6 votes

I Invite You Know Who To Debate

I Propose The Topic: Law And Order Derived From Just Or Unjust Exercises Of Power.

I Propose The Following Definition For Government: An entity which can operate as a person, place, or thing depending on official functions performed, possessing or pursuing a majority of force over a given geographic territory, exercises authority not possessed by ordaining constituents who constitute its source of power, uses property it does not own without regard to rights of property owners, asserts it is not a moral agent capable of liability, and asserts it's official actors enjoy limited or unlimited liability for official wrongdoing.

Limited statists are going to have to step up to the plate here because it is not so much about how many entities provide protection services over a given geographic territory. If there is just one in a free market because it does such a dam fine job, great. It is about the source of power and authority because this is what trespasses against a man. Is it a justifiable trespass? What is the remedy for an unjustifiable trespass?

Clearly Jan argues a position which asserts if it is an exercise of power by a government, that in itself justifies it. One of the points Jan was very concise about in a recent debate is that there must be one body of law which applies to all people. How does Jan justify one body of law applying to all people? Not even god is a good enough justification for many people so I really look forward to a wise response. He must have one. He is wise enough to recognize a principle must have an end by asserting that precise point recently.

I will vehemently rebut any argument based on fear that civilization would go to hell and a hand basket without government. That is not reason. It is predicting the impossible, the future. It is fear mongering. There are already enough people living in fear which is a reason things are the way they presently are.

I am not all that picky about format and have no problem remaining quiet when it is not my turn to speak. I prefer a format which allows for a point to be asserted and rebuttal made. I prefer each side an opportunity to assert points. I prefer each side an opportunity to pose direct questions to the other. I prefer each side an opportunity for an opening and closing statement.

I await Jan's acceptance or rejection of my informal proposal.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Sure, I'll go.

Back when I campaigned for Ron Paul in 2008 & 2012, I was constantly bombarded by family, friends and the mainstream media all telling me that he'll never win. He didn't. Should I have listened to them?

Your move...

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Absolutely not!

And that is my point exactly, telling people that we need less government rather than saying that we need no government at all is a more successful way of bringing more people to our side. How far they go once they are hooked up to the message of freedom (stay minarchist or go anarcho-capitalist) is up to them, both are on our side. But try telling America directly that it does not need government at all and see how many converts you will create... Next to zilch! Compare that to Ron Paul Revolution... So that's why I proposed that the debate be about effectiveness of the two ways and not about fighting each others, especially when it is the collectivists that rule the world.

Ron Paul Revolution is spreading around the world: Freedom and Prosperity TV: libertarian network of alternative media in Western Balkans

That's a contradiction

On one hand you tell me "Absolutely not!", that I should not have listened to those who advised against me supporting Ron Paul. Then, you go on to describe a situation that would indicate they were in fact correct, and somehow that's your "point exactly."

I know you don't see it that way, but in essence you're making the same argument Mitt Romney supporters made to Ron Paul supporters:

"Let's not fight each other. Just support Mitt Romney already so we can be more successful and win the presidency. You're not going to help us bring more people into the republican party by spewing your libertarian brand of conservatism."

Here's MY POINT...

You seem to be purely focused on the numbers (i.e. "converts"). So let me ask you this: Which was more important to you, Ron Paul's message of liberty or his chances of wining the presidency? You see, all this infighting is an intellectual battle, just as it was within the republican party, between Romney and Paul supporters. Support numbers mean nothing in an intellectual battle. Everyone can believe the world is flat but that doesn't make it so.

Perhaps this will help explain it further. What republicans could never understand then (and still do not comprehend to this day) is that it was never about signing up more republicans or electing a republican into office. Nope! In fact, the r3VOLution never gave a sh** about republicrats or demopublicans. The liberty movement understood that the entire left/right paradigm is BS -- it is the problem!

Therefore, just replace the word "limited/less government" with "republican" in your vocabulary and I think you'll begin to see where anarchists are coming from, and why this infighting will never stop. When you speak it sounds like a Romney supporter talking to a Paul supporter, "Stop being difficult and help us elect a republican. You're wasting your time with Ron Paul. He doesn't have the numbers to win. Look, we're all conservatives. We can argue about your unfounded libertarian brand of conservatism later, once republicans are in office." Uh, no thank you!

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

I don't think your Mitt Romney analogy fits.

Here's why I agree with Jadranko: political party labels are mere names. They do not intrinsically represent particular values (just meaningless platitudes touted at election time). That contrasts with the concepts of "limited govt" and "no govt," which actually do have meaning. To get to no govt, someone with that ultimate goal would need to go through a period with limited govt, that is, without needing to compromise any values. Goals among those wanting no govt and lmtd govt are the same to a certain point - so there is no reason not to unite, with combined efforts, *to* that point. (And then duke it out.) Again, it's not the same to "join with Republicans," when to do so means joining with those who wish to (to give just one example) continue with military involvement in overseas conflicts.

While someone might make a case that people *should* be willing to compromise values (and join with Republicans), and thereby have a greater chance of success with a more libertarian agenda, that's a different argument.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Sorry, you completely

lost me here. How does Mitt Romney have anything to do with the cause for less government? I thought we were discussing minarchist vs. anarcho-capitalist argumentation for reducing government politically. Mitt Romney winning the presidency means more of the same, not less government. I still stand behind my claim that Ron Paul Revolution made more people consider the message of freedom than all anarchists ever have combined. Going easy (step-by-step) on collectivists will always create more converts to liberty than hitting them with zero govt arguments, regardless of how sound they may be.

Ron Paul Revolution is spreading around the world: Freedom and Prosperity TV: libertarian network of alternative media in Western Balkans

You didn't answer the question...

Which was more important to you, Ron Paul's message of liberty or his chances of wining the presidency?

It's a simple, straightforward question really. And because I opened my argument pertaining Ron Paul (to which you engaged me), I see no valid reason to claim ignorance at this point.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Sorry if I didn't get it that it was a question.

Ron Paul spreading the message of liberty was of course far more important to me. And as far as I know and have heard him say, that was the primary goal of him running for the presidency. Mission fantastically well accomplished! Now, we need to continue the fight for more converts: from classical liberals to anarcho-capitalists, from Friedmanites to Rothbardians. All that is good for the cause of liberty!

Ron Paul Revolution is spreading around the world: Freedom and Prosperity TV: libertarian network of alternative media in Western Balkans

I propose one round of debate, followed by one round of boxing,

and repeat until one side yields.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

When will this myth go away

government does not have a monopoly on force.

It uses force to have a monopoly on whatever it wants to have a monopoly on.

Government is the entity which has established military dominance over a society and it typically grants itself the power to harm with legal impunity.

Myth? I agree. but...

"Government is the entity which has established military dominance over a society and it typically grants itself the power to harm with legal impunity."

The Government is a legal fiction built upon a foundation of application of law of men who bind themselves to that law. Men who enter the capacity of this legal fiction only maintain its limited liability while within the lawful agency that is contractually bound. American Organic Laws were wise enough to enumerate exactly how this lawful power is accessed which is only by consent of the governed. Any action outside of this single root source of determination of lawful agency is no longer within the bounded capacity of the legal fiction of government. Anything a man does outside the capacity of lawful agency means the man stands fully liable for his OWN actions because the identifiable chain of liability ends with his own decision in this case not sourced from the governed. This is the threshold between Common Law application and Constitutional law application in its most proper form. Natural Common Law is applicable to all men (men and women) who interact with other men but when a man steps into a legal capacity the addition of applicable bounded duty applies while in that capacity. The full liability of common law does not magically disappear because of the entrance into legal capacity the man entered into because no law can violate any other law in order for something to actually be LAW.

So if men are claiming to be operating under the capacity of government but actively stand in breach of duty then the corporate veil is pierced and no lawful claims to that capacity remain accessible. In essence, a man executing injury upon another without just cause can never lawfully claim to be a 'Government agent' because a violation of the Common Law inherently violates any possibility of legal capacity. While the "government' may claim the lawful right to initiate injury and dominion with impunity it doesn't make it lawful because those claims are colorable if the identifiable liable principals to their agency is not the consenting party. The man would no longer be the 'government' under any breach and would not have lawful claims of immunity.

In short, its not the government when they violate the law including any common law breach of peace or breach of duty because of the intrinsically hierarchal nature of the application of law. The only thing We the People need to do is find the path through the application of law that is never conflicting. That is really the only battle there is whether it is this government or any other government or other entity because once we find that path through non0conflicting application of law and uphold the law without ever violating the law is when liberty will be maximized.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I'm sorry phreedom. but your

premise is self evidently wrong and the error manifests over and over again throughout your rant.

Before I begin I want to say that you've been spoiling for an altercation with me since the last time you happened onto one of my replies.

Is your problem with me that you think I like the status quo? Do you think I am somehow defending the problem by correctly identifying it? I despise it. I wish you were right; that you could go into court and challenge the legislative jurisdiction of the government,that the government was limited in scope to what you say it should be. It would be a dream come true...a dream I want to see become a reality.

"I'm a living soul, domiciled on the land, carrying on my private affairs without harming another as a matter of common right and this statute/regulation violates my natural right to x or my common right to y." It's been a while, did I miss anything? The prosecution will still press forward, the judge will find that the state has jurisdiction to proceed against you, the court is the proper venue and has jurisdiction to hear the controversy. Your option will be to call a jury of your peers to protect you.

I want it to be the way you say it is. But it isn't, and that's not because it isn't government its because it's terrible government. The People in their sovereign capacity established terrible government on this continent. And not just one time, but hundreds of times. At least I believe they are terrible in regards to individual liberty.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Defeating your premise:
"In short, its not the government when they violate the law including any common law..."
-So Alexander the Great's government was not a government? How about modern day North Korea? Soviet Russia? Non of these are/were governments? How about England maybe???-Nope, non of these are governments according to your definition.

-Government claims and exercises the power to harm you and does so constantly with legal impunity, regardless of your consent. That's WHAT it is.
-A government is a very specific kind of entity with very specific attributes. The two I mention are common to all governments.
-Maybe Common Law Judiciaries are the way you say, but those are not governments and they do not rule this continent.

However, if I am mistaken, please produce the evidence that your legal theories are effective an I will gladly help you spread the word.
------------------------------

Parsing your assertions:
"The Government is a legal fiction built upon a foundation of application of law of men who bind themselves to that law."
-This sentence is screwy. If you're saying what I think you're saying then sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't.

"American Organic Laws were wise enough to enumerate exactly how this lawful power is accessed which is only by consent of the governed."
-Which of the organic laws say that? If you are referring to the DOI, the only operative part of that document is the severing of the ties to the crown. Not the justification for severing the ties to the crown:
"We, therefore...declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

"Any action outside of this single root source of determination of lawful agency is no longer within the bounded capacity of the legal fiction of government"
-Government is not your agency.
-Governments have always taxed and taxation has always been a nonconsensual taking. that's a key attribute that makes the taking a tax...and a key motivation for governments to conquer more people... to take without consent.
-Do you think Attila the Hun attempted to conquer Roman Gaul so he could administer the water works or maintain the roads...or protect the people? He did it to TAKE from the people, as he saw fit, not as they consented. Just like he took from all the people that were dominated by the hunnic empire. Not by lawful agency, but by the hunnic empire's ability to apply brute force.

"Anything a man does outside the capacity of lawful agency means the man stands fully liable for his OWN actions because the identifiable chain of liability ends with his own decision in this case not sourced from the governed."
-Almost, except the governed need not consent to government for the acts of government to be legal. You cannot bring an action against a lawmaker for passing a statute that harms you. You cannot bring an action against a policeman for enforcing that law. You cannot bring an action against a judge for upholding that law. So long as all parties are found to be acting in accordance with the statute, then they have legal impunity.

"In essence, a man executing injury upon another without just cause can never lawfully claim to be a 'Government agent' because a violation of the Common Law inherently violates any possibility of legal capacity."
-Again, this is your refusing to accept THE FACT that government can harm you as it pleases regardless of your consent.

"it doesn't make it lawful"
-No, it makes it LEGAL.

"because those claims are colorable if the identifiable liable principals to their agency"
-Read this until your eyes bleed: Government is not your agent. Government agents are the legislature's agents-not yours. And so long as they are acting in accordance with the legislature's will, they are acting in accordance with the principles of agency and are legally protected when harming you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
About consent being a critical element of governmental power:
Consider the action Jefferson took after penning the DOI. The king didn't automatically relent after understanding that the colonies did not consent to English rule any longer. They had to go to war to shuck that government off of them. And yes, it was a government.

Consider the action the federal government took to handle shay's rebellion, the whisky rebellion, and finally the civil war. All three of these conflicts took place after with many of the organic laws in place including the DOI and AOC. In all three consent of the governed was lacking, in all three the government took as it pleased, and in all three all the prevailing government officials were able to harm with legal impunity.

"once we find that path through non0conflicting application of law and uphold the law without ever violating the law is when liberty will be maximized."
-I agree with this 100%. I think this will only happen when the legal system/written law is in harmony with unwritten law.

Hyperdimensional Reality

Your path is one understanding their power over you.

My path is that I do not understand their unlawful claims of power over me.

You submit to this power as being legal

I submit to the proper application of law where each is equally liable for their own actions

There is no other acceptable outcome for myself and many others who are successfully challenging them. In fact I even think there are many people in the 'courts' who wish more people would be challenging them in order to help them find their way. Most of them are realizing they are just as lost as everybody else when faced with their own conflicts. The law is the answer either way.

If your understanding of law is that tyranny is legal than that is exactly the outcome you will get.

My understanding is that tyranny is criminally unlawful and that is exactly the outcome I get.

Both interpretations exist simultaneously. This is a key point most people are missing.

I have no problem with you. I am just thinking out loud in response to your comments. No offense intended.

As far as past barbaric regimes of empire; yeah they confused people into people farms and the same thing is happening now. We can be in the drivers seat or we can be the passengers into the future. The choice is each to their own.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

In what sense are you successfully challenging them?

With the legal system? If so, what has been your success? And are you willing to share your evidence?

I would love to know how. I would help you promote the heck out of it. Here is a video I wrote and produced many years ago after reading Dave Zuniga's book https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7uoXyy3XmQ .

I made this because I am committed to achieving individual liberty in my lifetime and I cam certain it can be done.

Also, I've studied with the I could find. If you know of a source that wants to share information that better describes your legal approach, then please share with me. I will study that too.

So far it seems very simple: Written law cannot conflict with unwritten law in order for it to be valid.

Yes I believe that written statutes should not conflict with unwritten law; that constitutions should not conflict with unwritten law. And I also think that is a simple and eloquent way of stating it.

If you know how to use the courts to make this a reality, I would love to learn.

Challenges

I have been challenging jurisdiction of the courts for anything 'law enforcement' brings against me when they are not acting on behalf of an actual accuser who demonstrates all elements in a valid cause of action and is accepting liability for that accusation. I have also been challenging them on the fact that they are not actually operating under constitutional capacity. These actions are for stupid code 'violations' for things like seatbelt, speeding and no driver's license.

I have made a commitment to not only challenge their claims but also I seek to have them arrested for their violations of law I document during these processes. I have a whole stack of cases, recordings, and documented proof of their crimes. I also seek to access the Grand Jury when those in the system will not perform their duty to arrest the perpetrators in the face of documented and recorded proof of their criminal acts. They predictably obstruct justice by blocking access to the Jury so I document their obstructions so as to build more valid cause of actions for eventual justice.

I now realize that we can call them on their lying corrupt bs by simply trying to seek justice exactly how the justice system was intended to work. Court of law is We the People's forum for justice and it is there for us to bring remedy to injury. Once one becomes resolved on justice the conspiracy and outright treason by these individuals is easy to reveal. I am building up documented evidence so that as the awakening is birthed to the masses these criminal investigations will have expanded to include whole swaths of individuals so that when it does finally reach an awakened jury there will be enough evidence to criminal indict and convict these criminals and have them removed from office and thrown in prison.

These criminals are intentionally committing injury for their own pecuniary advantage and none of their claims to code application to people without an identifiable liable principal accuser is lawful and the juries need purge these criminals from the system. That is exactly what I am attempting to do but only with individuals who initiate contact resulting in injury. We have a justice system and everybody complains about its corruption but no one currently uses the system we built and paid for to bring proper justice to these criminals who keep injuring the people. I am pursuing this to either bring justice or show definitely that they are a criminal gang who has overthrown the constitutional government and has absolutely no interest in bring proper justice to criminals. In short I am proving they are full of shit.

"So far it seems very simple: Written law cannot conflict with unwritten law in order for it to be valid."

What I am saying is that when one studies the law carefully one comes to the inescapable conclusion that written law DOES NOT conflict with unwritten law. The only real conflict is the application of law and even this is rarely a conflict because almost everyone is consenting to code application without even knowing it. Also because it is all LAW this means that those trying to administer the law will always violate the law (both written and unwritten) because of the ongoing fraud they are committing to get people to consent to the application of code to the people.

I appreciate your offer to promote this but that is of no interest to me. I do not want any attention from this until the time right and only if necessary. I would rather remain completely private and out of the public eye as long as possible. I don't promote this stuff because most are so confused at this point that many would just read it and then go try the same thing with the same word patterns. People doing this has major disadvantages for law abiding people because their is much more security in people finding their own self-evident conclusions in order to maximize novelty of the challenges within the context of real law. Maximizing novelty with a singular vector towards truth is their worst nightmare because the criminals conspire and train on how to deal with specific arguments. When something is outside of their training they are not prepared for such truth and are most likely to fail at covering up their crimes. In short, Americans need to find their own self-evident non-conflicting path through the application of all law.

So thanks for the offer but I will respectfully decline.

In final, we can achieve liberty in our lifetime. We can do it in a matter of year when people are completely clear and resolved on proper justice. Most people waking up are complaining about all the crime coming from the 'government' but they fail to actually do anything about it and most just turn to politics for solutions because they are ignorant of law. Every crime they commit is THE opportunity to remove that criminal from the system and from society. If we are not going to remove criminals from the system and society then we deserve exactly what we are getting.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I recall now. you've told me this before...

and we agreed that you would keep at it and send me evidence of a victory in court once you had one.

Can I ask you how these two ideas don't conflict:
"I have been challenging jurisdiction of the courts..."
"Court of law is We the People's forum for justice..."
It would seem you want to be within the jurisdiction of the court so they can help you bring justice against the legislature/executive.

I would say that court is not we the people's anything...as the legislature establishes most of the courts in this country.

"but no one currently uses the system we built and paid for to bring proper justice to these criminals who keep injuring the people."
-I am in contact with hundreds of people who are doing similar work to you and are getting their hams kicked in court.
the courts do not recognize the highly nuanced legal approach; For example That "driving" is a commercial activity and the statutes ought to only reach those using the road as a place of business. That Contractors licenses are only for those who are working for the state. That there must be some nexus to the government for the government to be able to regulate it or tax it.

I agree with your final sentiment. If there was a way to use the legal system to hold those committing these atrocities accountable then everything would change inside of a year. It is the reason why I pursued it as hard as I did for as long as I did. I really do hope for your success. It would mean victory for us all.

A court's subject matter jurisdiction

must come from a valid cause of action. A court does not have a valid cause of action if there is no accuser who is invoking the agency of government.

There is one exception to this valid cause of action that the 'court's' currently presume is correct jurisdiction and that is if one is a 14th amendment "person" who is a "citizen of the United States". Their entire presumption from the start is that one is that 'person'. This is how every court is operating. By Organic Law the court's are required to have "consent of the governed". Right now they get this 'consent' through registration and presumption one is the 14th amendment person. I am a full liability man and I do not recognize the 14th amendment itself as being valid or therefore applicable and it is my understanding that this is proof of on-going criminal fraud by those in the system. This means the facts are that they do not have subject matter jurisdiction because there is no consenting party to any agency they falsely claim even though they fraudulently claim the plaintiff is the "People of the State of X". So the entire basis of there claim is not true. Another fact most people are totally clueless on is the fact that under the 14th amendment fraud the 'court's' understanding is that you the defendant are your own accuser. Let me repeat that: their presumption is that "if you are a taxpayer then you are your own accuser" That is an exact quote from the judge in open court when asked "Who is my accuser". I have this same answer in one form or another from at least three courts in three different states.

So, when they initiate a case without any agency to a liable identified principal amongst the people and then they presume that the defendant is a taxpayer who is the accuser (the principal) who issued the required consent of the governed and then they are notified that this is false and incorrect information then EVERYTHING changes. The court has no accuser, no consent of the governed, no lawful agency, no valid cause to be doing ANYTHING to you whatsoever.

How is it different when I AM THE ACCUSER accepting full liability for my accusation against them for the ACTUAL INJURY that has been documented and the accompanying crimes that they committed and provided me with documented and voice corroborated proof of their criminal intent and criminal actions they performed? The answer should be completely obvious because in this case I am NOW initiating they do have everything required for a case to be brought to justice. So they didn't have everything when they initiated the case against the 'person' but went ahead anyway only to eventually shoot me out the side door by physically making officers leave the court so they have some OTHER documented reason to abort the case instead of preceding like they do with every other victim, BUT when I seek justice with all exact items needed for a case to move forward they do gymnastics to the days end to obstruct justice from ever proceeding.

See the difference. The difference is huge and there is a pattern of crime they are committing that can be systematically revealed by very explicit logical steps and the number of people documented to be involved in the crime can be rapidly expanded because of their chosen technique of obstructions they send you around to different departments that ALWAYS inevitable lead to a circle through departments who is the one to handle such issues. This means large swaths of individuals in the system can be intersected by having them TELL you to GO TO THAT DEPARTMENT. You have a reason to expand the criminal investigation and an opportunity to inform more people in the system about the on-going crimes and the individuals perpetrating those crimes.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

got it

thanks.

.

.

If ...

the term majority was substituted for monopoly in the definition of government above would it be satisfactory?

I am not picky about adjectives which describe the possession of force. Possession of force doesn't offend me in the same way I could really care less about whether it is one protection entity or multiple protection entities if they are doing a good job. Unjustifiable applications of force based on principles of do no harm offend me.

majority of force...hmmm

maybe so. Something is bothering me about it. I will ponder it and get back with you.

It does have a majority of

It does have a majority of force, no doubt. We have semi-auto rifles. They have nuclear bombs.

This seems like simantics

Monopoly defn.: "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service."
"Force" in this case means coercing individuals to behave in ways they would otherwise not choose by their own free will.

As I see it the government does indeed have exclusive control of forcing individuals to do things against their will, and therefore exercises a "monopoly on force." That being said, this does not in any way make your other statements untrue. I'm afraid I don't see the problem here.

Alrighty then :)

"This seems like simantics"-sic
-Its not semantics because we are talking about different concepts using different words. Not the same concept using different words.

" "Force" in this case means coercing individuals..."
-That's not what it means in the libertarian circles of political philosophy. It means the legal right to make violence upon your fellow man.
-And that is why the definition fails. Even under our totalitarian government, the individual's right to defend himself is recognized by the legislature.

"As I see it the government does indeed have exclusive control of forcing individuals to do things against their will, and therefore exercises a "monopoly on force.""
-Given your definition for this conversation, I agree with this statement.

My problem with projecting characteristics onto government that are inaccurate is that it causes fuzzy thinking. And thinking is our only way out of this mess.

That means we must be able to pinpoint with precision the cause of our mutual problems so that we can innovate the correct solutions.

well said sir.

As always, I am super impressed with your eloquence.

Séamusín

I asked on his last post

A question to lead him down this very line of thinking. I haven't heard and answer.

I asked if we had the right and legal justification to respond with force if our rights are being violated with force.

I previously asked if he believed that we need government to enforce law. Hasn't respond to that either. I don't know why he won't respond.

Séamusín