QUIZ & POLL: U.S. Constitution 6/1/2009
Submitted by Jack Pelham on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:16
This week's quiz deals a lot with checks and balances and states' rights..
Be sure also to answer the poll question about whether the Federal Government would allow a state to secede today without waging war against that state. Feel free to discuss that question by making comments in this thread, but please do take the poll while you're on the quiz page.
http://www.ruleoflawrevolution.com/quizzes/
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
»
Um.....you gave them permission
By living in a country and taking advantage of what it has to offer, you give your permission to be ruled by that country's government. It's called the rule of law - perhaps you should find out something about it. A good place to start is John Locke's Second Treatise of Government which explains this concept very well.
If you use anything provided by the government (including national security, local law enforcement, the protection provided by contract law, etc.) you automatically give all those dead white guys who wrote our Constitution permission to affect your life. If you don't like that, then you have options of other governments to live under, or you can buy an island where there is no government. Your choice.
Fortune Favors the
Fortune Favors the Bold
weren't you the McCain person?
Fortune Favors the Bold
Another misguided individual I see.
So, I get to choose where I'm born? Would the rights I have be different if I were born in China? Or Iraq?
And I love the references to the 'rule of law'. Tell me, who writes the laws? If people can't be trusted to manage their own lives and be fully responsible for themselves as would be the case in a free society, a society free of government, what makes you think that those very same people are somehow capable of 'getting it right' when empowered by people like you?
As for 'using' anything 'provided' by the government, the government forces me to pay for certain things, and allows for no other legal alternatives. If I choose not to use those 'services' and not to pay for them, men with guns show up to make me pay, or else!. As for my options, where I choose to live and the property I own are my choices. Once I buy property, what makes that property that I own subject to what anyone else says? Is it mine, or isn't it? If I can't do with it as I please, then it isn't mine. If I have to pay someone else for the privilege of using it, then I am nothing more than a tenant on what is theirs. Tell me, does any government own all the real property over which it claims and enforces it's dominion?
I've found people like you fall into one of two categories. You're either on you way to learning what liberty really is, or you've decided that it's ok for the people that you agree with to force other people what to do. Where do you want to be? Do you want to assert some claim on me, or would you rather be free? The choice is yours...open your mind up and free yourself by not claiming a stake on what is mine.
Nobody is FORCING You to do Anything
So you were born here. So what? Is somebody keeping you from moving? I've met many expatriates who no longer live in this country.
And property is the entire reason governments were set up in the first place. Once you own property in a country, you are agreeing to abide by the laws of that country, because that's the whole point. Again, if you don't want to abide by the laws of a certain country, don't live there and/or own property there.
Quite frankly, you just sound like a big whiner. "The government MAKES me!!! There's nothing I can do about it!!! Other people are trying to force their ideas on me!!!! WAAAAHHHH!!!!" Um....yeah. It sounds like you are the one who doesn't understand freedom. Stop whining and do something about your life if you're not happy with it.
yes, actually
Fortune Favors the Bold
there is a severe expatriation tax. Your theories are absurd. There is no hospitable land without a government. The idea of taking advantage of protection is mafioso logic (and false to boot since the government impedes me from protecting myself)
Your notion of 'freedom" equates to equating personal responsibility with obedience to masters.
Fortune Favors the Bold
People like you have a lot to learn about freedom.
What gives you the right to make a claim on me or what is mine by virtue of the location of my birth or the geographic coordinates that define the property I choose to purchase? Do you think that the rights of an individual are different depending upon where they are born?
It's clear you have no idea what actual property ownership is if you believe that any government ought to have a superior claim to any property.
As for your attempted character assault, your claim makes you seem rather simple and childish to me. It's understandable to attack what you don't understand, and it's clear you don't understand what liberty is.
People like you have a lot to learn
Living in a community means having both rights and duties. You obviously have no idea what it is like to live in a community that is not protected by the rule of law.
You keep talking about other people's claim on your property, but the fact of the matter is, your property is protected FROM other people because of law. Perhaps you should try living in my city for a while to get a taste of what it is truly like to not have your property protected. Not everybody respects everybody else's rights. Many have no qualms about taking whatever they can get. By forming communities with enforceable law, we give each other the ability to pursue other interests besides just sitting around all day with a gun trying to keep what is ours. This takes resources. So in order to enjoy the lives we do, we agree to cede some of our property to the government in order to give us more freedom to do the things we want, as opposed to just trying to defend ourselves all the time, which would obviously be an existence of less freedom.
None, do you have a life? Do you enjoy going out of your home and doing things? Are you able to earn a living outside your home? Do you like to travel? You obviously like to use the internet. This requires other people to leave their homes to do their jobs to provide something you enjoy. This would not be possible without the rule of law. In reality, the law gives us more freedom and more pleasure from life, not less.
Obviously governments can get out of control, but so can people with no governing authority. I would rather work within the Constitutional framework we have been given to correct what is wrong rather than destroy everything that is right.
Fortune Favors the
Fortune Favors the Bold
"None, do you have a life? Do you enjoy going out of your home and doing things? Are you able to earn a living outside your home? Do you like to travel? You obviously like to use the internet. This requires other people to leave their homes to do their jobs to provide something you enjoy. This would not be possible without the rule of law. In reality, the law gives us more freedom and more pleasure from life, not less."
Moral law yes, but vioence is only "necessary" as the consequence of pre-existing violence. Your argument is essentially that government is neccesary to prevent government.
Fortune Favors the Bold
Living in a community means I have duties?!?
Normally I'd take it easier on someone like you, but I'm sick of the socialist blather for today. Buck up camper.
So...excuse me?! You think because I choose to own property in a certain place that magically makes me obligated to 'the community'? Who gets to define the word 'community'? Who gets to dictate what obligation I have to it? Are you really that socialist? You obviously have no idea what it'd be like to actually be responsible for yourself without the illusion of protection you feel you're afforded by 'the law' do you? So because you're too damned lazy and resourceful to figure out how you'd defend yourself without telling me I have to pay for your protection and then forcing me to do so with threats and violence, you expect me to just go along with it? You're a fricken sociopath.
Let me guess; you're the kind of person who'd come knocking on my door demanding I share any of what is mine with you as if it were yours, aren't you? You'd demand I pay for your kids education, that I pay for your healthcare, that I pay for whatever 'the community' decides I need to pay for, for the 'greater good' of course. Well kiss off dopey. What's mine is mine. People like you hide behind 'the law' as a means to steal from me to make me pay for what you want with no risk to yourself.
I'll throw you a bone to help you along here on the road to liberty. You want the solution to how you defend your property without forcing others to pay for it? You do it yourself. You go door to door, meet the very same people you want to force to pay for it face to face, but instead you get to know them, you make agreements with them for your mutual benefit. No coercion needed, it's in everyone's best self interest to participate and get to know everyone else. If someone wants to exclude themselves, they get to. You contract with private security who are contractually obligated to protect you and your property. No BS 'sovereign immunity' like Castle Rock v. Gonzales. No one is forced to pay for what they don't want to, and you get what you pay for.
It's a bitter pill to swallow, I know. I used to believe in 'the law' too. But one day a stranger had the nuts to put it to me like it really is. That I was advocating stealing his stuff, subjecting him to the 'rule of law', and by virtue of that, enslaving myself. "Reality sucks" he told me. Well I'm telling you the same thing. Get used to it.
Yes
First of all, you know absolutely nothing about me.
Second of all, I'm assuming you are not self-sufficient. Do you grow all your own food, make your own clothes from your own materials, mine your own ore, provide your own utilities, build your own transportation and housing, make your own roads, and provide all your own protection? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "no." And you are the one whining here and calling other people lazy? You are the one accusing other people of shoving their ideas down your throat? Why not try to live the life you are so vehemently advocating here? Be truly self-sufficient and don't rely on society in any way, shape or form. Until you are willing and able to do this, then you benefit from the community you live in, as well as communities all over the world. Because you benefit from others (you leach, you), then yes, you have obligations to other people. That is not a socialist idea, it is the true reality.
The fact of the matter is, those societies which are built on the rule of law are freer and more prosperous than those that are not. Until you are willing to stop being a hypocrite and live entirely independent of society and the freedom and prosperity it has to offer (I know of some islands for sale around the Philippines) then I suggest you stop throwing accusations at others you are not willing to back up with actions. If you aren't willing to live the life you are advocating, then you are just a bunch of hot air and not worth listening to.
Fortune Favors the Bold If
Fortune Favors the Bold
If you mean monopoly of force versus competing force, granted, that's true. It still doesn't make the force any more moral.
Fortune Favors the Bold
I know enough about you to call you a socialist
You clearly believe you have a claim on what is mine and are more than willing to endorse the activities of those who would kill me to take my property from me. What more do I need to know about you? Share what you'd like.
None, you should start your own country.
You'll have to do that, anyway, if you ever want to live under even the mildest forms of anarcho-capitalism.
Otherwise, you are whining, as the writer above aptly points out.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
I don't want to have my own government, thanks.
I'm not a sociopath that gets off on telling other people what they can or can not do, save for telling people that what is mine is mine.
Why Kevin, would you enjoy being the big man on your own island? It sounds like you have some control issues to work thru.
Wrong Place!
This is a reply to "none," not the quiz.
People haven't scored as well on this quiz as on others.
This free quizzing software doesn't spit out stats for me, so I have to go through and take the quiz myself to see what percentage of respondents got each answer right. Many of them were in the 50s and 60s (percentage of right answers).
It might be that "none of the above" is used often in this quiz---which makes any quiz harder.
Or perhaps it is that we don't understand checks and balances as well as we understand other things about the Constitution.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the reason for this?
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Perhaps it's because your questions make an illogical assumption
That there's some obligation between the government and individual people.
BTW, I ran thru this particular quiz. The problem with the alleged 'checks and balances' is that they rely on government to check government.
I do have a question for you about question #7 though. How is it that you can still see amendment #2, the euphamistic 'right' to bear arms, as a check on government tyranny? The government clearly views and treats weapons ownership as a privilege as evidenced by laws they create. Furthermore, the weapons that they legally allow individuals to hold is far inferior to those which they hold for themselves. How is it then that you see the 2nd amendment as a check on government tyranny? Additionally, how well has the 2nd amendment worked in the past when individuals who did own weapons attempted to defend themselves from government tyranny?
Poll Update: 63% say it would come to war if a state seceded.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Do you have any questions that outline why it applies?
Are there any questions and answers in the quiz that establish how people from long ago can make a claim on your life and property?
They can make a claim
They can make a claim becuase you said they could by living here and taking advantage (for better or worse) of what this country has to offer, including its laws.
None----first read these names....
Then tell me which ones of them are executing any claim over your life and property.
(Thanks for bumping my thread, by the way. Even your hounding has its uses.)
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
So you believe that the US Constitution doesn't apply to me?
Jack, how unexpected! Are you saying that the us constitution doesn't apply to me and that there are no provisions for it to lay claim over me in any way?
There is that pesky interstate commerce clause for example though. You know, the one where the people who created the document and signed it decided that the federal government that they created has the power to steal a portion of my property if I want to do business across certain geographic boundaries that the government that they created decides exist. Boundaries on land that neither they or their creation own, for example, such as boundaries between privately owned properties. But you're saying that there's no claim on me there, so it must be true.
Must you make it so easy for me to point out the contradictions in your statements? I rather enjoyed our other debate until you high tailed it.
Those who are interested in the secession poll....
...should take a few minutes to read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address. http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Lincoln/lincoln-1.html
Between Lincoln's November 6, 1860 election and his inauguration on March 4, 1861, seven of the thirteen states that would secede had already done so.
In Lincoln's address, he nullifies the ordinances of secession filed by these states, saying they have no right to secede (he cites no legal authority for this statement, and only makes dubious remarks in support of it.) Further, he says that "... the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy...", which is demonstrably false in that the CSA Constitution, adopted only a week after Lincoln's address, was identical to that of the US, with only a handful of exceptions. They were hardly anarchists. He seems to have been denying them the very right that the colonies exerted when they declared their independence from Britain while claiming ownership of the land upon which they had been established.
Lincoln also argues that secession would "destroy the union", although he doesn't explain how. (Does a local Lion's Club chapter closing its doors "destroy" Lion's Club International? Or if they repeal their charter and join up with Rotary International instead, does that "destroy" the Lion's Club?)
Further, knowing full well that he had federal forts in those states and that he would be refusing to vacate them, Lincoln tells the South that there will be no hostilities unless THEY start them. (As if they should naturally let him ship in provisions, troops, and ordnance to those forts in their states---which he was doing at Ft. Sumter.)
Having recently studied this clever piece of rhetoric, I have wondered whether this same piece of paper might be whipped out by a modern president and used as a precedent against secession.
You can find the document here: http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Lincoln/lincoln-1.html
I don't know about you folks, but the more I study Lincoln, the more I realize just how corrupt he was----which has all come as quite a shock to me this past couple of years because it is so contrary to the great Lincoln lore with which we all grew up.
Aaron Russo's film puts the establishment of American corruption back to 1913, but it clearly goes back to the Civil War and beyond. Certain entities were trying their hardest to undermine the system even that far back. And I'm not talking about slavery, but about bankers and tyrants. This is why I believe they would not let the Southern States go.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Lincoln was one of the worst presidents the USA has ever had
Jack, I agree with you wholeheartedly in that as I revisited Lincoln's words & deeds once I had come to libertarianism I began to realize just how much damage he did to liberty in his time.
Poll Update: 72% now say it would come to war...
If a state seceded from the USA. That's up from 63% earlier.
How do you all feel about whether the US would be justified in going to war against a state that was trying to secede?
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
ANYONE
Now you have me thinking ..Since the US treasury purchased the land in many of the regions that became States, does this mean those States that came from those territories belong to the FED gov't. ???ASKING
you-no
Good question.
It is interesting that nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government authorized to own a "state". Once territories became states, they had their own governments and were in charge of their own lands..
Regardless, if it is NOT considered a human right to throw off a tyrannical government and to build your own on the land you already occupy, then the nation was conceived in lawlessness.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com