2 votes

More Ethical Absurdity of We

Bill3 makes a big todo about Rothbard's observations that rights are a negative concept demarcating the areas of a person’s action that no man may properly interfere with and no man can therefore have a ‘right’ to compel someone to do a positive act. Bill objects to an extension of this logic to children summed up in this quote:

"should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g. by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die."

http://www.dailypaul.com/292653/more-ethical-absurdity-of-ro...

However, let's take a look at what Bill3's precious and sacred We have already determined they will coerce submission to:

We have determined it is unreasonable for men and women to have equal autonomy in reproduction.

We have determined that only women may choose parenthood.

We have determined that a woman may choose parenthood before or after birth by 1) abortion, 2) adoption, or 3) dropping it off at a location approved under baby safe haven law.

We have determined that if a man has unprotected sex without a condom he "put it in" and takes on some kind of obligation irregardless of any conception contract whereas if a woman has unprotected sex without a diaphragm she gets to establish and enforce the terms of her own conception contract and make it binding upon a man without his consent.

We have determined that there ought to be a safety net for children which everyone pays into in the form of federally collected Title IV monies, doled out to states, which are doled out to counties but even if you pay into this system a county will come ask you to pay more in the form of child support.

We have determined that in addition to Title IV programs it is just to coerce non-parents to pay for other peoples kids public education and a plethora of other public programs for children.

We have determined in international treaties that slavery is defined as having control over ones property but forced fatherhood is not slavery.

We have determined constitutional prohibitions and a Civil War to end indentured servitude does not apply to forced fatherhood.

We have determined personal jurisdiction is not a requirement for an administrative, non-judicial family court to sanction the standing of ones name.

We have determined that children have no legal obligation to parents for coerced elderly support because parents do not own their child's labor because it benefits society not parents the same way that when Bill Gates invented Windows it benefited society.

We have determined that while parents have no right to a child's labor parents have a responsibility to pay for property their children damage.

I could easily go on making several more points but there is an obvious absurdity when Bill3 ridicules Rothbard when his precious and sacred We have already determined women can kill unborn children because of the same exact principle elaborated on by Rothbard in that no one has a right to force a woman to do a positive action such as give birth because it is the woman's body.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yes, the old common law was

Yes, the old common law was in effect UNLESS/UNTIL MODIFIED BY NEW CASE LAW.

You should know I'm a lawyer, I'm not one of those Sovereign Citizen saps that can be bullied with random citations.

Ventura 2012

Lol, the "old common law" ...

well if you are a lawyer perhaps you could share a brief or memorandum over your extensive career which contains the language or verbiage you are using here in any case. I will be looking for such phrases as:

"modern American common law"
"old common law"
"Ancient English common law"

I look forward to it because if you have used any of those phrases in an actual legal document, to make any argument, before any court in the United States I would probably be interested in reading it.
If you haven't used them in your career ever, perhaps you ought not try to pull any wool here.

Furthermore how silly of me. I couldn't tell you were an attorney when only an attorney could translate:

" ... not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state."

to mean:

" ... not inconsistent with decisions of courts of this state and the courts of the United States."

I was just reading a law

Obviously I wouldn't be citing a bunch of overturned English case law in court ;)

I was just reading a law review article today that traced the "old english common law" through "american common law of self defense" and into "stand your ground". Must have been seeing things.

If you don't understand how common law grows and evolves then I cant help you.

Ventura 2012

Under the doctrine of Stare Decis

how does a court invent a new doctrine which does not respect the principles of previous decisions exactly? You can't claim precedent applies and simultaneously set a new precedent. If precedent solely applied there would be no new precedents.

I reckon if We don't like a precedent We can enact new legislation defining some new positive obligation for people using our authority to coerce or compel anyone or anything at anytime thereby overturning any precedent.

Should I presume your changing the phrase

Stare Decis to "how common law grows and evolves" was made in error since these two literally mean the opposite?

Yeah, I dont know why I said

Yeah, I dont know why I said that I had to go back to fix it. Anyway, stare decisis does not mean eternal, precedent can be overturned by courts and often is, exactly how it was made.

Ventura 2012

Ok, since according to your world view what a court decrees is

the only thing that counts, which SCOTUS case would you like to begin with which expressly states there is no federal common law?

We're so far off topic and

We're so far off topic and narrow that this is getting ridiculous. /endthread. (Erie, but there are exceptions).

Ventura 2012

If you say so ...

but after dismissing this absurd notion of common law by reviewing what courts have stated, eventually we would have gotten to the precise point by which these positive obligations you feel ought to be forced upon everyone without regard to individual consent come into coerced existence legally.

I couldn't help but chuckle when I seen you bring up Stare Decis because the contradiction of overturning existing precedents to invent new ones quite frankly strikes at the heart of the matter as it manifests itself in the legal system.

Devastating

Absolutely devastating critique, when my head stops swimming I'll give this comment section another go, some really good supplies of literary ammo!

To quote an old tv show "BURN!", "No really, that was a good burn."