You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How To Make Your Court Case Irrelevant - Introducing Steemin' Marc Stevens' 'No State Project'.
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.
A right is simply what is right. Conquest is not right, period. It doesn't matter how many murderers state otherwise.
You're confusing some sort of morality with the results of Conquest. The winners control the rights. And wrongs so to speak. That's how the world works in reality - not the fantasy snowflake world. Just ask the Palestinians. I'm not supporting the Israelíes in their conquest of Palestine but they sure are bringing civilization to the desert there. But you're going to jump into the morality pool of right and wrong again aren't you. Based on some sense of fairness... but that's what the founding fathers of America did for us. Attempted to bring some morality to our code and this is what we got for it today. Snowflakes claiming government in general is illegitimate because he wasn't personally consulted first.
There is a simple equation for balance that applies to everything that exists. Balance is defined as 'no part or aspect overpowering any other'. You can continue to support imbalance, or if you are ready, you can open up to the potential for a far greater way to live - which is actual balance. Without the lived experience, there is no way to know the fruits of real balance and no amount of judging balance to be 'fantasy' will disprove the legitimacy of balance.