Comment: By the way, I should add, and end with, something else

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You speak in riddles (see in situ)

Cyril's picture

By the way, I should add, and end with, something else

By the way, I should add, and end with, something else re: my second to last comment, just for the sake to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding.

It's about regulations, precisely, or what it is about laws in general, in a society where justice and laws are proposed, explicited, written, voted on.

I am not against any regulations or laws, of course. But to give a little bit more of background on my rationale on when and how regulations and laws ARE indeed relevant or not, I believe in a general rule of thumb.

The first layer is all encompassing general principles (or "natural", "positive" so-called laws that can be understood by anybody, no matter the culture).

Maybe the first and foremost is the Golden Rule. Either the negative or positive phrasing: don't do to anybody what you wouldn't want to be done against you -OR- treat others as you'd like to be treated.

Just a personal preference: I believe the negative phrasing is easier to understand and apply, even with our human flaws.

Anyway. Only the hypocrite, in my view, will dare claim it's not easily accessible and we have to define it at lengths beyond that. Or give it a detailed interpretation.

Heck, even little kids can understand it as we raise them.

Then, you have a country's foundations: usually laid out after revolutions, at the birth of people gathering against a legacy and unjust power. A good representative for that is the Bill of Rights.

Then, you can build up with more elaborated state laws and regulations.

But here's the thing:

my very deep belief is it is fundamentally wrong and denotes an evil agenda to attempt make laws which supposedly should help make people live more easily, but that in fact LITERALLY INFRINGE on the first two fundamental layers.

Be wary of those who claim texts need their interpretations to be time-dependent.

It is A LIE. No. The founding texts are to be taken LITERALLY. In all times.

I don't even say it though I'm totally convinced. Ron Paul does, about the imaginary Constitution:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

Pay attention to his point on Federal Courts who have a political (or "sociological") agenda, with or without good intents - it doesn't matter: they only fundamentally BETRAY what THEIR VERY function was in the first place - TO PRESERVE the meaning of those texts.

To be faithful to texts. It is not as difficult as some love to claim. The Devil is in the detail and complication. A two-line amendment doesn't need more to be understood than what it contains in those two lines. Nothing more than it has, nothing LESS.

Or else ask: why such simplicity and terseness? Where they lazy or in a hurry or ignorant?

No. It was purposely written SIMPLE.

TO LAST generations.

It is like after laying down the foundations of a house, and building upon it the main walls and the roof, well advanced in what should be only interior-only preferences ... you would put at stakes the very existence of the former two. They are foundations and walls that precisely allow you to still call it "the house".

Why would anyone do that, if it's not to build another *thing*, not a house -maybe a prison- without willing to confess it?

Bottom line:

if it is written once and accepted by many for generations, and built upon, that freedom of speech, move, property, and means of self-defense and representation, then you cannot put them at stake.

Then, either you betray your past words, your language, or your past commitment to both.

A spade is a spade. You can invent many other words/synonyms for it. But if you call something which isn't a spade "a spade", while pretending you are still genuinely referring to a spade (that you know ISN'T one)...

this is THE LIE.

And it forcibly has a purpose.

Principles are principles. Denying them in disguise with semantics of things that DEPEND on them is the same as betraying the word "spade".

Just like for machine guns today, the founders COULD HAVE made a provision to exclude some types of powerful canons or ways to using explosive powder. Or limiting accumulated amounts.

Truth is:

T H E Y

D I D

N O T.

WHO seriously thinks it HASN'T occurred to them that they may have to make such provisions? Did they have ALREADY political unanimity around them from all? AND ONLY political friends?

I don't think so.

YET,

THEY STILL decided NOT to close the door to their people to defend themselves against anyone, by any means, "by bearing arms", including possibly against the future, short or middle term governments they knew would follow soon after.

Because THEY KNEW already the nature of government IS ONLY FORCE. They knew all too well.

They were humble and devoted enough, to a cause of Liberty GREATER than their own ambitions, TO SURRENDER to the power of such Freedom principles, if they would allow it to be written down, once and for all. For themselves as much as for others.

At the risk of shocking many, I think regulations can even be many in fact, but they should be about things which are as far as possible from the founding principles of Liberty and its Freedoms.

What's the big deal, then? The useless or annoying ones (regulations or laws) will die/be rejected as fast as they were born.

I wouldn't care much a state tries to regulate on, say, the color of housing roofs in historical sites with many monuments - say, because of the local touristic activity/business or whatnots. As soon as the number of people too p*ssed off overwhelms the proponents, the law or regulation will be just voted against (or rather, repealed/replaced) in turn.

Either way: THE PEOPLE had chosen PRO ... and then CON.

Many laws and regulations are business and markets-related. Usually for more fairness in exchanges. They can work for a while, or longer, or very short times. But you can always change them.

It is fine as long as THE STAKES on the fundamental principles and freedoms are non-existent.

But DO NOT touch these, precisely, again: freedom of move, speech, association, property, and self-defense. And justice, due jury process, with trial, etc.

Or what you put in your own body or your kids' and how. If I don't like what you do, I'll look elsewhere. Who would I be to tell you what is right or wrong for you, as long as I'm free, myself, to do otherwise?

Who would I be what is right or wrong for you to own or how to defend your property? Or your person?

That is Liberty. And the Bill of Rights.

Very simple and strong principles to protect all the people and especially minorities, including you or I, against the tyranny of the majority or ... a government who PRETENDS to be on the side of the latter (sometimes, even to protect just ONE PERSON who is eccentric or avant garde enough to do like no one else does.)

Any angel-looking smooth talker may convince you it is out of good intents to challenge these. But can't we know better?

Seriously.

History books exist. The Romans and the Bread and Circuses schemes in their politics aren't that old, and are well documented.

We all know how Rome ended, too.

The people's common sense HAS CHOSEN those simple and powerful lines in the Bill of Rights in the first place. Mind you. As THE FOUNDATIONS, precisely.

It WAS NOT done randomly. They knew about reading History before their times, too.

Thanks.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius