You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How To Make Your Court Case Irrelevant - Introducing Steemin' Marc Stevens' 'No State Project'.
The definition of legitimate is: Conforming to the Law or to Rules.
Therefore Anarchy is "illegitimate" as defined by the "Dictionary". Lol. Have a good day.
legitimacy does not require any form of logical rules to be adhered to from a specific source. anarchy does not preclude the individual from making his/her own rules for his/her own life and in his/her own way. therefore it can be said that since it is imbalanced and against natural law for one being to control another, the only legitimacy can come from self governance and the decisions which uphold that.
you need to consider the bigger picture here.
Talk to Webster.
If you are referring to Webster's Dictionary, you will need to be more precise. I do not advise anyone to define their destiny based on the definitions presented via a corporate textbook.
Black's then. But that's too corporate too I guess. We have to have set definitions in order to properly communicate. Would you prefer to translate it into Spanish and use their definitions of law?
The point is not about picking the best book to define reality by, the point is to understand reality itself deeply enough through logic and experience that errors in books can be exposed correctly. Do you think that the libraries in North Korea contain books which correctly define reality and from which the people there can learn about reality in a totally reliable way?
If you are specifically referring to the word 'legitimate', then you can see in the following dictionary definition from 'wordnik' that alongside the various references to 'law' is the definition:
This is, for me, closest to the general definition of the real meaning of the word. The laws/rules created by government and humans do not always conform to this definition and thus if we jump to the conclusion that everything a government passes into law is legitimate then we are completely denying this base requirement for legitimacy in a dangerous way.
The US courts test legitimacy of laws. Based on the US constitution using one set of definitions. Blacks' Law. I understand your point and I suppose you understand mine. But I'm not really sure about that. When I use the word legitimate I'm using it in the sense of being able to defend my land title as Legitimate in the face of Native Americans claiming it. Conquest therefore must come into the conversation as well. That's my reality. The legitimacy of our titles is directly tied to the legitimacy of our government's jurisdiction over its lands.
The context of this discussion is that of defining the existence or non existence of legitimate jurisdiction. If the source of the definition being used for the very word 'legitimate' is from the system itself which is being tested for legitimacy, then it is obviously the case that the test is not a legitimate one, according to the general and universal definition of the word. A truly legitimate system does not need to define it's own versions of words in order to legitimise itself. This is similar to the ways that police forces police themselves and nearly always declare themselves to be saintly, when it is obvious to anyone with a working brain that they are far from that.
If you truly intended to assess the situation regarding land title in an honest way, you would be forced to accept that stealing land by force, rape, intimidation, propaganda and other forms of heartlessness is not the way to integrity and deeply felt legitimacy. Being caught up in an unfortunate criminal empire is not proof that there is no better option available and certainly is not proof of the need to continue supporting it.
Again I'll repeat. We have to have definitions to communicate. A framework to communicate otherwise all I hear is Charlie Browns teacher talking.
The title to my land isn't based on right or wrong. It's based on conquest and my state defends its jurisdiction and my right to occupy the land to the exclusion of all others.
Ergo, based on the ancient Right of Conquest and the rules set up by the beneficiaries of that Conquest in America, by virtue of its original title and the United States of America's constitution, created a covenant running with the land binding all those who inhabit it either by residence or by occupancy.
The Right of Conquest is the original Natural Law.
The word 'Nature' is rooted in the idea of 'Birthing' - not in 'Winning' or 'Dominating' and in truth, these are opposing concepts. The fact that there has been a great imbalance on Earth for a long time is not proof that balance is not the correct way and that balance cannot be found.
Natural Law: Survival of the fittest.
Everything else are elements of civilization not Natural Law.
Generally, people who refer to 'survival of the fittest' have not really thought through the idea in enough depth to know if what they are describing is accurate or not.
'Fittest' does not mean 'more able to overpower and control'. The path of domination and control is the path of heartlessness and death. By definition, survival is not death. Survival is living in a balanced way. It can be discerned through simple logic, then, that 'the fittest' are those who cause balance and the fact that the dominators have attempted to repeatedly erase those who cause balance and then dare to deceive others into thinking that the dominators are the 'fittest' is probably one of the biggest perversions of truth in human history.
Balance is the key to reality in all that we do. I agree with that but again I'm not being metaphorical when I say survival of the fittest is the only Natural Law. Everything else is a human invention. I'm excluding humans from Nature. The Right of Conquest is the first of the human laws and we have built on that since the beginning of humanity.
Humanity is not separate from 'nature' - humans are birthed, thus are nature. I can agree that survival underpins much of what could be called 'Natural Law' - however, my point is that conquest is in no way the 'fittest' activity and in no way results in guaranteed survival. Balance DOES result in guaranteed survival. It is balance that underpins legitimate Natural Law.
Our ability to create and comprehend fictions separates us from Nature.
In the natural world there is no right or wrong. Humans invented it.
It is you that is defining what is and what is not within the natural world.
Should I let someone else do it ? But what is right moral or ethical is a function of ficticious law. Again if you feel something is out of balance in the US you don't need to attempt to de legitimize government, to effect change. Ruling from the ashes isn't much fun. Just ask the freedom fighters of Hamas; one day they won the election and couldn't even figure out how to dispose of their garbage properly.