Agna:

[Kalam]

In my imagining of it, at least, the central body would actually have some direct powers.

So, the main difference from a federated republic as we have been using the term is the market (socialism and no protections for private property)?

The main difference is that the economy would be organized directly by workers and associations thereof. Political power would be far less centralized.

 

[JBeukema]

it's necessary to draw a distinction between "private property" and "personal possession."

Yes, but not the one you draw. One can have in one's personal possession another's property. Protection of that personal property is what allows the owner to demand its return and expect a social/legal means of seeing such a return occur, shoul;d the person whoposseses the property seek to deny its return to the rightful owner

 

[JBeukema]

It been done... now three times...

no, it has not. Since you clearly fail to understand what a mathematical proof actually is, you should remain silent and merely be thought a fool.

 

[JBeukema]

In my imagining of it, at least, the central body would actually have some direct powers.

So, the main difference from a federated republic as we have been using the term is the market (socialism and no protections for private property)?

The main difference is that the economy would be organized directly by workers and associations thereof. Political power would be far less centralized.

i would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I support a republic far less centralized than our own and more in line with that setup by the Constitution (although I do not intend to in any way imply that said document ios without its own flaws)

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFL... Yeah I hear ya... cause such a syndicate would come to power in a vacuum, with no nationalist bent... and who could argue that such a syndicate would need be a function of default highly centralized... which again as a function of default would be prone to suppressing any political opposition...

Did you bother reading the article or doing any actual research into what syndicalism entails? I'm not advocating any sort of revolutionary change at this point; I'm simply describing what I believe to be an ideal system of governance.

And I didn't say ya were... My position is clearly written and doesn't require a ton of interpretation... I simply said that the syndicate which you've sourced is little more than fascism riding under a different label... which is what it is... that you are or are not advocating for such is irrelavant...

I expect that such a syndicate would just materialize out of the ether and would in NO WAY represent the combining of industry with governance... which is the working definition of fascism...

As often as you seem to use a thesaurus, I would think that you'd have access to a dictionary as well.

Wow... so now you're just leaning on the absurd completely... Suit yourself...

So why don't you keep your limited Muslim intellect focused on your false God towards preparing yourself for an etermity of anguish and torment... and leave the thinking to those who aren't saddled with such intellectual limitations... sis.

My friend, I'm generally not one to speculatively compare my own intellectual abilities with those of others, but I can say with confidence that you're either less intelligent than everyone else posting in this thread or doing a damn fine job of making it seem that way.

As for attributing any intellectual limitations I may have to my religious beliefs, I think you'll find that mine are far more rational than yours. You'll also find that you owe a fairly sizable debt to "limited Muslim intellect" for all of the innovations it has produced.

That you feel you 'think' at all, is a fair indication of the depth of your delusion...

You've offered an economic theory which mirrors that common to fascism and sought to equate that economic relevance to the defined composition of the fascist state on the whole... which scores well beyond its economic component... and this while challenging the intellect of those who merely pointed out that intellectual failure.

It's sweet irony in the extreme...

As to the contributions of the Islamic community... I find that my obligations are limited to that which has come along in say... the last 2 or 300 years. I don't really find myself needing much goat herding and as a general rule, Mud Huts are something I rarely find a need for... and where I am concerned, Islam has cost me more than it can ever hope to repay.

The simple fact is that when Islam inevitably crosses the line which requires the species to finally squelch it entirely... humanity will not long remember it and never will it find a reason to miss it...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It been done... now three times...

no, it has not. Since you clearly fail to understand what a mathematical proof actually is, you should remain silent and merely be thought a fool.

Well now you're just demonstrating that you're a common LIAR...

Nothing new there Ag... as the left is, on the whole, little more than a collosal deception.

2nd TIME>>

Present proof of your 'mathematical fact

For the second time:

Where's that mathematical proof?

Well lets see... there's 6 billion human beings on the planet... and the two of you are posting in duplicate syntax along precisely the same species of reasoning... espousing the same conclusions from such; which, without going too deep, it seems fairly unlikely... I'd say something on the order of several hundreds of million:1

3rd TIME>>>

Present proof of your 'mathematical fact

For the second time:

Where's that mathematical proof?

That is not a mathematical proof. It simply posts irrelevant numbers and concludes with 'I'd say...'
Your stupidity is showing again

Oh... I see, so you're wanting to refute my argument, be declaring it's not a valid mathematical calculation... but it is valid reasoning which correlates to a sound mathematical reference.

Now I suppose if you trotted out a valid mathematical calculation wherein, out of 6 billion people, two people were to come to the same website in the manner which you two 'screen names' appeared; to post in precisely the same syntax, or rhetorical mannerisms, coming to complimentary conclusions within a ridiculously islolated and uncommon subject matter, well then I suppose you'd have a fine argument there...

But my position does speak to reasonable mathematical conclusions and will stand as unchallenged until a superior calculation comes along which refutes it...

And FTR: 'That's not a sufficient calculation' isn't such a refutation, sis...

But good luck with that...

And just as an encouragement, I think if we do come up with someone that wants to bang that one out... the specific odds aren't going to work out for ya any better than those I supposed... but you don't let me slow ya down... as I can see that you're all over it... specifically where you hoped to slim down your odds, by pointing to the limited number of people on this site... which in fact, actually worked against your argument... DUMBASS!

 

[JBeukema]

It does not stand at all, for it is not a mathematical proof of anything. Jell, I'll cite the same thning right now to show that you and Yukon are the same, citing your trolling behavior and gross stupidity as further evidence. It stands that you are the child-molesting gay priest Yukon until you prove otherwise beyond any doubt

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It does not stand at all, for it is not a mathematical proof of anything.

Actually that is precisely what it is... that you're ignorant of such doesn't change it...

Jell, I'll cite the same thning right now to show that you and Yukon are the same, citing your trolling behavior and gross stupidity as further evidence. It stands that you are the child-molesting gay priest Yukon until you prove otherwise beyond any doubt

ROFLMNAO... Ahh... so you're going to site a fantasy for which there is no substantive evidence, in stark contrast to the evidence of your self dueling on this thread...

Well that works as well as anything else you've offered up in any of your headless specters...
.
.
.
.
.

But it is cool that you've decided to clue us in as to another of your manifestations...

BRILLIANT!

 

[JBeukema]

Well lets see... there's 6 billion human beings on the planet... and the two of you are posting in duplicate levels of trolling stupidity along precisely the same species of ignorance... espousing the same lunacy and idiocy from such; which, without going too deep, it seems fairly unlikely... I'd say something on the order of several hundreds of million:1

Until you prove the math wrong, the facts stand: You are Yukon- nor did you deny being a child molester

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So, the main difference from a federated republic as we have been using the term is the market (socialism and no protections for private property)?

The main difference is that the economy would be organized directly by workers and associations thereof. Political power would be far less centralized.

i would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I support a republic far less centralized than our own and more in line with that setup by the Constitution (although I do not intend to in any way imply that said document ios without its own flaws)

My goodness... that is PRECISELY the position which AG has taken...

 

[JBeukema]

PRECISELY the position which AG has taken...

right... because my calls for a republic with certain attributes is just like his tirade against republicanism...

and my defense of capitalism is exactly the same and his anti-capitalist bullshit


i sure hope you're playing stupid, or I must call for your sterilization- for the good of the species

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well lets see... there's 6 billion human beings on the planet... and the two of you are posting in duplicate levels of trolling stupidity along precisely the same species of ignorance... espousing the same lunacy and idiocy from such; which, without going too deep, it seems fairly unlikely... I'd say something on the order of several hundreds of million:1

Until you prove the math wrong, the facts stand: You are Yukon- nor did you deny being a child molester

For a fact to stand, it actually has to be a fact... projected delusion, doesn't make the cut...

Now I realize that you feel strongly otherwise, but that's the nature of the fool... and why you people are to be avoided.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PRECISELY the position which AG has taken...

right... because my calls for a republic with certain attributes is just like his tirade against republicanism...

and my defense of capitalism is exactly the same and his anti-capitalist bullshit


i sure hope you're playing stupid, or I must call for your sterilization- for the good of the species

Oh so you want to appear to set some distiance between the two now?

BRILLIANT...

You just want a republic which doesn't stand on sound principle such as inalienable rights, such as the US Constitution... because you, like your other character "AG", are an athiest, who strongly distorts the value of 'the social contract' and feels strongly in a republican form of governance, just set upon a loose confederation of local collectives...

ROFL... care to show how this differs from anything you've offered under 'aggrevated prostate?'

 

[JBeukema]

For a fact to stand, it actually has to be a fact... projected delusion, doesn't make the cut...

Now I realize that you feel strongly otherwise, but that's the nature of the fool... and why you people are to be avoided.

A fine response to your earlier posts. I knew getting you to do so would not be difficult, given your simple mind

You just want a republic which doesn't stand on sound principle such as inalienable rights, such as the US Constitution...

Feel free to quote any of my words where I have such such a thing. I look forward to humiliating you and demonstrating how stupid you are4 yet again.

because you, like your other character "AG"

See the beginning of this post

,

are an athiest,

This should be good

who strongly distorts the value of 'the social contract'

You know nothing of Social Contract nor my own ideologies. Thank you for demonstrating that once again

and feels strongly in a republican form of governance, just set upon a loose confederation of local collectives...

Demonstrate where I have said any such thing, you twit. the fact is that I have argued for the republic and against confederacy, and have denounced condertations every single time I have discussed them

Feel free to show anywhere I have espoused or praise confederacy


I'm beginning to wonder if you are agna's lates sock puppet, since your mindless drivel and pathetic attacks appear on par l)


As an aside, let the record show that OPI still voices no objections or refutation to the assertion that he is a child molestor, choosing to implicityy acklnowledge ti as a fact.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

For a fact to stand, it actually has to be a fact... projected delusion, doesn't make the cut...

Now I realize that you feel strongly otherwise, but that's the nature of the fool... and why you people are to be avoided.

A fine response to your earlier posts. I knew getting you to do so would not be difficult, given your simple mind

And A FINE NON-RESPONSE TO THIS THIS POST... which serves reason perfectly, in that any attempt at a cogent response, would have only further exposed your ruse...

You've projected absurdity as truth... which is what ya always do... In effect, you want to come to this board to stand on the merit of science and when science exposes your argument as false, you deny the potential validity of same, through these obtuse distractions... it's fairly common amongst the atheist flock...

You just want a republic which doesn't stand on sound principle such as inalienable rights, such as the US Constitution...

Feel free to quote any of my words where I have {said} such a thing. I look forward to humiliating you and demonstrating how stupid you are4 yet again.

No problem.... I'm happy to do so... (This is the best part of text forums... the left's MO is to constantly deny that they've ever taken a position, when that position bites them in the collective ass... which works GREAT on Cable TV; but on Message boards... Not so much...)

Yep... where one recognizes that punishment for one having violated the just and unalienable rights of another is not coercion... but justice...

1)Demonstrate that such rights exist
2)Actually, it's coercion to comply with the social contract among persons to protect those 'rights'

So, the main difference from a federated republic as we have been using the term is the market (socialism and no protections for private property)?

The main difference is that the economy would be organized directly by workers and associations thereof. Political power would be far less centralized.

i would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I support a republic far less centralized than our own and more in line with that setup by the Constitution (although I do not intend to in any way imply that said document ios without its own flaws)

Note that this is basically the same tired vacuous platitude that Ag trots out, where she proclaims that she's the antithesis of a communist: declaring that she's for far less government than "Conservatives'; particularly the dreaded "Neo-cons' and that her ideological wishes are closer to those of the US framers... where localities determine their governance through these little voluntary collectives...


All she's done here, is to rinse as vague a reference to the USC as possible, hoping to keep such detached from her previous posers regarding little irrelevances such as the whole 'inalienable rights' thing...

What ya have here is one member, using multiple accounts to project what she feels are two distinct arguments which essentially drive toward the same conclusion... and this a result of her feeling that her feelings are simply not being taken seriously; that she has a far more complex 'theory' than the meager intellects of this board can comprehend, so to demonstrate the wisdom of this 'theory', she's taken to this ruse, where two people come to discuss the issue from a two diverse perspectives and of course, come to the same conclusion.

Each one offering paragraphs of deep thoughts, which of course, as stated above, eventually get the reader back to the same place...

It's nothing more than the same tired deception that the media at large applies, wherein they project numerous facets of 'moderate/centrist' opinions that all drive to the same leftist conclusion...

The only distinction here is that the text forum produces a written record; thus it tends to corner these projections of multiple correlating facets...

Through the use of multiple accounts, she seeks to give the impression that there are twice as many people who 'essentially' agree with her; and as noted above, both providing deep arguments, each having given much thought to this rather obscure little issue... both coming from two seemingly distinct perspectives, but arriving at roughly the same conclusion.

who strongly distorts the value of 'the social contract'

You know nothing of Social Contract nor my own ideologies. Thank you for demonstrating that once again

Golly... such angst directed at the defense of the all mighty 'social contract'... that seems SO painfully familiar...

What I know of your ideology is that which you've posted for consideration; and that which is quoted above, is more than sufficient to soundly rest this conclusion... You want it both ways, every time...

and feels strongly in a republican form of governance, just set upon a loose confederation of local collectives...

Demonstrate where I have said any such thing, you twit. the fact is that I have argued for the republic and against confederacy, and have denounced condertations every single time I have discussed them

'condertation'? We'll go with 'Confederation' on that one...

Again, note how she demands it both ways... My position simply noted that she advocated for a republic; just one wherein the 'mistakes' of the US Constitution are avoided...

And its readily deduced through her demand that we demonstrate that 'Unalienable Rights exist' that she feels that such is part and parcel of such 'flaws' in the US Constitution... clearly she has doubts that such rights exist...

Thus the republic which she would design would be one which does not rest upon such rights, but upon a social contract; Now where one rests upon the social contract, such contracts are only viable at a local level; wherein local collectives would determine what rights were to be enjoyed... where individuals agree to certain conditions and responsibilities and are able to hold each other accountable, by virtue of each individual member having pledged their distinct, individual cooperation; as where such becomes less local, the bonds of personal accountability become detached and accountability born of the individual's personal pledge, from one to the other, become necessarily detached...

Thus such a republic would necessarily require a loosely bound confederation of these local collectives... which is precisely that for which Ag chronically advocates.

Yet here this member is DEMANDING that she is a proponent of a STRONG REPUBLIC... based upon the celebrated social contract, which can never be sustained beyond the social bond where one man gives his word to another man, thus establishing a contract from one to another; and all of this resting upon the ethereal record, to which she LOVES to refer, but never seems to get around to quoting... even as she DEMANDS that her opposition PROVE every facet of their argument...

Its classic obfuscation and the typical ad ignorantum rant of the deceitful left...

The fact of the matter is that stripped of the Unalienable Right principle, all that remains is a strong centralized government which imparts its power to the detriment of the rights of the individual... which reason requires the existence of which would be focused upon little else, but to buttress it's own power.

But we can rest assured that this is not what this would-be member will claim to be her desire... so she is found caught between common sense and the long discredited academic theories regarding the collective; which are chronically, ceaselessly advanced by YOU KNOW WHO...

Which finally brings us to ask: For what PRECISELY is this member advocating?

I'd ask that this member produce these posts wherein she's taken these strong, passionate advocacies which so clearly define her position... Which seems fair considering that she is all about DEMANDING PROOF, yet her own stated positions NEVER seem to have anything except vague references to her former hard and fast positions...

I hereby ask that this member quote from the record, where she stood against a loosely bound confederation... and for a strong Republic; which is her most recently advanced argument.

What I suspect we'll find is that she'll be unable to demonstrate such a position and thus unable to produce where she's taken ANY firm position... as to do so would simply limit her means to troll... in any of her numerous manifestations.

 

[JBeukema]

And A FINE NON-RESPONSE TO THIS THIS POST

You expect me to respond to a post that's not been posted as of the time of my posting?

You've projected absurdity as truth... which is what ya always do... In effect,

That you do

i would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I support a republic far less centralized than our own and more in line with that setup by the Constitution (although I do not intend to in any way imply that said document ios without its own flaws)

Ah, I get it. Since I view the Constitution as a fallible document and think the progress made in civil liberties and the recognition of human rights sine the 1700s is a good thing, I must not be a 'true American' per your ignorant partiasanese non-logic

Again, note how [he] demands it both ways... My position simply noted that she advocated for a republic; just one wherein the 'mistakes' of the US Constitution are avoided...

Actually, you tried to say I support a confederated republic, which is a flat-out lie

And its readily deduced through her demand that we demonstrate that 'Unalienable Rights exist' that she feels that such is part and parcel of such 'flaws' in the US Constitution... clearly she has doubts that such rights exist...

Wow... you really are thick headed

You were the one who sought to produce a moral argument based on 'natural rights'; you bear the burden of demonstrating that they exist.

Just so you know, since you're too ignorant to grasps this very simple matter: The USC annd the FF '[held] these truthsd to be self-evident'. They did not choose to engage in a philisophical debate. They stated that for the purposes of the SC they were codifying via first the DoI and then the USC they such rights were, by the agreement of all parties, declared as axioms that all would accept within the confines of the SC (Law). This was for two reasons:
-To avoid religious debate
-To avoid a long and darwn-out philisophical diatribe that would have served merely to distract from the matter at hand

Thus the republic which she would design would be one which does not rest upon such rights, but upon a social contract;

All societies rest on scoial contract, you nimwit. The difference is that I am smart enough to realize that where you are not.

Now where one rests upon the social contract, such contracts are only viable at a local level;

Really? So the two houses of Congres... the Supreme Court... POTUS... only exist at the 'local level'?

wherein local collectives would determine what rights were to be enjoyed...

You mean like the BILL OF RIGHTS?

where individuals agree to certain conditions and responsibilities and are able to hold each other accountable,

You mean... a CODIFIED LAW

by virtue of each individual member having pledged their distinct, individual cooperation;

you mean something like a PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE?

Thus such a republic would necessarily require a loosely bound confederation of these local collectives... which is precisely that for which Ag chronically advocates.

or a Federated system of semi-autonamous States, like the compromise reached between the Fesderalists and the Antifederalists...

Yet here this member is DEMANDING that [he] is a proponent of a STRONG REPUBLIC...

asserting... learn English, you twit.

Its classic obfuscation and the typical ad ignorantum rant of the deceitful left...

- from someone who subscribes to what has been described as right-of-center libertarianism

The fact of the matter is that stripped of the Unalienable Right principle, all that remains is a strong centralized government which imparts its power to the detriment of the rights of the individual... which reason requires the existence of which would be focused upon little else, but to buttress it's own power.

Cite where I proposed striking those words from the founding documents...

Which finally brings us to ask: For what PRECISELY is this member advocating?

A limited federated republic much like the U.S.... fixing the US top promote liberty and equality, while rereturning power and semi-autonamy to the member States...

oh my god,... that's... that's a conservative libertarian ideology

I hereby ask that this member quote from the record, where she stood against a loosely bound confederation... and for a strong Republic; which is her most recently advanced argument.

Some semblance of centralized authority seems necessary if members of a society are to be able to protect themselves from any large-scale internal or external threat.

That is a fatal flaw of all confederation. Again, see the Articles of Confederation, the CSA, or the UN for examples of why confederacy does not work.
'Wisdom of the crowd'

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

For a fact to stand, it actually has to be a fact... projected delusion, doesn't make the cut...

Now I realize that you feel strongly otherwise, but that's the nature of the fool... and why you people are to be avoided.

A fine response to your earlier posts. I knew getting you to do so would not be difficult, given your simple mind

And A FINE NON-RESPONSE TO THIS THIS POST... which serves reason perfectly, in that any attempt at a cogent response, would have only further exposed your ruse...

You've projected absurdity as truth... which is what ya always do... In effect, you want to come to this board to stand on the merit of science and when science exposes your argument as false, you deny the potential validity of same, through these obtuse distractions... it's fairly common amongst the atheist flock...

You expect me to respond to a post that's not been posted as of the time of my posting?

No, I expect you to squirm and post up addle-minded obfuscations... just as you always do... It's what one expect of the idiots...

You just want a republic which doesn't stand on sound principle such as inalienable rights, such as the US Constitution...

Feel free to quote any of my words where I have {said} such a thing. I look forward to humiliating you and demonstrating how stupid you are4 yet again.

No problem.... I'm happy to do so... (This is the best part of text forums... the left's MO is to constantly deny that they've ever taken a position, when that position bites them in the collective ass... which works GREAT on Cable TV; but on Message boards... Not so much...)

Yep... where one recognizes that punishment for one having violated the just and unalienable rights of another is not coercion... but justice...

1)Demonstrate that such rights exist
2)Actually, it's coercion to comply with the social contract among persons to protect those 'rights'

So, the main difference from a federated republic as we have been using the term is the market (socialism and no protections for private property)?

The main difference is that the economy would be organized directly by workers and associations thereof. Political power would be far less centralized.

i would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I support a republic far less centralized than our own and more in line with that setup by the Constitution (although I do not intend to in any way imply that said document ios without its own flaws)

... the text forum produces a written record; thus it tends to corner these projections of multiple correlating facets...

Ah, I get it. Since I view the Constitution as a fallible document and think the progress made in civil liberties and the recognition of human rights sine the 1700s is a good thing, I must not be a 'true American' per your ignorant partiasanese non-logic

ROFL... Well yeah... and you're not an American. Americans understand to their core that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights... you do not believe that such rights exist, thus there is no means by which you can associate yourself with Americans. This is already well established and that you're trying to argue that the original Constitution did not recognize human rights, you reinforce that fact... The entire US founding Charter establishes in certainty the existence of unalienable Human Rights; rights which you have made it clear you do not recognize; you've made it clear that to you, all human rights are, are temporal cultural contrivances which are snatched from the ideological ether in the form of 'social contracts'... little fabrications which exist only where some governing body bothers to write them down.

Of course, history is repleat with such rights which were summarily ignored, before the ink dried. Which again, simply points out that you're nothing remotely similar to anything approaching an American.

Now let's address your flaccid little attempts to avoid accountability for your 'feelings' as you cut and paste as little from the argument as possible, to confuse the reader.

who strongly distorts the value of 'the social contract'

You know nothing of Social Contract nor my own ideologies. Thank you for demonstrating that once again

Golly... such angst directed at the defense of the all mighty 'social contract'... that seems SO painfully familiar...

What I know of your ideology is that which you've posted for consideration; and that which is quoted above, is more than sufficient to soundly rest this conclusion... You want it both ways, every time...

and feels strongly in a republican form of governance, just set upon a loose confederation of local collectives...

Demonstrate where I have said any such thing, you twit. the fact is that I have argued for the republic and against confederacy, and have denounced condertations every single time I have discussed them

'condertation'? We'll go with 'Confederation' on that one...

Again, note how she demands it both ways... My position simply noted that she advocated for a republic; just one wherein the 'mistakes' of the US Constitution are avoided...

And its readily deduced through her demand that we demonstrate that 'Unalienable Rights exist' that she feels that such is part and parcel of such 'flaws' in the US Constitution... clearly she has doubts that such rights exist...

Thus the republic which she would design would be one which does not rest upon such rights, but upon a social contract; Now where one rests upon the social contract, such contracts are only viable at a local level; wherein local collectives would determine what rights were to be enjoyed... where individuals agree to certain conditions and responsibilities and are able to hold each other accountable, by virtue of each individual member having pledged their distinct, individual cooperation; as where such becomes less local, the bonds of personal accountability become detached and accountability born of the individual's personal pledge, from one to the other, become necessarily detached...

Thus such a republic would necessarily require a loosely bound confederation of these local collectives... which is precisely that for which Ag chronically advocates.

Yet here this member is DEMANDING that she is a proponent of a STRONG REPUBLIC... based upon the celebrated social contract, which can never be sustained beyond the social bond where one man gives his word to another man, thus establishing a contract from one to another; and all of this resting upon the ethereal record, to which she LOVES to refer, but never seems to get around to quoting... even as she DEMANDS that her opposition PROVE every facet of their argument...

Its classic obfuscation and the typical ad ignorantum rant of the deceitful left...

The fact of the matter is that stripped of the Unalienable Right principle, all that remains is a strong centralized government which imparts its power to the detriment of the rights of the individual... which reason requires the existence of which would be focused upon little else, but to buttress it's own power.

But we can rest assured that this is not what this would-be member will claim to be her desire... so she is found caught between common sense and the long discredited academic theories regarding the collective; which are chronically, ceaselessly advanced by YOU KNOW WHO...

Actually, you tried to say I support a confederated republic, which is a flat-out lie

No, I merely established that as a fact, you want to have it both ways, based upon your previous contributions... that you feel you need to deny the obvious simply establishes as a fact, that you're an impotent little troll.

Wow... you really are thick headed

You were the one who sought to produce a moral argument based on 'natural rights'; you bear the burden of demonstrating that they exist.

Just so you know, since you're too ignorant to grasps this very simple m.atter: The USC annd the FF '[held] these truthsd to be self-evident'. They did not choose to engage in a philisophical debate. They stated that for the purposes of the SC they were codifying via first the DoI and then the USC they such rights were, by the agreement of all parties, declared as axioms that all would accept within the confines of the SC (Law). This was for two reasons:
-To avoid religious debate
-To avoid a long and darwn-out philisophical diatribe that would have served merely to distract from the matter at hand

ROFLMNAO... Golly, that's a real stumper... Except where truths are self evident, they evidence themselves; thus they bear no further examination. Now you've demanded that such self evident truths be proven... Hmm... But NOW, suddenly, you're wanting to separate yourself from that position and lean on Jefferson's would-be fear of engaging in a religious debate, despite his having authored that certainty at a time when there would be no chance of much of a debate, given that the prevailing opinion of the day, was that those truths were self evident.

FASCINATIN'!

Oh you're all over it. You confuse tense, sense and leave your reader to whence... absolutely BRILLIANT!

All societies rest on scoial contract, you nimwit. The difference is that I am smart enough to realize that where you are not.

No... Not all... The US society did not rest on such a contract... and still doesn't. My contract is with the Creator... I have been endowed with certain unalienable rights, as have my neighbors; who, ftr, are also contracting with the Creator; and in that contract, we agree to exercise the rights endowed to us, without infringing upon the rights of each other; and we further agree that where we fail to respect that responsibility, that the others will hold us accountable.

I've made no other contracts with anyone else, regarding the culture or society. I did at one time make a contract to serve in the Military... I made a contract with my wife ... and I've lived most of my life entering and executing contracts with other entities, in which I exchange my expertise and services for earnest money...

But since Hobbes, the notion of such has been so bastardized that such is largely a misnomer; particularly since Rousseau's blatherings on the issue, where the left has sought to use this idiocy to dislodge the above natural and sustainable certainty, where they feel quite strongly that they can simply obtain power and implement their own rules and that this obligates the individual citizen to their version of the would-be contract.

And such is what you've come to shove, and I'm simply here to shove it back.

Now where one rests upon the social contract, such contracts are only viable at a local level;

Really? So the two houses of Congres... the Supreme Court... POTUS... only exist at the 'local level'?

Where the federal government defend and protect the US Constitution and implement law which serves justice; justice which is aligned with the aforementioned constitution, they establish valid law which merely provides for the means of my neighbors and myself to hold each other accountable for the responsibilities inherent in our rights... Where those laws conflict with my rights, infringe on my rights, usurp my rights or such for my neighbors, I am duty bound to reject those laws and to defend my rights. Those bodies do not hold supreme authority over me... I am not a subject to their overreaching authority. They do not have ANY RIGHT to use their power to infringe upon my rights, for any reason.

Which is precisely wat you're implying... The Federal government exists to SERVE ME and my nieghbors... where they come to feel that we exist to serve them; then at that point, we have a problem... and its people like you who feel that we're somehow tied to some ethereal contract to serve that government, who are part and parcel of that problem.

wherein local collectives would determine what rights were to be enjoyed...

You mean like the BILL OF RIGHTS?

Again you fall prey to a longstanding misnomer. The US Constitution does NOT provide rights to anyone. The BILL OF RIGHTS, merely enumerates specific rights, which those who offered the amendment felt were essential to enumerate, so as to provide specific protections from any government which might otherwise seek to infringe upon or usupr them.

In the debate of the Rights Bill, one of the arguments against such, was that future generations, may erroneously come to conclude that such enumerations would be misunderstood; as you've proven you misunderstand such; and conclude that, as you have, the Bill was the US Constitutional decreeing those rights... and that people would come to believe that those rights are the extent of their rights...

Such is not the case... and the US Constitution makes it quite clear that that accept where such POWER has been vested with the Federal government, all rights are reserved to the individual citizen.

Leftists, such as yourself, the mass of idiots, mistakenly feel that 'the government has rights'... and that those rights are a function of rights maintained by the tired cliche: The People... When in truth, the people are the sum of the individuals who comprise those people; a people who have no means to provide rights to anyone; let alone rights which circumvent the rights of another; as such is not rightful, but an implementation of POWER, as a result of their sum... The framers of the USC understood that, as I understand it, and they created the US Constitution to PREVENT IT.

That you're here to strip the culture of those protections, by undermining the foundation on which it rests; the devine endowment of unalienable rights; again merely points to you being part of the problem.

You mean... a CODIFIED LAW

Where Law serves to defend the rights of the individual, it serves justice... where it seeks to serve something other THAN the rights of the individual, such as FAIRNESS or a social contract, born of the skewed notion of fairness, common to you idiots on the ideological left, the LAW does not serve justice and it is the duty of the individual to disregard that law and to go about stripping the legal code of such.

That the law exists, does not establish an agreement on the part of anyone to simply obey such, by virtue of its existance. Of course, such would be the mindset of the sheeple... such as yourself.

by virtue of each individual member having pledged their distinct, individual cooperation;

you mean something like a PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean... That pledge is designed to impart loyalty to the nation, the republic and the standard of such... to the concept of all of the above, including God, the Creator; and the endowed inalienable rights which he provided to sustain our liberty... Not to some etheral, subjective contract which infringes of the rights of the individual in order to subsidize another. What's more, that pledge is designed to remind the individual citizen to reject your communist BS...

Thus such a republic would necessarily require a loosely bound confederation of these local collectives... which is precisely that for which Ag chronically advocates.

or a Federated system of semi-autonamous States, like the compromise reached between the Fesderalists and the Antifederalists...

Uh huh... minus the whole 'unalienable rights' thing... So it would be closer to the federated system of semi-autonomous States, such as that realized during the Soviet Union failure. Where the states weren't all that autonomous and the lengthy list of human rights enumerated in their constitution, were basically window dressing...

The point is that you argue for a social contract which can, IN TRUTH, in REALITY, only be managed locally, where there is no understanding by the individual of their UNALIENABLE RIGHTS and the inherent RESPONSIBILITIES to defend their rights and those of their neighbors; to pursue the fulfillment of their own life... otherwise, the State must proclaim what rights a citizen has... and impart their power to control those individuals and in so doing enforce that social contract.

Again you come to have it both ways... and that simply can't be done.

Its classic obfuscation and the typical ad ignorantum rant of the deceitful left...

- from someone who subscribes to what has been described as right-of-center libertarianism

Oh! So you want to toss in some ad populum? Suit yourself, as its just another fallacious appeal, common to the left; and that someone within your ranks felt that you were to the right of them... doesn't change that.

The fact of the matter is that stripped of the Unalienable Right principle, all that remains is a strong centralized government which imparts its power to the detriment of the rights of the individual... which reason requires the existence of which would be focused upon little else, but to buttress it's own power.

Cite where I proposed striking those words from the founding documents...

Puhlease sis... That's long been established as FACT, and its that you need to deny it once more doesn't discredit that fact. You've made it clear that you do not believe that human rights are endowed by the Creator, instead you believe that human rights are a function of a temporal cultural contrivance born of the ethereal 'social contract'...

Even as we SPEAK, the Lord of the Idiots is implementing your reasoning, strengthening his power to dictate what that contract provides and with every move, the unalienable rights of the individual are being infringed and usurped...

So it's not even a debatable point, and that you feel the ned to advance the tired 'nuh huh' defense isn't going to change that.

Which finally brings us to ask: For what PRECISELY is this member advocating?

A limited federated republic much like the U.S.... fixing the US top promote liberty and equality, while rereturning power and semi-autonamy to the member States...

Well that's fair cover... and all we have to do, is to forget that in so doing, you'd simply remove from the equation, the foundation of American Governance, the certainty that human rights are unalienable endowments from the Creator and provide that the Federal and State Governments possess the power to determine what Rights the individual citizen has at any given moment...

In effect producing a federated republic which operates on a long list of platitudes enumerating all manner of rights which 'the people' enjoy... not at all dissimilar from the Federated Republic of the Soviet Union.

Oh my god,... that's... that's a conservative libertarian ideology

Well it's Libertarian mixed with the addle-minded sophistry of the left... which is why the Libertarians rarely get much traction in America. They're LONG on Individual rights, but they typically want to set aside the origins of those rights and the responsibilities inherent in them.

 

[JBeukema]

they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...

-prove z creator
-prove such an endowment by said creator

you do not believe that such rights exist, thus there is no means by which you can associate yourself with Americans

you already ran away on the other thread; you would be wise to be silent here, as well.


.

t you're trying to argue that the original Constitution did not recognize human rights,

Show where I said any such thing. *yawn* if you're going ton be a lying troll, must you be such a stupid one?

No, I merely established that as a fact, y

'
Actually, you've just repeated yet another lie.

JTB has never called for a confederacy

No... Not all... The US society did not rest on such a contract...

Yes, they did. They even codified it

I've made no other contracts with anyone else, regarding the culture or society

Actually, you made one with me and everyone else earlier in this thread:

I tend to my responsibilities and hold the rest of you accountable for your responsibilities....

Admit it. You've been proven a liar across two threads, and you have shown to be both wrong an an idiot

 

[Toro]

I had to scroll down 9 times to get to the bottom of PI's post.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I had to scroll down 9 times to get to the bottom of PI's post.