You can't have it both ways, Constitutionalists

12 days ago

Image

Who is the enemy of Rightful Liberty?

It is the one who violates it, or advocates violating it. It is the one who asks others to violate it on his behalf.

Period.

No one else can be the enemy of Rightful Liberty.

So, who is violating Rightful Liberty?
Who advocates violating Rightful Liberty?
Who asks others to violate Rightful Liberty on his behalf?

Archators-- specifically including anyone who advocates governing others-- do. That's who.

It doesn't matter if they try to govern others with socialism, communism, republicanism, democracy, theocracy, or some other version of statism. Governing others is always a violation of Rightful Liberty.

This means those who use the US Constitution as some sort of touchstone are mortal enemies of Rightful Liberty. The Constitution established a government. A State. As such it continues to violate Rightful Liberty with everything it permits or fails to prevent, even to this day. And Constitutionalists encourage it to do so. Even harder, if it suits them.

They'll deny it venomously. They'll try to place the blame elsewhere. On you. Somehow they'll blame you for not "enforcing Constitutional limits" on the State a hundred years or more before you were born. They'll blame you for not demanding employees of the State stay inside those limits (or at least the limits they like) now-- and will tell you v*ting is the way to accomplish it. They'll claim it's the way to scare them into behaving. Never mind that it has never worked. Yes, it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad and dangerous.

They'll promise to defend Rightful Liberty to the death-- your death-- while utterly destroying Rightful Liberty with everything they advocate, delegate, and do.

They'll even advocate things, using the Constitution as a justification, that the Constitution didn't ever allow. Such as "immigration" control. Ask about that and they'll point to the part about "naturalization"; ignoring that it set out how to make someone a "citizen", not how to allow them to be here. This shows they support something they don't even understand, and make it up when it suits their feelings.

And they'll feel pleased with themselves, and feel superior.

They are not necessarily the greatest threat to Rightful Liberty right now. Their numbers are too small. Others may be worse and are more numerous. But if you mistakenly believe they understand and support liberty, and see you as an ally, you are making a fatal error.

Just heed the warning.

Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are perhaps better. They are dead wrong. No matter the excuses they use.

.

Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com. Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated! Thank you.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  trending

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” —Lysander Spooner

·

I've been reading everything on this website: http://annavonreitz.com/ for the last month or so, and a few days ago I finished reading this http://annavonreitz.com/theconstitution.pdf, nr 478, and this is for @dullhawk as well, I want to know if you can find a fault or contention to it.

As much as we want to blame the constitution or any treaty for their ineffectiveness the obvious logic is that we are wholly to blame. We cannot expect words on a piece of paper to compel individuals to act a certain way just as we cannot guarantee tomorrow will even come all such "contracts" are void by that observable, verifiable, fact of life: We aren't prophets and we don't have any basis to make claims in the future or to be held to respect claims we have made in the past, the Buddha observed over 2 millennia ago that we are not the same as we were yesterday, we change from one day to the next, and more precisely from one moment to the next.

This speaks more deeply that we are forever correcting our course and dispelling our illusions.

The point being is that Anarchy is the Golden Rule, and American Common Law is equally the Golden Rule to a T and therefore Anarchy and American Common Law are the exact same thing, the Constitution is a Government of the Militia, for the Militia and it doesn't apply to free men and women, only those that swear allegiance to the united States (Virginian Citizen vs United States citizens) and walk out on their nationality of Virginian. Yet now to clear the obvious rub: Virginia itself and all other colonies are the result of Deceit, Murder, Rape, Pillaging of the corpses, and claims over the land that is endowed by the creator to all and evident in nature. The Iroquois (I forgot which Iroquoian Tribe specifically) were about the only ones that in the Appalachians would practice a form of land ownership where hunting areas were passed down from parents to children, which is somewhat similar to what we have today and what had been imported from Feudal Europe. And to erase the rub completely once this is recognized the contention is that this was so long ago that all this Usurpation of Treaties with the Natives and outright War, are we to be blamed for the sins of our fathers? but it's simpler than that, there's no Blame to be shared, only clear, specific and unbiased factual history to be written, so that the millennia old trauma can be processed and we can actually move on as a people of this planet, not as a people of these bounds, language or culture which cannot shackle us in any way, we are free. Virginians aren't responsible but they have a responsibility to write the correct historical record or we shall without a doubt continue to fuss over borders, and all other chains that we enamor in wearing and clamor to ream those who detest the chains instead of focusing on freeing everyone from this trauma.

Pointing to the constitution and placing any kind of blame on it is tantamount to pointing at any other tool in the shed or abstraction and blaming them for moving one inch. It is much more certain that no document can "move" any people, and no words or chants or poems or any such mediums can either, nor can they prevent people from acting. Neither are we privileged to what tomorrow brings, or are we solving much if anything by accusing tools of the impossible. And in spite of that tools cannot move, we can use the constitution (being fit To exist), and use it to point and holler, just as you have done with Naturalization, NO, it is not so and this is why and how, because only men can do anything.

To clarify why I made that point is that this much is certain: Gangs are a problem, and so far the only viable solution is to counter them with a group effort. Anarchy and American Common Law are at ends even though they are both echoing the fundamental principle, the ground that both broke into: Freedom.

Therefore this in Anna's word's is why it's crucial:

Generations of Americans have scoured The Constitution looking for answers how to fix our broken government, but that is like reading a book about Barn Building, when what we really need to know is How to Raise Cows. The subjects are somewhat related, but only obliquely. Instructions for building hay mows and stanchions and waste gutters give information by inference, but don’t directly instruct us in what we need to know.
So in Article IV, The Constitution defines the evils of Bills of Attainder and forbids them, and in Amendment VII makes it clear that the American people are owed Common Law Courts, and in Article X it mentions that the states retained undelegated powers not granted to the new United States government, but doesn’ttell us how to object to Bills of Attainder, or which kind of “Common Law” Americans are owed, or give us a list of the powers that the states and people retained. So far as the writers of The Constitution were concerned it was assumed and we were expected to know all that for ourselves—but somewhere in the mass confusion, deceit, and fraud of the Civil War and the Reconstruction Acts---- we forgot. We forgot who we are, what our states are, what their jurisdiction is, how their powers are exercised, how they are meant to operate, and how to exercise the power of checks and balances. And it’s the same way with our counties. We forgot that the counties are the domain of the people and that the counties in turn control the states.
Instead, the self-interested vermin in DC contrived to turn everything around and upside down, to usurp upon our lawful counties and states and replace them via fraud and deceit with corporate franchises willing to do anything and everything their parent corporations in the District of Columbia demand. They even contrived to mischaracterize us and our political status, to demean and defraud us by the use and abuse of unilateral and undisclosed contracts to entrap, ensnare, and enclose upon the very people these monsters are hired and paid to protect.
So here we are in 2017, finally dispensing with the fog and corruption and destruction of the Civil War, finally getting rid of the carpetbaggers, and working to see our rightful government restored.
Let it be noted that the Missing Pieces are all on our side.
The US Government created by The Constitution is corrupt and arrogant and lawless after 150 years of running wild, but it is still kicking. It’s the American Government that is MIA.
It’s the actual American states that no longer answer roll call and act to prevent federal usurpation of their power. It’s the actual American counties that no longer lawfully assemble and do the job of directing the states. It’s our government that is on the ropes, firing on only two cylinders----and it’s because our counties and states
have been enfranchised and unlawfully converted by the so-called “federal government” into mere franchises of their own commercial corporations that Checks and Balances no longer work to prevent federal overreach, usurpation, and oppression.
It is because we have ignorantly allowed ourselves to be called “citizens of the United States” and allowed our political status to be misrepresented and mischaracterized, too, that we are oppressed and abused and presumed upon by these foreign interlopers.
If we are to restore our rightful government and learn to use the power of The Constitution we are owed, we must first restore and hone the American Government--- the lawful, unincorporated counties and states of the land jurisdiction, and restore ourselves as the people of our respective fifty nation-states.
The key is in our hands. It is up to us to turn it in the lock.

·
·

I have often pointed out that the "USA" is the worst threat America has ever faced; and America may not survive it. (In fact, this is probably a moot point already.)

The main problem I have with most of the above is that it assumes some sort of externally imposed government ("State") can be legitimate or good. The US government is evil. The American government would be evil. The Texas government is evil. Every government is evil. Some are worse than others, but all are evil to the core- it just depends on how much harm the government employees feel they can get away with.

The Constitution attempted to establish a State where somewhat less-evil governments had existed before. And it accomplished it. Its deed done, it was pretty much dispensed with as an inconvenience. I'm not going to spend my life worrying about the tiny details of what went wrong- someone imposed a State. That's all you need to know, and explains exactly what went wrong, and where and when it went wrong. It was wrong from conception- it couldn't have birthed anything other than a monster.

·
·
·

You seriously mistake what an Oath of Office is and the chains the servants bind themselves under this Good Faith oath, they are neither immune nor hell bent on defrauding you under this presumed immunity.

In other words you can call it evil all day long but if you cannot draw up a good enough argument as to how it is wrong for people to have lawful governance (with consent) it's paramount to pointing at the constitution and blaming it to move one inch by itself.

The Constitution attempted to establish a State where somewhat less-evil governments had existed before. And it accomplished it. Its deed done, it was pretty much dispensed with as an inconvenience.

The constitution is in no capacity to do any thing.

I'm not going to spend my life worrying about the tiny details of what went wrong- someone imposed a State.

The details are simply that the state and constitution have nothing to do with you but everything with the State, if you cannot appreciate the power of this tool you will have to dig holes by yourself when there is a crew who has excavators and can burrow to china on a minuscule percentage of your efforts, but do keep digging away I am sure any day now the efforts to get through the other side will validate themselves.

That's all you need to know, and explains exactly what went wrong, and where and when it went wrong. It was wrong from conception- it couldn't have birthed anything other than a monster.

I don't have to fight or fuss over imaginary creations or their creations, I recognize I am not a party to the treaty, that is no my signature, yet I can consent to a lawful governance and a lawful competent and completely liable Referee who swears to act in arbitration in matters of infringement onto the Golden Rule, period. There is no force, no coercion, no threats of violence anywhere, it's simply the solemn oath, no less the word of men and women, for due process. I see the value of this tool, and see the hopelessness of denouncing the tools which haven't been implemented correctly or blaming and wishing their destruction for deeds that only men can do.

·
·
·
·

"You seriously mistake what an Oath of Office is"

It has to do with governing others. There is no such "authority" to do that. You can't delegate a "right" which you don't have (and which can't exist). Swearing an oath to govern others, in whatever way you swear to do it, even according to some rules that supposedly limit what you can do to them, is wrong.

"...you can call it evil all day long but if you cannot draw up a good enough argument as to how it is wrong for people to have lawful governance (with consent)"

Sure I can.

First, in order to pretend there is such a thing as "lawful governance", you have to mistake "law" (man-made edicts) with Law (Natural Law, which is discovered, not invented).

No one can have the right to govern other people. Natural Law doesn't allow it. You can govern yourself, and that is the only governance which is lawful under Natural Law. Any attempt to govern others is not lawful under Natural Law, but only under the same made-up "laws" which made chattel slavery "lawful". All external governance is a violation of self-ownership.

Imposing external governance on others, being beyond anything you have a right to do, violates them. If you do it intentionally, you are committing evil. Committing evil is wrong.

You can consent to allow someone to govern you if that makes you happy, but you can't consent on anyone else's behalf. Majority doesn't make it right.

"...it's paramount to pointing at the constitution and blaming it to move one inch by itself."

I'm not blaming the Constitution, I'm blaming those who imposed it on others generations before the others were born. I'm blaming those who believe the Constitution had any power or "authority" to control the growth of the State it established. The evidence that this was a lie is all around them, if they bother to observe reality.

"The constitution is in no capacity to do any thing."

What? It didn't establish a State? Then where did the "United States of America" come from?

"The details are simply that the state and constitution have nothing to do with you but everything with the State,"

Then I would appreciate it if the government extremists would keep their filthy State to themselves and off of my life.

"...I can consent to a lawful governance and a lawful competent and completely liable Referee who swears to act in arbitration in matters of infringement onto the Golden Rule, period."

Agreed. Again. You can. It doesn't even matter whether the "governance" you consent to is "lawful" or not. But you can't legitimately consent for any other person. You can't rightfully expect others to help you pay for the thing you want, but that they don't. You can't ethically demand that they move to Somalia just because they don't consent to your gang's aggressive and thieving control of the territory.

·
·
·
·
·

It has to do with governing others. There is no such "authority" to do that. You can't delegate a "right" which you don't have (and which can't exist). Swearing an oath to govern others, in whatever way you swear to do it, even according to some rules that supposedly limit what you can do to them, is wrong.

There is all kinds of authority, for example I can hire someone to do a job for me, that is what that oath is, Hired to do a Job, and such Authority is inherently obvious: people can hire people for all kinds of things, even in an anarchist society Justice can be Standardized and follow a certain protocol, and people have all right to do that and consent to it and they have all right after that to take up the positions necessary for that Job. This is exactly what you need to observe: this is all voluntary, this is not forced.

Which Right exactly, don't I have, and what "others" are you referring to when you say "governing others"?

It's not the rules that limit, it's people themselves, and it's not "some rules", be utmost specific about "governing others" because I can consent to be governed, and be specific again as to what rights I don't have that you claim I am claiming.

If I steal something and there were witnesses and these people swear under penalty of perjury to tell the truth, people have a probable cause to detain me and question me about such matters, and judge me should I be found guilty and offer arbitration in such matters to bring restitution to the victims and there is nothing wrong with that process.

Sure I can.

First, in order to pretend there is such a thing as "lawful governance", you have to mistake "law" (man-made edicts) with Law (Natural Law, which is discovered, not invented).

Not the case by a long shot:

Natural Laws, like Gravity, Causality, are still man made constructs, and are no more laws than any other law.

I don't have to pretend that the Golden Rule is the utmost law, it doesn't even need to be written down and ignorance of this law, this rule, is not a good enough defense when breaking it.

I will ask you exactly which "man-made edicts" specifically you're discussing, and how or why are they Evil, why and how they apply to the Texas Government, or specifically to American Common Law.

No one can have the right to govern other people.

You can observe that this is wrong when people chose masters, bosses and consent to be governed, when people submit to others, by choice, without intimidation or force. You can observe this even more when people are presumed innocent after enough probable cause that they stole, or victimized others, and their choices subjugates themselves to the process of justice, there are many instances where people chose to be governed, both by their own words and by their constant deed.

Natural Law doesn't allow it. You can govern yourself, and that is the only governance which is lawful under Natural Law.

Natural law is non existent. Point to it and show me such Natural Law and how it contradicts the examples above.

Any attempt to govern others is not lawful under Natural Law, but only under the same made-up "laws" which made chattel slavery "lawful". All external governance is a violation of self-ownership.

Still completely wrong. Not only there is no Reason or Fact to back up your assertion but we are still discussing the imaginary as the real. You can insinuate that "made-up" laws are to blame for slavery but it's actual people that deserve blame and I don't know how you can resolve why this pertains to American Common Law, Due Process, and a Jury of your Own Peers, Innocent until proven Guilty and you can call all Statues and Federal Regulations Evil, but they are most not evil, and couldn't be evil, and not only that, we weren't discussing law in some discombobulated "whole" of "man-made" laws, but the Golden Rule, No victim No crime, so do demonstrate with specificity to that why and how it's Evil.

Lawful governance has nothing to do with Imposing Edicts onto people, Taxation/Theft and insinuating that any actions taken against people under the Flag of Justice provides the people carrying out these acts of JUSTice with Immunity of any kind, it doesn't.

All external governance is a violation of self-ownership.

If you murder someone and there is probable cause to decree you the culprit, it is no violation if you are brought before Justice to face your peers and the Accusers. That is External Just Governance and it's the kind of justice the Free People of this country are guaranteed under the Constitution and preceding that Under the Articles of Confederacy, and it would be the same as a service done for the public in ANY culture, anarchist included to resolve disputes relating to CRIME, or JUSTICE. You can claim it's a crime, external governance, but you have no way to demonstrate why and how that is so or to substantiate such accusations, where are the victims, where are the sworn testimony, who are the accused, or you simply do not think providing such specifics is important to the context and the numerous claims that are equally unsubstantiated on this subject which calling tools or documents, or edicts, Evil.

I'm not blaming the Constitution, I'm blaming those who imposed it on others generations before the others were born. I'm blaming those who believe the Constitution had any power or "authority" to control the growth of the State it established. The evidence that this was a lie is all around them, if they bother to observe reality.

Again you're blaming the tool for the acts of people "that this was a lie". Regardless of you expressing that you aren't blaming the tool, you unequivocally concluded exactly that by positing the false presumption under "the Constitution had any power or "authority" to control the growth of the State it established" which implies this tool didn't do the job it was meant to do, without explaining Why the tool isn't good for such task and How, and as that blame is unwarranted on principle of tools have no volition and the fact that no reasons were offered to specifically implicate a deficiency of the tool, I can attest that it's completely user error and nothing short of that, as I have pointed out before and as Judge Anna's words so eloquently argued which remain uncontested yet, learning to build barns and raising cows aren't the same thing.

What? It didn't establish a State? Then where did the "United States of America" come from?

From the creation of man, shouldn't this be obvious, exactly as the Constitution is the creation of man, can the DEAD, can the IMAGINARY, can ANY tool create anything? is this not an important thing to observe, that tools are without volition, tools do not create, and equally just as struts and joists and trusses don't create a roof, it's the carpenter who creates the and implements those tools to create the tools that create the tool we call a roof, it all begins with man and it all ends with man. Looking at a heap of timber because the struts gave out we're fixated on blaming the struts, or the tools, when the responsibility can only be carried by people, and when the roof is standing you don't laud the material, because no material ever moved one inch by itself.

Then I would appreciate it if the government extremists would keep their filthy State to themselves and off of my life.

And that is exactly the point you should be rubbing in:
That it's neither your creation nor are you party to it. Why do you care what someone consents to? You live your life and you will be left alone by those that aren't even legally, lawfully allowed to address you without a contract, fully disclosed and your wet ink signature along-side theirs. Yet they can make a bunch of presumptions if you do not rebut them and object to them, hence why it's important to utilize this tool. This Constitution is a Contract and a Trust, and it still binds those that consent to it as any contract does, and as uninspiring and rudimentary it is in making such "promises", contracts, and trust still have a use, principally of safeguarding inheritance and delivering it to the rightful heir. The tool hasn't work and won't work as long as the Power which is supposed to Wield this tool is absent and creates the vacuum that allows the Federal free reign. They can presume anything they wish as result of this power vacuum, so If you want to blame someone for the constitution not working, blame all those who still are trying to raise cows from a manual on barn building.

Agreed. Again. You can. It doesn't even matter whether the "governance" you consent to is "lawful" or not. But you can't legitimately consent for any other person. You can't rightfully expect others to help you pay for the thing you want, but that they don't. You can't ethically demand that they move to Somalia just because they don't consent to your gang's aggressive and thieving control of the territory.

All your points are moot besides the immediate agreement to my point but I object for further clarification and specificity since it's of utmost importance governance be lawful, because I do not consent to people doing things they weren't hired to do, period, but you are correct it could be called whatever, people are free to agree to such things, and hence all your claims that such things are evil need to be re-examined, and re-stated with the most clarity and specificity necessary so as not to fall victim to spreading falsity out of false absolutes and based on incorrect generalities. It's of no importance all the things you mentioned after the agreement since they weren't the topic or points we were discussing so implying that we were discussing "demanding people to move" or such things have been implied somehow by me is incorrect and inconsequential to discussing American Common Law (no victim no crime, face one's accusers)

·
·
·
·
·
·

"There is all kinds of authority, for example I can hire someone to do a job for me, that is what that oath is, Hired to do a Job...This is exactly what you need to observe: this is all voluntary, this is not forced."

Real authority isn't what politicians and cops etc. claim to have. Real authority is expertise, not the power to bully. You can hire someone to do a job for you. You can't force me to pay them without violating me. You also can't claim they have any "authority" over me without doing the same.

"Which Right exactly, don't I have, and what "others" are you referring to when you say "governing others"?"

You don't have the right to govern people who are not you. As for governing, you have the right to govern yourself, no one else.

"If I steal something and there were witnesses and these people swear under penalty of perjury to tell the truth, people have a probable cause to detain me and question me about such matters, and judge me should I be found guilty..."

Or, you can do all that without the veil of governmentalism.

"Natural Laws, like Gravity, Causality, are still man made constructs, and are no more laws than any other law."

Try to convince a physicist of that. LOL

"I will ask you exactly which "man-made edicts" specifically you're discussing, and how or why are they Evil, why and how they apply to the Texas Government, or specifically to American Common Law."

Any man-made edict that attempts to forbid or control any behavior which doesn't violate the life, liberty, or property of a third party. These are not real Law (as in Natural Law) but are counterfeit "law"; without ethical basis. Evil is the act of intentionally causing harm to anyone who isn't in the act of violating someone else. (I went into this in a previous post). That is what these kinds of "laws" do, and it is why they are evil. Every government/State imposes them on the local population.

"You can observe that this is wrong when people chose masters, bosses and consent to be governed, when people submit to others, by choice, without intimidation or force."

In all these examples, there is consent. These are not the cases I'm talking about. The difference is consent.

"Natural law is non existent."

If Natural Law is non-existent, then do what you want, without limit, and see how that turns out. Or, do you believe there will be consequences that are independent of any "governing" body?
.

I could go on like this forever (and, in the past I have done so many times), but the fact is you believe in a superstition I don't share. We will simply continue talking past each other, and I don't have the time to keep responding to each and every point you make to see you ignore it and make a strawman. You aren't listening, and nothing I can say will get you to listen. Your choice.

I will just keep in mind that when you say "freedom" you seem to mean the concept I call "liberty", when you say "liberty" you mean a temporary, limited freedom from (possibly consensual) slavery granted by "authority".

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Real authority isn't what politicians and cops etc. claim to have. Real authority is expertise, not the power to bully. You can hire someone to do a job for you. You can't force me to pay them without violating me. You also can't claim they have any "authority" over me without doing the same.

Either you refute my claims and object to them or you agree to them, insinuating I claimed to force you or anyone doesn't invalidate what I said and you still have to explain as to why you would insinuate such things.

You don't have the right to govern people who are not you. As for governing, you have the right to govern yourself, no one else.

I do, I can govern my employees as I in turn can chose to be governed.

Or, you can do all that without the veil of governmentalism.

What's the difference? Why is it a veil, we are speaking about lawful governance which amounts to ONLY, and especially, JUST that, and nothing more and nothing that you have insinuated thus far. You can call it evil but therein is the problem, you have yet to demonstrate that with specificity, at all. You cannot.

Try to convince a physicist of that. LOL

No, I don't need to convince anyone, they will freely agree that all such are concepts and creations of man, explanations no matter how convincing aren't going to be Laws, only perspectives of men, to which I will ask again, show me such Natural Law that isn't purely creation of man, based in the medium of language specifically, in abstractions and not the tangible, far far from the tangible.

Any man-made edict that attempts to forbid or control any behavior which doesn't violate the life, liberty, or property of a third party.

So pretty much the contention is with specificity correct, as not all man0made edicts was what you were speaking of, but specifically those that "forbid or control any behavior which doesn't violate the life, liberty, or property of a third party" and if we seek further clarification, can you point ONE specific such edict or law? I will attest at this point that were you to do such I could argue without contention on your part that either those Edicts don't apply to you and therefore aren't forcing you in such a way and as you are not party to them it's a moot point, for as they don't force you in such a meaningless way, they don't force no other men or women either.

These are not real Law (as in Natural Law) but are counterfeit "law"; without ethical basis. Evil is the act of intentionally causing harm to anyone who isn't in the act of violating someone else. (I went into this in a previous post). That is what these kinds of "laws" do, and it is why they are evil. Every government/State imposes them on the local population.

Specifically let's see which Laws and Rules you claim do such a thing, as such claims are mighty in their scope but they will not fare as substantial by any means. Evil is acts, not laws. Evil is what people do, not things. Laws don't do, laws by the very maxim cannot compel performance.

Study this deeply and find me your contentions to this:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/maxims.html

And before that do write the numerous things that are completely in agreement with your views.

Then we can discuss the presumption built into your logic that such laws exist and there is really such a thing as counterfeit laws.

In all these examples, there is consent. These are not the cases I'm talking about. The difference is consent.

Obviously this is imperative to point out again, since you keep discussing about Force as if I brought such a thing up or gave any validity to such a stance, why are you discussing what isn't the case?

If Natural Law is non-existent, then do what you want, without limit, and see how that turns out. Or, do you believe there will be consequences that are independent of any "governing" body?

Natural Law is non-existent, simply because you cannot specify it and point to it and it's completely, wholly and utterly ABSTRACTION and not tangible or directly verifiable to experience. Natural Law can mean MANY things, and you can claim natural law exists but every single instance you point at, even "independent consequences" go poof, if natural law exists, it permits all that natural law claims to prevent and heaps more which is waiting to be explored by both the deranged and the deprived alike, and the consequences kiss their disturbed ass.

I could go on like this forever (and, in the past I have done so many times), but the fact is you believe in a superstition I don't share. We will simply continue talking past each other, and I don't have the time to keep responding to each and every point you make to see you ignore it and make a strawman. You aren't listening, and nothing I can say will get you to listen. Your choice.

You can go on like this forever, that is not my contention at all. My contentions are specific, and wholly to the subject at hand, and there is not a straw man that you can claim to be my creation, and if there is you have yet to specify why and how and what that might be. I can in turn ignore all your straw men and move by them as they don't move one inch unless I breathe life into to their make believe form and presume it to be an actual counter point, I can walk right by the numerous red herrings and not even point at them, but with courtesy I have specified them for clarity so that you cannot claim that I even Ignored your straw men, and that I didn't give them credence and explained why it's hardly Ignored which I want to know exactly what you deem I ignored and how and why that what was essential to the discussion, specifically to the development of "Evil Government vs Lawful Governance".

I will just keep in mind that when you say "freedom" you seem to mean the concept I call "liberty", when you say "liberty" you mean a temporary, limited freedom from (possibly consensual) slavery granted by "authority".

I don't recognize liberty as an interchangeable counterpart to free but specifically a tainted term by those that adapted it, by it's origin in the Conquering Latin, and also in the commercial sense it has been employed, and I see free as a term adapted by the common man, as evident by it's Tribal origins, and in all it's senses it has shared, all more qualifying as a term for it's intended use then the next and all echoing for brotherhood and love.

I think that the terms we use can be used against us or others that adopt them, and as we have a choice between calling it freedom or liberty I think it wise to asses what such choice would impart, essentially it goes the same about specificity and clarity, we have a choice to be utmost precise, so as to not invite confusion, and if we don't pick our words with such aims as to say what we mean and mean what we say, we run the risk of being vacuous and without much regard for what we seek to impart, our message making needless conflict instead of peace.

Freedom, as liberty is a sailor's term. The point is that the Constitution hasn't worked, as all treaties haven't, all that they do is give the appearance of freedom and that appearance quickly becomes the wishful thinking of what freedom is and like you said the *unjustified blame are on those who aren't even part to the treaty or the contract.

Edit*

·

Unfortunately, the military perverted the word "liberty" as it does everything it touches. They took a word and applied it to a concept which is its polar opposite.

"Freedom" is doing whatever you want to do- good, bad, or indifferent.

"Liberty" is the freedom to do what you have a right to do- which is anything which doesn't violate someone else. You can see this definition in the writings of Thomas Jefferson: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Notice he doesn't use the sailors' warped "definition" of the word.

The Constitution has been a "dead letter" for almost all of its existence. For multiple reasons.

·
·

Notice that the sailors definition precedes Tomas Jefferson's "definition".

Also we have to notice that his definition of Rightful Liberty is not simply Liberty, and equal rights of others doesn't include being a slave like he assumes those aren't equal rights and that much is understood by the reader.

Nautical sense of "leave of absence" is from 1758. To take liberties "go beyond the bounds of propriety" is from 1620s. Sense of "privileges by grant" (14c.) led to sense of "a person's private land" (mid-15c.), which yielded sense in 18c. England and America of "a district within a county but having its own justice of the peace," and also "a district adjacent to a city and in some degree under its municipal jurisdiction" (e.g. Northern Liberties of Philadelphia). Also cf. Old French libertés "local rights, laws, taxes."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/liberty

And it's very much to do with what you say freedom is:

  1. liberation. See freedom. 6. franchise, permission, license, privilege, immunity.

late 14c., "a freedman, an emancipated slave," from Latin libertinus "member of a class of freedmen," from libertus "one's freedmen," from liber "free" (see liberal ). Sense of "freethinker" is first recorded 1560s, from French libertin (1540s) originally the name given to certain Protestant sects in France and the Low Countries. Meaning "dissolute or licentious person" first recorded 1590s; the darkening of meaning being perhaps due to misunderstanding of Latin libertinus in Acts vi:9. As an adjective by 1570s.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/libertine?s=t

Word Origin and History for free
adj.

Old English freo "free, exempt from, not in bondage," also "noble; joyful," from Proto-Germanic *frijaz (cf. Old Frisian fri, Old Saxon and Old High German vri, German frei, Dutch vrij, Gothic freis "free"), from PIE *prijos "dear, beloved," from root *pri- "to love" (cf. Sanskrit priyah "own, dear, beloved," priyate "loves;" Old Church Slavonic prijati "to help," prijatelji "friend;" Welsh rhydd "free").

The primary sense seems to have been "beloved, friend, to love;" which in some languages (notably Germanic and Celtic) developed also a sense of "free," perhaps from the terms "beloved" or "friend" being applied to the free members of one's clan (as opposed to slaves, cf. Latin liberi, meaning both "free" and "children").

Cf. Gothic frijon "to love;" Old English freod "affection, friendship," friga "love," friðu "peace;" Old Norse friðr, German Friede "peace;" Old English freo "wife;" Old Norse Frigg "wife of Odin," literally "beloved" or "loving;" Middle Low German vrien "to take to wife, Dutch vrijen, German freien "to woo."

Of nations, "not subject to foreign rule or to despotism," it is recorded from late 14c. ( Free world "non-communist nations" attested from 1950.) Sense of "given without cost" is 1580s, from notion of "free of cost." Free lunch, originally offered in bars to draw in business, by 1850, American English. Free pass on railways, etc., attested by 1850. Free speech in Britain used of a privilege in Parliament since the time of Henry VIII. In U.S., as a civil right, it became a prominent phrase in the debates over the Gag Rule (1836).

Free enterprise recorded from 1890; free trade is from 1823. Free will is from early 13c. Free association in psychology is from 1899. Free love "sexual liberation" attested from 1822. Free range (adj.) is attested by 1960. Free and easy "unrestrained" is from 1690s.
v.

Old English freogan "to free, liberate, manumit," also "to love, think of lovingly, honor," from freo (see free (adj.)). Cf. Old Frisian fria "to make free;" Old Saxon friohan "to court, woo;" German befreien "to free," freien "to woo;" Old Norse frja "to love;" Gothic frijon "to love." Related: Freed ; freeing.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free?s=t

No it has nothing do to with freely doing wrong, not at all.

·
·
·

"...his definition of Rightful Liberty is not simply Liberty,"

Yes, it is. He is simply re-emphasising that liberty is your right; that it is rightfully yours. Yoy can't have "non-rightful liberty"- it is an oxymoron.

"...equal rights of others doesn't include being a slave"

Of course not.

"Nautical sense of "leave of absence" is from 1758."

OK, but it is still a specific definition that is at odds with the regular definition. Like the way people today use "literally" to mean the opposite of "literally" (i.e., "figuratively"). Military "liberty" isn't liberty.

Dictionaries are often wrong. Yes, they try to make "liberty" and "freedom" interchangeable; but there are differences, as I explained before. You can accept it or not.

It seems as though you are wanting to excuse slavery (The State, specifically) by grasping at definitional straws. If not, then use whatever word you want when referring to those things which you have a right to do, and which no one has a right to stop you from doing- just do as I do and explain what the word means to you when you use it.

·
·
·
·

Yes, it is. He is simply re-emphasising that liberty is your right; that it is rightfully yours. Yoy can't have "non-rightful liberty"- it is an oxymoron.

You can speak simply on Liberty can you not, why emphasize something that couldn't be mistaken for anything else, unless it's necessary to place such emphasis, unless liberty means something other or could mean something other than Rightful Liberty, and from the definitions like I pointed out, at the time Liberty wasn't as simple as Free, and implied laws, legislation and such actions as State directly as the definition pointed out, that is it's Origins, along with the fact that it's refereeing to Liberty as a sailor's term.

Of course not.

That's of most importance because what wisdom should a Hypocrite, plagiarist, Slave Owner have to share about Freedom, and all those erosion of Integrity cast doubt anything he says on the subject. Surely there is someone better, less tainted in their deeds, less dubious in their understanding of such things to expound about freedom about. No, the words of a hypocrite don't automatically get labeled lies or fiction, but my doubt on both his understanding, and on the reason as to why he had to clarify what kind of liberty remains justified, and I don't see a good enough rebuttal on either. He could have said Liberty, or even Real, Essential Actually, Very Poignant, Just and Rightful Liberty, that he speaks about equal rights while oblivious to his very own hypocrisy of owning slaves and subjugating people to slavery directly doesn't mean anything, especially if it was intended for other Slave Owners to nod in agreement over, the implications of this are paramount, and as is the implications of the emphasis. Without clarifying who this was intended for (equal rights) or opposed to what other Liberty if not Right, the words are only for us to decipher. I detest the character first on their hypocrisy and lastly and equally I detest the peers for to which these words were intended, he certainly clarified the mundane, and emphasized the obvious though.

OK, but it is still a specific definition that is at odds with the regular definition. Like the way people today use "literally" to mean the opposite of "literally" (i.e., "figuratively"). Military "liberty" isn't liberty.

Back before that it was libertines from Liberty, which is exactly what you were trying to color freedom as, it's not splitting hairs either though because one word comes from the Conquering Romans and the other comes from those the Romans Conquered, one word has a history of being used for "freedom to do whatever, good or bad" and one word has a history of being used for the most benevolent and highest affinity that man can express, or love itself, one has a whole history tied to slavery and freed slaves from the language of the tyrants and the other an almost opposite history tied to it with much more specificity to the purpose at hand, or inherent freedom, and we should observe the interchangeability of the two words with regards to Free, and not necessarily Freedom, for liberty is no counterpart to free, you can be a free man, and on the opposite the only inkling of such is libertine. Free is simple it's not tied into anything to do with "state" but Liberty does, as is pointed out in it's origins:

Nautical sense of "leave of absence" is from 1758. To take liberties "go beyond the bounds of propriety" is from 1620s. Sense of "privileges by grant" (14c.) led to sense of "a person's private land" (mid-15c.), which yielded sense in 18c. England and America of "a district within a county but having its own justice of the peace," and also "a district adjacent to a city and in some degree under its municipal jurisdiction" (e.g. Northern Liberties of Philadelphia). Also cf. Old French libertés "local rights, laws, taxes."

While the libertines refer directly to former slave and describe not former slaves but debauchees in people, and such duplicity speaks of the affinity for the word liberty instead of freedom as a tool of Obfuscation . We can observe that was has been granted by men can be taken away (Freedmen). We are all free inherently or none of us are free, free doesn't mean anything about questionable morality.