Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: An old man's pet ducks and "Independence Day"

  1. #1
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    An old man's pet ducks and "Independence Day"

    http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/...eep-pet-ducks/

    Old man wants to keep his pet ducks, but you can't do that in Amerika (sic).

    http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/06/2...ourth-of-july/

    I'll be turning my back this 4th of July at an event tomorrow I'm attending, as this article suggests. I know, love it or leave it. I would leave if there were a place with no sheeple, where a better life awaited. I guess I can't complain any more than a North Korean who gets to live inside Pyongyang government district.
    Last edited by 77zach; 07-03-2013 at 10:40 AM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/...eep-pet-ducks/

    Old man wants to keep his pet ducks, but you can't do that in Amerika (sic).

    http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/06/2...ourth-of-july/

    I'll be turning my back this 4th of July at an event tomorrow I'm attending, as this article suggests. I know, love it or leave it. I would leave if there were a place with no sheeple, where a better life awaited. I guess I can't complain any more than a North Korean who gets to live inside Pyongyang government district.
    Why leave? Its your home, too. They're the ones not playing nice. They're the ones not playing by the rules.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-03-2013 at 11:48 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    I'd leave in a heartbeat if there were a better place. I don't know of any, wish I did. It's a numbers game and the sheeple are the ones making the rules. Actually, the sheeple, low information sheeple, put psychopaths into power, then those psychopaths make their own rules. I can submit, or DIE.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Why leave? Its your home, too. They're the ones not playing nice. They're the ones not playing by the rules.
    I'm bringing my ducks to the 4th of July town festivities ... ! QUACK!
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-03-2013 at 01:10 PM.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    "Turning your back" may be the first step. But what are the ones that come after that?

    Pleasse do not tell me you (individually) can not make a didderence or bring about change in the two-headed political beast we currently have in front of us. It may take time and energy to see changes at the national level, but two or three can completely turn things around at the local level. Change enough precincts and you change the district. Change enough districts and you change the county/city. (You know the rest of the song, so sing it with me.)

    The only ones allowed to whinge are those still actively working on the problem.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    "Turning your back" may be the first step. But what are the ones that come after that?

    Pleasse do not tell me you (individually) can not make a didderence or bring about change in the two-headed political beast we currently have in front of us. It may take time and energy to see changes at the national level, but two or three can completely turn things around at the local level. Change enough precincts and you change the district. Change enough districts and you change the county/city. (You know the rest of the song, so sing it with me.)

    The only ones allowed to whinge are those still actively working on the problem.

    stay safe.

    MamaCali asked me something along those lines a couple weeks back. It got me to thinking. Here's what I think.


    The entire legitimacy of the American Revolution rests on principles given in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Rights. Equality. Consent of the governed. A little illumination of a crucial point: if you and I are equal, then I have no standing to govern or rule you unless you consent to it.

    No government in this country has ever abided by those principles. Equality necessitates consent. Without consent the government--any government--is illegitimate. Consent of the governed is the crucial justification that legitimized the break from England. Well, that didn't apply just to England; it also applies to every government since the break with England. That is to say, if the break from England was legitimate, then the only way successive governments here could maintain legitimacy was to abide the same principles. If they didn't (they didn't) then the immediate state governments were illegitimate and the creature they made, the federal government, were and are all illegitimate.

    Permit me to dwell a moment longer on consent of the governed. The way it is traditionally taught, there is a carefully engineered disconnect between the written principle and practice. "To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" reads the Declaration. But, its never been used to mean the consent of each and every individual who is being governed. It has always been perverted to mean consent of some of the people. The proof is in the pudding. Can you withdraw your consent and the government leave you alone? Of course not. Government won't allow it. In order to squeeze some faux legitimacy from the principle, they have to pretend that "the people" means less than everybody. They have to pretend that "the people" means society in general, and carefully avoid discussing the individual person. But, the clue to the lie is in the earlier phrase about all men being created equal--that is clearly, unequivocally, unarguably talking about individuals. Individuals are equal. And, if all are equals, none can rule another without his consent. Consent is individual. It must be. It can't be any other way.

    So, how do we change things? The simplest, and perhaps fastest and easiest, is to educate people on the points I mentioned above. The Achilles Heel of the generalized consent lie is this: its currently based on the idea that if 51% or more of the governed want something, then its legitimate. Will of the majority. Well, if a majority withdraw their consent, the government is instantly illegitimate--even by its own lying interpretation of generalized consent.

    What we're talking about here is the classic parliamentary vote of no confidence writ large. If a majority of the people in this country, or even in a state, or even in a municipality, were to vote "consent not granted", that government is instantly illegitimate by their own standards. No insurrection, rebellion, or revolution needed.

    What would happen if during a statewide election or federal election if 51% of the voters wrote in "consent withheld"? You wouldn't even need a referendum for this. No special vote. Just write it boldly across the ballot.

    In the meantime, get busy figuring out what to erect in its place when the illegitimate government based on a generalized interpretation of consent comes down.

    One way to look at this is to say that the American Revolution never quite achieved its ends. It never really achieved government by consent of the governed, not too unlike its failure to achieve equality for the slaves. Now its time to finish the American Revolution.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-04-2013 at 12:11 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    "Consent of the governed" does not refer to each and every governed individual consenting. Such would be a silly requirement. At the very least, murderers, rapists, and thieves would not consent to be governed, arguably one of the very groups of people that prompt us to form government.

    It essentially means that the People in general accept the current government. How do you know that they do? Not by a vote. Not by posts on a forum. But by whether or not they are willing to band together and remove the government. In 1776, a large group of the People (by no means a majority) withdrew their consent to be governed by King George and backed that decision up with arms.

    Following the successful removal of that consent, the People knew that some form of government was yet needed, and they consented to a new government, later replacing it with another peacefully. That was when the People (including their posterity) consented to the current government (admittedly a bastardization of the one to which they consented). That consent has yet to be removed, despite individuals asserting that if they do not consent, they are not governed. (As I said, seeing consent of the governed as being individual consent is silly.)

    So, if one does not consent to be governed by our current government, he needs to take up arms against it. He had better hope that he has sufficient support that he succeeds in removing the consent of the People in general rather than of just a failed few, for if he fails in the attempt, and the People do not follow him, and the current government continues to stand, he will be a traitor.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95;1956590[B
    ]"Consent of the governed" does not refer to each and every governed individual consenting[/B]. Such would be a silly requirement. At the very least, murderers, rapists, and thieves would not consent to be governed, arguably one of the very groups of people that prompt us to form government.

    It essentially means that the People in general accept the current government. How do you know that they do? Not by a vote. Not by posts on a forum. But by whether or not they are willing to band together and remove the government. In 1776, a large group of the People (by no means a majority) withdrew their consent to be governed by King George and backed that decision up with arms.

    Following the successful removal of that consent, the People knew that some form of government was yet needed, and they consented to a new government, later replacing it with another peacefully. That was when the People (including their posterity) consented to the current government (admittedly a bastardization of the one to which they consented). That consent has yet to be removed, despite individuals asserting that if they do not consent, they are not governed. (As I said, seeing consent of the governed as being individual consent is silly.)

    So, if one does not consent to be governed by our current government, he needs to take up arms against it. He had better hope that he has sufficient support that he succeeds in removing the consent of the People in general rather than of just a failed few, for if he fails in the attempt, and the People do not follow him, and the current government continues to stand, he will be a traitor.
    Ummm. Were you going to address the equality thing I expressly pointed out?

    Also, your comment is tautological. "The way it has been is the way it is." Further, even if your notion of generalized consent were true (which I do not concede), that does not mean that was the correct interpretation, or that it has to stay that way.

    Your rapist argument falls short--there is nothing that says you can't get together with like-minded individuals and form a government to govern yourselves, and then arrest and try murderers, etc., under the principle of self-defense and defense of others. Just don't slop your government over onto me.

    And, what's the point of even mentioning consent if you're not willing to let anybody unconsent? You're not willing to let an individual unconsent to be governed. You're certainly not willing to let a larger number, a minority, a social abstract, unconsent. Under your interpretation, the whole idea of consent is a joke. Essentially, your approach necessarily includes the idea, "We're going to govern (sic for rule) you. And, we're going to take your consent as implied. Oh, and by the way, having invented your non-existent consent for you, we're not going to let you unconsent."

    In a society of equals, even a majority is insufficient--you just have a large number of people who are still my equals (and yours). Those people do not magically aquire legitimacy to rule simply by attaining 51%. Only if I consent to be ruled by the representatives of 51%, would it be legitimate for them to rule me.

    I do not consent. I've seen through the veil. I've penetrated the lie. I will not pretend that equals somehow magically aquire legitimacy to rule me without my consent just because they achieve a majority. Nor, will I arrogantly maintain the fiction that I can rule you just because I happen to be in a majority.

    I do not consent.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-04-2013 at 12:07 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    "Consent of the governed" does not refer to each and every governed individual consenting. Such would be a silly requirement. At the very least, murderers, rapists, and thieves would not consent to be governed, arguably one of the very groups of people that prompt us to form government.

    It essentially means that the People in general accept the current government. How do you know that they do? Not by a vote. Not by posts on a forum. But by whether or not they are willing to band together and remove the government. In 1776, a large group of the People (by no means a majority) withdrew their consent to be governed by King George and backed that decision up with arms.

    Following the successful removal of that consent, the People knew that some form of government was yet needed, and they consented to a new government, later replacing it with another peacefully. That was when the People (including their posterity) consented to the current government (admittedly a bastardization of the one to which they consented). That consent has yet to be removed, despite individuals asserting that if they do not consent, they are not governed. (As I said, seeing consent of the governed as being individual consent is silly.)

    So, if one does not consent to be governed by our current government, he needs to take up arms against it. He had better hope that he has sufficient support that he succeeds in removing the consent of the People in general rather than of just a failed few, for if he fails in the attempt, and the People do not follow him, and the current government continues to stand, he will be a traitor.
    There is no such thing as "the People". It is an abstract, a social abstract. Society is composed of individuals. The phrase "we the people" is a falsehood, unless it refers to every single person, which your formula pointedly does not. Essentially, what you're saying is that some of the people equals all of the people. Which, of course, is absurd.


    Now, lets discuss your bizarre idea about consent. Let me just make sure I understand. You're saying that some of my equals can get together and sign some documents and invent my consent and suddenly they can rule me; but, if I want to unconsent, I cannot just sign a few papers and be left alone--if I unconsent I must take up arms and actually resort to bloodshed? Do I have that right? Nevermind that my positive consent was not sought, invited, or requested; but I must go well beyond mere positive unconsent--I must fight and risk death? This is your idea of consent?
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-04-2013 at 12:36 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    This is your idea of consent?
    His (archly, third person) idea of the social contract. Who signed it, who agreed?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    An old man's pet ducks and "Independence Day"

    hmmmm...The People is an abstract that our Founders and Framers cited.

    Sorry, but I'll go with them over you on the matter.

    I know we have folks here who think that consent of the governed means individual consent, and I know I won't change their minds. My goal is to present the opposing view, the one the Founders and Framers held, because most readers of this thread will accept that view once it has been explained.

    I have done that. Moving on.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •