I'm just saying that you had just constructed this entire argument about how voting is a natural law beginning with the assumption of a "natural right to govern yourself." If that doesn't imply anything, then your whole argument is worthless.

I'm working with your unusual definitions, so I'm not taking anything for granted. What is the logical connection of being able to "govern myself" to the right to tell others to do things?

LOL -- It's funny how convoluted your logic has become. I reject that "voting" is a "natural right" because voting is subservient to a governing entity, and therefore I must not believe in natural rights at all.

Where's an American flag that I can wrap myself in? Being American means insulation from facts, truth, and logic.

You have the right to self governance. That is self evident under natural law. Within the context of that right, you can choose someone else to govern you, if that person agrees--this is the obviousity you are nitpicking on, like you nitpick on everything attempting to get a rise out of people....you're a troll). If a bunch of people get together and decide to have someone govern them, they are exercising their natural rights. The founding fathers all voted for the DoI and Constitution when they founded the republic. It's not a 'vote' in your narrow mind, because you can't see past your nose, but it was still a vote and it still affects you today. You consent to it (or you don't, which you also have the natural right to do).

The constitution is actually free people constituting a system of governance. They all give up some aspects of their natural rights, such as the defamation aspect of free speech, to the system of governance and that system promises, via the law, to enforce those aspects upon everyone. Similarly, you give up some of your total human freedom (and everyone else does too) in return for living in a peaceful society, and the government enforces those laws (criminal code, contract law etc) when responsibilities are abrogated.



You literally just said 5 posts ago you don't understand what natural rights mean outside of the vagueries of the Declaration. Seems like as you're learning new things you're pretending you always knew them and are shifting your opinions, mixed in with a little poison for some reason. It's much more relieving to just admit you were wrong.

If you believe the sentiments in the declaration are true, that all men are created equal and have the natural rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, then you believe it for everyone on earth who has ever lived. Regardless of what government some men live under, the sentiments of the declaration apply universally. It is a beautiful document of humanitarianism and I suggest you read it sometime.

P) you have the right to self governance
therefore
C) You then also have a right to appoint someone to represent you in governance.

C does not follow from P, unless there are steps you are missing out. Also, I think you are using the word "right" to do work that it doesnt actually do.

Huh? If you have the right to self governance then appointing someone to govern you is one possibility of you acting out that right.

It doesn't surprise me you think your rights are given to you by the government. The original intent of the DoI and the confirmation of inherent human freedom it articulates has faded quite a bit as the government continues to break the law and people get more and more used to it.

How do you guys think this issue compares with Washington area restaurants refusing service to members of the current administration?

It's totally fine, because Trump supporters are evil, so not serving evil people is totally standard.

Hmm.

Even if I were a sole trader (the equivalent to a sole proprietorship) I'm okay with the idea that the way I have to conduct in commerce is different to how I conduct as a private individual.

lol, I was confused why I was seeing Doordonot's posts....I thought I had him on ignore. Turns out he made a new account???

Is this an unlimited right? I can go wherever I want? Do whatever I want? If not, what are the bounds of "self-governance"?

This does not follow. You also asserted earlier that self-governance didn't imply anything.

I did not decide to have someone govern over me. I was born into this.

It may come as a complete shock to you, I did not sign the constitution. I did not agree to that. But there is no such thing as sovereign citizenship.

It was at the time. Everyone after that is constrained by the decisions of others.



Nope. You've defined "right to vote" as a "natural right" but voting is a subset of only certain systems of governance. I gave you some room to play to come up with something, but you failed miserably.

Sentimentality is one thing. Declarations of "natural rights" are quite another. I'm simply going to point out that the statement of "inalienable rights" comes in a document that is completely separate from the one that makes declarations of rights such as voting or speech. I'll also point out that the collection of rights enumerated in one of the documents is EXPLICITLY alienable.

I think the distinction he's getting at is that a sole proprietorship does not have the financial boundaries that an LLC would have.

A parchment like the Constitution is more akin to an "ideal" or that to which the body politic which are the people move.

In pragmatic/practical USA it becomes a type of coercion in the minds of some in its many venued passions which can mean an abstracted "commandment" to a laissez faire passionate on the other end of the spectrum.

Like it or not the "idea" of the Constitution is within "movement" as expressed through the souls of the people(s).

This Constitution , brought forth through a higher realm, the realm of the "idea" by advanced individuals, doesn't mean "pie in the sky" nor does it solve the problems of its people(s) but a road traveled by each incarnating individual within his lifetime.

The road traveled is through and by the individual who represents the "Good" within himself either consciously or within an instinctual pattern which would , in the future, become a conscious activity.

The drift is that the moral tone of the individual becomes evident and creative in the exploration of cosmic morality, not by governmental fiat but through the individual in and of himself.

Specifically, the baker if in the process of "taking an interest" in his fellow man would then present an expression of Love manifest. Likewise the marrying couple would also "take an interest" in the baker, manifesting a creative Love. This is the road to the refurbishment of the human soul(s) and this is exactly where the Christ resides, as a pictured guide to the evolutionary creation of Man.

This is not a "commandment" or "coercion" for the human being has the "Good" within and the hopeful function of a government is to facilitate the individual's progression of improvement, that to which we are all subscript.

The nature of Man is "Good", or created out of the "Good" and this is not "pie in the sky". He knows what to do, within the "Good" and in the progress actually redeems the hindrances to his progression, or the redemption of what one may call "evil" which is another story.

Man can and does "take an interest" in others , a road as Love manifest.

I dont think rights are given to you by the government. That has nothing to do with what I said

This is your claim

P) you have the right to self governance
therefore
C) You then also have a right to appoint someone to represent you in governance.

Again, it doesnt necessarily follow, that because you have a right, that it is transferable,

In a theoretical or philosophical sense, yes. You can do anything you wish. It is perfectly unlimited. Anarchic.



If I can govern myself unlimitedly, then one of my potential choices is to choose not to self-govern.


I agree, and I think you should be able to leave if you want. The Declaration says you can leave. There aren't any explicit laws preventing you from leaving. It's just the government has a monopoly on power, so they won't let you leave. 1861-1865 is a prime example.



I agree with you. You and others should be able to leave the system of governance you are born under whenever you wish, as free human beings.


The sentiment in the Declaration is still there. Most of the fathers would have agreed with you.





It's funny how you rarely make anything but assertions, never address arguments and then nitpick apart definitions of words and think you've won.



The Declaration is the first statute of American law. The constitution, which you clearly also have not read, does not declare rights. It limits and clarifies the boundaries that government can impose upon pre-existing rights.

Take the first amendment as an example:

because everyone is naturally free to choose their own religion.

and naturally free to exercise it.

THE freedom of speech. Everyone has this already, and government cannot make a law abridging it.


Etc etc etc

Anti-discrimination laws are getting into the realm of unconstitutionality now. Congress shall make no law.... prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If I'm a sole proprietor and I'm a muslim, and my religious text and belief calls for me to not freely associate with non-muslims, then any government law saying that I must is abridging the freedom I have to express my religion.

In this case, I don't think your concept of natural rights is at all consistent with anything that any reasonable person puts forward.

Ya but it's not different. Sole trader, first of all, doesn't exist in north america.

Sole Proprietorships are individuals. They pay the taxes out of their own pockets, own all the liabilities and all the profits and if sued have unlimited liability. There are 23 million of them in the US.

https://info.legalzoom.com/sole-prop...-us-24089.html

I don't care what you think. You obviously have done little to no research on this topic and are being deliberately confrontational like every other topic you know nothing about.

I welcome the presentation of a legal theory of "natural rights" that supports your assertions. Specifically, something making the case for the unlimited right of movement (which would include property violations and such).

Well, unlimited is probably not the right word since you're inherently limited (you can't fly, etc.)

I don't need to make a case for it. It's self-evident. You can literally travel anywhere, until someone stops you. When they stop you they believe they are exercising a right of their own to stop you, whether that be a property right or border right or whatever. A system of governance is formed when people consent to give up some of their inherent freedom to a state or body to enforce universal rights surrenders upon everyone, for the 'greater good' of living in a just and fair society. So I say, I can still travel anywhere, but I'll give up my right to travel on your property if you and everyone else gives up their right to travel on mine, and we have this police service and justice system that will enforce that so I don't have to kill you when you break the law.

This is the way that America was envisioned by the majority of the founders. Unfortunately the government is a living organism and has constantly been trampling on rights ever since, monopolizing power and surveillance, and now there's nothing you can really do about it. That doesn't change what it is in principle though.

oh no....kennedy retires, just after taking a huge swing at every public sector union in america. Definitely has big implications for abortion and possibly gay rights. Damn. Last year and half has been a pretty big ****ing pill to swallow.

No, it's not. It's not because I have no experiences in my life in which this has been possible. It's not at all obvious that I have a right to walk on other people's property, for example. I may have the *capacity* to do so (that is, I can physically do it), but that's not what makes something a right.

In other words, I *don't* have a right to *unlimited* movement. It's a limited right. It's limited by other people.

You can say whatever you want. Clearly. But that doesn't mean that you've established anything in any meaningful way.

And clearly, you haven't actually done research into natural rights. Because nobody defines natural rights like this except for the lunatic fringe (sovereign citizens). Neither Locke nor Aristotle treat natural rights in this manner. I offer you the chance to quote either one talking about this specific topic in the manner you're presenting.

I just told you it's the equivalent. You make up half of what I say and don't read the other half.

The reason I brought this up was because I was told that "the rights of the business are the rights of the individual", so I said that in the case of companies like my own this clearly isn't true. I'm not sure that considering a sole trader/proprietorship actually contests that. All it does is say that not all individuals trading are business owners. Are we considering a "sole proprietorship" to be a "business"?

It suffices that in some cases we do draw a distinction between a company and an individual who owns and operates it.

While it is not forbidden in the US, I personally think businesses discriminating on grounds of political affiliation should be illegal. This is also how it is in my country.

And here only a broad legislation can work. The state can't (or I guess shouldn't) make specific affiliations protected groups, for pretty obvious reasons.

It would be completely wrong to say that "the rights of businesses are the rights of individuals". That one can point to a few business forms where that is the case would still not make the statement correct.

This is the exact same reasoning that would allow us to say that "apples are green" is an incorrect statement, even though there undeniably are green apples.

There are many business forms that have legal rights that individuals do not posses and that can even grant individuals legal rights they would not otherwise have if they did not own it, run it or were employed by it. That said, this all happens for pretty damn good reasons. Running a business larger than a one-man operation where everyone is personally liable for every little thing would be a bloody nightmare. It does however mean that one should think twice before automatically assuming businesses should have the rights of humans.

Made my day.

Well, with only 50% majority needed to elect the final say on the constitution and only 2 competitive parties... you're basically a banana republic in disguise.