Five Questions ("Government on Trial") -- Larken Rose

[Brant Gaede]

No one ever forfeits rights. One forfeits the right to exercise rights outside prison and to a great extent in prison. Practically speaking there is no difference unless one is a prisoner and it tends to get semantical, but there are things no one has any right to do to prisoners by the nature of it all or anything goes with how they are treated. A rapist is imprisoned at least for the reason of stopping him from raping. That doesn't mean it's okay to rape him in turn in prison.

--Brant

[moralist]

No one ever forfeits rights.

That's right.

Rights exist whether or not people earn the right to enjoy them.

And no one who doesn't live a life deserving of them will ever partake of them.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

No one ever forfeits rights. One forfeits the right to exercise rights outside prison and to a great extent in prison. Practically speaking there is no difference unless one is a prisoner and it tends to get semantical, but there are things no one has any right to do to prisoners by the nature of it all or anything goes with how they are treated. A rapist is imprisoned at least for the reason of stopping him from raping. That doesn't mean it's okay to rape him in turn in prison.

--Brant

Citizen A digs pools for a living and and is paid $100 a day by his employer. By the principle of free exchange between employer/employee, that money is rightfully Citizen A's.

One day A accidentally hits another car and causes $2,000 worth of damage.

A traffic court judge orders him to pay the full cost of repairs.

"But, Your Honor," says A, "two thousand dollars is all I have saved, and because I worked for it, that money is rightfully mine. I earned it."

"Of course you did, son. And I'm not going to take away your right to that money."

"You're not?"

"No, son. That money is yours by right and will always be yours. Rights are never forfeited. I'm just taking away your right to exercise control over that money. From now on, the plaintiff will have full control. But you'll still have the right to it. And ain't that the most important thing?"

"You betcha! Thanks, Your Honor! Thanks for everything!"

"Next case!"

[Brant Gaede]

All I'm willing to say is that's not what any traffic court judge does and torte law is another ball of wax. If you want to go back to criminal law for a good example--please do.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

Back to criminal law:

Citizen B lays bricks for a living and and is paid $200 a day by his employer. By the principle of free exchange between employer/employee, that money is rightfully Citizen B's.

One day in a bar B gets into an argument with Citizen C. In anger, B slugs C and dislocates C's jaw. B is arrested.

A criminal court judge orders B to serve 10 days in jail for assault and battery and to pay the full cost of C's medical treatment, $2,000.

"But, Your Honor," says B, "two thousand dollars is all I have saved, and because I worked for it, that money is rightfully mine. I earned it."

"Of course you did, son. And I'm not going to take away your right to that money."

"You're not?"

"No, son. That money is yours by right and will always be yours. Rights are never forfeited. I'm just taking away your right to exercise control over that money. From now on, Citizen C will have full control. But you'll still have the right to it. And ain't that the most important thing?"

"You betcha! Thanks, Your Honor! Thanks for everything!"

"Next case!"

[Brant Gaede]

It was rightfully his but he failed to rightfully keep it. If you want to rightfully keep something, eschew the initiation of force. If you don't you are a member of the criminal class which, for our purposes, is the rights' violating class. Once, your tribe would literally ban you. A death sentence. Now you are banned into prison. Not a death sentence. England sent boatloads of criminals to Australia, which created a questionable genetic endowment for that country, but I love the accent.

--Brant

next

[moralist]

It was rightfully his but he failed to rightfully keep it.

"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it."

--A.R.

...and I'll add that the government is just one agent which enforces that moral principle. People who blame (unjustly accuse) the government for their own lack of money are stupid...

...because they're the ones who f**ked themselves out of money by their own lack of virtue.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Now, all this doesn't mean you can't take money (or even just get it by winning the lottery) and keep it, unlikely however, or that the government isn't part of the criminal class that can't take what you have no matter where it came from, etc, it's just that made money belongs to whom made it by right. By right means holding it dear.

The government ruins innocent people every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Jails are full of them. Many could have avoided this by being smarter about government and personal comportment. Jews are very good about staying out of prison in spite of the general slander about their natural material venality. This idea partially seems to come out of how as a group they are more concerned about living on earth than Christians and how Christians in turn are more so concerned than Muslims, some of which care not at all. Productive to destructive. Living on earth means being materially prosperous. The best way to that is through a strong sense of probity in all affairs possible. What works in one area spills over into other areas. That said, I've met some nasty Jews and nice Muslims as exceptions to any generalization. And for all I know 99.9% of Muslims are nice, but there are so many of them even that percentage leaves too many un-nice because of the horrible things the .1% are inclined to do. If there are 1.9 billion Muslims, probably a somewhat inflated figure, ten percent is 190,000,000 and one percent is 19,000,000 and .1 percent is 1.9 million. Houston, we have a problem. Change all that to 99.99% and we still have a problem. 99.999%--we can work with that. Such is the nature of destructive behavior. Ten years to build and it's here today and gone tomorrow, but it's one thing to knock down a building, much harder to destroy the whole city--unless you have a real big bomb.

--Brant

[moralist]

Now, all this doesn't mean you can't take money (or even just get it by winning the lottery) and keep it,

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/poorest-list/10-lottery-winners-who-went-broke/

"Money isn’t always the answer to all of life’s problems. In fact, sometimes money can create even more problems – as, it seems, is too often the case for lottery winners. It’s not uncommon for lottery winners to end up with even less than they had before their windfall and sometimes they even end up with nothing at all."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/nocera-the-bad-luck-of-winning.html?_r=0

"...take one of the most prominent examples, the story of Jack Whittaker, a West Virginia businessman who won a $315 million Powerball jackpot in 2002. A decade later, his daughter and granddaughter had died of drug overdoses, his wife had divorced him, and he had been sued numerous times. Once, when he was at a strip club, someone drugged his drink and took $545,000 in cash that had been sitting in his car. He later sobbed to reporters, “I wish I’d torn that ticket up.” "

NO VIRTUE = NO MONEY

So when anyone complains to you how they don't have enough money because the government is "robbing" them...

...you can KNOW they lack the virtue to make money and to keep it.

If the government can "rob" them... they're "robbing" someone else.

The government ruins innocent people every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

In my opinion they could only be ruined because they weren't innocent. This is because the government is subject to exactly the same higher moral law that everyone else is.

So you may ask... then why does the government do so many immoral things today? The answer is that the immoral government that exists today is the creation of immoral people.

Jews are very good about staying out of prison in spite of the general slander about their natural material venality.

That "material venality" is in fact spirituality. That's because in Judaism making money is regarded as virtuous... and they're absolutely right. The same virtue that makes it possible to make money is exactly the same virtue that makes it possible to keep it, and to enjoy the economic freedom it buys.

Money isn't the goal... it's just how to keep score.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

You're over-generalizing a bit about whom the government can ruin. You'll logically end up with Jews deserving the Holocaust as a reductio ad absurdum. That's a thesis for them, maybe, collectively--good luck, anybody, with that--that cannot be sustained murdered Jew to murdered Jew to all murdered Jews.

Now, in this country for this country, this date and time, you can better make such a statement as a defensible proposition, but the principle of exceptions means you need real data and all you have is a supposition with no room for exceptions, just your incomplete argument qua argument.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

It was rightfully his but he failed to rightfully keep it.

Yes, was his. Emphasis on past tense. Now no longer his.

In other words, by his actions he forfeited his right to a certain portion of what he owned.

And a man breaking into my bedroom window at night may forfeit his right not to have a large bullet wound in his torso.

[Brant Gaede]

You have a right to defend yourself so shoot the bastard. No need to worry about his right not to get shot for he decided not to exercise it.

--Brant

if you don't initiate physical force 24/7 you are exercising your right not to have physical force used against you 24/7--the true negative right

[Francisco Ferrer]

Thus the aggressive trespasser forfeits his rights over his body. (forfeit: "Lose or be deprived of (property or a right or privilege) as a penalty for wrongdoing.")

"A man has forfeited his own rights (to the extent of the aggression he has committed) in attacking the rights of others." --Auberon Herbert

[moralist]

You're over-generalizing a bit about whom the government can ruin.

While all generalities have exceptions... those exceptions do not invalidate generalities.

You'll logically end up with Jews deserving the Holocaust as a reductio ad absurdum. That's a thesis for them, maybe, collectively--good luck, anybody, with that--that cannot be sustained murdered Jew to murdered Jew to all murdered Jews.

That's why I constantly refer solely to America today... because America is exceptional in that it is a creation of Judeo/Christian values. Israel is also exceptional for the same reason.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Thus the aggressive trespasser forfeits his rights over his body. (forfeit: "Lose or be deprived of (property or a right or privilege) as a penalty for wrongdoing.")

"A man has forfeited his own rights (to the extent of the aggression he has committed) in attacking the rights of others." --Auberon Herbert

You say that and I say you have no right to violate rights. It's bottom line the same and there's no need for a semantical argument.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

Thus the aggressive trespasser forfeits his rights over his body. (forfeit: "Lose or be deprived of (property or a right or privilege) as a penalty for wrongdoing.")

"A man has forfeited his own rights (to the extent of the aggression he has committed) in attacking the rights of others." --Auberon Herbert

You say that and I say you have no right to violate rights. It's bottom line the same and there's no need for a semantical argument.

--Brant

Yes, there is no right to violate rights. Citizen B has no right to initiate force by slugging Citizen C in the chin.

However, once force is initiated, legal/moral consequence ensue. The initiator of force may not reasonably expect to go about his life as if nothing had happened. He may and should be called to account and made to perform restitution.

And what is restitution if not a forfeiture of a portion of what one had rightfully owned up to the point of committing aggression?

On the other hand, if the argument is that no rights are ever forfeited, then nothing owned by the initiator of force could be made to be surrendered to the victim of force. Citizen B would retain full control of all his property and freedom of movement. He would have to pay Citizen C damages only if he wanted to.

There is a semantical dispute only if there is a difference of opinion over the meaning of forfeit ("Lose or be deprived of (property or a right or privilege) as a penalty for wrongdoing.").

[BaalChatzaf]

Thus the aggressive trespasser forfeits his rights over his body. (forfeit: "Lose or be deprived of (property or a right or privilege) as a penalty for wrongdoing.")

"A man has forfeited his own rights (to the extent of the aggression he has committed) in attacking the rights of others." --Auberon Herbert

You say that and I say you have no right to violate rights. It's bottom line the same and there's no need for a semantical argument.

--Brant

Yes, there is no right to violate rights. Citizen B has no right to initiate force by slugging Citizen C in the chin.

However, once force is initiated, legal/moral consequence ensue. The initiator of force may not reasonably expect to go about his life as if nothing had happened. He may and should be called to account and made to perform restitution.

And what is restitution if not a forfeiture of a portion of what one had rightfully owned up to the point of committing aggression?

On the other hand, if the argument is that no rights are ever forfeited, then nothing owned by the initiator of force could be made to be surrendered to the victim of force. Citizen B would retain full control of all his property and freedom of movement. He would have to pay Citizen C damages only if he wanted to.

There is a semantical dispute only if there is a difference of opinion over the meaning of forfeit ("Lose or be deprived of (property or a right or privilege) as a penalty for wrongdoing.").

How about his victim flogging the wrong doer with a cat of nine tails? Revenge has its uses.

[Brant Gaede]

Thus the aggressive trespasser forfeits his rights over his body. (forfeit: "Lose or be deprived of (property or a right or privilege) as a penalty for wrongdoing.")

"A man has forfeited his own rights (to the extent of the aggression he has committed) in attacking the rights of others." --Auberon Herbert

You say that and I say you have no right to violate rights. It's bottom line the same and there's no need for a semantical argument.

--Brant

Yes, there is no right to violate rights. Citizen B has no right to initiate force by slugging Citizen C in the chin.

However, once force is initiated, legal/moral consequence ensue. The initiator of force may not reasonably expect to go about his life as if nothing had happened. He may and should be called to account and made to perform restitution.

And what is restitution if not a forfeiture of a portion of what one had rightfully owned up to the point of committing aggression?

On the other hand, if the argument is that no rights are ever forfeited, then nothing owned by the initiator of force could be made to be surrendered to the victim of force. Citizen B would retain full control of all his property and freedom of movement. He would have to pay Citizen C damages only if he wanted to.

There is a semantical dispute only if there is a difference of opinion over the meaning of forfeit ("Lose or be deprived of (property or a right or privilege) as a penalty for wrongdoing.").

Not quite. Forfeit (some) rights and forfeit right to exercise (some) rights leaves "forfeit" with the same meaning in both cases. I argue for this understanding for I want its simplicity--its lucidity--and I want even a criminal not to be basically dehumanized by turning him into a peace of amoral meat someone is privileged thereby to debase. Such debasement, of course, works both ways--against the debased and the debaser. It's also at least a secondary argument against the death penalty.

--Brant

one purpose of law, Bob, is to replace revenge with restitution, not just prevent future crime, and promote civilization for revenge by its nature is destructive, personally and socially, and maintain a peaceful and productive public weal in which the victims can restart if not just continue with their lives in the context of justice formally realized and non-victims are reassured of ongoing rational protection and succor by a lawful country they call their own

[moralist]

It's also at least a secondary argument against the death penalty.

The death penalty justly administrated doesn't debase a nation... on the contrary, it ennobles it.

The death penalty for murder is the only moral law that was repeated four times in the Old Testament (and it's not an eye for an eye, that is something else entirely).

Greg

[Selene]

(and it's not an eye for an eye, that is something else entirely).

Greg

And that "something else entirely" can be expressed in words right?

So ....

Give it up Greg...

[Francisco Ferrer]

Not quite. Forfeit (some) rights and forfeit right to exercise (some) rights leaves "forfeit" with the same meaning in both cases. I argue for this understanding for I want its simplicity--its lucidity--and I want even a criminal not to be basically dehumanized by turning him into a peace of amoral meat someone is privileged thereby to debase. Such debasement, of course, works both ways--against the debased and the debaser. It's also at least a secondary argument against the death penalty.

--Brant

one purpose of law, Bob, is to replace revenge with restitution, not just prevent future crime, and promote civilization for revenge by its nature is destructive, personally and socially, and maintain a peaceful and productive public weal in which the victims can restart if not just continue with their lives in the context of justice formally realized and non-victims are reassured of ongoing rational protection and succor by a lawful country they call their own

Let's imagine two societies with different legal systems.

In Society X, through an act of aggression a person may forfeit a right or several rights.

In Society Y, through an act of aggression a person may never forfeit a right, any right. The aggressor would forfeit only the right to exercise a right or several rights.

Now let's put the different theories into action.

In Society X, a man enters a home in the middle of the night by breaking into a window. The frightened homeowner fires a .45 caliber bullet which leaves a very large hole in the trespasser's chest and causes instant death. Since the intruder has committed the crime of breaking and entering, he may be considered an aggressor and thus he forfeits his right over his own body. The homeowner is judged to have acted rightfully under Society X's laws.

By contrast in Society Y, one never forfeits rights. Thus when a man enters a home in the middle of the night by breaking into a window, the frightened homeowner can do nothing to cause the man to forfeit his right over his body or his right to allow his body to keep functioning naturally with a working heart, lungs and other organs. The homeowner is allowed only to act in a way that would merely take away the intruder's ability to exercise (some) rights.

The homeowner can suspend or deactivate the intruder's right to exercise control over his living body, but may not under any circumstances take away his living body and thus his right to it.

Thus, in Society Y, in order to avoid being charged with causing someone to forfeit his rights, private citizens get rid of guns and other lethal weapons. Instead they purchase Star Trek Phasers®, which have had the kill setting disabled and can perform only the stun function.

In this way does Civilization banish the "dehumanization" and "debasement" of evil doers.

[moralist]

(and it's not an eye for an eye, that is something else entirely).

Greg

And that "something else entirely" can be expressed in words right?

Yes it can.

It was one of the most profound advances of the law in human history.

http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_mishpatim.html

[Brant Gaede]

Not quite. Forfeit (some) rights and forfeit right to exercise (some) rights leaves "forfeit" with the same meaning in both cases. I argue for this understanding for I want its simplicity--its lucidity--and I want even a criminal not to be basically dehumanized by turning him into a peace of amoral meat someone is privileged thereby to debase. Such debasement, of course, works both ways--against the debased and the debaser. It's also at least a secondary argument against the death penalty.

--Brant

one purpose of law, Bob, is to replace revenge with restitution, not just prevent future crime, and promote civilization for revenge by its nature is destructive, personally and socially, and maintain a peaceful and productive public weal in which the victims can restart if not just continue with their lives in the context of justice formally realized and non-victims are reassured of ongoing rational protection and succor by a lawful country they call their own

Let's imagine two societies with different legal systems.

In Society X, through an act of aggression a person may forfeit a right or several rights.

In Society Y, through an act of aggression a person may never forfeit a right, any right. The aggressor would forfeit only the right to exercise a right or several rights.

Now let's put the different theories into action.

In Society X, a man enters a home in the middle of the night by breaking into a window. The frightened homeowner fires a .45 caliber bullet which leaves a very large hole in the trespasser's chest and causes instant death. Since the intruder has committed the crime of breaking and entering, he may be considered an aggressor and thus he forfeits his right over his own body. The homeowner is judged to have acted rightfully under Society X's laws.

By contrast in Society Y, one never forfeits rights. Thus when a man enters a home in the middle of the night by breaking into a window, the frightened homeowner can do nothing to cause the man to forfeit his right over his body or his right to allow his body to keep functioning naturally with a working heart, lungs and other organs. The homeowner is allowed only to act in a way that would merely take away the intruder's ability to exercise (some) rights.

The homeowner can suspend or deactivate the intruder's right to exercise control over his living body, but may not under any circumstances take away his living body and thus his right to it.

Thus, in Society Y, in order to avoid being charged with causing someone to forfeit his rights, private citizens get rid of guns and other lethal weapons. Instead they purchase Star Trek Phasers®, which have had the kill setting disabled and can perform only the stun function.

In this way does Civilization banish the "dehumanization" and "debasement" of evil doers.

I'm sure you'll make the right choice. Whatever you think it is. Considering my familiarity with firearms, I'm sure you'll know my choice.

--Brant

I'll supply my argument

[Selene]

Yes it can.

It was one of the most profound advances of the law in human history.

http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_mishpatim.html

Thanks.

That makes sense and just in case we could always keep in reserve the Italian option.

A...

From the Sicilian Cannon

[Francisco Ferrer]

I'm sure you'll make the right choice. Whatever you think it is. Considering my familiarity with firearms, I'm sure you'll know my choice.

--Brant

I'll supply my argument

I gather that you'll load your arms with low-caliber, non-forfeit ammunition so that no one is deprived of a right as a penalty for wrongdoing.