MrBenjamatic

The despots evade, they may be ignorant, but the point is they refuse to think and believe they have the right to enslave others and act on that premise. They're worse than gas chamber operators. Gas chamber operaters sentence instant death. Modern despots, toddlers in Washington sentence, by law, death by slow torture: a slow, tortously unbearable metaphorical choking on red tape Carol: Did you miss that I'm studying and developing my philosophy (that which guides my life objectively in accordance to Objectivism) along with my pursuit of creative work? I don't ask this as an insult but I thought I was clear and I only found out about Rand a year and a half ago and I'd been in a passionate pursuit of architecture since age 5. Gaining and keeping my architecture, since five, has always been a matter of life and death; and I've always, since five, been that passionate about sustaining my work and life. I think a great many think I found out about Rand and increased my speed and passion. I haven't, it's the same as it's always been. I make myself clear and my intentions clear as it would be just to remove hyper pretentious people from this website and I think if I don't prove I'm not pretentious I'll be removed and I like this website

That's what I thought when I first read the 9th amendment and upon reading the definition of 'enumeration'. Upon a little legal research, I discovered, from at least one reliable source, that the powers of Article 1, Section 8 are called enumerated powers. Then it clicked and I was very happy. I think the rights of one man having no right to contradict the rights of another man is a redundancy and is not, I have noticed, made clear in the Constitution except by the 5th amendment. Also, I believe I should thank you on correcting my mistake of further defining believe when it would obviously confuse. Before this website, in the philosophical conversation I engaged in, no one corrected me. I'm glad I was. Thanks.

I was told by someone who claimed to be an Objectivist, but did not take on faith, that if it is right to do something it is a right. Remember I did not take this on faith or even consiter it much before I posted #6. I know Rand said rights are a moral concept and I know thats because it is RiGHT to sustain ones life and one has to be RIGHT to sustain ones life and one needs the right to sustain ones live, the right to be virtuous (according to Objectivist ethis which does not violate others rights). My reason for posting #6 was the same as my reason for joing this website: to have my premises checked: I want to see what, in Objectivist philosophy, that premises contradicts, if it contradicts anything. Michael: It is right to act in absolute accordance to that which is true to the best of your ability. One, I very strongly hold, has a right to act in absolute accordance to that which is true. One has a right to sustain ones life so long as one does not initiate force and what other way can one sustain ones life if not by acting in absolute accordance to truth to the best of ones ability? I hold that the good is the practical acceptance of the right and the true. The evil is the practical acceptance of the wrong and the false. (There's probably a better way of wording the last two sentences). Simply, the good is in accordance with the right and the true and the evil is that which is not absolutely in accordance with the right and the true; that which is not absolutely true is false and that which is not absolutely right is wrong. When I say right, remember, it is right to think and it can't be wrong (immoral) to make mistakes. If it were wrong (immoral) to make mistakes, man (who is not infallible or omniscent) would be automatically evil, would have a tendency to be evil, as Christians hold he is. PDS: I have been studying Objectivism for 1.5 years vigorously. I studied it all day every day (except when I was working on my architecture). I had very little breaks as I can't stand long breaks. I was very dilligent and vigorous in studying Objectivism. If you are referring to my basing rights of the laws of logic I know I am right (moral) in doing that as my description of rights is in direct accordance with the law of causality with the laws of logic, both of which are absolutes. I know many people have construed me to be a hyperactive newby or something the like. Heres why, I think: I started with Objectivism by first grasping reason and other axioms. It took me about 3 months before discovering the laws of logic (for the Ayn Rand Lexicon which I used as my guide). But, after understanding the basic principles of objectivism I made my own conclusions which I compared to Rand's to check my premises. When I reached a contradiction (when my premises contradicted reality or objectivism), I checked mine and Ayn Rand's premises. Ayn always ended up being right. I have, in my pursuit, come to conclusions Rand didn't reach but I made sure that they don't contradict the laws of logic or Rand (as Rand has, so far, always been right). I've been doing this for over a year and a half and it has taken ALOT of thinking. Volumes of thought, as Rand put it, and I can't emphasize this point enough: ALOT of thinking. Atlas Shrugged was great in describing that one has to reach ones conclusions on one's own. I'm sure there are a number of Objectivists who try to merely accept what Rand said as true without understanding it which is almost as bad as taking her on faith. I was constantly on and read almost all (%75-%85) of the Ayn Rand Lexicon, so, yes, I could say I've read parts of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I'm reading it now and I haven't reached a point with which I don't agree with AND AT THE SAME TIME understand. I achieved my original goals of being able to completely understand Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (Although there is about 2% of the Atlas speech which I am working on understanding). I don't know you that well but I gather from your comments you think I'm pretentious (and you already called me audacious). That's fine and from, what you know of me so far, probably just. I don't condemn you in the least. I know I have a great ability and I've known it for a long time. But you couldn't have known that. You've only seen my skectches of my architecture and haute couture, that, for all you know, can't be brought to exist in reality; for all you know I could have not gone any farther than putting pencil to paper and may have made up knowlege of my ability to construct that which I've drawn (which is probably not all that clear to you either). You've only seen one small sculpture which I did a year ago and which I couldn't even make that intiricate due to having a limit on the size I could make it. Like I said, you're very very likely just in your remarks. Had you seen a building I built and you implied I'm pretentious and unduly bold, I'd say otherwise. I niether expect you nor anyone else to take me on faith on that which I can't prove past sketches and small clay sculpture. I can, however, exersize my intellectual ability here and, again, I joined this website for the sake of having my premises checked. And though my description of rights is distinct from Rands, I've been working diligently towards it for around a year and a half (every day) and it doesn't, to the extent of my knowlege, contradict Rand.

The despots know, to the degree they are able ignore it, that they are despots. They know they're liers as they can't avoid that fact no matter how hard they try to (and they violently try to). They passionatly try to convince themselves and others that they are working for a good cause because they're afraid of knowing they're evil (unfit for existence). They feel like they're running from a monster and they're too terrified to know that that monster is theirself. They're what Rand called parasites of lunacy. A mere lunatic has a mind which he divorced from reality; he doesn't care whether others believe in the non-reality he imagined which he holds as reality. A parasite of lunacy believes that if others believe in the non-reality they attempt to create, those who believe in it will create it by believing in it. For example, say the parasite of lunacy wishes the sky was orange; they believe if they get the majority of people or a certain number of people to believe that the sky is orange, it will turn orange for the mere reason that a certain number of people believed it was orange. Thas why they're called parasites of lunacy; they parasitically depend on others lunacy. Only a lunatic would take on faith that the sky is orange, that is the lunacy the parasites of lunacy depend on. The despots have a wildly insane epistemology. Its so wildly insane I'm interested by it. I want to create; that is the reason I'm fighting. The liberty to accept commissions (when and if they're offered) is a precondition of my architecture. How can I build when I'd be fined and arrested, and, if I, before getting arrested, constructed architecture, it would be torn down by the government after they found out how to tear it down. My means of construction are different and much more strong than modern architecture. And Ayn Rand was a bold O'ist. Don't you agree? And as for your saying "it has to be done independently" I completely agree. I studied Objectivism by learning the basics first: reason. I learned about reason and orinally thought it was the same as thinking. Anyway, I merely accepted reason and the laws of logic as objective absolutes, made my own conclusions then compared them to Rand's. When I reached a contradiction (when my premises contradicted reality or objectivism), I checked mine and Ayn Rand's premises. Ayn always ended up being right. I've been doing this for over a year and a half and it has taken ALOT of thinking. Volumes of thought, as Rand put it, and I can't emphasize this point enough: ALOT of thinking. Atlas Shrugged was great in describing that one has to reach ones conclusions on one's own. I'm sure there are a number of Objectivists who try to merely accept what Rand said as true without understanding it which is almost as bad as taking her on faith. To all who say I will wear myself out, I won't ask you to take me on faith that I won't. Only time can convince you. I'm as passionate about Objectivism as I have been about architecture since I was five. That's a long time. I have a great abilty and I know it and I would rot if I didn't exersize it; if I slowed down and tonned down my passionate pursuit, I'd rot. I'm sure others would tire out if they attempted my passionate pursuit of philosophy (which I pursue for the sole sake of my architecture (and life but my life would be worthless without my architecture)). Again, I've been this passionate about my architecture since age five and my work is the reason I found and studied Objectivism; I studied it for the sake of understanding better the reality in which I will build and to gain and keep the liberty to accept commissions when they're offered. Were philosophy unrelated to my work, I'd not be passionate about or interested in it whatsoever. But philosophy pertains to everything that exists including politics (liberty). What good is being the greatest architect in the history of mankind (which I've held as truth since at most age 16 and I'm 22) without the liberty to accept commissions? Had I had the liberty to accept commissions, I would by no means be this passionate about philosophy and I would not have discovered Ayn Rand.

Nope. That is not a Christian "forgiveness" I am advising. My version is closer to forebearance, as in *letting something go". It's fully rationally selfish to move on from a wrong commited by someone else - the converse, holding on to the effects of that wrong, will self-evidently do nobody but yourself harm. Also, essentially, you are giving that person a continuing power over you. (I'd argue it is form of altruism. Anyhow, it certainly isn't a healthy egoism.) At the rate I think your'e going, it looks like you are accumulating 'evils',left and right - to the point where you could lose perspective. Some things are bad, some are wrong - but it's the big principles that are evil. I kinda gather that some Objectivists do condemn too much, early on. A last piece of advice is: get thee to Branden's books, soonest. ----------- As for 'hyperfocus', you surely don't believe I'd recommend Holliwell's book if he used it as "separate from objective reality" - do you? Not a chance! No, he meant it as it reads - a (periodical) highly concentrated state of consciousness and cognition.. If someone is immoral (evil), I merely don't deal with them if I don't want to and the only reason I deal with those with whom I diagree is to have philosophical discussion as I enjoy understanding epistemology. Otherwise, I guess you could call my ignorance of evil which does not affect me (my life, my rights) ignorance and forbearance. I'm interested in who you think I'm allowing to hold power over me and how? I hold I do not lose perspective so long as I hold reason as an objective absolute, act on reason, purpose and self-esteem (which requires that I be virtuous in accordance to objective ethics). What evils do you think I'm aquiring, why do you think they're evil and how am I aquiring them? Cognitive is a words defined as being concerned with acquisition of knowledge: relating to the process of acquiring knowledge by the use of reasoning, intuition, or perception. I am always, not periodically, cognitive. If I gave up my pursuit of knowlege, whether it be philosophical or the metaphysics my architecture presupposes, I'd fall into an unbearable depression and knowledge would be my only practical antidote. As for consciousness, were I to attempt non-thinking, non-focus, I'd fall into a depression as well and consciousnes would be the antidote. The flaw in that theory of hyperfocus is that its not periodical. Yes, sometimes I'm more busy and passionate and inspired than other times but never have I ever lost my passion or my purpose. Sometimes I lose inspiration. Inspiration is periodical, I know. Sometimes I can't think of any big ideas or any ideas at all and my work will either be not original as opposed to my older which already exists or my work will be ugly. But, I can't stop drawing because its incredibly habitual and I'm in love with it.

As it is something of a tradition in Objectivist scholarship, I feel no shame in quoting my previously published writings. Carol and I are civilized enough to have a respectful disagreement during philosophical conversation. I'm merely here to have my premises checked. I have absolutely no intention to fight anyone, only to have polite, civilized and respectful philosophical conversation. That's all. I can't fathom how a civilized, respectful polite approach to philosophical discussion can result in being "punched out". Please correct me if I'm wrong. I never did understand what you meant by punching myself out of the first round if not by being vulgar, disrespectful and rudely fighting others. When a fighter enters the first round of a match, it is possible to "punch oneself out" by throwing too many punches, with too much energy, far too fast. When this happens, by the second or third round, the fighter has nothing left in terms of energy, and his arms are worn out. The phrase has nothing to do with civility or being vulgar or disrespectful. If you are still here posting in a month, or if this thread is still going strong, I promise to apologize. Fair enough? If I remember correctly, you said you're an objectivist and Carol said you were a lawyer. Do you know if a suit can be filed against a government agency or sanctioned collective for merely enforcing laws which force the unforceful against their will? I haven't yet committed civil disobedience and been caught (calling myself an architect in public which is against the law if I don't serve those I'm suing). Can I, without yet being forced, file a suit against those who make unconstitutional laws which, by law, will force me if I break them?

Nothing that is not alive can have its own purpose. I haven't heard Rand say that but I haven't, to the extent of my knowlege, contradicted any premises of mine in saying that. Do I make sense when I say only living entities can have a purpose? The only purpose of an instinctual or automatically acting living entity can be to sustain life. Does this make sense? And only man can set his own purpose.

I was told by two lawyers that I had to file in in a District Court. I was told by one shortly after I was beginning my case that I must file it in the court of appeals. I was told by the two lawyers that one has to lose in the district court in order to file at the Court of Appeals. I've called the courts but no one will offer legal advise about where to file which is incredibly impractical. . It would hardly be practical of them to advise you to go out and break the law so you can appeal your conviction. You hold I have to be forced in order to have grounds to sue as opposed to having laws which absolutely threaten force (which is enforced to be carried out as a law). Then you say that it would be impractical for an Objectivist (sorry I didn't mention that part) advisor to advise breaking the saw so I would be forced so to have grounds to sue. If their legal threat of force is not a crime unless they initiate it and if it's improper to break the unconstitutional laws forcing me not to be an architect, how on earth do you hold I would end up in a courtroom? You wouldn't. So I am correct, then, in assuming that this court case is invalid?

I was told by two lawyers that I had to file in in a District Court. I was told by one shortly after I was beginning my case that I must file it in the court of appeals. I was told by the two lawyers that one has to lose in the district court in order to file at the Court of Appeals. I've called the courts but no one will offer legal advise about where to file which is incredibly impractical. . It would hardly be practical of them to advise you to go out and break the law so you can appeal your conviction. You hold I have to be forced in order to have grounds to sue as opposed to having laws which absolutely threaten force (which is enforced to be carried out as a law). Then you say that it would be impractical for an Objectivist (sorry I didn't mention that part) advisor to advise breaking the saw so I would be forced so to have grounds to sue. If their legal threat of force is not a crime unless they initiate it and if it's improper to break the unconstitutional laws forcing me not to be an architect, how on earth do you hold I would end up in a courtroom?

It was most certaintly an error of the founding fathers to refer to the enumeration as being "certain rights". Wait, but isn't it right for government to use retalitary force against those who initiate its use in direct accordance to the degree rights were violated? I know it. I haven't read Rand's Capitalism all the way through yet or her description of rights save on Ayn Rand Lexicon. I was told, but didn't take on faith, that Rand said if it is right to do something, it is a right. That makes sense in regards to individuals, however, the government is NOT an individual and there can be no such thing as collective rights. I'm right in saying that aren't I?

Yes-- it is the regulatory laws, which he hasn't broken, which aim to prevent Ben from practising as an architect. The architectural groups he names, have never done anything to him, They just exist. He seems to be saying, their existence violates his rights. Their existence doesn't violate my rights. Its they who creates the laws which initiates force against me if I call myself an architect in public or accept a commission without involuntarily serving them. They forbid me to be an architect for my own sake without giving or asking for help. If I don't serve them, they'll have me arrested because they claim the right to force a man who has forced no one because that man didn't but might force others. Do I make sense? But they haven't had you arrested or forced you to anything. Nor did they force you to join the architecture program. I'll have to call the legal advisor who I spoke to as it is essentially the rules of filing suit which matter. I can see where you're coming from and I don't agree however, I'll consiter, upon discussing it with the legal advisor, committin civil disobeience this week by calling the AIA or another AAC member and call myself an architect, advertise and ask if they would please give me a commission. Then there can be no dispute as to whether I would be forced against my will if I broke their laws. Actually once I finish my case which should be in at most 20 days.

OH! Are you saying that force has to be committed against me in order to consiter it a crime. I get it. But is it not the law (which threatens to initiates force against me) that is enforced by the government and must be, under the threat of force, followed by all. Such force is in my way. Do you see a contradiction here?

Yes-- it is the regulatory laws, which he hasn't broken, which aim to prevent Ben from practising as an architect. The architectural groups he names, have never done anything to him, They just exist. He seems to be saying, their existence violates his rights. Their existence doesn't violate my rights. Its they who creates the laws which initiates force against me if I call myself an architect in public or accept a commission without involuntarily serving them. They forbid me to be an architect for my own sake without giving or asking for help. If I don't serve them, they'll have me arrested because they claim the right to force a man who has forced no one because that man didn't but might force others. Do I make sense?

I was told by two lawyers that I had to file in in a District Court. I was told by one shortly after I was beginning my case that I must file it in the court of appeals. I was told by the two lawyers that one has to lose in the district court in order to file at the Court of Appeals. I've called the courts but no one will offer legal advise about where to file which is incredibly impractical. I most certaintly will commit civil disobedience if I have to though I know I deserve money for my involuntary services as a slave and as my rights were vigorously violated and that the law still forces me down in the position of a slave. You asked in the last sentence of you're first paragraph: Correct me if I'm wrong. I hope you are and that I can gain and keep the money I deserve however freedom is a much greater value that any amount of money. Honestly, with so many contradicting legal advise, I can't say who is right and who is wrong. I recieved an email from a man with legal knowlege though my legal vocabulary is in short supply so I couldn't understand much but I'll try to look the terms up. I hope he can help- what a horrid hassle it would be to wait 2 years till trial and to find out I filed in the wrong court. The palpable loss is of my rights. I was utterly sleep deprived, so much in fact that I was hallucinating and couldn't walk straight without concentrating and the like. The sleep deprivation was caused by the architecture program projects and ALL architectural programs are regulated and enslaved by the AAC (AIA, AIAS, NCARB, NAAB, ACSA). I was originally going to sue Kent State for my sleep deprivation and the violation of my rights however I think its too late, or so I've been told.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough, and, as I remember you're not an Objectivist so you might not agree with me. When I say sensory evidence I mean I've used, as a guide, the legislation regulating architecture from the villains websites. My other evidence is not sensory its one single brilliant axiom: a thing is itself, and it's corollary axioms: contradictions cannot exist, either-or. The laws of logic are what I directly base rights off of and the laws of logic are absolutes, they apply to every single piece of sensory evidence that ever existed. The laws of logic are the most self-evident facts I could ever bring to court and I am. I can't wait! I need no supporting witnesses. I have proved by the laws of logic that my rights have been violated and the AAC legislation further proves it. My case consists of proving each law to be based on the false and the wrong and thereby is evil and I prove how and why each law violates my rights.

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court. Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court? iI don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case. Do you know why? That is a polemic, not an argument for a court. Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court? iI don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case. Do you know why? That is a polemic, not an argument for a court. Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court? iI don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case. Do you know why? Because most cases like this are decided by a judge or panel of judges, not a jury. Judges must go by the book, by the interpretation of the law as it exists, and usually have heard passionate speeches on every side, their job being to weigh the passion and the letter and spirit of the law.,I know there are plenty of judges who have agendae and will love a passionate speech when it ties in with their own passions. But even on judges there are checks and balances. Actually this case will include, as I was told by the District Court today, a jury. I haven't filed suit yet as I'm editing the case which I will hand in, however I did call and check. I agree that emotion should not be taken into account in making a verdict; if it were the winning party could win by merely making an angrier face than the other party. I'll probably get a tad bit emotional when discussing my right to offer to trade the architecture I've been diligently pursuing since age 5, as, I think, that's unavoidable. However, I do know that sensory evidence which proves that a violation of human rights has been committed by the defendant should justly be taken into account. I'm sure you agree.

Till death. If the maggots want to stop me they'll have to kill me. I mean that literally.

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court. Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court? iI don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case. Do you know why?

As it is something of a tradition in Objectivist scholarship, I feel no shame in quoting my previously published writings. Carol and I are civilized enough to have a respectful disagreement during philosophical conversation. I'm merely here to have my premises checked. I have absolutely no intention to fight anyone, only to have polite, civilized and respectful philosophical conversation. That's all. I can't fathom how a civilized, respectful polite approach to philosophical discussion can result in being "punched out". Please correct me if I'm wrong. I never did understand what you meant by punching myself out of the first round if not by being vulgar, disrespectful and rudely fighting others. When a fighter enters the first round of a match, it is possible to "punch oneself out" by throwing too many punches, with too much energy, far too fast. When this happens, by the second or third round, the fighter has nothing left in terms of energy, and his arms are worn out. The phrase has nothing to do with civility or being vulgar or disrespectful. If you are still here posting in a month, or if this thread is still going strong, I promise to apologize. Fair enough? I would agree with you if I was new to Objectivism. I have, however, been diligently studying Objectivism for over a year and a half and I've had as many philosophical debates as I could for as long as I could. You would not know that though. As for energy, I've been this passionate about my work since age 5 and my work is the purpose which brought me here. I haven't tired yet, save once or twice while living in Kent. If slavery and government threats of guns and force can't tire me, this philosophical discussion website surely won't. P.S. There's absolutely no need to apologize for a prediction ;)

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court. Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court?

I agree completely. The 9th Amendment stated, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". I agree, it cannot be a government right to regulate others, "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" (13th Amendment). I haven't, however, read a 1939 SCOTUS decision. I can't find it on the web. What exactly is it?

As it is something of a tradition in Objectivist scholarship, I feel no shame in quoting my previously published writings. Carol and I are civilized enough to have a respectful disagreement during philosophical conversation. I'm merely here to have my premises checked. I have absolutely no intention to fight anyone, only to have polite, civilized and respectful philosophical conversation. That's all. I can't fathom how a civilized, respectful polite approach to philosophical discussion can result in being "punched out". Please correct me if I'm wrong. I never did understand what you meant by punching myself out of the first round if not by being vulgar, disrespectful and rudely fighting others. It has been construed by Carol that in writing this I am calling you vulgar and rude. I do not consiter you to be vulgar or rude and I thought I should make this clear. Also, my question a couple sentences back was intended to question your premises and not to bite.

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.

Licensing laws, essentially, are created by collective despot and wanna-be slave-drivers who want obedience for the sake of obedience, who want power for the sake of power, who shackle genius for the sake of shackling genius, who enforce slavery for the sake of slavery, who are evil for the sake of evil. I could speak for a very long time on their epistemology and how they got that way but that should be the topic for another discussion. They say that they create these shackles which they call laws to protect the "public interest, health, safety and welfare". The argument of my case: if the "public interest, health, safety and welfare" requires slavery -and it does according to their laws- then the public interest, health, safety and welfare be damned!

I recommend you to read the second paragraph of post #65 which I wrote to Reidy. That is my answer. Do you have any arguments against it? Also, 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.