

There is no unchosen positive obligation in having been born. Also not comparable to citizenship. When I stopped having anything to do with my mother, I didn't have to worry about armed thugs throwing me in a cage, stealing my stuff, or threatening to kill me.

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.

I probably have as much of an idea of what you're on about as you do. Your claim was that leaving a job is comparable to renouncing citizenship. This is moving the goalposts once your assertion was refuted.

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.

Assertion followed by ad hominem. I'm sure convinced!

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.

[labmath2]

You keep going back to family as if humans can NOT be born or just pop up fully formed.

 

There is no unchosen positive obligation in having been born. Also not comparable to citizenship. When I stopped having anything to do with my mother, I didn't have to worry about armed thugs throwing me in a cage, stealing my stuff, or threatening to kill me.

 

I probably have as much of an idea of what you're on about as you do. Your claim was that leaving a job is comparable to renouncing citizenship. This is moving the goalposts once your assertion was refuted.

Birth is precisely the problem. The proposition is simple, if you accept the rights, then you also accept the responsibility. This is true if you live with parents, work for someone or live in a country. I inagine no one here will argue that parents have to accomodate you indefinitely, until you are ready to leave. If they demand certain things of you while you live with them, we don't think about the fact that you did not choose to live with them. We think about the fact that you have a choice of leaving if you don't like their rules. Yet when it comes to living in a geographic space, a country, you think its immoral to demand anything for your continued right to live in that space.

 

I accept that this line of reasoning presupposes that countries are valid. I understand that not everyone accept that proposition. The problem is that that ownership and property are institutional facts (not empirical facts).

[dsayers]

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.

Strawman. I never said they're not born as citizens. I pointed out that this claim of ownership over the unborn is invalid.

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.

Where coercion is present, choice is not. You're moving the goalposts. Before you said family and now you're talking about abusers.

 

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.

You said it, so it must be true. To hell with ALL of the empirical evidence to the contrary. I'll let you comb even just these forums for countless stories of people unable to decline the advances of people who like you believe that a piece of paper gives them superhuman powers. *ahem* this topic! *ahem*

 

When you quit, you're expected to leave the premises, not continue inhabiting your office or cubicle (for example).

Nobody lives in their cubicle. Nobody's employers claims to own them or is able to do anything to them against their will.

 

Until then, you can live in your fantasy delusions that things are different than they are.

Saying a piece of paper can bind the unborn doesn't make it that way. As per usual, you just assert, assert, assert. No arguments.

Please, I'm only allotted so many downvotes per day.

 

I inagine no one here will argue that parents have to accomodate you indefinitely, until you are ready to leave. If they demand certain things of you while you live with them, we don't think about the fact that you did not choose to live with them. We think about the fact that you have a choice of leaving if you don't like their rules. Yet when it comes to living in a geographic space, a country, you think its immoral to demand anything for your continued right to live in that space.

It's been pointed out, in your presence, many times how this analogy fails. People own their houses. "Countries" can't own anything, let alone people.

[labmath2]

It's been pointed out, in your presence, many times how this analogy fails. People own their houses. "Countries" can't own anything, let alone people.

You are just asserting the proposition as of its self evident. As long as ownership and property remain institutional facts (as opposed to empirical facts) there is no reason why any ownership scheme is impossible.

[EclecticIdealist]

Please, I'm only allotted so many downvotes per day.

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.

 

Strawman. I never said they're not born as citizens. I pointed out that this claim of ownership over the unborn is invalid.

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.

 

Where coercion is present, choice is not. You're moving the goalposts. Before you said family and now you're talking about abusers.

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.

 

You said it, so it must be true. To hell with ALL of the empirical evidence to the contrary. I'll let you comb even just these forums for countless stories of people unable to decline the advances of people who like you believe that a piece of paper gives them superhuman powers. *ahem* this topic! *ahem*

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?

 

Nobody lives in their cubicle. Nobody's employers claims to own them or is able to do anything to them against their will.

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?

 

Saying a piece of paper can bind the unborn doesn't make it that way. As per usual, you just assert, assert, assert. No arguments.

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. 

[dsayers]

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.

Appeal to insecurity and manipulation. If you felt "mature" was a standard, you wouldn't resort to the ad hominem that you have. The downvotes are for lack of integrity. This is a philosophy forum after all.

 

I never said Nations had any ownership claim over the unborn.

Constitution is a binding contract and people are free to leave according to you.

 

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.

Peaceful parents do not inflict unchosen positive obligations upon their children. Abusers do.

 

Gratuitous assertions of the existence of empirical evidence is not the same as citing evidence.

I cited this very thread. The evidence is so prevalent that it needs no citation. ANYBODY not seeking bias confirmation could find oodles of it. This is intellectual sloth and deflection.

 

Non-despotic nations do not claim to own their people.

You contradict yourself. You have claimed and stood by your claim that the Constitution is a contract. Every command backed by threats of violence (what you would call a "law") assumes ownership of all land and people within geographical borders. "Pay your protection money or we will cage you and kill you if you resist," is a claim of ownership.

 

You're an idiot and a fool if you think I was ever asserting that a parchment bound the unborn

It was the first point of contention and one you have yet to accept the truth regarding. If "mature" was a standard you adhered to, you would clarify your position instead of the constant name-calling of a first grader.

[EclecticIdealist]

Appeal to insecurity and manipulation. If you felt "mature" was a standard, you wouldn't resort to the ad hominem that you have. The downvotes are for lack of integrity. This is a philosophy forum after all.

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.

 

Constitution is a binding contract and people are free to leave according to you.

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.

 

Peaceful parents do not inflict unchosen positive obligations upon their children. Abusers do.

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.

 

I cited this very thread. The evidence is so prevalent that it needs no citation. ANYBODY not seeking bias confirmation could find oodles of it. This is intellectual sloth and deflection.

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. 

 

You contradict yourself. You have claimed and stood by your claim that the Constitution is a contract. Every command backed by threats of violence (what you would call a "law") assumes ownership of all land and people within geographical borders. "Pay your protection money or we will cage you and kill you if you resist," is a claim of ownership.

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

It was the first point of contention and one you have yet to accept the truth regarding. If "mature" was a standard you adhered to, you would clarify your position instead of the constant name-calling of a first grader.

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.

[dsayers]

A binding contract is not an ownership claim

It is when it is involuntary.

 

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.

Commands backed by threats of violence are the opposite of cooperation or living peaceably.

 

Refusal to do so results in violence used against them to compel them to live peaceably

In order for this to be true, the only "laws" would have to be thous shalt not steal, assault, rape or murder. EVERY other command backed by threats of violence is itself the initiation of the use of force.

 

They first begin learning this in the microcosm of society known as the family where they have the unchosen positive obligations

Already refuted.

 

I stopped reading because everything else was ad hominem, re-assertion, or "I know you are but what am I?"

[EclecticIdealist]

A binding contract is not an ownership claim.

It is when it is involuntary.

Only in your deluded fantasies. Involuntary contracts are invalid, not binding.
 

Commands backed by threats of violence are the opposite of cooperation or living peaceably.

Commands backed by threats of violence are the only recourse to those who refuse to cooperate peaceably or leave.
 

In order for this to be true, the only "laws" would have to be thou shalt not steal, assault, rape or murder. EVERY other command backed by threats of violence is itself the initiation of the use of force.

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

Already refuted.

Only in your deluded fantasies.

[dsayers]

Only in your deluded fantasies. Involuntary contracts are invalid, not binding.

When a rapist is raping, they are exercising ownership of their victim and their behavior is binding. I only used the word contract to refute your claim within your own premise.

 

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?

Correct. Outside the parent-child relationship, person B can never be more responsible for person A than person A is.

 

And one doesn't have to worry about anyone trespassing in or upon, or destroying another's property,

Did I not say theft? Because you quoted me saying theft. ALL initiation of the use of force is a form of theft. For example, assault, rape, and murder are all forms of theft.

[jpahmad]

 or we can persuade the whole of the nation to throw off the oppressive rule and establish new guardians of our liberty and freedom as we see fit as our forefathers did 

 

 

 Exactly.  What do you think this forum is all about?  It's about convincing others of the immorality of coercive government in order to get them to unify against it.  The only thing you are wrong about is the forefathers "persuading the whole nation."  The "forefathers" tried to use force first (see Shay's Rebellion). Once they saw what would happen if they demanded the farmers pay for the war,  they switched strategies and drafted up the constitution.  They conned enough of the population into signing it in order to get it ratified. The constitution didn't even have a bill of rights in it originally.  It was one of the most perfectly designed scams ever put over on a generally intelligent population of people.