Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule

Great Debates
121

UltraVires
“I’ve been asking this for three pages and it doesn’t seem to work. I don’t know why I keep trying.”

If you can find rules governing the writing and rewriting of statutes (or if you don’t think they are statutes then use whatever word you want to call statutes) then by all means publish those rules and then you can explain your viewpoint on that subject.

My viewpoint is such that common sense dictates that the willful employment of covert means to cause injury to innocent people is not lawful in any sense of the word lawful; such as the use of a claim that the existing statute will be amended, then said claim is false as the existing statute is discarded, so as to enforce two forms of slavery, the most obvious one being African Slavery.

I think it is well worth my time and effort (actually the point of the debate) to investigate what you think are the rules governing the alterations of written rules; which I call statutes, and you can call those written rules whatever you wish.

The work bell rings again, so I am prevented from continuing current debate for awhile.

122

Saying “what the fuck are you talking about” when confronted with gibberish is not an example of despotism.

Regards,
Shodan

123

The rules were simple. Congress gave this mandate, via resolution:

Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.

This convention was held; they drafted a radical revision to the Articles; which were confirmed by the states, in the form of the Constitution. Note that rather than being “discarded”, some aspects of the Articles remained, post-revision, such as the prohibition on states entering into treaties.

Slavery was already being practiced under the Articles of Confederation.

124

You are using English words, but putting them together in an incomprehensible manner. Again. “Rules governing the alterations of written rules?” If you want to talk about how laws get amended, there are easier ways to state it.

125

I may have lost track of this in the word salad, but just what crimes are being perpetrated against innocents, and what remedies can be suggested?

126

Josf, I think you may be looking at this through the prism of person-time-time, or person-time squared, assuming a nonlinear trajectory of person through time without regard to place. That assumption might be perfectly reasonable, but I think other people are looking at this from a more typical person-place-place-time perspective, or person-time-place-squared. Or cubed, perhaps. I’m just not sure.

127

That’s a competitive answer. How federated of you.

Regards,
Shodan

128

Jeebus Christ, I can’t get through all this crap.

Does the OP ever define WTF “Criminal Rule” is? Is it different than anarchy?

129

There are many different types of law in our system. At the top in the Constitution which sets the rules for everything else. Legislatures pass, amend, or repeal entirely, laws according to their own rules and those rules set forth in the Constitution. (Only these are commonly called “statutes”). When there is confusion regarding these laws, the judicial branch interprets these statutes or in some cases hold that the statute is in violation of the (higher) Constitution. Sometimes the Executive branch, under the authority of statutes implement regulations to more efficiently enforce the statutes.

Further, as ours is a federal system, we have the national government with this structure, and states with a separate structure: in some areas distinct and sovereign in their own right and in other areas subordinate to the national government. These states also have judicial, executive, and legislative branches, and those state legislatures also pass statutes.

These states also create municipal corporations with law-making authority, and some allow counties to enact laws.

To say that the Declaration of Independence and/or the Articles of Confederation are “statutes” is a fundamental misapplication of the term. That is what is so confusing to posters here: you are using terms which do not mean what you say that they mean.

So how to amend them? First, you don’t amend the Declaration of Independence. It is not positive law and it is not binding on anyone. It served its purpose. It said to England that we are done with you and here is why. It is an outline of general principles and nobody can be fined or imprisoned for failing to obey it. They are grand, noble, and absolutely beautiful principles and ones that all freedom loving people should strive to continue in the future, but they are not commands to the government. The question would be like asking how I “amend” a break up letter I wrote to my girlfriend in 1989. The answer is that you do not amend it. It is done, served its purpose.

How does one amend the Articles of Confederation? See Human Action’s post above. It is clear and unmistakable how the Articles were amended into our current Constitution. How is that nefarious in your mind?

130

This is simply a silly defense of the treasonous Declaration of Independence that is not based in fact. (And calling the DoI a “statute” is simply another attempt to misuse language to make a point that cannot be defended in fact.)

So, my previous post is correct: a bunch of treasonous land thieves started a government and some 200 years later some people, (or, at least, one person), is upset that the same people who engaged in their treasonous behavior chose to modify the charter under which they had lived for a mere six years.
meh

131

Josf, in all seriousness, do you see how he is making a word salad as a joke? That is how your posts actually read. The benefit of having a written and spoken language is that words mean what the language has attributed to them. I don’t get to say that a tree is a four-legged furry animal or that a dog is a tall plant with green leaves at the top.

If you are going to use terms like “federated” or “divisions” or "Rule of Law"then use that word as other English speakers use the term. If you attempt to say that the word is not accurate as we use it, don’t then redefine it with more words that you aren’t using the customary definition for. You continuously do that and make your posts absolutely indecipherable.

132

Human Action (which is also the title of a book written by Ludwig Von Mises) wrote:

Human Action in pdf:

That is a very good read, as is the book title Socialism by the same author.

Socialism:

Legal fictions have no rights. People are born with inalienable rights. Legal fictions, such as trusts, estates, or “states,” are trusted with powers.

So the question then becomes something like this:

Did free people give (afford or finance) specific powers to specific people so that those specific people entrusted with those powers can keep their powers if they stay within those enumerated powers, and can those people giving those power effectively reject, peacefully, by spoken, and by written orders, that those other people no longer have any power over those people who gave them power in the first place, when the trusted people are proving (beyond reasonable doubt) to be no longer acting within the power trusted to them; which is a break in trust, or a brake in the peace, as those trusted with power prove that they now abuse power?

The answer I derive from common sense, common law, a Declaration of Intendance (United States of America statute #1), and according to my interpretation of the Articles of Confederation (possibly United States of America statute #2), the answer is yes.

So (translated into something I understand) the answer to the question asked is yes.

The question asked (and more of what I consider to be the fruits of my labor) is:

Yes.

If someone using the label Human Action is in any way associated with Austrian Economics, then someone so authorized is someone who ought to understand plain English; at least as far as I can tell.

133

Human Action:
“Slavery was already being practiced under the Articles of Confederation.”

Criminals do not obey moral orders. If anyone thinks otherwise then they can state that claim over, and over, and over, and over again, and again, and again, and it will never become true.

Elliot’s Debates Volume I page 44 (page 60 in pdf):

“On the 20th day of October, the non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement was adopted and signed by the Congress. This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world.”

Criminals in criminal organizations most certainly understand the absolute necessity to obey criminals orders (such as kill all Mormons, or kill all Jews, or kill all Christians, or kill all infidels, and do so without question) because the costs of failing to obey is higher than the cost of obeying.

Moral orders, on the other hand, require volunteers.

Do you not understand the words offered by Ludwig Von Mises?

Does your name “Human Action” suggest something other than Austrian Economics as offered by Ludwig Von Mises?

134

That is, indeed, the source of my user name. My favorite von Mises work is actually Omniopotent Government, but that’s a less snappy title.

[Quote=Josf]
Legal fictions have no rights. People are born with inalienable rights. Legal fictions, such as trusts, estates, or “states,” are trusted with powers.
[/quote]

Legal fictions can have legal rights. For example, a corporation might enjoy the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, or a state might have the right to send two Senators to the US Senate. After all, behind every legal entity are human beings…at least until we get AI going.

[Quote=Josf]
So the question then becomes something like this:

Did free people give (afford or finance) specific powers to specific people so that those specific people entrusted with those powers can keep their powers if they stay within those enumerated powers, and can those people giving those power effectively reject, peacefully, by spoken, and by written orders, that those other people no longer have any power over those people who gave them power in the first place, when the trusted people are proving (beyond reasonable doubt) to be no longer acting within the power trusted to them; which is a break in trust, or a brake in the peace, as those trusted with power prove that they now abuse power?
[/quote]

That’s a very complex question…I’d say “yes”, but in the form of a free and fair election, not arbitrary decrees. You have a right to democratic goverment, but not to the representatives or policies you happen to prefer.

[Quote=Josf]
The answer I derive from common sense, common law, a Declaration of Intendance (United States of America statute #1), and according to my interpretation of the Articles of Confederation (possibly United States of America statute #2), the answer is yes.
[/quote]

Sure, though those documents are not statutes.

[Quote=Josf]
So (translated into something I understand) the answer to the question asked is yes.

The question asked (and more of what I consider to be the fruits of my labor) is:

Yes.
[/Quote]

Ok then. Given that, was the process not entirely reasonable? State delegates, voting on a proposal, then taken to state conventions for ratification? One can hardly imagine a better process, given the time period.

[Quote=Josf]
If someone using the label Human Action is in any way associated with Austrian Economics, then someone so authorized is someone who ought to understand plain English; at least as far as I can tell.
[/QUOTE]

I do my best, but then again I was educated in Kentucky public schools, part of the first class educated under the Kentucky Education Reform Act.

Thank you for the short, on-point reply. I hope you’ll agree that this is more conducive to discussion.

135

Some criminals obey some moral orders; people aren’t either entirely law-abiding or entirely lawless, nor moral or immoral, with no gradiation in between.

[Quote=Josf]
Elliot’s Debates Volume I page 44 (page 60 in pdf):

“On the 20th day of October, the non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement was adopted and signed by the Congress. This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world.”
[/quote]

As well, persuant to an article of the Constitution, the importation of slaves was prohibited by Congress in 1807. Abolition would, of course, have been preferable, but that wasn’t going to happen under the Articles or the Constitution.

[Quote=Josf]
Criminals in criminal organizations most certainly understand the absolute necessity to obey criminals orders (such as kill all Mormons, or kill all Jews, or kill all Christians, or kill all infidels, and do so without question) because the costs of failing to obey is higher than the cost of obeying.

Moral orders, on the other hand, require volunteers.

Do you not understand the words offered by Ludwig Von Mises?
[/quote]

I believe so; but such volunteers (to abolish slavery) didn’t exist in sufficient numbers at the time.

[Quote=Josf]
Does your name “Human Action” suggest something other than Austrian Economics as offered by Ludwig Von Mises?
[/QUOTE]

No, that’s the source.

136

UltraVires offers:

There has been, is, and will continue to be a concept knowable as relation:

Relation defined another way (a competitive way) is to suggest to the people trusting someone (or some group) to do the right thing may soon find that the group trusted does not do the right thing, and therefore the trust is ended by those who do not do the right thing. <—see John Adams explaining the concept of federation.

Another way to look at that is the creation of a Trust, such as an Estate, or such as a State, or such as a Federation, are those who voluntarily pay into it, and they give a portion of their earnings in economic reality to said federation run by said people running it. When those running the trusted federation turn around and start demanding extortion payments that must be paid “or else” then said trust is gone, those who were trusted to “run the mutually defensive federation” have proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, to be lacking trustworthiness, and their “license to extort” is revoked, because the relation is creator (those giving finance an trust) and created (those receiving financing and “trust”).

The created “federation” cannot (logically) over-power those (the people) who created “it” (a legal fiction). <—that is a competitive defining of relation.

Now you, or you, or you, any of “y’all” who fail to understand “relation” can hire someone to tell you what it means in fact. Go right ahead.

Caveat emptor.

Further:
“Further, as ours is a federal system, we have the national government with this structure, and states with a separate structure: in some areas distinct and sovereign in their own right and in other areas subordinate to the national government.”

Note the change from federation to national government. The federation was voluntary, whereby any State was able to peacefully secede when the relation became involuntary. When the relation became involuntary the criminals demanded blind obedience to any order issued, and anyone daring to fail to obey blindly was someone found guilty dictatorially through a court system that was in opposition to the common sense rules of common law: such as “innocent until proven guilty,” and so on, and so forth.

Further:
“These states also create municipal corporations with law-making authority, and some allow counties to enact laws.”

Laws can be understood as spiritual law, natural laws, and laws enforced by guilty criminals upon innocent victims. An infamous form of criminal “law” is African Slavery. Another less obvious criminal law involves the use of fraudulent “legal tender.”

That is a counter claim.

Here are claims:

137

[quote=“Josf, post:136, topic:727009”]

That is a counter claim.

Here are claims:

[/QUOTE]
That is not a claim. It is a lengthy video in which, one supposes, you have found a phrase that you consider to support your arguments. Pointing to a long video from which you are extracting, (probably incorrectly), a phrase that you believe supports your odd misuse of language is not persuasive. The Prego defense is silly; it is not “in there.” If you cannot even be bothered to quote what you believe is relevant in an hour long speech, it is fair for us to dismiss your claim.

Neither the DoI nor the Articles of Confederation are “statutes.”

138

And our government does not overpower us. I assume you are talking about paying taxes (“demanding extortion payments”). We pay taxes to any level of government because the majority votes for representatives who impose those taxes. Don’t want taxes and want to fund government in another way? Vote representatives into power who will enact your proposed method. No extortion, no power removed from the people. A general police power and taxing power is inherent in any system of government. What type of government do you propose that has no taxing power? What type of government do you propose that has no laws (because doing so would thereby, under your definition, “over-power” the minority voters and force them to submit to these laws)?

You previously said that the union under the Articles of Confederation were “perpetual” and thus could not be broken. As such, no state could “peacefully secede.” Further no person can be convicted “dictatorially” in the court system. I am a lawyer. Every client that has gone to prison has a right to be tried by 12 members of the community, i.e. the people.

The term “laws enforced by guilty criminals upon innocent victims” does not belong in a serious discussion of this sort. It means nothing as noted by your examples. While we can all agree (in 2015) that slavery is an evil law, we probably disagree on the legal tender laws. Our subjective disagreement doesn’t make a particular law a good law derived from God if we like it and a bad law enforced by guilty criminals upon innocent victims because we don’t like it. That’s attempting to shoehorn a value judgment into some sort of legal theory with no substance or justification. It is simply an opinion.

I happen to agree with Natural Law and believe that it flows into the various rights protected by the Bill of Rights. Others disagree. Judges decide these questions. We can’t just make up terms and put what we think is right into the good terms and make them now objectively right and thereby make our opponents objectively wrong.

[quote=“Josf, post:136, topic:727009”]

That is a counter claim.

Here are claims:

[/QUOTE]

No it isn’t. The definition of a “statute” is not a matter of opinion that is subject to debate. The word has a dictionary definition that has been pointed out to you many times. It is not up for a point-counter point.

139

And thirteen states voluntarily withdrew from the Confederation in order to establish the Constitutional government. Every one of them ratified the change. Your accusation of a “criminal” act exists only in your imagination.

140

Thank you Hentor, that helped. More than the OP, at least.

As far as I can tell the doper Human Action who participates in this thread is and has been using mostly plain English. However you… you keep using words in an arcane sense that is not the customary or common.

(and I fail to understand what you mean that being a follower or sympathizer of Austrian Economics “so authorizes” someone… authorizes him to what?)