tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54171312308018746672024-02-08T07:58:06.768-08:00What Do People Mean When They Say ThatI plan to look at commonly used words and phrases and ponder what people mean when they use that particular word or phrase. I have read a lot of things and been in many conversations, mostly political, where it is obvious to me that a word or phrase a person uses does not mean to me what it means to the person using it.Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5417131230801874667.post-86436717394917653772013-05-27T08:26:00.002-07:002013-05-27T08:27:13.523-07:00Reflections on Memorial Day 2013Facebook asks me,<span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent"> "What's on your mind?"</span></span><br />
<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent"> Some thoughts on Memorial Day.<br />
I come to this Memorial Day with mixed emotions. I do not want to
insult any of my friends who rally behind the idea that those who died
in past wars or current and past non-war conflicts did so in defense of
our freedom and liberty.<br /> I have many friends who know better, many of them are a bit ruthless with their position about the above.<br />
I know that most of those who went off to fight THOUGHT they were doing
so to protect our freedoms "here at home" and I do not want to diminish
the loss of lives, limbs, minds, nor loved ones. However, they were
victims of propaganda when they concluded they were fighting for my
right to say this.<br /> Hell, I was one of those propaganda victims
myself. I spent 6 years in the submarine navy. And I most likely just
did it for the education, the GI bill, and because the economy sucked so
bad at the time. <br /> <br /> So, let me just say I honor the intent of
those who were convinced they were protecting us here at home. I mourn
their losses. I grieve for them and their families and friends.<br /> <br />
On the other hand, I also grieve for all those men, women, and children
who have died or been maimed or had children with horrible birth
defects in all the countries we are now invading or have invaded in the
past allegedly to defend our freedoms here at home. It does not take
more than about 15 seconds of reflection upon the words "attack" and
"defend" to understand that what we are doing overseas, and all those
who have suffered, both "our guys" and "them over there" have suffered
for a lie.<br /> <br /> Which one of those who died, "ours" or "theirs" was
the one who would have discovered the cure for cancer? or written the
next great symphony? or penned the novel that caught enough attention
about war and the devastation of war that people really did wake up to
the fraud that has been perpetrated on us all that perpetuates the "war
mentality"? or raised enough resources to feed and clothe those in need?
Or, well, you get the picture. There are minds in all those bodies.
Minds that could have been of benefit to humanity if they were not
snuffed out before they had the chance to reach their full potential.<br /> <br />
We can defend our freedoms here at home here at home. We can't defend
our freedoms here at home by "killing them over there before they kill
us over here," because then we are the invading force. We are the ones
in the wrong. We are the ones who are destroying everything we claim as
good.<br /> <br /> I long for the Memorial Day when we have no standing army
and the defense we have here at home is simply us. Armed and defending
ourselves from all enemies foreign and DOMESTiC. I honestly think our
domestic enemies are much more of a threat to our freedom and liberty
than any foreign enemy could ever be.<br /> <br /> Freedom isn't free, but then again, neither is slavery.</span></span></h5>
Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5417131230801874667.post-55767925320560376282013-04-06T22:21:00.000-07:002013-04-06T22:21:20.953-07:00We should require welfare recipients to take a drug test<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">Someone on my FB feed had posted a picture with a caption saying "Like if you think we should have mandatory drug tests for welfare recipients" or something close to that.<br />I replied:</span></span><br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">I can't "Like".<br />
A. I don't think drug tests should be mandatory for anyone, anywhere,
any time. If an employer, with no coercion from government, chooses to
require them as part of the conditions for a voluntary relationship,
there can, logically, be nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of
options for people who don't want to be subjected to drug testing in a
voluntary society. One not based on the threat of the initiation of
violence.<br /> B. There should be no welfare recipients. There should be
no one receiving property that was taken from another by the initiation
or threat of initiation, of violence. In effect, that is receiving
stolen property.<br /> C. Welfare recipients exist as a result of
government intervention into the economy in the form of licensing and
regulations, none of which exist to actually protect the consumer. They
only exist to grow the state.<br /> D. I do not mean to abuse the theory of the victim mentality, but in a sense, these people are victims.<br />
One for instance, just to bring some perspective. A young woman is
really great at doing nails or styling hair, and could make a decent
living at it, but can't afford to go to school to take a test to get a
license.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">Then I accidentally hit Enter without shift. That "commits" the reply.<br />I was going to edit it, then I decided to just add another reply, then I decided I should just post it to my blog, Here.</span></span><br />
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show"><br /></span></span>
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">Oh, and if I choose to use drugs, do you, acting on your own as an individual person, have the right or authority to prevent me from "using" drugs or from trading something of MINE with another person in exchange for drugs?<br />How do you come by that right?<br />If you do not have that right or authority, in a REPRESENTATIVE government, how can your representative, your delegate, your proxy, obtain that right or authority?<br />You can only delegate to your representative an action you could take on your own. And generally, if someone would have to choose whether or not to risk his life defending himself from your attempts to prevent him from taking an action, then you do not have the right or authority to make that claim.<br />I cannot understand how, in a society supposedly based on this,</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.</span></span><br /><br /><span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..."</span></span></blockquote>
<span class="userContent"><span class="text_exposed_show">people can have grown to think that somehow voting changes that relationship.<br />How can you vote yourself any right or authority you do not already possess?<br />How can you say that because a large enough gang called this taking of your property or pushing you around a "law" that that assertion somehow is able to supercede the natural law stated above?<br />How can you and I be equal if you can take my stuff or tell me what I can't or must do?<br />No matter who actually understands them, and I don't think most of the founders really understood what they were saying, the principles don't change. <br />All men are created equal is practically axiomatic. Please tell me what is a more fundamental principle than that, which could logically negate it?<br />Unless someone can state a more fundamental principle, that actually negates "all men are created equal," and it does not yield to contradictions; or if there are contradictions found with "all men are created equal," someone can find the question that yields the contradictions, then we can work to find an answer that resolves whatever the contradiction is. <br />Because I can immediately find a contradiction in calling something a "law" that claims to provide authority to violate the rights of another.</span></span>Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5417131230801874667.post-58376950267682918222012-06-09T12:38:00.000-07:002012-06-09T12:38:30.517-07:00the will of the majority sometimes trumps the will of the individual (or You say the same shit all the time)(as has been the case in many of my blentries, this was prompted by a comment made to one of my wall posts on FB: <br />Someone said: "You say the same shit all the time." <br />to which someone replied: "There's a word for that. Consistency." <br />I thought of replying after I had gone to bed and had to text to my gmail with a 160 char limit. So I merged it. I don't really have the time to go back through and clean it all up or elaborate or cut any out, so here it is.) <br /><br />Yes, consistent with a certain fundamental principle. That each person has a right to his own life. So I ask questions and pose situations that in some way violate that principle to see if anyone gets the contradiction. <br /><br />I am trying to get someone, anyone, to think outside the cube of politics as competing groups of thugs claiming monopoly authority to wield initiatory violence over a certain geographic region. Nothing of substance will change until a sufficient number of people understand this. <br /><br />Most people think I believe in some sort of Utopia. The truth is I understand this cube you all desire to live in though none of you can explain it to me in terms that do not violate that principle. <br />"Sometimes the will of the majority has to override the will of the individual." <br />Okay, I'll bite. How does that NOT violate the principle of each individual person's right to his own life? <br />Or they admit it does and claim this action is somehow more fundamental than that principle. <br />I see it (the principle of each individual person's right to his own life) as axiomatic. <br />Or does there exist a principle more fundamental than each person's right to his own life? <br /><br />sorry.typing as a text on my phone.160 char limit.lost my place. <br /><br />What is the more fundamental principle? If there is one, you have to be able to apply it universally. <br />50%+1? <br />All those of Chinese and Indian descent in the world join forces and vote the rest of the world is using up all the scarce resources and must be exterminated. Each person not of Chinese or Indian descent would have to go willingly without trying to defend himself. He agreed in principle majority rules. <br /><br />So what else might supercede it? <br />The most guns and ability to conscript enough bodies to be heroes and sacrifice their lives for "this gang," whatever motivates people to do this. <br />How well does this work? <br />The KKK gets to lynch all the negroes they want for whatever reason they want until a bigger gang can be raised to stop them. <br />How does that other gang, just because they are bigger and claim a superior monopoly territory, get to decide the fate of those negroes? Superior firepower and an ability to conscript a superior number of bodies to be heroes and give their lives for the ones who claim the jurisdiction. <br /><br />hmmmm. <br />Is that the walls of the cube I am trying to get people to think outside? <br /><br />If you say either of those is more fundamental than each person's right to his own life you can't claim a limit on the actions based on the principle. Since the principle itself is 50%+1, how do you get to tell me where the line is drawn? Do you claim to be the +1 in agreement with the 50%? <br />See, the principle of each person's right to his own life provided that 100% of negroes lived. Where the "principle" of 50%+1 or the "principle" of most fire power and ability to conscript the most heroes to die for the rulers seems to have failed quite a few of them. <br /><br />There are also those who say that there is no such thing as "rights" that "rights" don't exist as a tangible entity, so to use the concept of rights is a fallacious position. To them I just have to wonder what it is they use as a frame of reference? Is there some world view that does not include the concept of "rights" as a short hand with which to evaluate situations and actions that would be consistent in such things as the KKK lynching negroes in the south of the USofA or the government of the USofA murdering hundreds of thousands in other countries or even not having someone else move into the house you live in (can't really say "your" house, since possession pretty much implies the right to possess which has as its root the right to ones own life) or drive the car that is parked in the driveway of the house you live in or take the wallet out of the pocket of the pants that are on the body that houses the person reading this. <br />Man, not having the concept of "rights" as a short hand sure makes it take a lot of words to say something.<br /><br />And people think I don't realize I have to live inside this cube. <br />"We" have to figure these things out one at a time over time. Why can't we extrapolate that every one of these discoveries had as a root the violation of the principle Of each person's right to his own life? <br /><br />That's why I always say the same shit. Including the "shit" of finding contradictions and bringing them to the surface to see how they can be resolved.Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5417131230801874667.post-52497547306509737922012-02-11T04:14:00.000-08:002012-02-11T04:14:55.999-08:00I don't live in the real world.I often wonder, when my liberal or conservative friends tell me I don't live in the real world because I can actually envision living in a world where no one has a free pass to take other people's stuff and tell them what they can't and must do, just who it is they think actually needs to be pushed around to be made to behave.<br />
<br />
Me? Do they think if I'm not pushed around and robbed and threatened with death if I do not cooperate I would try to take their stuff and tell them what they can't and must do?<br />
Well, I wouldn't. And I don't now. And it's not because of their threats by proxy.<br />
<br />
I have stated publicly in my seldom visited (even by me) blog that I have no proxy. (So I think I will post this there.) No one acts in MY stead to take other people's stuff and tell them what they can't and must do. Besides, I don't have the right to do that, anyway, so how could I delegate someone to do that for me?<br />
<br />
Themselves? Is it that they think they would try to take my stuff and tell me what I can't and must do?<br />
Why the hell would they think that? I promise, I won't try to take your stuff and tell you what you can't and must do. I'd appreciate that consideration be returned.<br />
But, you know what? It won't. Because too many of you (pretty much all) won't make the same claim. You will claim that I'm not living in the real world so some gang of people need to be able to push me around and threaten me with death to make me do things I wouldn't do by my own choice. They think because I do these things it is because I do them voluntarily. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do them under ultimately the threat of death. Same with the things I am told not to do that I would do without the threat of death. <br />
Then, I'm ALWAYS told I am the one waving the gun around (because I know that people have the right to self defense and the necessary tools for that self defense). No one can explain how I am the virtual gun waver. I'm simply pointing out the gun they are waving through their proxy. <br />
And as regards people trying to take my stuff. I would prefer you didn't. If I can't reason with you and have us both understand that it is in both of our best interests to live in a society where we do not have to always look over our shoulder, because someone might be after our stuff, then when you come to take it you should not be protected by a monopoly on the initiation of violence from my defense of my property. No matter your badge, title or uniform. But most of you are, at least by proxy. Because the force of so many alleged proxies is overwhelming and the whole liberty or death thing takes on a pretty ominous meaning.<br />
<br />
And I'm told I don't live in the real world. Because I can't wrap my head around why it is inevitable that THIS is the real world. Just about everybody I talk to comprehends somehow that THIS is the way it has to be. Why? Are you the one who wants it to be like this?<br />
<br />
So, here's a kicker. I'm told I need to work to change it. By voting and writing my congress critter and what not. As if trying to reason with people isn't working to change things. <br />
And I am told that I can't force my views on people. My views being I can't force my views on people, in a society based on reason, not force. Why don't people see the incongruity in telling me that?<br />
Which leads to, how can I work within a system based on force not reason to create a society based on reason not force?<br />
If anyone can explain to me how it is I am supposed to do that, I would appreciate it.<br />
All I can do to work to change the world to one more my liking is to try to reason with people to interact with me only voluntarily.<br />
So when people say I am stupid for thinking that. Or a moron. Or (I can't even figure this one out) a ditto head, does that mean those people desire to take my stuff and tell me what I can't and must do? That is the only conclusion I can draw. If I am incorrect, what is it I am missing?<br />
<br />
And I am accused of parroting other people. Another claim I just don't get. I don't know enough people who think the way I do to have very many people to parrot off of. I have been finding more lately. But I formed my ideas more by thinking about them than by reading about them. Yes, when I read I do hear someone express something I know in different words, maybe. So I use those words as well. Who knows what arrangement of words will actually spark a certain array of synapses in someone and a light will go on. Or, I might even run across a string of words that expresses it in such a way that I see a contradiction. Then I would need to resolve it. By asking and answering questions.<br />
<br />
So, here is the fundamental contradiction I see in "the real world" expressed as a statement:<br />
"We need a select group of people, different in kind from the rest of us, who are granted a monopoly on the initiation of violence to be utilized to take our stuff and tell us what we can't and must do, to protect us from people who would try to take our stuff and tell us what we can't and must do."<br />
<br />
In what way(s) can this contradiction be resolved?<br />
<br />
And what is the fundamental contradiction in my fantasy world (and it being a fantasy world cannot, in and of itself, be a contradiction)?Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5417131230801874667.post-4650755648018032572011-08-31T17:15:00.000-07:002011-08-31T17:15:40.846-07:00We need to pay for personal property damage from Hurricane IreneI've heard a lot of bickering about who is supposed to be getting bailed out of what tragedy. Many people are claiming if the other guy gets assistance it is being take from the assistance they should be getting.<br />
<br />
What I don't understand is how they can be fighting over money that is extorted from me (and you) (and the other guy).<br />
<br />
Davy Crockett had to be reminded of this fact.<br />
<br />
From "The Life of Colonel David Crockett", by Edward S. Ellis<br />
(Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884):<br />
<br />
CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.<br />
<br />
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support—rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:<br />
<blockquote> "Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.<br />
<br />
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount.<br />
<br />
There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt.<br />
<br />
The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.<br />
<br />
Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks." <br />
</blockquote><br />
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.<br />
<br />
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.<br />
<br />
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.<br />
<br />
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:<br />
<br />
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."<br />
<br />
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said: "Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."<br />
<br />
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:<br />
<br />
SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.<br />
<br />
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.<br />
<br />
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.<br />
<br />
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."<br />
<br />
He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."<br />
<br />
I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and…"<br />
<br />
"’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’<br />
<br />
This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.<br />
<br />
"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."<br />
<br />
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."<br />
<br />
"No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"<br />
<br />
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."<br />
<br />
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"<br />
<br />
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:<br />
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."<br />
<br />
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.<br />
<br />
So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.<br />
<br />
No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.<br />
<br />
The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."<br />
<br />
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:<br />
<br />
"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."<br />
<br />
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:<br />
<br />
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."<br />
<br />
He laughingly replied:<br />
<br />
"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."<br />
<br />
"If I don’t," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."<br />
<br />
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday a week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."<br />
<br />
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye… I must know your name."<br />
<br />
"My name is Bunce."<br />
<br />
"Not Horatio Bunce?"<br />
<br />
"Yes."<br />
<br />
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."<br />
<br />
We shook hands and parted.<br />
<br />
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.<br />
<br />
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.<br />
<br />
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.<br />
<br />
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.<br />
<br />
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him—no, that is not the word—I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.<br />
<br />
But to return to my story: The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me.<br />
<br />
In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:<br />
<br />
"Fellow citizens—I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."<br />
<br />
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:<br />
<br />
"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.<br />
<br />
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."<br />
<br />
He came upon the stand and said:<br />
<br />
"Fellow citizens—It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."<br />
<br />
He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.<br />
<br />
I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.<br />
<br />
"NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.<br />
<br />
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men—men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5417131230801874667.post-89737587203778010552011-06-15T03:08:00.000-07:002011-06-15T03:08:46.625-07:00rights don't exist.What do people mean when they say there's no such thing as rights?<br />
I don't mean anything when I say it. I'm just quoting other people.<br />
I was working on this a while ago. I haven't had the time to finish it, but I have wanted to get it posted here and I have a lot on my plate. So, I'll just paste it here as is. I don't even think I'll proof read it. I do want to get back to this later.<br />
<br />
I'll see if I can track down the cites. I started this a long time ago, so it might take a while.<br />
<br />
Here it is.<br />
<br />
I've been reading about and discussing the view that rights are not inherent in the nature of humans. This point of view has been expressed by a few of the people I know who, if labels express anything, would be libertarians or voluntaryists. I have also been examining the rigor of my understanding of rights mostly with my brother David who would most likely be, if labels express anything, a liberal of the left wing type, not classical liberal.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[Column by new Root Striker Dabooda.<br />
<br />
I question the usefulness of the idea that people have natural, god-given, inalienable human rights. It's been given a fair trial over the last several centuries, and it doesn't work.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
"Rights" do not exist. The power of choice does. Men are free to act with respect for the individual liberties of others, or to act without respect. There is no such force as a natural right that will reward virtuous action, or punish evil. There is only one force in human affairs. That is the force of individual will. Freedom is a choice, not a right.]</blockquote><br />
"Rights" defines a concept. "Rights" is not an object that exists in concrete form. And, yes, "rights" has no agency. "Rights" in and of itself was never meant to protect you.<br />
<br />
Why is it any different in kind to say, "Men are free to act with respect for the rights of others, or to act without respect." than to say, "Men are free to act with respect for the individual liberties of others, or to act without respect"? "Rights" and "individual liberties" have the same root.<br />
<br />
The way I see it "rights" defines a relationship between any 2 individual people. It's a reciprocal relationship. Basically, it could be defined as don't force yourself on the other person. Or respect other people's individual liberties. Including their liberties to make their own choices about their own stuff.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[Column by new Root Striker Dabooda.<br />
<br />
The worst feature of the fable of "rights" is the belief that we are entitled to receive them -- <br />
...<br />
Your "right" not to be mugged is of no use to you, in the face of any random thug who doesn't believe in such nonsense. (Which makes him smarter than you.) So if you prefer not to be mugged, it is not useful to count on your "rights;" better to examine your choices. Your choice to carry a gun or to avoid dark alleys will be of infinitely more use to you than your "right" not to be mugged.]</blockquote><br />
I wonder how it makes him smarter? Because you both know you could use force on the other to get his stuff, but you choose not to? It makes him a thug. Is it smarter to want to live in a society where you always have to watch your back?<br />
<br />
Again, rights cannot act. You are not counting on rights to do anything to protect you. The choice you are making is to exercise your rights or protect your rights. You carry a gun and don't walk down dark alleys in order to protect your right not to be mugged.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[Column by new Root Striker Dabooda.<br />
<br />
...<br />
Make the choice to defend those freedoms you value. And if someone tries to stomp on your freedom, you will have to choose what to do about it. You can accept the stomping, and lose your freedom, by default. Or you can fight back. If you do so impulsively, stupidly, ineffectively, you can still lose and get stomped. But with planning, ingenuity and perseverance, you can win. Especially if you have help from like-minded friends and allies.<br />
...]</blockquote><br />
What is the difference between defending the freedoms you value and defending your rights? Do most people understand "freedoms" better than they understand "rights"? They are each words that define certain concepts.<br />
<br />
If you are asking your like-minded friends for help, what are you asking them to help you with? How do you justify it?<br />
<br />
You certainly don't have to use the concept of rights, but neither do you have to discard it. <br />
<br />
The problem isn't that the word has no utility, it is that people do not use more precision in the definition of their words. My choice is to try to get people to understand a more precise definition or use of the concept.<br />
<br />
If you understand that the right to your property does not allow for a special class of people with a free pass to violate your property rights you will understand most of what you have to say above about your individual liberties. If you don't understand it, you won't understand all your efforts to say the same thing without using the word "rights".<br />
<br />
One of the things I have discovered by discussing this with David is the rigor of my understanding of "rights". I took it for granted before he challenged me to ask the question that the concept of rights was self-evident. <br />
Through thinking, which is no more than the art of finding and resolving contradictions by asking and answering questions, I discovered that "rights" are not self-evident. <br />
<br />
Does that negate the value of "rights" as a concept?<br />
<br />
David claims they have no validity because they have no agency. So, I asked him to coin a word that has all the attributes of "rights" except the attribute of agency. I don't think agency is a valid attribute of "rights". Rights do not act. They would only require agency if they were to act. "Rights" defines a concept. The concept can be true or false. But it does not cease to exist because it cannot protect the bearer of the right from alienation. It does not cease to exist because it is violated. Because your property is taken from you does not negate the right to your property. If it did, what would that mean? As soon as it is taken, you cannot legitimately go get it back and ask for assistance in getting it back, because you lost your right to it when it was taken. Your right to it defines WHY you can legitimately go get it back, ask for help getting it back and protect it from being taken in the first place.<br />
<br />
========<br />
<blockquote>[From a reply to MamaLiberty posting the above by<br />
Jefferson Scott Davis<br />
...<br />
Well, that's the problem and this article highlights that point. According to the values that I adhere to, I have no right to make people believe anything and I have no right to force people to do the "right" thing. However, even voluntaryists seem to fall victim to the compulsion to fix the world and make it "better." Well, according to whose standards?<br />
...]</blockquote><br />
Exactly. And you used the word "right" in that statement. And people knew pretty close to what you meant when you used it in "no right to...", didn't they? "Rights" has to do with not using force. So, no, you don't have a right to force your beliefs on others. Neither does anyone else. But you can't exercise the right to your property because there are people with a veneer of a free pass to violate your rights without repercussion.<br />
Why?<br />
There is no wiggle room for that in the definition of "rights". Those people have no more a claim to violate your rights than do the people they claim they are protecting you from. How do they resolve that contradiction? What answer to questions about that contradiction are they able to state that does not lead to another contradiction?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[From a reply to MamaLiberty posting the above by<br />
Jefferson Scott Davis<br />
...The notion of rights is all a part of statist hegemony.]</blockquote><br />
I don't see why it is necessarily a part of statist hegemony. If so, it is like any other tool being misused. If one understands that a part of "rights" is its reciprocity they would know that they don't have a right to health care or the definition of "rights" would involve a contradiction. How does the concept "right to health care" not involve a contradiction to the word "right"? Who provides the health care? Does he have no rights to decide what to do with his time and talent? If so, there is a contradiction. What questions might be asked to resolve it? What statements made? What changes to the definition of rights?<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[By Paul Bonneau<br />
<br />
Exclusive to STR<br />
...<br />
For example, no longer believing this phantasm "right to life" is out there somehow protecting you, you might take a little more responsibility to defend your life on your own. You might actually go out and buy that gun, rather than just thinking about it.<br />
...]</blockquote><br />
Here again we see the fallacy that rights somehow are able to act. Why is it that even libertarians have this misunderstanding about "rights"?<br />
What is the purpose of the concept of "right to life"?<br />
How do people reach the conclusion that "right to life" should somehow embody invulnerability and if it doesn't it is not a valid word?<br />
Your right to life is WHY you go out and buy the gun, if you do. Your right to life only defines a reciprocal relationship between you and any other human being. You don't take his life, he doesn't take yours. That is your right to life. You buy the gun because you know there are some who won't respect your right to life. If you defend yourself from another person and take his life in the process, if you don't have a right to life then you don't have a valid defense for why you took his life. If you don't have a right to life and another person takes your life it's tuff noogies. Big deal. Life goes on for others.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[By Paul Bonneau<br />
<br />
Exclusive to STR<br />
...<br />
If you examine the previous list, it looks like these effects, by and large, are positive things. Thus, giving up on the "right to life" meme has a positive result on one's life!<br />
...]</blockquote><br />
The effects mentioned were all related to taking responsibility for one's self and one's actions, especially in the area of defending one's right to life. There is quite a bit at the article. How does giving up on the meme have anything to do with the effects?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[By Paul Bonneau<br />
<br />
Exclusive to STR<br />
...<br />
The less credit people give to this notion of rights, the less credibility there will be for memes that mimic the supposed "real" rights (negative rights)--the positive ones. That is, if the expression of a "right to life" draws guffaws, then how far will other people get expressing a "right to health care" or a "right to free schooling"? Positive rights are clearly supported by the notion of rights in general. Withdraw that support, and they fall also. How wonderful could our world be if the majority of people doubted there was any right at all to rob their neighbor for some supposed social good? If it was considered robbery, plain and simple, with no justification?<br />
...]</blockquote><br />
Again, it seems to me that the problem lies not with the use of the concept of rights but with the lack of a precise definition. <br />
Why would you want to draw guffaws at the expression of a "right to life"?<br />
How could that help you in understanding whether or not a "right to health care" or a "right to free schooling" was a valid claim?<br />
If you don't have a right to life and by extension a right to your property, how do you deny others the right to health care at your expense? Why shouldn't they have it? How do you define robbery plain and simple if you don't have a right to life and property?<br />
No one has a "right to health care" nor a "right to free schooling" by definition of the word right. If someone does, then "right" has no meaning and you can't claim they have no claim on you to fund their schooling.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[By Paul Bonneau<br />
<br />
Exclusive to STR<br />
...<br />
When you dig into this, you begin to realize that the meme of "rights" is much beloved by the state and its minions. That should give pause to anarchists, I would think. Fighting for rights is doing battle on the enemy's favored ground. Jeff Snyder has commented on this: "...to fight for the establishment of rights or for recognition of rights by one's government involves tacit subordination to the state." <br />
...]</blockquote><br />
No, what one needs to do is clarify rights. Your rights define a relationship between you and other people. Governments have nothing to do with it. Governments do claim their legitimacy by claiming to protect people from those who intend to violate their rights. If governments truly recognized and respected individual rights they would be benign. But governments are a contradiction. They violate the very rights the protection of which they claim is their sole reason for existing in order to protect them.<br />
You're not fighting for their establishment or recognition. You're simply stating a fact. In many less words than it takes to state it while trying to avoid using the word "rights" you could state it as "a right".<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[By Paul Bonneau<br />
<br />
Exclusive to STR<br />
...<br />
But notice, these are not independent variables. I alluded to it earlier; if someone stops believing in a right to life, one naturally compensates by buying a gun. The removal of a "right to life" may in fact decrease the overall murder rate due to these other compensating factors.<br />
...]</blockquote><br />
I skipped, from Paul's article, all the factoring of what impact the lack of a "right to life" would have on the murder rate. Why don't you just buy a gun to protect your right to life? What is it you are doing with the gun? What are you protecting yourself from if you don't have a right to life? How do you defend yourself from charges of murder if you kill someone who is trying to kill you? How many words do you use instead of "right to life" to say the same thing?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[By Paul Bonneau<br />
<br />
Exclusive to STR<br />
...<br />
What if the gun ownership rate doubled in this country, and everybody carried? Would not this make crime untenable? Would government, the most murderous agency in history, be even less inclined to impose on us or kill us?<br />
...]</blockquote><br />
No, although they might be more inclined. The last thing they want is for people to realize they not only don't need them, but they are the primary rights violators. Why do they get a free pass to violate rights, anyway?<br />
Why is it easier to ask that question using a lot more words, because you don't want to use the word rights?<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[By Paul Bonneau<br />
<br />
Exclusive to STR<br />
...<br />
I have to laugh at libertarians and anarchists depending on the murderous state to defend their life via the "right to life," and even more so depending on the "right to property" as they dutifully pay their taxes (surrender their property). I guess that means there is only a "right to a state-determined amount of property," eh?<br />
...]</blockquote><br />
No, it means the state violates rights to property. They should not get a free pass. If there is no such thing as rights, why can't they take your stuff and push you around? Sure, you can push back, but what are you pushing for? you have no rights.Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5417131230801874667.post-85483269257086063352011-05-14T21:55:00.000-07:002011-05-14T21:55:46.313-07:00torture is not tortureI was wondering why many people choose to make simple things so complex.<br />
<br />
For instance "torture" has come under the spotlight of definitions and made up phrases (enhanced interrogation techniques). I don't see it as much more complex than this, "if it was done to me, would I think I was being tortured?"<br />
<br />
Can someone explain to me how it needs to be more complex? Besides so "torture" can be justified via being "not torture".Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5417131230801874667.post-88302907312668835462011-01-16T19:03:00.000-08:002011-01-16T19:03:13.291-08:00you have a right toThis is from a discussion on Facebook with my brother about rights. <br />
within the quoted block:<br />
>> is my initial statement or question<br />
** is his response<br />
following the blocked quote is my reply to his response<br />
<br />
<blockquote>David wrote: "Hey, Matthew -- Point by point: <br />
>> A right defines a reciprocal relationship between any 2 individual people. Person A cannot do anything to person B that person B cannot do to person A. <br />
<br />
** It’s a very nice idea, Matthew, and fairly nearly the epitome of moral philosophy, except for the word ‘cannot.’ When you say “Person A cannot do anything to person B,” do you mean that person A lacks the power or ability. (I assume not.) Do you mean that person C is going to step in and prevent person A from doing something to person B? (Again, on my understanding of your views, I think not. I’m willing to be wrong.) Do you really mean that person A *ought* not to do anything to person B, et cetera? I would agree to that, but I don’t think you’re satisfied with “ought.” >></blockquote><br />
It is not a matter of "being satisified". I think I said it was the Reader's Digest version of the much lengthier post I made and linked to explaining that I did not want to include the whole thing. "Cannot" was not the sole attribute. I do not mean either person lacks the power or ability. Aaron lackng the power or ability to kick me does not define a right I have to not be kicked by Aaron. I do not mean person C will intervene. Person B might be of the religious opinion he is to turn the other cheek. If person C presumed to intervene to protect person B from an attack by person A, person B's rights would have been violated. He has every right to choose not to defend himself or his property. That is what defines it as his. I suppose you could say "ought" but that really doesn't get at what I am saying. Let's look at it this way. What is it you don't want other people to do to you?<br />
Do you want other people to kill you?<br />
So, what do you think they want of you? (Rather than my normal redundancy, I invite you to add or skip the redundacy for yourself. If you'd like to add it, just repeat the foregoing question after each of my questions).<br />
Do you want other people to take your stuff from you?<br />
Do you want other people to hit you?<br />
Do you want other people to trick you into giving them some of your stuff?<br />
Do you want other people to move onto your property when you are at work or on vacation?<br />
Do you want other people to tell you what you can and can't do?<br />
Do you expect people to treat you the same way as you would treat them?<br />
I see a contradiction when people want to be treated a certain way, treat other people the way they would like to be treated, don't see much evidence <br />
on an individual basis that other people would treat them differently, yet they act as if a majority of the world is out to get them so they have to be proactive at preventing it. Those things are rights. There are inductive and deductive ways to get to "rights". People accuse me of living in a fantasy world as if I think that every single person on the face of the earth would respect my rights if I respected his rights. I am not that naive. But I don't see where that is even relevant. It is a principle. It is practically axiomatic. <br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>>>Is that not a valid definition of right? <br />
<br />
** Well, with limitations, yes. The limitation is its usefulness. How, exactly, do those two people determine what they can and cannot do “to” each other? And hell, Matthew, there are an awful lot of people in the world: working everything out two individuals at a time, we’ll all be dead before we get anything established.</blockquote><br />
Not sure how we get at the "usefulness" of the principle. What would it have to be useful for? Or are you saying it is not useful because it is hard to define for every permutation and combination of pairs of people in the world before we get up and get going in the morning? I did not mean acts that would be specific to individual pairs of people. I meant general acts between any random two people.The absurdity should help define it. What acts between specific pairs can you think of that would require prior establishment of can and cannot?<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>>> Do you see any contradictions in the definition itself? If so, please point them out to me so we might work to refine a definition of right in the sense it is used to mean "have a right to". <br />
<br />
** No contradiction, just the inoperability of the term.</blockquote><br />
I do not see how the level of operability is actually an attribute of the principle. It can be an attribute if that is how you choose to define it. All we are doing is trying to understand what we are talking about. I think I remember you saying you wish we had another word we could use. Why? Why go to all that trouble? If you leave out the operability attribute the definition works fine. So why work so hard to put it in when all that does is cause you more work to look for a word that means "right" (as you choose to define it) without the operability attribute?<br />
That's fine with me. If you want to define rights with an operability attribute and then work to create another word that means your definition of right without the operability attribute, I will accept that but leave the work up to you. In the mean time I will use "right" without the operability attribute.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>>> How do you define rights, if you don't agree with my definition? <br />
<br />
* I do not find the word useful, and so step aside from it. </blockquote><br />
Does step aside from it mean you have no definition for it? How do you decide if it is useful if you have no definition for it? Isn't there some concept or principle carrying the label "right" you don't find useful?<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>>> Can you make a statement about the truth value of a word if you do not have a precise definition of the word? <br />
<br />
** I don’t think I questioned the word’s “truth value,” Matthew: I did say, and would re-affirm, that the idea of a human’s ‘rights’ has been and is still dependent upon time and place. </blockquote><br />
I'm not talking about it as an idea. I'm talking about it as a principle. A principle that is not dependent on time or place. "An idea" does not adequately define the process of "principle". "Understand" or even more specifically, "discover" is how I would define the process of "principle". It has always been a principle that in the same way that you should not kill me I should not kill you. It took a while to discover even the most basic understanding of the principle, and many are still far from it. As in, "all men are created equal" Which means "all men" not "all men born within certain imaginary lines on the globe." Do you prefer that "right" be an idea? Then do we have to make up a word for the concept as a principle?<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>>> What is the truth value of my definition of right? <br />
<br />
** The unmodified word “cannot” makes your definition inadequate. False, if you will. </blockquote><br />
As I said above, there was much more to what I defined. <br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>>> What does the fact that people choose not to recognize rights have to do with the truth value of the definition? <br />
<br />
** Since you say that “a right defines a reciprocal relationship,” then the occasion of person A’s refusal to recognize the ‘right’ of person B nullifies your definition. Or simply clarifies that the relationship between A and B is *not* reciprocal, so tough beans for B. </blockquote><br />
[Definition of RECIPROCAL<br />
1 a : inversely related : opposite <br />
b : of, constituting, or resulting from paired crosses in which the kind that supplies the male parent of the first cross supplies the female parent of the second cross and vice versa<br />
2 : shared, felt, or shown by both sides<br />
3 : serving to reciprocate : consisting of or functioning as a return in kind <the reciprocal devastation of nuclear war><br />
4 a : mutually corresponding <agreed to extend reciprocal privileges to each other's citizens> <br />
b : marked by or based on reciprocity <reciprocal trade agreements> ]<br />
<br />
I would say I was using definition 2 which has no component of agreement to or acceptance of...<br />
<br />
How does person A's refusal nullify the definition?<br />
It's not tough beans for B. The concept of a right contains the attribute of being justified in using defensive force to keep it. Or to get it back. Or if it is not possible to get it back to get compensation. Again, the fact that it is not always possible to identify or locate person A is irrelevant to the fact that one attribute of a right is that of defensive force. That attribute is also independent of A's ignorance, acceptance or understanding of it. <br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>>> If people choose not to recognize the earth is not flat, will they fall off the edge if they go far enough? <br />
<br />
** Ah, at last we reach the solid point. Since the reality is that the earth is round-ish, it doesn’t matter whether people recognize it or not. On another hand, if a person drinks a really strong dose of arsenic, a person is likely to die of that, whether that person believes arsenic is poisonous or not. </blockquote><br />
Exactly. Are principles different somehow from from other facts in that they do not hold their meaning simply because people are ignorant of them or choose not to act in accordance with them? Why?<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>>> By the very nature of the definition of the concept "have a right to" either everyone has rights or no one has rights. <br />
<br />
** Everyone? But you’re only talking about reciptrocal relationships between two individual persons, face to face. You’ve pretty much left out the entire world except for you and Aaron. Or you and Sherry. Or you and Alyssa. Or you and Amber. </blockquote><br />
As I said above, I'm talking about general principles, not specific actions. When I say two individual persons, I mean that the way I am defining "right" any meaning it has between an individual person and a group or between two or more groups it has to inherit from the meaning it has between two individual persons. Again, I think you're attempt at using the absurd helps to define it. <br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>>> It has been claimed that the government of the USofA and all the more localized governmnents exist to protect rights of those within their claimed jurisdiction. If there is no such thing as rights, what can governments then claim is their purpose? <br />
<br />
** I didn’t make the claim. It’s not mine to defend. Sorry." </blockquote><br />
I wasn't asking you to defend any claim. It is an interesting question, though, in many ways. People do seem to have some rough understanding of what is meant by right when it comes to governments and defending rights. The founders of the USofA identified some rights the government was to protect. You can get a bit of the definition of right out of the context of the Declaration, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Constitution and the first ten amendments. <br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Let me see if I can clarify the kind of ideas I need to understand your point of view. If we were talking about equilateral triangles, I'd probably assume that we were talking about triangles with three angles of sixty degrees each. But you, being smarter than me, would know that if you laid out an equilateral triangle on a sphere, you could get the angles up to ninety degrees each (depending on the ratio between the size of the triangle and the size of the sphere). You could probably get them much larger, but I think the limit would be 179 degrees. </blockquote><br />
It would all depend upon what we were discussing. In almost anything we would be discussing the definition in a plane would be sufficient. If we were in a discussion where a more obtuse definition (pun intended) was required it would need to be made clear at the time it was needed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hm. I wonder. You talk a lot about your rights, Matthew, but I don't know the following things: <br />
1) What is a 'right'? </blockquote><br />
That is what I am working on establishing. A definition where we can at least understand what we are talking about. All the above plus that other post are attempts at communicating what I mean when I say "have a right to...)<br />
<br />
<blockquote>2) Who determines what we will consider a 'right'? </blockquote><br />
The definition might help. I don't know that anybody in particular determines what we will consider a right. <br />
Rights are what they are. They are based on ownership of one's person. Either you own your own person or some number of people other than you owns your person. It can't be everybody but you, so what would be the boundaries of the claim on your person? Would it be a numerical limit? A geographic limit? A familial limit? Who defines it? If you define it, then you are the one who actually has the ownership. So that is a contradiction. How does someone else get a claim of ownership over your person? <br />
If one owns his own person, that is a source of the concept of "right". "Right" derives from self ownership. From ownership of one's self is derived the right to life. So, if one does not own one's self, one does not have a right to life. Again, the principle is a principle regardless of anyone's knowledge or acceptance of it.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>3) How do they determine what is (or isn't) a 'right'? </blockquote><br />
Ask questions?<br />
Do you have a right to your own life?<br />
Why or why not?<br />
What is implied by your answer?<br />
Are there any contradictions?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>4) Can anybody determine that something is a 'right'? </blockquote><br />
Why shouldn't anybody be able to? <br />
If the definition is not clear or is misunderstood they might get it wrong. Then the definition needs some work. But one should be able to apply the principle to the something and determine if it is a right.<br />
I can determine if something is a right. Can you?<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>4a) If not, why not? If you can explain those things to me, then maybe I'll understand better.</blockquote><br />
Why not would be they don't understand the concept or they do not understand how to apply principles to actions.<br />
<br />
Like I said above, I can determine if something is a right. Then I still have to defend that either logically or by defensive force. But I cannot initiate force to get you to comply with something I think is a right. That would violate your rights.<br />
<br />
You posited a motive for some questions I asked recently.<br />
Here is my sole motivation for all the questions I ask and statements I make about rights. <br />
I want to live in a society based on reason, not violence. (Rights are based on reason.) It would be a contradiction to try to force such a society upon others by violence. The only way available to me is by reason. By communicating with people about rights.<br />
It took a long time after I got a Facebook account to start talking about politics. Most of my liberal or conservative friends would make political statements. I finally decided I would start asking questions about things they said and use different words when describing what they are stating to bring the actions closer to their association to rights.Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5417131230801874667.post-24400078439120606722010-10-06T15:48:00.000-07:002010-10-06T15:48:01.091-07:00free people can govern themselveswhat do people mean when they say that?<br />
<br />
I've heard it often, most recently in the <a href='http://pledge.gop.gov/'>Republican party's pledge to America.</a><br />
<br />
They start out by saying, <blockquote>America is more than a country.<br />
<br />
America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any man or woman can – given economic, political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their families, and the common good.</blockquote><br />
Do members of the Republican party really believe that idea? What would be the actions of a person who believes that idea? Would that person support regulating businesses?<br />
<br />
I am working on a blentry (thank my brother David for that term) about what people mean when they say "a right to" so I won't go into details on that here, but what would be the actions of a person who meant what they said when they use the phrase, "each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?<br />
<br />
Then they say, <blockquote>America is an inspiration to those who yearn to be free and have the ability and the dignity to determine their own destiny.</blockquote><br />
Do they mean America the country, or America the idea that is stated above? If they mean America the country, can they verify this? Many people around the world know what America the country really is and it is no inspiration to anyone who yearns to be free. Do people who live in America yearn to be free? Do they have the ability to determine their own destiny? Or are they taxed and regulated and therefore prohibited by legislation and regulation from having the ability to determine their own destiny?<br />
<br />
Then they say, paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence of those in a certain demarcated area of the north American continent from the rule of Great Britain, <blockquote>Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.</blockquote><br />
Is that conceptually identical to, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."?<br />
<br />
I don't think so, at any rate. The way I understand those two phrases, the one identifies the agenda of a government within that government's form. The other identifies the form used in an attempt to enact an agenda.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>[Definition of AGENDA<br />
1: a list or outline of things to be considered or done {agendas of faculty meetings}<br />
2: an underlying often ideological plan or program {a political agenda} ]</blockquote><br />
Wouldn't the stated agenda of the government of the USofA be to secure the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How can the agenda of the government then become destructive of these ends? Isn't that a contradiction? Isn't it more precisely the actions of those in positions of power that become destructive of these ends?<br />
At what point do these actions become acts that violate the principles of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"?<br />
<br />
Then, <blockquote>These first principles were proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, enshrined in the Constitution, and have endured through hard sacrifice and commitment by generations of Americans.</blockquote>What proof do the authors of these words have to support their assertion that these principles have endured? What has actually been the fruit of the labors of those who for generations sacrificed for and were commited to them? Are we now able to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Or do we spend the majority of our time complying with government intervention into our lives and working to provide the resources to those who impose their whims upon us and murder and maim others supposedly in our names?<br />
<br />
Then, <blockquote>In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.</blockquote><br />
How does one assent to or revoke one's consent to be governed? What claim is the author of this statement making? Does consent only have to be given or revoked for particular policies of a particular iteration of a method of government? What policies is it to which the governed do not consent? Which governed do not consent to them? What can/are they doing about it?<br />
<br />
Then, <blockquote>An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down longstanding laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.</blockquote><br />
Are they saying this is a recent occurence with this current administration?<br />
Are they saying these long standing laws and institutions were consistent with the principles stated above? Are they saying the consitution of the USofA has anything at all to do with "the will of the people"? Even if "the will of the people" is counter to the principles stated above?<br />
<br />
Well, let's skip ahead to the pledge, no sense belaboring the rest of the preamble for now.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>With this document, we pledge to dedicate ourselves to the task of reconnecting our highest aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge to America.</blockquote><br />
Sounds pretty good so far. Not sure what they acually mean when they use those words, but if they use them with their precise meanings that is an admirable pledge.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.</blockquote><br />
Seems like the Tenth amendment has become pretty popular lately. Do they state how they intend to follow through with that pledge? Do they plan to prosecute those who violate that amendment or who have done so in the past? What is the statute of limitations on violations of superior law by those promoting inferior law?<br />
<br />
What about the second? In regard to the tenth, the second and the ninth at least, will those who are running for executive branch positions pardon all those currently in prison for non violent gun crimes, drug crimes and any other crimes where there was no victim? Will those running for legislative branch positions not attempt to enact new laws that make criminals out of people engaging in consentual acts with no victims? Will they repeal all legislative acts making criminals out of people who engage in consentual acts with no victims? Will those in the judicial branch cease supporting the conviction and punishment of those who have not engaged in any acts where there are victims?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity.</blockquote><br />
Can we find mention of any of those policies anywhere?<br />
What policies promote those things? Don't policies instead prevent those things? Wouldn't it be a lack of policies that prevent those things? Will they state in words that hold their meanings, policies that will do those things or are they just making statements they think people want to hear? I can state principles, not policies, that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity and national economic prosperity. Are they interested?<br />
Here's one. Eliminate all bureaucratic agencies and their regulations. There is nothing in the constitution that authorized the delegation of the legislative process to bureaucratic agencies. Regulations are created to both create barriers to entry and to sustain the existence of bureaucratic agencies employing people who create nothing, add nothing to the economy and in effect drain resources from the economy.<br />
<br />
And what policies will they advance that promote a robust defense? Will they advance policies that remove the threat of the military and all the covert agencies of the USofA of attacking people in other countries and subverting their choices as sovereign nations? Will they bring all of our troops home and close all our bases in countries not within the borders of the USofA? Do they understand the difference in definition between the words "defend" and "attack"? Will they end the standing army we were warned against by our founders?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.</blockquote><br />
What meaning does this statement actually express? How do those things form the core of our American values? Which American values? <br />
Is it an American value to force your whims upon others regarding their choice of life partner?<br />
To which faith-based organizations do they refer? I notice much ire has been directed to a faith based organization that intends to build a faith based community center in downtown Manhattan.<br />
<br />
Isn't the core of our American values the principle that all men are created equal?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>We pledge to make government more transparent in its actions, careful in its stewardship, and honest in its dealings.</blockquote><br />
How do they plan to do that? Do they intend to continue to keep secrets from those whom it serves? If a government is not taking covert actions that work against the people it serves, why does it need to keep secrets from them? <br />
Stewardship over what, in particular? Do they elaborate on that anywhere or is it another vacuous claim? The only entity over which they are charged with stewardship is the constitution to which they swear or affirm an oath. How do they plan to carefully steward the constitution? <br />
What do they mean by honest in their dealings?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>We pledge to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America, knowing that to whom much is given, much is expected and that the blessings of our liberty buoy the hopes of mankind.</blockquote><br />
Can anyone explain to me what is meant by that statement?<br />
What is the purpose and promise of a better America? What would make America better? What blessings of what liberty? Are the hopes of mankind buoyed for any thinking people anywhere in the world who observe the infringment of our liberties and the inherent stifling of any inherent blessings?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>We make this pledge bearing true faith and allegiance to the people we represent, and we invite fellow citizens and patriots to join us in forming a new governing agenda for America. </blockquote><br />
Since when are they to pledge their allegiance to the people they represent? How does that square with an oath to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic? Isn't it quite possible that can conflict with said oath? If so, what or who wins out?<br />
<br />
What are their plans for this new agenda? Why do we need a new agenda?<br />
<br />
In essence, what in this pledge makes it clear those who make this pledge really intend for free people to govern themselves or even understand what it means for free people to govern themselves?Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5417131230801874667.post-35912481226782857272010-08-24T16:47:00.000-07:002010-08-24T16:47:05.164-07:00A representative governmentA representative government, what do people mean when they say that?<br />
<br />
I don't have time to really go through what other people might think, but I haven't posted a new blentry in a long time. I recently more or less addressed this topic in a reply to a friend or 2 on facebook. <br />
<br />
Although I don't think most people actually have an understanding of what they mean when they say a representative government. I believe most people claim the government of the USofA and the states, counties and cities within it are representative governments.<br />
<br />
What might you mean by "a representative government"?<br />
<br />
Here's the tail end of the reply that sparked my response.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>...<br />
You and Matt both, dont want people to represent you but in your case you go and protest that you ae not being represented yet you dont want to be. I dont get it. You were there repreenting yourself though, so really you were being represented, I gues its an enigma, wrapped in a riddle.</blockquote><br />
I also don't have time at the moment to edit my response into a workable blentry, so I'll just paste it as is:<br />
<br />
It really isn't an enigma. You have to twist words right out of their meanings to imagine what you are saying.<br />
I don't vote. I don't sanction the system where people can take my stuff and tell me what I can and can't do. <br />
In your system, by definition, you get to tell people what they can and can't do and take their stuff. You get to kill women and children by proxy. And you are allowed to evade the fact that that is what you are doing. But I will never let you get away with that evasion. And I make public statements about it and you can't deny what it is I am saying when I use words that actually maintain their meanings throughout. Meanings that you can look up in a dictionary. Many times I actually include the meaning, so there is no mistake what I am saying.<br />
Please deny this in public with words that maintain their meanings throughout.<br />
Since you claim allegiance to a representative government, whether you want to call it a democracy, a republic, a mobocracy. etc., it is in fact a representative government, then someone represents you.<br />
----<br />
Before I make my statement, I'd like to ask this question (or two). If you choose to vote in the elections, do you consent to be represented by the winner of the election?<br />
Only if you answer yes to that, (if you answer no to that I'd like to hear your reason why?) then answer this, please. If you consent to be represented by another person, is every official act he makes made as your proxy?<br />
If not, why not? And who gets to decide which are and are not acts as your proxy?<br />
Can someone acting as your proxy commit an act you could not commit on your own?<br />
----<br />
You claim that I am represented even if I take two actions, which I take and claim publicly whenever I get the chance.<br />
First, I do not vote. I do not vote, because I can see with my own two eyes and feel in my very heart that people who would claim to act as my proxy if they won the election will engage in acts I would not be able to commit if acting on my own. And there is absolutely nothing I can do to stop it. <br />
So the second act I take is to publicly claim often that no one represents me. No one who tells other people to go to other countries and kill and maim and starve and torture their men, women and children is acting as my proxy. Ever. I renounce those acts as acts of my proxy. Are there any words in there I am mincing, misusing or misdefining? Is my meaning clear? I HAVE NO PROXY!!! No one murders for ME. No one steals for ME. No one tells other people how they can run their business for ME. No one tells others they can't carry a firearm or smoke a joint acting as my proxy. NO ONE!!!!<br />
No one imprisons another person for a crime with no victim acting as my proxy. NO ONE!!!<br />
Do I make myself clear? Is my position sufficiently understood?<br />
<br />
Here:<br />
{Main Entry: proxy<br />
Pronunciation: \'präk-se\<br />
Function: noun<br />
Inflected Form(s): plural prox·ies<br />
Etymology: Middle English proxi, procucie, contraction of procuracie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin procuratia, alteration of Latin procuratio procuration<br />
Date: 15th century<br />
<br />
1 : the agency, function, or office of a deputy who acts as a substitute for another<br />
2 a : authority or power to act for another b : a document giving such authority; specifically : a power of attorney authorizing a specified person to vote corporate stock<br />
3 : a person authorized to act for another : procurator}<br />
<br />
See what that says? NO ONE commits acts I would not be able to commit on my own as my proxy.<br />
<br />
How many people are willing to publicly make that statement?<br />
<br />
(oh, and I just noticed 2.b. - <br />
there is no document authorizing anyone to commit acts as my proxy that I would not be able to commit acting as a sole agent of myself. If someone can present one to me, I would be happy to renounce it on the spot. I do not remember signing any such document. If I did, I didn't understand what I was signing and therefore repeat, I renounce it.)<br />
<br />
Let me phrase it this way. Anyone who claims to act as my proxy is, in fact, as of this writing a liar.<br />
<br />
Are there any other words I need to define to make myself more clear?<br />
<br />
If so, please let me know or look them up yourself.<br />
<br />
Okay, so now that I am clear on my position (I hope).<br />
<br />
Are people acting as your proxy to murder innocent men, women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can you deny that without using made up excuses like "collateral damage" or "we've got to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here"? I asked a while ago in a few places for people to explain how to tell which ones to kill when you are killing them there (attacking other people in their own country) rather than killing them here (defending yourself). No one can tell me how they know. I guess it's telepathy or something. But I don't know a court in the world that would find a not guilty verdict on the testimony of telepathy.<br />
So they are attacking and murdering them. In your name.<br />
<br />
Somehow you have made the claim more than once that they represent me even if I choose not to vote. How can that be? They would only be able to do that by coercing my consent, and you would certainly know when they decide to do that. And I don't think you can call it consent if coercion is involved.<br />
<br />
Do people, acting as your proxy, take property from others against their will for carrying a firearm or smoking a joint? Do people, acting as your proxy, accost, kidnap and hold for ransom other people because they carry a firearm or smoke a joint?<br />
They don't in my name. I publicly make that claim.<br />
<br />
You know, the internet is a pretty big place. You keep telling me I need to do something rather than sit on my butt and complain. What you take for complaining is me stating my claim. So, I guess you could say I'm claiming. You tell me I should be working for change. I cannot work for change within a system based on force and violence to achieve an end, since what I am working toward is a society where force and violence play no part. <br />
<br />
Please don't take that to mean that I am aloof and don't understand that people will still want to initiate violence against me. I realize that. I just don't want them to have the sanction of proxy. I don't want them to be in an exalted position by process of acting as a government agent. I don't want to be prohibited by a show of virtually unlimited force from defending myself or assisting my neighbor to defend himself from someone who would attempt to initiate force against me or him to gain an end that he could not gain without said show of force.<br />
<br />
I claim this is something I can do:<br />
I can ask how many other people in the world can claim that no one acts as their proxy when engaging in acts that he would not be able to take acting on his own.<br />
<br />
As of the time of this posting, the estimated population is:<br />
U.S. 310,060,127<br />
World 6,864,089,393<br />
I can' t imagine I am 1 in 6,864,089,393, but it is entirely possible.<br />
<br />
If enough people, in enough different countries, made the claim that no one has permission to act as their proxy to commit an act that they could not commit acting on their own, then all the wars and taxes would be seen for what they are.<br />
<br />
Whadda ya say, Dustin? Do people commit those acts as your proxy?<br />
<br />
{Main Entry: be·half<br />
Pronunciation: \bi-'haf, -'häf, be-\<br />
Function: noun<br />
Etymology: Middle English, from by + half half, side<br />
Date: 14th century<br />
<br />
: interest, benefit; also : support, defense <argued in his behalf><br />
<br />
— on behalf of or in behalf of : in the interest of; also : as a representative of}<br />
<br />
Do they act in your behalf?<br />
They don't act in my behalf. And I am willingly stating that claim.Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5417131230801874667.post-63512570109120364182010-06-26T05:09:00.000-07:002010-06-26T05:41:35.997-07:00We have to win this war.We have to win this war. What do people mean when they say that?<br />
<a href="http://www.johntreed.com/declarationofwar.html">Here's a guy</a> who says we never declared war with Iraq.<br />
I disagree with his assertion that we win the declared wars. Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by win. When has this country been attacked when it did not antagonize an assailant? Do you know there wouldn't have even been a war with Germany if Rockefellers had refused to sell any fuel to Germany? But the people who think it's their position in life to pull strings never care where the boodle comes from.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul51.html">Here's an excerpt from Ron Paul</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote>But I am very interested also in the process that we are pursuing. This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<a href="http://devildog6771.wordpress.com/osama-bin-ladens-declaration-of-war-against-the-american/">Bin Laden didn't mince any words.</a><br />
He said why <br />
<blockquote>The latest and the greatest of these aggressions,incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH’S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka’ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies. (We bemoan this and can only say: “No power and power acquiring except through Allah”).</blockquote>And here's the title <br />
<blockquote>DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST THE AMERICANS<br />
<br />
OCCUPYING THE LAND OF THE TWO HOLY PLACES<br />
<br />
A Message from Usama bin Muhammad bin Laden unto<br />
his Muslim Brethren all over the world generally,<br />
and in the Arab Peninsula specifically</blockquote><br />
Have you ever read it? Do you know why he declared war against the USofA? He told us why. Do you think he lied about it? How could you possibly think he lied about it (if that is what you think)?<br />
<br />
Have you ever read his <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver">letter to America</a>?<br />
<blockquote>While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:<br />
<br />
(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?<br />
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?<br />
<br />
As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:<br />
<br />
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us. <br />
...<br />
(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:<br />
<br />
(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want. <br />
...</blockquote><br />
I don't support it. No one represents me. Why should I support it? <br />
<br />
Is he lying? The government of the USofA does these things to its own "citizens," you can certainly imagine they could do it to other peoples.<br />
<br />
We never did declare war on him. Some people say we declared war on Iraq. Did "we" go to that amount of detail? I won't excerpt any more from Bin Laden's, but I think he makes it pretty clear. He wants us out of their business. What's wrong with that? I want us out of their business. Do you want us out of their business? What's the cost in dollars and lives for us staying in their business?<br />
<br />
So, do you want me to tell you exactly what it means to "win this war?" If you don't, don't read on. If you do. And you dispute my claim. Tell me why I am wrong.<br />
<br />
First, think about what it means to you to, "win this war with Iraq".<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
To win this war (actually with Bin Laden and whomever swears allegiance to his views) we need to beat on them until they say, "We surrender. Since the reason we declared war was that we wanted you out of our business, I guess the terms of the surrender will be we have to let you get in our business. So, congratulations, you have beaten us into submission. You can establish infrastructure, take resources, stay as long as you like."<br />
<br />
What is the likelihood of that? So what is the reason we can't just get out of their business?Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5417131230801874667.post-70808233356770557492010-05-21T01:46:00.000-07:002010-05-21T01:49:35.611-07:00A friend of mine on Facebook recently joined a group called, "Stay Off My Property and Keep Your Hands Off My Money".<br />
<br />
What do people mean when they say that?<br />
<br />
I went to the website to see what they meant. Well, it's not a "they" it's a guy named Frank Colacone. At least that's how he identifies himself there. As I was looking around to see if I could find a purpose I found this, "Islam Will Not Be Tolerated In the United States. Keep Your Shit in The Middle East or Face The Consequences." Now it reads, "An Islamist takeover Will Not Be Tolerated In the United States. Keep Your Shit in The Middle East or Face The Consequences. Let us Send C.A.I.R Packing!"<br />
<br />
Now, there really is a world of difference in those 2 statements. The first does not sound at all consistent with the name of the group. The second, more so. When I read some of the posts in that group there was much anti muslim talk going on. I found this inconsistent. There is a gaping contradiction between that statement and the name of the group.<br />
<br />
What would be the root of "Stay Off My Property and Keep Your Hands Off My Money?" It seems to me it has the same root as "don't tell me what I can and can't do as long as I am not interfering with your rights." So, to say "Islam Will Not Be Tolerated In the United States." and "Stay Off My Property and Keep Your Hands Off My Money." creates a contradiction. If someone wants to practise a religion, isn't telling them they can't the same as putting your hands on their property?<br />
<br />
I read more on the page and see some things that are consistent with the title and then a lot of slams against muslims and against those who don't speak English. Somehow categories of people are created in his mind that don't get to say, "Stay Off My Property and Keep Your Hands Off My Money". How does that work? Wouldn't it go both ways if it has any legitimate moral value?<br />
<br />
Does he mean by that; taxing agencies should keep their hands off his money? Does he mean he should not have to ask permission to build on his property? Does he mean he should not have to ask permission to start a business on his property? Does he mean he should not be told people cannot smoke on his property? Tobacco or anything else that is smokable? I don't know. I haven't asked him. I decided I really needed to add a post to my blog, rather than ask him. I'll link to this in his blog and if he wants to read it he will see the questions here and can answer them.<br />
<br />
What do all those things in the above paragraph mean? If you think those things are not included in the meaning of the phrase, why aren't they? Have you created a category of people in your head that can come onto your property and put their hands on your money? Why? What is so special about those people that they get to come onto your property and take your money?<br />
<br />
Here's what I mean when I say, "Stay Off My Property and Keep Your Hands Off My Money". I mean exactly that with no exceptions. I mean if I want to start a business on my property I don't have to beg permission from anyone. If I want to allow people to smoke in my establishment I don't have to listen to anyone but my customers. I mean I don't have to comply with a bunch of arbitrary regulations imposed upon me by people who have no financial interest in my well being. I mean no one can take my money against my will, which includes those who allege some claim to my money under the guise of "taxation". Are there people who will kill me rather than accept that I mean what I say? Lots of them. Are there more of them employed by government in one form or another than there are regular people on the street? Am I "permitted" to defend myself from any of them? Am I "prohibited" from defending myself from any of them? Why? Why am I not permitted to say, "Stay Off My Property and Keep Your Hands Off My Money" and mean it and have that claim respected by everyone?<br />
<br />
What do you mean when (if) you say, "Stay Off My Property and Keep Your Hands Off My Money"?Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5417131230801874667.post-72563487617508888362010-05-11T01:22:00.000-07:002010-05-11T01:22:41.730-07:00of laws and not of men"... of laws and not of men."<br />
What do people mean when they say that?<br />
John Adams, writing as Novanglus, quoted James Harrington from a 1656 work, The Commonwealth of Oceana as describing government as the empire of laws and not of men.<br />
What did Harrington mean?<br />
What did John Adams mean?<br />
Many people use the phrase, "... of laws and not of men" in conversation today. What do they mean? <br />
<br />
I have tried to make sense of it. <br />
<br />
Webster's 1828 has 26 definitions. Here are ones I see as relevant to my question.<br />
<blockquote>LAW, n. [L. lex; from the root of lay. See lay. A law is that which is laid, set or fixed, like statute, constitution, from L. statuo.]<br />
<br />
1. A rule, particularly an established or permanent rule, prescribed by the supreme power of a state to its subjects, for regulating their actions, particularly their social actions. Laws are imperative or mandatory, commanding what shall be done; prohibitory, restraining from what is to be forborn; or permissive, declaring what may be done without incurring a penalty. The laws which enjoin the duties of piety and morality, are prescribed by God and found in the Scriptures.<br />
<br />
Law is beneficence acting by rule.<br />
<br />
2. Municipal law, is a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power of a state, commanding what its subjects are to do, and prohibiting what they are to forbear; a statute.<br />
<br />
Municipal or civil laws are established by the decrees, edicts or ordinances of absolute princes, as emperors and kings, or by the formal acts of the legislatures of free states. Law therefore is sometimes equivalent to decree, edict, or ordinance.<br />
<br />
3. Law of nature, is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive precept. Thus it is a law of nature, that one man should not injure another, and murder and fraud would be crimes, independent of any prohibition from a supreme power.<br />
<br />
4. Laws of animal nature, the inherent principles by which the economy and functions of animal bodies are performed, such as respiration, the circulation of the blood, digestion, nutrition, various secretions, &c.<br />
<br />
6. Physical laws, or laws of nature. The invariable tendency or determination of any species of matter to a particular form with definite properties, and the determination of a body to certain motions, changes, and relations, which uniformly take place in the same circumstances, is called a physical law. These tendencies or determinations, whether called laws or affections of matter, have been established by the Creator, and are, with a peculiar felicity of expression, denominated in Scripture, ordinances of heaven.<br />
</blockquote><br />
And here is how he defines men:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>MEN, plu. of man. Two or more males, individuals of the human race.<br />
<br />
1. Males of bravery. We will live in honor, or die like men.<br />
<br />
2. Persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense. Men are apt to forget the benefactor, while they riot on the benefit.<br />
</blockquote><br />
How could people be using "men"? I think what is meant is most likely in the singular sense, referring to any particular person. So, what could be the actual intent of the term? Is it possible to determine from the use of "men" what is actually meant by the phrase? I don't think so. I think it needs to be balanced against the use of the word "laws". So, which meaning above would people be using for law?<br />
<br />
My guess, from the context and the way I usually hear that phrase in the course of conversation is meaning 1 or 2. Are definitions 1 and 2 actually that different? Are they different in kind? I really don't think they are. Definition 1 controls social actions and 2 dictates civil conduct.<br />
<br />
A nation of commands, prohibitions, edicts and decrees but not of men? Is that what people mean? <br />
<br />
What about 3? a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator, but not of men? <br />
<br />
Did John Adams mean that? Did James Harrington mean that? Is that the type of society in which we live? <br />
<br />
We know its not 4, but I'm leaving that in for a reason.<br />
<br />
How about 6? Well, that is fairly similar to 4 in kind. <br />
<br />
What do 3, 4 and 6 have in common that differentiate them in kind from 1 and 2? <br />
It seems to me that 3,4 and 6 are inherent in the nature of things. They are laws that are discovered. 1 and 2 are laws that are decreed. How can 2 concepts that are so entirely different in kind from each other be subsumed by the same word? Well, there are plenty of words that have very diverse meanings. But, one can usually tell by the context what meaning is implied.<br />
<br />
So, why is it the case that the majority of people assume meanings 1 and 2? <br />
<blockquote>decree <br />
1 : an order usually having the force of law<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>regulation<br />
2 a : an authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure <safety regulations> b : a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law<br />
</blockquote><br />
So, to rephrase again so we can better understand what is meant, "the empire of a rule or an order from a man backed by force by a man, but not of men".<br />
<br />
Does this make any sense? Is there a contradiction in the two phrases of that statement? How can one claim it is not an empire of men when it is man made laws that are enforced by men that are the type of laws in question? Doesn't that reduce to "a nation of men, but not of men?" Is there any meaning in that? Is it even a phrase that has any point to its utterance? Is there yet a contradiction in the statement that needs to be resolved? I see the contradiction in the fact that for the statement to have any meaning there must be a contradistinction between the two phrases and there isn't one. From the use of the words, it seems apparent to me that what is meant by "men" is "the whims of individual persons". Decrees and the like are often created from the whims of individual persons. <br />
<br />
How can we resolve that contradiction?<br />
<br />
What if we choose the concept expressed by 3, 4 and 6? The concept of discovered laws; laws inherent in and determined by the nature of things. How would the phrase then read? <br />
"an empire based on the identified nature of things and not the whims of men". Does this make sense? Do we find an actual contradistinction between the two phrases? It seems to me we do. <br />
<br />
If the statement is to have any meaning and any value in being uttered, doesn't it seem that there should be an obvious difference between the two phrases?<br />
<br />
The way I see it, what should be meant when people use that statement is the second meaning. What would it be like to live in a society based on natural laws where no whim of one man could be inflicted on another man by force? <br />
<br />
So, I ask again: "... of laws and not of men."<br />
What do people mean when they say that?<br />
Do they mean the same thing Adams and Harrington meant? Did Adams mean what Harrington meant? Here's an excerpt from page 7 of The Commonwealth of Oceana from gutenberg:<br />
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=1059688&pageno=7<br />
<blockquote>And government (to define it de facto, or according to modern prudence) is an art whereby some man, or some few men, subject a city or a nation, and rule it according to his or their private interest; which, because the laws in such cases are made according to the interest of a man, or of some few families, may be said to be the empire of men, and not of laws.<br />
<br />
The former kind is that which Machiavel (whose books are neglected) is the only politician that has gone about to retrieve; and that Leviathan (who would have his book imposed upon the universities) goes about to destroy. For "it is," says he, "another error of Aristotle's politics that in a well-ordered commonwealth, not men should govern, but the laws. <b>What man that has his natural senses, though he can neither write nor read, does not find himself governed by them he fears, and believes can kill or hurt him when he obeys not? or, who believes that the law can hurt him, which is but words and paper, without the hands and swords of men?</b>" I confess that the magistrate upon his bench is that to the law which a gunner upon his platform is to his cannon. Nevertheless, I should not dare to argue with a man of any ingenuity after this manner. A whole army, though they can neither write nor read, are not afraid of a platform, which they know is but earth or stone; nor of a cannon, which, without a hand to give fire to it, is but cold iron; therefore a whole army is afraid of one man. But of this kind is the ratiocination of Leviathan, as I shall show in divers places that come in my way, throughout his whole politics, or worse; as where he says, "of Aristotle and of Cicero, of the Greeks, and of the Romans, who lived under popular States, that they derived those rights, not from the principles of nature, but transcribed them into their books out of the practice of their own commonwealths, as grammarians describe the rules of language out of poets." Which is as if a man should tell famous Harvey that he transcribed his circulation of the blood, not out of the principles of nature, but out of the anatomy of this or that body.<br />
</blockquote>(emphasis mine)<br />
<br />
Well, I couldn't find the actual quote, but I found the inverse.<br />
It sounds as if Harrington meant it the way I interpret it. <br />
<br />
Do you use that statement?<br />
What do you mean when you say that?Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5417131230801874667.post-74255568524050971172010-05-09T22:25:00.000-07:002010-05-09T22:25:53.672-07:00Introducing my blogI have had a few people tell me I should get a blog. Particularly my daughter and son-in-law. I was not really prepared to start right out with an entry, as it is so late that I really should be doing something like checking the backs of my eyelids for light leaks. But, I figured if I didn't at least create the blog, I would never get around to it.<br />
<br />
I don't know if I will post every day. I don't know if I will reply to every comment. I might get involved in a discussion due to a comment and then not get back to it. I can't promise anything. I have been in some Facebook conversations where my reply was fairly lengthy and over time might have made a good blog post. I might paste some of those here. <br />
<br />
I also hear things in the news and wonder what someone means when they use a word or phrase, such as when President Obama said he supports a free market. He obviously means something different when he says that than I do when I say it.<br />
<br />
The phrase I heard when I decided to quit procrastinating and start a blog was, "it's not about issues it's about principles." This had something to do with whom to select at the polls. That might be my first actual post. Or not.Matt Simshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02188641914375309080noreply@blogger.com0