Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Constitution'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Objectivist Living Corner Office
    • Purpose of Objectivist Living and Legal Stuff (please read)
    • Selective Index and Updates
    • Tech Support / IPB Help Desk
    • Links
    • Web Stuff and Other Tech Issues (not OL specific)
  • Objectivist Philosophy
    • About Objectivism
    • 1 - Metaphysics
    • 2 - Epistemology
    • 3 - Ethics
    • 4 - Politics
    • 5 - Aesthetics
  • Objectivist Living
    • Meet and Greet
    • Objectivist Living Room
    • Art Gallery
    • Articles
    • Creative Writing
    • Writing Techniques
    • Persuasion Techniques
    • Psychology
    • Parenting
    • Humor - OL LOLOLOLOL
    • The Library
    • Quotes
    • Romance Room
    • Movies and Entertainment
    • Music
    • News and Interesting Articles
    • Events and Happenings
    • Tips for Everyday Living
    • Inky's Room
    • The Kitchen
    • Science & Mathematics
    • Sports and Recreation
    • Stumping in the Backyard
  • Objectivist Living Den
    • The Objectivist Living Den
    • Offers from OL Members
    • The Culture of Reason Center Corner
    • The Objectivist Living Boutique
  • Corners of Insight
    • Roger Bissell Corner
    • Stephen Boydstun Corner
    • Barbara Branden Corner
    • Nathaniel Branden Corner
    • Robert Campbell Corner
    • Ed Hudgins Corner
    • David Kelley Corner
    • Chris Sciabarra Corner
    • George H. Smith Corner
    • Corners of Further Insight
    • TAS Corner
    • ARI Corner
  • Outer Limits

Calendars

  • Objectivist Living Community Calendar
  • Self-Esteem Every Day

Blogs

  • Kat's Blog
  • wanderlustig
  • Hussein El-Gohary's Blog
  • CLASSical Liberalism
  • Ted Keer' Blog
  • RaviKissoon's Blog
  • hbar24's Blog
  • brucemajors' Blog
  • Ross Barlow's Blog
  • James Heaps-Nelson's Blog
  • Matus1976's Blog
  • X
  • Tee-Jay's Blog
  • Jeff Kremer's Blog
  • Mark Weiss' Blog
  • Etisoppa's Blog
  • Friends and Foes
  • neale's Blog
  • Better Living Thru Blogging!
  • Chris Grieb's Blog
  • Gay TOC
  • Sandra Rice's Blog
  • novus-vir's Blog
  • Neil Parille's Blog
  • Jody Gomez's Blog
  • George Donnelly
  • plnchannel
  • F L Light's Blog
  • Donovan A's Blog
  • Julian's Writings
  • Aspberger's World
  • The Naturalist
  • Broader than Measurement Omission
  • The Melinda's Blog
  • Benevolist Ponderings
  • Shane's Blog
  • On Creative Writing (Chrys Jordan)
  • Think's Blog
  • Kate Herrick's Blog
  • Rich Engle's Blog
  • thelema's Blog
  • cyber bullying
  • Shane's Blog
  • x
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • George H. Smith's Blog
  • Jim Henderson's Blog
  • Mike Hansen's Blog
  • Bruce's Blogations
  • Prometheus Fire
  • equality72521's Blog
  • Sum Ergo Cogitabo's Blog
  • Robert Bumbalough's Blog
  • Troll reads Atlas
  • dustt's Blog
  • dustt's Blog
  • Closed
  • Tim Hopkins' Blog
  • Objectivism 401
  • PDS' Blog
  • PDS' Blog
  • Rich Engle's Beyond Even Bat Country
  • Negative Meat Popsicle's Blog
  • politics and education
  • J.S. McGowan's Blog
  • Aeternitas
  • Shrinkiatrist
  • AnarchObjectivist
  • Brant Gaede's Blog

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


Full Name


Description


Articles


Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.

Found 6 results

  1. [http://wsscherk.hostingmyself.com/trumpAbortionTalk.htm] QUESTION: Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women's rights and their rights to choose in their own reproductive health? DRUMPF: OK, well look, I mean, as you know, I'm pro-life. Right, I think you know that, and I -- with exceptions, with the three exceptions. But pretty much, that's my stance. Is that OK? You understand? MATTHEWS: What should the law be on abortion? DRUMPF: Well, I have been pro-life. MATTHEWS: I know, what should the law -- I know your principle, that's a good value. But what should be the law? DRUMPF: Well, you know, they've set the law and frankly the judges -- I mean, you're going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it's a real tipping point. MATTHEWS: I know. DRUMPF: And with the loss the Scalia, who was a very strong conservative... MATTHEWS: I understand. DRUMPF: ... this presidential election is going to be very important, because when you say, "what's the law, nobody knows what's the law going to be. It depends on who gets elected, because somebody is going to appoint conservative judges and somebody is going to appoint liberal judges, depending on who wins. MATTHEWS: I know. I never understood the pro-life position. DRUMPF: Well, a lot of people do understand. MATTHEWS: I never understood it. Because I understand the principle, it's human life as people see it. DRUMPF: Which it is. MATTHEWS: But what crime is it? DRUMPF: Well, it's human life. MATTHEWS: No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion? DRUMPF: Look... MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge. DRUMPF: It's a -- no, no... MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished? DRUMPF: Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and Conservative Republicans would say, "yes, they should be punished." MATTHEWS: How about you? DRUMPF: I would say that it's a very serious problem. And it's a problem that we have to decide on. It's very hard. MATTHEWS: But you're for banning it? DRUMPF: I'm going to say -- well, wait. Are you going to say, put them in jail? Are you -- is that the (inaudible) you're talking about? MATTHEWS: Well, no, I'm asking you because you say you want to ban it. What does that mean? DRUMPF: I would -- I am against -- I am pro-life, yes. MATTHEWS: What is ban -- how do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it? DRUMPF: Well, you know, you will go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places. MATTHEWS: Yes? DRUMPF: But you have to ban it. MATTHEWS: You banning, they go to somebody who flunked out of medical school. DRUMPF: Are you Catholic? MATTHEWS: Yes, I think... DRUMPF: And how do you feel about the Catholic Church's position? MATTHEWS: Well, I accept the teaching authority of my Church on moral issues. DRUMPF: I know, but do you know their position on abortion? MATTHEWS: Yes, I do. DRUMPF: And do you concur with the position? MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally, I get to the question -- here's my problem with it... (LAUGHTER) DRUMPF: No, no, but let me ask you, but what do you say about your Church? MATTHEWS: It's not funny. DRUMPF: Yes, it's really not funny. What do you say about your church? They're very, very strong. MATTHEWS: They're allowed to -- but the churches make their moral judgments, but you running for president of the United States will be chief executive of the United States. Do you believe... DRUMPF: No, but... MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle? DRUMPF: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment. MATTHEWS: For the woman? DRUMPF: Yes, there has to be some form. MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What? DRUMPF: Let me just tell you -- I don't know. That I don't know. That I don't know. MATTHEWS: Why not? DRUMPF: I don't know. MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else. DRUMPF: Because I don't want to -- I frankly, I do take positions on everything else. It's a very complicated position. MATTHEWS: But you say, one, that you're pro-life meaning that you want to ban it. DRUMPF: But wait a minute, wait a minute. But the Catholic Church is pro-life. MATTHEWS: I'm not talking about my religion. DRUMPF: No, no, I am talking about your religion. Your religion -- I mean, you say that you're a very good Catholic. Your religion is your life. Let me ask you this... MATTHEWS: I didn't say very good. I said I'm Catholic. (LAUGHTER) And secondly, I'm asking -- you're running for President. DRUMPF: No, no... MATTHEWS: I'm not. DRUMPF: Chris -- Chris. MATTHEWS: I'm asking you, what should a woman face if she chooses to have an abortion? DRUMPF: I'm not going to do that. MATTHEWS: Why not? DRUMPF: I'm not going to play that game. MATTHEWS: Game? DRUMPF: You have... MATTHEWS: You said you're pro-life. DRUMPF: I am pro-life. MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion. DRUMPF: And so is the Catholic Church pro-life. MATTHEWS: But they don't control the -- this isn't Spain, the Church doesn't control the government. DRUMPF: What is the punishment under the Catholic Church? What is the... MATTHEWS: Let me give something from the New Testament, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Don't ask me about my religion. DRUMPF: No, no... MATTHEWS: I'm asking you. You want to be president of the United States. DRUMPF: You told me that... MATTHEWS: You tell me what the law should be. DRUMPF: I have -- I have not determined... MATTHEWS: Just tell me what the law should be. You say you're pro-life. DRUMPF: I am pro-life. MATTHEWS: What does that mean? DRUMPF: With exceptions. I am pro-life. I have not determined what the punishment would be. MATTHEWS: Why not? DRUMPF: Because I haven't determined it. MATTHEWS: When you decide to be pro-life, you should have thought of it. Because... DRUMPF: No, you could ask anybody who is pro-life... MATTHEWS: OK, here's the problem -- here's my problem with this, if you don't have a punishment for abortion -- I don't believe in it, of course -- people are going to find a way to have an abortion. DRUMPF: You don't believe in what? MATTHEWS: I don't believe in punishing anybody for having an abortion. DRUMPF: OK, fine. OK, (inaudible). MATTHEWS: Of course not. I think it's a woman's choice. DRUMPF: So you're against the teachings of your Church? MATTHEWS: I have a view -- a moral view -- but I believe we live in a free country, and I don't want to live in a country so fascistic that it could stop a person from making that decision. DRUMPF: But then you are... MATTHEWS: That would be so invasive. DRUMPF: I know but I've heard you speaking... MATTHEWS: So determined of a society that I wouldn't able -- one we are familiar with. And Donald Drumpf, you wouldn't be familiar with. DRUMPF: But I've heard you speaking so highly about your religion and your Church. MATTHEWS: Yes. DRUMPF: Your Church is very, very strongly as you know, pro-life. MATTHEWS: I know. DRUMPF: What do you say to your Church? MATTHEWS: I say, I accept your moral authority. In the United States, the people make the decision, the courts rule on what's in the Constitution, and we live by that. That's why I say. DRUMPF: Yes, but you don't live by it because you don't accept it. You can't accept it. You can't accept it. You can't accept it. MATTHEWS: Can we go back to matters of the law and running for president because matters of law, what I'm talking about, and this is the difficult situation you've placed yourself in. By saying you're pro-life, you mean you want to ban abortion. How do you ban abortion without some kind of sanction? Then you get in that very tricky question of a sanction, a fine on human life which you call murder? DRUMPF: It will have to be determined. MATTHEWS: A fine, imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself pregnant? DRUMPF: It will have to be determined. MATTHEWS: What about the guy that gets her pregnant? Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for an abortion? DRUMPF: Well, it hasn't -- it hasn't -- different feelings, different people. I would say no. MATTHEWS: Well, they're usually involved. Anyway, much more from the audience here at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. We'll be right back.
  2. This is the third in a series of posts. The first two can be found here: Were All Men Really Created Equal Equality vs. Inequality For an expanded version of this essay, refer to this page on Michael Spencer’s blog. For the abbreviations used in the blog you can refer the Legend. The FFs(Founding Fathers) had studied the Roman Republic well. (E.g. Cato was an inspiration for the American Revolution, and many amongst FFs, foremost Washington, were his admirers.) Yet, even while they hated democracy, condemned monarchy and aristocracy, and eulogized republicanism which they endeavored to achieve, the demarcation between a republic and majoritarian democracy was not drawn properly. Their inability to do so is seen in Jefferson’s party which is variously called as The Republican Party, The Democratic Party and most popularly, The Democratic-Republican Party! (I met many Americans on the net who beat their chest, “ours is not a democracy but a republic”.) This line of demarcation has not been drawn even today. Another thing to be noted is that it is very difficult to draw this line – not a simple matter. It needs work to be done on a lot of complicated items, several of them dealt with in my writing. (That demarcation consists of whether majority is allowed to violate individual’s rights or no, to what extent government intervenes in the realm of ideas, in the economy, etc. One of the important points to achieve a Republic has been mentioned previously as enumerating the do’s and the well-known evils as don’ts for a government with a provision of adding to the latter list as society goes on developing; other points are developed ahead.) This misunderstanding about the American political system being totally different and moreover far superior to democracies and decadent monarchies of Europe is quite strongly established in American minds, so I will clarify it a bit more here. One explanation about American system is that it is a representative democracy, not a democracy of unlimited majority rule. But all said and done, it still works on the basis of majority opinion – The interpretation of majority in a democracy is somewhat fluid and varies between democracies, as per time, etc; following is meant to give idea about it, the exact definition should be in the statute books of each democracy. In a democracy, a majority is not 51% as is ordinarily assumed; it is just 50% plus one extra vote and not 1%. But even 50% + 1 has to be qualified. For example an elected representative does not require 50% + 1 votes on the voter-list, but only of the votes polled, and that too has further complication – in America it is 50%+1 of the votes polled because of two-party system. In backward countries (like India for example) a representative gets elected at state and centre (federal) levels even with votes close to 20% of the votes polled because 10 to 20 candidates may contest in one constituency (several of them financed to pull away each others’ votes based on caste, religion, particular segment of the constituency, etc.) Whether 50% + 1 of the votes polled as in America, or maximum of the votes polled as in India (which can be a very low percentage of total votes for that constituency), this is known assimplemajority for that candidate. In the assembly of members (parliament, senate etc), more than half the members (50% + 1) of the forum form a simple majority and determines a ruling party / coalition; in America the president rules, so the description for an individual representative is nearer to him. (Most decisions that he makes are in conformance with the broad viewpoint of the majority that voted for him, which is how the majority opinion affects Americans.) Though a party may form a simple majority in an assembly, in backward countries that party may have obtained very less votes, many of its candidates being elected with around 20% of the votes polled. Absolute majority applies mainly to assemblies, but the meaning varies; some call it as more than 67% (2/3) or 75% (3/4) or 80% (4/5) of members of the house, necessary to pass crucial laws, amend constitutions etc, which cannot be done with a simple majority. Some apply these percentages directly to the entire voter-list to whom important laws / amendments etc are directly presented for ratification. Yet note the point that even absolute majority may be less than 50% of the entire voter-list, depending on how it is defined and how it operates in that democracy. (In Greece, which is the most important example of what many Americans consider as democracy, they held a referendum for every issue, which was easily possible, each city being very small). Imagine that in backward countries, with the above small numbers they can take complete rule in their hands! America sits somewhere within these considerations, some ideas applying to the president as an individual representative, some others to the state and federal assemblies. The “Inverted America” described at the very beginning, including the huge shift towards dictatorship via continuous Executive Orders, has been achieved on the basis of this above described majority only. And about Rule of Law as part of their Republic – If one gets laws changed with the help of this 50%+1 majority, then one gets a dual advantage while inflicting injustice and carrying out plutocracies – cheat, loot and still maintain a civilized face of rule of law. Then rogues perpetrate crimes but are seen as ‘unselfish’, law-abiding, looking after welfare of society etc, while honest people become ‘selfish’ usurpers. This is explained ahead in Part II as “Achieving Sainthood, Commission and Power by Charity, but at the cost of others”. (The example of this, seen just above, is that of Obama projecting himself as “unselfish servant of society” by usurping products of “those greedy selfish internet service providers” – but all politicians aspire to play this role in democracy). In more backward democracies the suppression of citizens carried out by obtaining 20-30% votes is unbelievable. Checks and balances become meaningless when the law itself is legally twisted. As far as wrong definitions / ideas that lead to such misunderstanding as the above are concerned, Americans may be nurturing the notion about democracy as the one which was practiced in ancient Greece – deciding issues based on number of raised hands. But such a democracy can never be practiced in most modern countries including the original thirteen colonies simply because of the large population and the distances involved. If anyone wanted to be as close to Greek democracy as is practicable, it would exactly be like US or India, a so-called representative democracy which ultimately (in the long run) yields results similar to a democracy of unlimited majority rule. A properly defined republic would not have allowed the US to reach today’s degenerated state. One qualification should be made at this point – Greek democracy differed from modern democracies on one score that it was not universal franchise. Only “free men” were treated as citizens and allowed to vote, so it had some features common with British aristocracy. But even there, hegemony of quantity over quality and self-help of in-groups was seen; and though unlike Rome, democracy was not the exclusive factor that led to Greece’s fall, it did erode their strength and contribute to their fall. To give actual examples of what is going on in the US in recent times post the New Deal, apart from the sub-article on “Inverted America”, ‘too big to fail’ plutocracies etc, very recently there was a controversy about G W Bush(43) having said that “the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper”, which was never fully clarified. There are statements attributed to him such as “There ought to be limits on freedom”; “I care what 51 percent people think about me” etc. The last one is ‘direct democracy’. Obama was charged with using the executive order too often in his first term to side-step the Congress, undermining Rule of Law, Checks and Balances, etc. (I have not studied fully therefore I am not able to make a definitive statement, but I have a doubt that the US government’s massive surveillance of citizens’ private lives from behind the excuse of security, gathering data of private citizens under secret programs like PRISM without society knowing the program and its purpose, planning to severely punish whistle-blowers in the wiki-leaks and NSA-PRISM leak cases, are based on twisting the constitution / law as above. Anyway even if not these two instances, yet whatever is described in the paragraph just above (including “Inverted America”) is big enough to have caused uproar – but so very paralyzed is America due to democracy that there is hardly any effective opposition to the rulers.) For more such essays, members are urged to visit Michael Spencer’s blog and provide their comments.
  3. I recently received an email introducing a blog titled “Is Democracy the Nemesis Also of the Americans” at americanemesis.wordpress.com. From my reading of the website so far I have found it to contain excellent analysis about the nature of democracy and how it is leading to America’s collapse internally and externally. I have not come across such writing so far and have made it an important mission to bring it to attention on the proper forums. I am planning to post essays from the blog on this forum for further discussion. It is commendable that these ideas are coming from a foreigner who is fighting fanatics to be able to continue writing. Would love to know thoughts of the forum members on the blog. Below I am including salient features of the writing as conveyed in the email. Since prior to the Greeks nobody has so far studied democracy to the extent necessary and presented in his writing. Civilization has never transcended democracy, but has got always destroyed because of it. It is the most important key to saving America today. The essays present formidable challenges to President Obama and individualist Americans at large about their hypocrisy of eulogizing the Founding Fathers and their philosophy / Constitution, while having totally destroyed both as evidenced by the domestic and foreign policies and actions of the United States over the last century. The essays also challenge Americans regarding their cherished beliefs like “All men were created equal”, their political system being far superior to European aristocracies, etc. The essays introduce several new ideas including how a republic erodes into a democracy, how democracy is a fertile ground for moral degeneration and the inevitability of nurturing a vote block by distributing freebies (led by Democrats), followed by a vote block based on war-mongering (led by Republicans). To counter today’s massive doles, an essay presents a never-before analysis of L B Johnson. It proves that if Americans do not threaten of a civil war to restore Founding Fathers’ America then collapse is inevitable. The UN’s impotence, yet murder, loot, sleaze and also intrusion into America's internal affairs (violation of her sovereignty) is well-known. The UN is the elder brother of ISIS, Taliban and Al Qaeda, but not called so only because America’s military-industrial complex is using it as their East India Company. Shockingly, only America’s support is the major reason for even the existence of that evil, like Americans hitting the axe on their own feet! The author has challenged Americans to disprove his contention -- once the greatest emancipator in mankind’s history, today America has become the perpetrator of the biggest crimes against humanity because of its support to the UN. On the other hand, he has thanked the British Raj for civilizing the undeveloped societies to the extent that they are. He has also shown that it is the same big government and big military that perpetrates injustices externally as well as internally, which is the root of ever-increasing dictatorial Executive Orders by successive presidents nowadays. Read more at: https://americanemesis.wordpress.com/
  4. I am a high schooler participating in a national oratorical debate, and we have to write a 8-10 minute speech on "some aspect of the Constitution, with emphasis on a citizen’s duties and obligations to our government." I wrote a speech that ended at 12 minutes, but realized that I had entirely missed the prompt. I had written 12 minutes of the Government's duties to its citizens, but almost nowhere mentioned was the reverse. What do you think? I am beginning to include how a citizen must be actively engaged in the political process, and select the voices they want to represent them. Any help in this matter? Thank you!
  5. I highly suggest reading the end of my aesthetic topic titled "A New Architecture, Couture" which states my justification of individual rights. My justification of rights is new and is different from but doesn't contradict Ayn Rand's justification. I base individual rights understandably, eloquently and directly off the laws of logic. The Commerce Clause is the enumeration of the Constitution which gives government the "right to regulate" trade. This contradicts an individuals right to that which is his and no one else's; how can you have a right to that which is yours and no one else's, and, at the same time, not have the right to offer to trade that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission? That is a contradiction. I'd also like to highlight my terminology: You have the right to -not trade- but offer to trade that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. If you had the right to trade, no one would have the right to refuse to trade with you. As I mentioned earlier, the Commerce Clause is an enumeration in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment clearly, precisely and openly states, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". In modern and clearer rhetoric, the enumeration in the Constitution is not to deny rights retained by the people (made clear by the bill of rights which is made clearer by my logical, axiomatic justifcation of the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness). Most all professional trading is regulated by the government. The government and their sanctioned bodies (ex. The AIA) use the commerce clause as their justification for violating your rights and requiring you to serve them in order to achieve a license in order to legally practice. In the cases wherein a license is required, if you do not have a gov. approved license and you trade without that required license, you are punished BY FORCE. A license, by its definition, is permission. A government license is a mask they use to cover slavery. Only a slave may act on permission. Permission can be revoked at any time. Rights can be exersized without permission. In addition, government issued licenses may only be achieved by servitude to the government or a government sanctioned body. If you would NOT have volunteered such service to the government (or a institution it supports) had their laws not threatened you with force (if you didn't serve them), that would, obviously, classify as being involuntary servitude. I shall now read to you the clear and precise 13th Amendment: niether slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. You are forced to serve the gov. and its sanctioned "professional" regulating bodies in order to achieve a license (or permission) to offer to trade that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. If you would not have VOLUNTARILY served and followed licensing laws and their corrollary laws, had there been no government threat of force, it would then be right call that which those laws enforce as being involuntary servitude and slavery. Most of the licensing laws are argued to protect people from professionals who might harm them, and so laws are created to hold all professionals guilty (with no standard of innocence) and regulating them by the principle that you are automatically guilty of that which you might do, are able to do but didn't do. Below I've posted the questionnaire I'll use against the regulators during court: Let me begin by asking simple yes or no questions. Answer yes it would be cruel and unusual or no it wouldn't be cruel and unusual. Would it be cruel and unusual to punish a child who stole no cookies from the cookie jar for not stealing cookies but having the ability to steal cookies? Answer yes it would be stupid or no it wouldn't be stupid. Would it be stupid to allow teachers to flunk their students -not because they did fail their classses- but because they didn't but are capable of failing their classes? Answer yes it would be fair or no it wouldn't be fair. Would it be fair for a teacher to give a student detention not because he did skip class but because he didn't but could have if he wanted to? Answer yes it would be a cruel and unusual punishment or no it would not be a cruel and unusual punishment. Would it be a cruel and unusual punishment for a jury to sentence a man, who forced no one, to life in prison -not because he did go on a shooting spree- but because he didn't but could have if he wanted to? Answer yes it would be stupid, cruel and unusual or no it wouldn't be stupid, cruel and unusual. Would it be stupid, cruel and unusual for the government to start the use of force against a doctor who forced no one -not because he did harm his patient and violate his rights- but because he didn't but might by accident or because he is able to do it if he wanted to? Answer yes it would be stupid, cruel and unusual or no it wouldn't be stupid, cruel and unusual. Would it be stupid, cruel and unusual for the government to start the use of force against an architect who forced no one -not because he did build a building which collapsed- but because he didn't but might by accident or because he is able to do it if he wanted to? (The defendents have forbidden me to offer to trade my architecture because I haven't but might build shoddy buildings. Also notice I claim I have the right to offer to trade that which is mine and no one else's. If I had the right to trade, no one could refuse to trade as I would have the right to trade). Answer yes or no. Can you be guilty of doing something you might do and are able to do but didn't do? Answer yes or no. Should you be punished for committing a crime you didn't but might commit? Answer yes it is right or no it isn't right. Is is right for you to be consitered by your government to be automatically guilty and treated as a criminal for crimes you didn't commit? Answer yes it is right or no it isn't right. Is it right for you to be regarded by your government as innocent until proven guilty? (If their answer to the second contradicts the first I shall say: Either you are guilty of committing a specific crime or you are not. Let me ask two rhetorical questions. How can you, in regards to the same specific crime, be guilty and innocent at the same time? If you're not automatically guilty and not automatically innocent, what are you?) The purpose of government courts is to determine whether the defendent is guilty of violating others rights. It is right for the government to deny the rights of he who violates others rights. It is a crime to violate others rights. Any action that does not violate others rights cannot rightly be consitered a crime. When you commit a crime the government duly and justly denies you some of your rights; the degree you violate others rights is the degree the government takes away your rights. You are innocent until and unless proven guilty. You are innocent so long as you do not violate others rights. My point is that you shouldn't be punished for a crime until and unless you commit it. So long as you respect -not violate- others rights, the government has no right to take away your rights. You can only violate others rights by force. Answer yes it is just or no is isn't just. Is it just to punish by force a man who forced no one -not because he did force others- but because he might and is able to but didn't force others? Government rightfully has a monopoly on the use of force. Criminals can only be punished by force as force is the only way to harness their rights. If no force was used in prison the criminals could walk out without resistance. How could you violate anothers right to property without forcing them? They could walk away and you couldn't force them. Answer yes it is just or no it isn't just. Is it just to force a man for committing crimes he didn't commit? Answer yes it is just or no it isn't just. Is it just to to force a man for committing crimes he is able to commit but didn't commit? Answer yes it is just or no it isn't just. Is it just to to force a man for committing crimes he might commit but didn't commit? By what right can you knowingly force a man in retaliation for commiting a crime he is able to and might but didn't commit? If all crime consists of violating others rights by and only by force -as rights can only be violated by force- can a man who forces no one be a criminal? Is the man who forces the unforceful man a criminal? I say no, a man who forces no one is not a criminal; I say yes, the man who forces the unforceful man is a criminal. Your regulations say yes, a man who forces no one is a criminal; your regulations say no, the man who forces the unforceful man is not a criminal. I'd like to ask if anyone see's any contradictions.
  6. If I give myself permission to rob you, do you have a problem with that? video 9:59