The fish yet again, who was the maker of the fish?who’s label is on that damn fish. that’s the rightful owner. in my belief system of natural law.And that owner allowed me stewardship as I “the man” .
I do believe in common interest of society. I cleaned the refuse from the waters as I hiked. I am a good steward of the bounty my CREATOR afforded, I wish more were.
A fishing License covers just that, recreational fishing ( dare I say a commercial activity) my line in the water did not confer a commercial activity.In fact I refused the contract.
If you admit to recreational fishing which I have become a party under that contract , Then I am held my those corporate rules and regulations.
And you checked before you fished it, I suppose? Or maybe you just assumed nobody labeled it? Just as, I suppose, you made sure you weren’t trespassing on anybody’s land? Or did you just assume that you had a right to wander as you will on “the Creator’s land”?
This is simply post-hoc justification for selfish behavior. You never checked, and you didn’t care to, either.
No, that’s not how it works in our world. See, we get together and choose which leader we’re willing to follow. And being sane ourselves, we choose a sane leader.
Things obviously work differently on your world. I can understand how mass sanity must seem confusing to somebody on the outside of it.
They are the same, when it was found that the social contract (and there was one) that the founding fathers were under with the ruling of and by Great Britain had become a little overbearing.
They chose to visit the terms and conditions of a new social contract
hence the Declaration of Independence.
Wow the Kool- aid flows freely with some folks,what about the 49.5% that voted for Al Gore in 2000 or the difference of Nixon in 1960.
Here is a cite that should point out where your thinking is wrong. If this isn’t correct for your current state, I can find the regs for that state easily enough, too.
Wow it’s one thing to set arguments against a common poster but you are ready to debate one of the most enlightened orators of history Thomas Jefferson. wow just the audacity of that, humbles me.
marc, what is your first language?
I ain’t alone. (BTW, you were quoting Locke, not Jefferson.)
And, you do understand, don’t you, that the common law you revere is not natural law and has nothing to do with “natural rights”?
Hard to tell from that whether you’re for Nixon or agin’ 'im.
Flavor Aid, not Kool Aid.
Al Gore was sane, so I’m trying to figure this one out. I’m thinking there’s some cognitive dissonance, but I doubt it’s my fault here.
Nixon was sane. He was an immoral criminal but sane. And, unless I’m misremembering, he never led any group of Americans off any ridges. Worse yet for your point, when his misdeeds were exposed, people DID do something about it and weren’t crushed by the “mob”, either. So, again, I’m trying to figure out your point.
Which reminds me, was there any point to the lemmings post? You were fractally wrong in it and shown to be so. I know that hasn’t made a lick of difference in this thread so far, but hope springs eternal.
Like others here, I wonder what the OP would do if confronted by someone who didn’t believe in his god and didn’t acknowledge or respect any of the rights he thinks are conferred on him by Him. Heck, what would he do/demand if he were confronted by THOUSANDS of people like that?
But, the DoI is not a social contract. The Constitution is a social contract. The DoI is a revolutionary document – that is why it has to make natural-law appeals to “Nature and Nature’s God,” because there is no other sort of law to which a revolutionary document can appeal. For a while the revolutionaries spoke of being denied “the rights of Englishmen,” but they had to drop that essentially common-law argument when they decided to make the break.
Not so WAG, winning (losing) an election by a narrow margin.
And channeling my inner Christian nuttery,
Moreover, REAL leaders aren’t elected . . . they’re anointed by GOD!
CMC fnord!
And they were lucky to have an example they could use to give this document some legitimacy. Together with all this talk about Natural Rights they are trying to put a legal mask on a very illegal act. They are commiting treason against their lawful king.
Something which they are well aware of.
Exactly why there is so little mention of God.
Wow I may not be the only one looking at who our Commander in chief is putting into leadership roles as appointees. Wall street Journal
And I didn’t vote for Eric Holder either.
Wow try to stay on topic.
What about my link to fishing rules and regulations-any comments?
red flavor flavor-aid aside
Don’t like Disney? my bad did’t mean to insult
One myth deeply entrenched in our culture is that of the “Lemming Suicide Plunge” - where lemmings, apparently overcome by deep-rooted impulses, deliberately run over a cliff in their millions, to be dashed to their deaths on the rocks below, or to drown in the raging ocean. Indeed, this myth is now a metaphor for the behaviour of crowds of people who foolishly follow each other, lemming-like, regardless of the consequences. This particular myth began with a Disney movie.
I see Disney apologized. herehere
I look on those statements as more of a goal, explanation, or (in modern terms), a “mission statement”, than any stipulation of a greater (or “root”) authority.
There is no “Natural law” that states that we must have used democracy in order to live in a nation which expresses the most freedom and liberty. It’s my opinion that democracy is the most desirable form of government under which to live, and probably Jefferson’s, too.
In any case, the US Constitution is it’s own authority. When a court strikes down a law, or when the government overreaches itself, the court (especially the SCOTUS) may declare “this is ruled UnConstitutional”, with no further justification necessary (meaning, they don’t refer to any older sets of rules or laws).
Consider, also, that if “Natural Laws” were so well known and sacrosanct, and that “all men were free”, why did the Framers of the Declaration and the Constitution leave slavery intact? What punishment does “natural law” demand in this case?
Hmm. Why did he have to “discover” something so fundamental?
Did he have to discover gravity, too?
You just condradicted the previous quote…
The Declaration, while a historical document in English history, has absolutely zero force in any court other than the U.K’s. You know that, right? Each court, and each country, follows it’s own set of laws.
I already acknowledged that inspirations for the US Constitution were drawn from other document, but these “inspirational documents” never-the-less do not trump the newer document and laws.
The man sounds like an idealist livining in rougher times. 
I consider gravity to be a natural force. (“The Law of Gravity”.) But there is no police to enforce it. It works without concern or input from any human.
But please believe me when I state that a man can absolutely have his life, liberty, and property taken from him. History is replete with examples of this brutish fact. And sometimes, the Bad Guys get away with it. There is absolutely no mechanism that protects these “God given” rights, other than our fellow men standing with us.
I think I’ve argued here that the main reason the DoI mentions “god(s)” was to remind George that,
It’s hard to read the DoI and then read the English Bill of Rights 1689 and not think there’s a message for both George and the Parliament.
CMC fnord!