please. please write down what you want to say before you say it. your video will be about 8 minutes shorter and wont just confuse ppl with tangential chatter. although quite whimsical it can be a bit drifty. not a word but im in your world, so i think you will understand:) peace
And a really long explanation about how "laws against the non-criminal exercise" of protected rights is CRIME, and the moral justification is just that - "justification for CRIME."
There are reasonable regulations - then there are "regulatory takings" - deprivation of one's property without the 5th Amendment requirements for that "taking" to be LAWFUL.
What is ownership, after all? I "own" a house, which means that I have some parcel of land as defined officially in some deed somewhere.
But what if someone ELSE also claims to own my land? How should that be arbitrated? If "ownership" of property is absolute (no court involvement), then we have a conundrum.
Thus, yes, I "own" the land in that the government (and I love your definition, BTW) recognizes that I hold the title.
After all, if the government can take away something as fundamental as liberty, then how can there be any question of where ultimate control over property resides?
OTOH, I think it's clear, as you said, that the Constitution was written precisely to limit government and thus leave as much control as possible in the hands of the individual.
No one said that ownership was "absolute" in the regard that disputes could not be arbitrated - that would be the proper role of Government - to mediate disputes over rights.
Only one person is the onwer of the thing in question - that person should be found to have rights by the court.
The one party that DOES NOT HAVE OWNERSHIP - and cannot come out as having ownership after resolution is the Court.
This would be Governmental usurpation of those rights, a conversion into privileges.
But the quote, as read by Jonathan, merely was that the court refused to relinquish ALL authority.
I'm certain that there's much in this situation that I don't know, so all I'm commenting on is the fact that the court appears to have simply refused to step out of the picture.
In my case, for example, I've actually read my deed, and it grants me title to the land an "one-half of the mineral rights", the other half being, I believe, in the hands of Arizona, where I reside.
Ah - well that would be a specific of the case then.
The challenge being raised is to the "Controlled Substances Act" because I don't understand the source of authority to "control property which belongs to a private individual without their consent."
The court is upholding Govt's claim to "Control" property without the owner's consent, thereby criminalizing the owner's control of their personal property.
Not upholding the court's ability to decide a case...
I suspect I agree with you about matters relating to that particular act.
However, there are many abuses of property rights (for example depleting an underlying aquifer, storing dangerous chemicals, or hiding stolen goods), so the government must retain some authority.
Certainly, some regulatory privileges exist within government that may limit what you do with your property...
And restrictions on the possession of STOLEN property protects the owner's rights.
What does not exist is Governmental "control of property" whereby the ability to "possess, distribute, or use" is criminalized.
This is the conversion of a right (control of property derived from ownership - there is no natural right to property, only to own it) into a privilege; beyond Const. limits
Suppose you had a Uranium mine on your land. Would the government have an interest in at least overseeing it?
The government exists because, as Jon said, there must be a collection of coercive force to arbitrate between individuals. I think that's indisputable. I think it's also really tempting to abuse that power, because, unfortunately, there's nowhere else to define such terms as "crime".
Government also has an otherwise laudable tendency to try to protect people, which unfortunately usually results in smothering in one form or another.
Examples of what government practices now is not a valid demonstration of *proper* government practice. The real question ought to be, "Is it proper for the government to assume shared ownership of valuable minerals on private land?"
Remember what government is, and why it was formed.
The land I now "own" was, for legal purposes, initially "owned" by the US. Then the US granted it to Arizona, etc. on down to me. I presume that when Arizona sold the deed to the land to the first private owner, that's when it placed the deed restriction on the minerals.
So, yeah, it's perfectly valid for the government to retain half the mineral rights. I presume this exists to assist in the enforcement of mining restrictions, but I've never looked into it.
I have real issues with the government saying I can't do private things on my land. However, there's a point where ideals have to bend a bit in the face of practicality, and the government does have a charter to worry about the far distant future.
"Isn't eminent domain truly held by "the people" a fallacy when practiced by government?"
Bingo,
First there was the people and their private ownership of property. Then there was the government to arbitrate disputes between private owners.
How a society moves its government from the arbitrator of private disputes to a government that assumes ownership of private property (eminent domain) is just a matter of improper policy.
I suppose you have to think about it before you can see it.
There are two deviations from thought, as it occurs to me. One, go with the popular opinion, or two, become a parrot of something relatively few people know about.
That is to say, most people sidestep the matter by either caring about what Oprah thinks, or memorizing Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil." Neither is actual thinking.
I am admittedly unaware how one might curb that trend for something better.
The first "owners" of the land, then, were Native Americans. However, discounting that for purposes of this discussion, the Europeans "discovered" the continent and generally claimed all the land in the name of their sovereigns. So my contention is that the land really did belong to the government before it belonged to people. The fact that the US government wrested (or purchased) control from other governments doesn't really change this.
But the U.S. government has no claim to the property - as it was recognized that each man in America was sovereign.
The collective authority was prevented from intruding upon the property (land - OWNED by that person) - and each meeting of persons in America was a meeting equal to that "of kings' - free men without need to consider the will of any other.
Kings can go to war.
Americans can also go to war.
U.S. Govt is meant to ensure peace between kings, to settle disputes; not "rule" over them.
Would selling your Uranium to a foreign power constitute "harm" to your neighbor? "Harm" is a logical standard, but it's practical application is vague -- consider prohibitions on dog barking, loud parties, etc. How much Uranium do you have to spill to cause "harm"? One atom? a million? a billion? a mole? a kilogram?
"Harm" is nothing more than the violation of a protected right.
You have a reasonable right to safety - i.e. that others will not place you in harms way.
Me prostituting myself causes you no harm - moral disturbance, certainly, injury to a protected right, no.
But back to your example; Uranium could be "taken for public use" with just compensation - the mere possession cannot simply be criminalized because "we're afraid."
You're also talking about proximity danger - a violation of right to life
5:45 "...the Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. You can read that on your own..."
Funny you mention it. I recently started a video series, about an hour long now, in 10 minute segments, where I read most of Aristotle's Nico Ethics line by line, skipping dry, redundant or otherwise tedious passages. If I may recommend my own videos, I'll recommend those. : )
please. please write down what you want to say before you say it. your video will be about 8 minutes shorter and wont just confuse ppl with tangential chatter. although quite whimsical it can be a bit drifty. not a word but im in your world, so i think you will understand:) peace
rsolgtp 2 years ago
you might find my more recent videos more to your preference. thanks for the feedback.
jericomovie 2 years ago
leap (dot) cc/cms/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=2805#2805
Fascism and anarchy, rights vs. privileges...
And a really long explanation about how "laws against the non-criminal exercise" of protected rights is CRIME, and the moral justification is just that - "justification for CRIME."
There are reasonable regulations - then there are "regulatory takings" - deprivation of one's property without the 5th Amendment requirements for that "taking" to be LAWFUL.
Kallepash 2 years ago
I have to agree with the judge.
What is ownership, after all? I "own" a house, which means that I have some parcel of land as defined officially in some deed somewhere.
But what if someone ELSE also claims to own my land? How should that be arbitrated? If "ownership" of property is absolute (no court involvement), then we have a conundrum.
Thus, yes, I "own" the land in that the government (and I love your definition, BTW) recognizes that I hold the title.
jagmarz 2 years ago
After all, if the government can take away something as fundamental as liberty, then how can there be any question of where ultimate control over property resides?
OTOH, I think it's clear, as you said, that the Constitution was written precisely to limit government and thus leave as much control as possible in the hands of the individual.
jagmarz 2 years ago
No one said that ownership was "absolute" in the regard that disputes could not be arbitrated - that would be the proper role of Government - to mediate disputes over rights.
Only one person is the onwer of the thing in question - that person should be found to have rights by the court.
The one party that DOES NOT HAVE OWNERSHIP - and cannot come out as having ownership after resolution is the Court.
This would be Governmental usurpation of those rights, a conversion into privileges.
Kallepash 2 years ago
But the quote, as read by Jonathan, merely was that the court refused to relinquish ALL authority.
I'm certain that there's much in this situation that I don't know, so all I'm commenting on is the fact that the court appears to have simply refused to step out of the picture.
In my case, for example, I've actually read my deed, and it grants me title to the land an "one-half of the mineral rights", the other half being, I believe, in the hands of Arizona, where I reside.
jagmarz 2 years ago
Ah - well that would be a specific of the case then.
The challenge being raised is to the "Controlled Substances Act" because I don't understand the source of authority to "control property which belongs to a private individual without their consent."
The court is upholding Govt's claim to "Control" property without the owner's consent, thereby criminalizing the owner's control of their personal property.
Not upholding the court's ability to decide a case...
Kallepash 2 years ago
I suspect I agree with you about matters relating to that particular act.
However, there are many abuses of property rights (for example depleting an underlying aquifer, storing dangerous chemicals, or hiding stolen goods), so the government must retain some authority.
So I guess that brings me full circle.
jagmarz 2 years ago
But those things are "crimes" - a destructive act with property.
The "crime" is not control over the property itself.
Depleting an aquifer is - presumably - "theft" of natural resources to which one does not have a specific right.
A lake on your own property? No problems draining it if you want.
Storing dangerous chemicals are subject to some regulation - but irresponsible storage is the crime, not the storage itself.
Hiding stolen goods is continuing crime. The Theft gives control to govt
Kallepash 2 years ago
Certainly, some regulatory privileges exist within government that may limit what you do with your property...
And restrictions on the possession of STOLEN property protects the owner's rights.
What does not exist is Governmental "control of property" whereby the ability to "possess, distribute, or use" is criminalized.
This is the conversion of a right (control of property derived from ownership - there is no natural right to property, only to own it) into a privilege; beyond Const. limits
Kallepash 2 years ago
Suppose you had a Uranium mine on your land. Would the government have an interest in at least overseeing it?
The government exists because, as Jon said, there must be a collection of coercive force to arbitrate between individuals. I think that's indisputable. I think it's also really tempting to abuse that power, because, unfortunately, there's nowhere else to define such terms as "crime".
jagmarz 2 years ago
Government also has an otherwise laudable tendency to try to protect people, which unfortunately usually results in smothering in one form or another.
jagmarz 2 years ago
Examples of what government practices now is not a valid demonstration of *proper* government practice. The real question ought to be, "Is it proper for the government to assume shared ownership of valuable minerals on private land?"
Remember what government is, and why it was formed.
jericomovie 2 years ago
The land I now "own" was, for legal purposes, initially "owned" by the US. Then the US granted it to Arizona, etc. on down to me. I presume that when Arizona sold the deed to the land to the first private owner, that's when it placed the deed restriction on the minerals.
So, yeah, it's perfectly valid for the government to retain half the mineral rights. I presume this exists to assist in the enforcement of mining restrictions, but I've never looked into it.
jagmarz 2 years ago
I have real issues with the government saying I can't do private things on my land. However, there's a point where ideals have to bend a bit in the face of practicality, and the government does have a charter to worry about the far distant future.
jagmarz 2 years ago
The only worry Government has for the far distant future is to "secure the blessings of liberty" to them.
That charter kind of flies in the face of the things they're currently practicing...
Kallepash 2 years ago
To go to the extreme, it's hard for the government to secure ANYTHING if the planet isn't habitable anymore.
jagmarz 2 years ago
Actually - this is confusing.
The people existed on this land before Government.
Government was CREATED by the people through "rights" of the people, including "rights of ownership" of the "land" they created Government to govern.
Isn't eminent domain truly held by "the people" and a fallacy when practiced by government?
Kallepash 2 years ago
"Isn't eminent domain truly held by "the people" a fallacy when practiced by government?"
Bingo,
First there was the people and their private ownership of property. Then there was the government to arbitrate disputes between private owners.
How a society moves its government from the arbitrator of private disputes to a government that assumes ownership of private property (eminent domain) is just a matter of improper policy.
jericomovie 2 years ago
What the &%$@ have we let happen here?
I mean...
This stuff is so blatantly obvious - how can people not see it?
Kallepash 2 years ago
I suppose you have to think about it before you can see it.
There are two deviations from thought, as it occurs to me. One, go with the popular opinion, or two, become a parrot of something relatively few people know about.
That is to say, most people sidestep the matter by either caring about what Oprah thinks, or memorizing Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil." Neither is actual thinking.
I am admittedly unaware how one might curb that trend for something better.
jericomovie 2 years ago
The first "owners" of the land, then, were Native Americans. However, discounting that for purposes of this discussion, the Europeans "discovered" the continent and generally claimed all the land in the name of their sovereigns. So my contention is that the land really did belong to the government before it belonged to people. The fact that the US government wrested (or purchased) control from other governments doesn't really change this.
jagmarz 2 years ago
But the U.S. government has no claim to the property - as it was recognized that each man in America was sovereign.
The collective authority was prevented from intruding upon the property (land - OWNED by that person) - and each meeting of persons in America was a meeting equal to that "of kings' - free men without need to consider the will of any other.
Kings can go to war.
Americans can also go to war.
U.S. Govt is meant to ensure peace between kings, to settle disputes; not "rule" over them.
Kallepash 2 years ago
The government has an interest in ensuring no crime takes place.
Does this give Government a RIGHT to your Uranium?
No - they have the privilege to oversee your use, and regulate/restrict any use that would be CRIMINAL... use which threatens your neighbor's rights.
Certain regulations are legitimate.
A TAKING of the uranium - without your consent, due process, nor just compensation - is crime, not legitimate Governmental oversight.
US Code Tit. 18 Chap. 13 Sec. 241& 242
Tit. 42 Chap 95 sec 1983
Kallepash 2 years ago
Would selling your Uranium to a foreign power constitute "harm" to your neighbor? "Harm" is a logical standard, but it's practical application is vague -- consider prohibitions on dog barking, loud parties, etc. How much Uranium do you have to spill to cause "harm"? One atom? a million? a billion? a mole? a kilogram?
jagmarz 2 years ago
"Harm" is nothing more than the violation of a protected right.
You have a reasonable right to safety - i.e. that others will not place you in harms way.
Me prostituting myself causes you no harm - moral disturbance, certainly, injury to a protected right, no.
But back to your example; Uranium could be "taken for public use" with just compensation - the mere possession cannot simply be criminalized because "we're afraid."
You're also talking about proximity danger - a violation of right to life
Kallepash 2 years ago
5:45 "...the Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. You can read that on your own..."
Funny you mention it. I recently started a video series, about an hour long now, in 10 minute segments, where I read most of Aristotle's Nico Ethics line by line, skipping dry, redundant or otherwise tedious passages. If I may recommend my own videos, I'll recommend those. : )
MrCropper 2 years ago