I'm sorry but Ron Paul "c@n't" win

[enjerth]

Government ownership vs Public ownership is the difference between communism and socialism.
This thread is derailed. I'm out.

It's the way it is. Whomever has ownership gets to write the rules. My main point is that the authority to enforce these rules is legitimate. Even if you disagree with public ownership, until YOU or someone else buys it from the public, it will remain publicly owned. If you can't respect that then you may have serious issues respecting ownership in general. Whether ownership is personal, corporate or public, it is still ownership.

I don't care for knuckleheads using the name of Ron Paul as an excuse to recklessly endanger the public or reject legitimate authority.

Good bye.

 

[osan]

Yes, we can tell you how fast you can drive. The roads are a public resource and the public does have the right to decide how it is governed.

There is a certain emotional force to this argument, but that does not necessarily imply the authority you claim. First of all, define "the public". Is "the public" an actual entity in the way a human being is? If so, please demonstrate how it is so. If not, then how does a non-entity have "rights"? Are you arguing for might-makes-right in the form of majority rule? If so, then why isn't a return to Friday night negro hunting OK if that is what the majority decides?

I am not saying you are wrong, but that you have not made your argument in even the smallest measure. Proof by assertion is no proof.

This is not just nitpicking. We have a duty, not to oppose authority

Says who?

but to oppose unlawful and illegitimate authority.

And who determines what is legitimate? What is the standard? Who determines the standard? What is the standard by which those who determine the standard are chosen and who determines that one?

Regulating traffic is a legitimate authority.

Once again, who says and why should we listen to them?

 

[osan]

...non-violent crimes.

Isn't this an oxymoron?

So, where in Joisey are you?

 

[osan]

Well, I guess your version of freedom is different from mine. I believe that free travel is a right. And as VoluntaryAmerican alluded, I should be able to do light speed while naked and drunk as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

I have been advocating this for at least 25 years and most people look at me as if I'd grown a third head.

The other side of that coin, of course, is responsibility for the results of one's choices. If someone drives 60 mph through a neighborhood where 25 is more in keeping with prudence and runs over someone's child, they should be prepared to face some stern consequences.

The one theoretical advantage to "government" handling such situations is impartiality. The typical "let the market handle it" position has yet to satisfy the question of proper authority where such issues arise. In practice, the advantage appears to fade into nonexistence, leaving naught but corruption in its wake and a state of increased general misery.

 

[enjerth]

First of all, define "the public".

Taxpayers. Roads are bought and paid for. Definite ownership.

Is "the public" an actual entity in the way a human being is? If so, please demonstrate how it is so. If not, then how does a non-entity have "rights"?

Corporate ownership, corporate rights. Is a corporation an entity? Does a corporation have rights?
Are you suggesting that, if a corporation forms and creates it's own roadways, they have no rights to govern those roadways? Are you suggesting that, because you refuse to recognize the rights of this corporation, you have the right to use their property as you please with no regard to their terms of use?

Are you arguing for might-makes-right in the form of majority rule?

No, I'm arguing that ownership-makes-right. If the corporate board (delegates, representatives elected by the people to serve the people) decides, by majority, to make terms for the use of that corporate property, then yes, might-makes-right in the same way that the legislature makes laws and in the same way that might-makes-right in electing those representatives. For both this corporation and for any. Got a problem with that?

If so, then why isn't a return to Friday night negro hunting OK if that is what the majority decides?

Pathetic. Strawman. Talk about not making your argument.

I am not saying you are wrong, but that you have not made your argument in even the smallest measure. Proof by assertion is no proof.

Then you also do not believe that the public owns the roads?

And who determines what is legitimate?

The owners.

What is the standard? Who determines the standard?

The owners, whatever they decide.

What is the standard by which those who determine the standard are chosen and who determines that one?

The owners.

Once again, who says and why should we listen to them?

Because they're the FLIPPING OWNERS. It's basic OWNERSHIP.

This is where we are at. If you decide to show NO respect for public ownership, which, until YOU or some other personal or corporate entity FORKS OVER THE MONEY to buy from THE PUBLIC what THEY HAVE PAID FOR through TAXES, it will REMAIN under PUBLIC OWNERSHIP. And you will attract NO INTEREST to your politics except from ANARCHISTS.

If I heard about Ron Paul from someone like you, advocating nonsense like this, I would be utterly disgusted at the idea of him becoming president.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

It's the way it is. Whomever has ownership gets to write the rules. My main point is that the authority to enforce these rules is legitimate. Even if you disagree with public ownership, until YOU or someone else buys it from the public, it will remain publicly owned. If you can't respect that then you may have serious issues respecting ownership in general. Whether ownership is personal, corporate or public, it is still ownership.

I don't care for knuckleheads using the name of Ron Paul as an excuse to recklessly endanger the public or reject legitimate authority.

Good bye.

Your right about ownership. Might makes Right.

By that same principal: I don't respect or adhere to laws that I do not agree with or that are not in my personal intrests.

In other words: I only respect the speed limit when I feel it is wise to, or when I feel like it, or when a cop is in visible sight.

I have never been in a car accident.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Isn't this an oxymoron?

So, where in Joisey are you?

It's suppose to be.

Cape May.

 

[enjerth]

I have been advocating this for at least 25 years and most people look at me as if I'd grown a third head.

The other side of that coin, of course, is responsibility for the results of one's choices. If someone drives 60 mph through a neighborhood where 25 is more in keeping with prudence and runs over someone's child, they should be prepared to face some stern consequences.

The one theoretical advantage to "government" handling such situations is impartiality. The typical "let the market handle it" position has yet to satisfy the question of proper authority where such issues arise. In practice, the advantage appears to fade into nonexistence, leaving naught but corruption in its wake and a state of increased general misery.

If you burned through my neighborhood at 60 mph repeatedly and I believed you posed a serious grave ongoing threat to my kids, how if I fire on you when you come to a stop? Wouldn't that be a legitimate case of defense?

A motor vehicle is much more deadly than a firearm. If it's not in park, the safety is off. I regard reckless driving as akin to waving a firearm around at people. And that IS infringing on my rights.

 

[enjerth]

Well, I guess your version of freedom is different from mine. I believe that free travel is a right. And as VoluntaryAmerican alluded, I should be able to do light speed while naked and drunk as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

Furthermore, this is not a liberty-minded opinion. If you're doing that on your own private property, that's one thing. But if it isn't your own property then it's someone else's, and that person or body of persons have the right to dictate whether you may or may not. If you object to that then basically advocating disolvement of property rights. Whether or not roads should be privately owned or not is irrelevant. I hijacked this thread because you're basically attributing anarchist ideals to the Ron Paul campaign and I won't stand for that.

I doubt that the rules of the road would be much different if the roads were privately owned. A business needs to satisfy their customers, and the CUSTOMERS of that road would likely demand rules for safe driving, including speed limits. Violation of those rules may be met with fees, which, if not paid or you repeatedly commit serious violations of their terms, would lead to revokation of your invitation to drive on their roads. If you're found driving when you're not invited, it's trespassing and you may be arrested (as with driving with a suspended license or without one). Basically, you lose your license, especially if they form a driver-rating system comparable to banking's credit-rating system to share rating information across companies.

Your disdain for traffic laws are unwarranted and, in an ideal system, you would not be treated much differently for breaking the law than you would be now.

 

[sratiug]

Yes, we can tell you how fast you can drive. The roads are a public resource and the public does have the right to decide how it is governed.

This is not just nitpicking. We have a duty, not to oppose authority, but to oppose unlawful and illegitimate authority. Regulating traffic is a legitimate authority.

I respectfully submit you have entirely missed the point of the thread.

 

[enjerth]

I respectfully submit you have entirely missed the point of the thread.

I did not miss the point. I hijacked the thread because the original post rant included anti-liberty rhetoric attributed to the liberty movement. That is more important to discuss than "Ron Paul can't win (subtext: we can't allow Ron Paul to win)."

 

[AZ Libertarian]

Yes, we can tell you how fast you can drive. The roads are a public resource and the public does have the right to decide how it is governed.

This is not just nitpicking. We have a duty, not to oppose authority, but to oppose unlawful and illegitimate authority. Regulating traffic is a legitimate authority.

In December of 1995 when the National Maximum Speed Limit was repealed Montana reverted to Reasonable and Prudent on all roadways outside of city limits, which was their law prior to Congress's mandated NMSL in 1974.

The following discussion is an analysis and comparison of Montana’s experience with the Reasonable and Prudent speed limit, no speed limit in any form, and fixed numerical speed limits on two classifications of highway: 4 lane Interstate and rural federal-aid primary two lane highways.

http://hwysafety.com/hwy_montana.htm

Reasonable and Prudent speed limits are not based on numerical maximums, but rather they require motorists to drive at speeds considered safe for prevailing conditions.

After 4 years of no numerical or posted daytime speed limits on these classifications of highways outside of urban areas, Montana recorded its lowest number of fatal accidents on the affected roadways.

 

[IRONCLAD]

If he drove 85mph and no one was harmed, what crime did he commit?

It is easier to make the arguement that the Government official who would ticket him is doing more harm! And is helping to create a larger government which will exploit more people for non-violent crimes.

I agree with this. As a cop, I see other police officer breaking the very law they hand out ticket's for. If it didnt harm anyone...so what. If he was going 85 MPH and wrecked, then he would have to pay.

 

[osan]

First of all, define "the public".

Taxpayers. Roads are bought and paid for. Definite ownership.

Not the same sense of "ownership", if the concept even applies. Stewardship seems far more appropriate.

First of all, the acquisition of property entails the execution of a contract, written or otherwise. The very nature of the transaction in which property is acquired must be entered into explicitly and voluntarily. Neither of these conditions are required in the "ownership" of common property in the sense we are here discussing. Stewardship of the commons is far more fitting a concept and raises fewer questions, though the issues of planning and finance still hover****.

Is "the public" an actual entity in the way a human being is? If so, please demonstrate how it is so. If not, then how does a non-entity have "rights"?

Corporate ownership, corporate rights. Is a corporation an entity?

Sure, but this is not the same as personal ownership of property. A corporation is nothing more than a construct devised for the purposes of economic and legal expedience. Corporations as such hold no material reality whatsoever. The courts treat them as if they did for the sake of simplifying and resolving many issues that would rise most uncomfortably if they did not. It makes all good sense to do this, but that does not mean that corporate ownership is the same as that of individual.

Corporations are synthetic legal entities. Their rights are conferred not naturally, as is the case with humans, but artificially through legislative instruments. Corporate ownership is not simple as is that by individual humans. It is a compound consideration in that there are two aspects, the first being that of "direct" corporate ownership of a given asset, and that the legally indirect ownership of that same asset by the owners of the corporation. That a corporation's ownership of property is treated more or less equally as that of an individual human being, it does not follow that the two are the same. They are functionally equivalent, but the former is synthetically contrived, whereas the latter is an inherent quality of a living, breathing being.

This may seem an insignificant difference, but in reality it is fundamental and its importance ought not be dismissed.

Does a corporation have rights?

Yes, but these are essentially contractual rights because they are bestowed and administered governmentally. Unlike basic human rights, which are inherent and immutable, corporate rights may be modified through legislation and even policy. I hope the profound difference between these is not lost on you.

Are you suggesting that, if a corporation forms and creates it's own roadways, they have no rights to govern those roadways?

Not at all. How did you arrive at this inference? It seems very nonsequitur. What am I missing?

Are you suggesting that, because you refuse to recognize the rights of this corporation, you have the right to use their property as you please with no regard to their terms of use?

Again, I stand mystified. I have neither said nor implied anything about not respecting the rights of a corporation. Whence did you infer this?

Are you arguing for might-makes-right in the form of majority rule?

No, I'm arguing that ownership-makes-right.

We agree. Corporate ownership is not quite the same as that of the individual at the most fundamental level. Not saying that makes any practical difference in a give instance, but just making sure the difference is not forgotten.

As I wrote above, I am not at all convinced that the concept of corporate ownership properly covers the commons because many aspects of the indirect ownership rights of the individual do not apply. Once again, the notion of stewardship appears to be far and away more fitting.

If the corporate board (delegates, representatives elected by the people to serve the people) decides, by majority, to make terms for the use of that corporate property, then yes, might-makes-right in the same way that the legislature makes laws and in the same way that might-makes-right in electing those representatives. For both this corporation and for any. Got a problem with that?

Sure do. Individuals are not able to exercise proper ownership rights in such cases and cannot sell their interests. This directly demonstrates that their "ownership" is not really ownership at all. It is something else. I have not signed any contract of this supposed "ownership". I am, therefore, not bound by the tyranny of the majority. Got a problem with that?

If so, then why isn't a return to Friday night negro hunting OK if that is what the majority decides?

Pathetic. Strawman. Talk about not making your argument.

How so? The principle is the same, the difference lying only in the specific application.

I am not saying you are wrong, but that you have not made your argument in even the smallest measure. Proof by assertion is no proof.

Then you also do not believe that the public owns the roads?

Not in the same way as a private corporation own assets. The relationships between the respective assets and owners are fundamentally different.

And who determines what is legitimate?

The owners.

Not in this case, for the reasons I cite above.

What is the standard? Who determines the standard?

The owners, whatever they decide.

See above... and so on for the rest of it.

It is a common error to believe that public "ownership" is the same as private. They are fundamentally different. I feel "ownership" is a very unfortunate choice of words in the case of the commons.

Once again, who says and why should we listen to them?

Because they're the FLIPPING OWNERS. It's basic OWNERSHIP.

No, it is not. It is non-basic when compared with private ownership of property by individuals.

This is where we are at. If you decide to show NO respect for public ownership, which, until YOU or some other personal or corporate entity FORKS OVER THE MONEY to buy from THE PUBLIC what THEY HAVE PAID FOR through TAXES, it will REMAIN under PUBLIC OWNERSHIP. And you will attract NO INTEREST to your politics except from ANARCHISTS.

Again you appear to go off based on.... what? I really have no idea what you are talking about here. Please elaborate as to how you arrived here. I have no "disrespect" for so-called public ownership. I question the very validity of the concept, certainly as it applies to the commons. I do not see how it makes sense in any convention interpretation.

If I heard about Ron Paul from someone like you, advocating nonsense like this, I would be utterly disgusted at the idea of him becoming president.

Sorry you feel that way.

No need to get personal, but suit yourself.

 

[enjerth]

Osan,

Not the same sense of "ownership", if the concept even applies. Stewardship seems far more appropriate.

Nope. Government possession would be stewardship. Taxpayers own what the government spends taxpayer money on. They cannot necessarily take POSSESSION of it, which possession precludes stewardship.

The very nature of the transaction in which property is acquired must be entered into explicitly and voluntarily. Neither of these conditions are required in the "ownership" of common property in the sense we are here discussing.

I'm going to assume that, by required, you meant met. Else, this comment wouldn't really change anything with regards to public versus private ownership, as you seem to be arguing there is a difference.

The public has given consent, both in the electing of representatives to which we delegate power to (delegation being that same thing by which you give someone else the power of attorney), and by not electing representatives to undo what has been done. Just as if I hire a man to help me on my farm, if he uses my money to purchase a tractor for the task I have given him, it is my tractor. If I do not return the tractor or instruct him to return it, but I receive it from him and I proceed to utilize it, it is incontestably my own purchase. If I would have rejected that tractor, and not continued to utilize it once I was presented with the purchase of the tractor. Execution of the contract may happen both voluntarily and with consent after the sale. It does not need to precede the sale.

Corporations are synthetic legal entities. Their rights are conferred not naturally, as is the case with humans, but artificially through legislative instruments. Corporate ownership is not simple as is that by individual humans. It is a compound consideration in that there are two aspects, the first being that of "direct" corporate ownership of a given asset, and that the legally indirect ownership of that same asset by the owners of the corporation. That a corporation's ownership of property is treated more or less equally as that of an individual human being, it does not follow that the two are the same. They are functionally equivalent, but the former is synthetically contrived, whereas the latter is an inherent quality of a living, breathing being.

Umm, did you really say anything one way or the other about corporate ownership except say it's different (in an undefined way)?

Sure do. Individuals are not able to exercise proper ownership rights in such cases and cannot sell their interests. This directly demonstrates that their "ownership" is not really ownership at all.

I fail to see how that demonstrates anything at all, as the argument is concerning CORPORATE ownership. That's not much different than forming a , which would obviously be at odds with personal ownership. Yes, you cannot necessarily withdraw a portion of the corporate property if you withdraw personally from the corporation. That is because, contractually, the decisions of what to do with that property belong to the body of the corporation, by whatever contractual method they have set up for themselves before creating or enjoining the corporation (or afterwards as their contract permits).

I have not signed any contract of this supposed "ownership". I am, therefore, not bound by the tyranny of the majority.

Is it or is it not your property? If it is not your property then you may NOT do with it as you please. If you have been granted, by the owner or a delegate of the owner of that property, the privilege of utility, you are STILL bound by their terms. Exceeding those terms is a violation of that contract. You do not possess the incontestable privilege of utility, the right, to use that property. There is no tyranny of the majority.

Yes, but these are essentially contractual rights because they are bestowed and administered governmentally. Unlike basic human rights, which are inherent and immutable, corporate rights may be modified through legislation and even policy. I hope the profound difference between these is not lost on you.

Not at all. But the right to determine what is done to their property or who may use it and under what contractual terms the property may be used is fundamentally the same.

I have no "disrespect" for so-called public ownership. I question the very validity of the concept

Ok, pardon me. It's not disrespect, it's disregard.

In conclusion:

You assert that, in a corporation, certain property rights are lost? Please list. Explain which function deprives that corporation of rights. Do these rights, the incontestable privileges of utility, go to someone else or are they completely lost? Can rights really be lost?

Remember, corporations were being formed long before laws came about to define them. They do have natural rights, of which these laws later erected may or may not support.

 

[osan]

Not the same sense of "ownership", if the concept even applies. Stewardship seems far more appropriate.

Nope. Government possession would be stewardship.

Since "government" is naught more than a conceptual construct with no material reality, it cannot own or possess anything in reality. Stewardship is, in concrete terms, some subset of the population who care for that which is common to all comers. I do not buy "ownership" in any conventional sense as may apply to the individual. A person from Bellevue Washington, driving through the commons of a small New England village holds no ownership of that commons, yet because it is common property he still holds a right to make use of it. Why, then, would the residents of that same village hold ownership of said property? They have no more right to travel the local roads, for example, than does the resident of a far off location. "Ownership" does not really fit this circumstance. I'd rather say nobody owns it, that it exists as the commons such that all hold a right to make some temporary use of it. That means I cannot build a house in the middle of a highway. I do not own the property but hold equal claim to use according to purpose.

Once again, in practical terms the differences are perhaps subtle, but they are nevertheless important because they help us to understand the boundaries of our prerogatives with respect to all aspects and question of how we manage these resources.

Taxpayers own what the government spends taxpayer money on. They cannot necessarily take POSSESSION of it, which possession precludes stewardship.

Incorrect. One may be a steward of his own property. One may hold property and hire or otherwise employ a steward to manage it. In this sense the definition is broad.

The nature of the commons precludes OWNERSHIP in the usual sense of the term.

The very nature of the transaction in which property is acquired must be entered into explicitly and voluntarily. Neither of these conditions are required in the "ownership" of common property in the sense we are here discussing.

The public has given consent, both in the electing of representatives to which we delegate power to (delegation being that same thing by which you give someone else the power of attorney), and by not electing representatives to undo what has been done.

This is implied consent and it is bullshit where governance is concerned, especially when that governance is corrupt. I can speak only for myself in say that I have given no such consent to any other human being at any time in my life for any purpose whatsoever to govern me - neither explicitly nor implicitly. Furthermore, I have many times very explicitly made notice that I reserve all my rights at all times, surrendering them never for any reason whatsoever. This is sufficient to disprove your assertion of tacit consent by "the people", which does some considerable damage to your argument... unless of course my reservation of rights means nothing in your view, in which case a whole new can of worms opens wide for our examination.

Just as if I hire a man to help me on my farm, if he uses my money to purchase a tractor for the task I have given him, it is my tractor. If I do not return the tractor or instruct him to return it, but I receive it from him and I proceed to utilize it, it is incontestably my own purchase.

Private ownership. Different from "public". In your example, all transactions have proceeded presumably with consent. The same presumption of universal consent cannot be made in the case of public assets. Why do those not giving consent appear to have unequal rights in your view, as I construe them from your writing?

If I would have rejected that tractor, and not continued to utilize it once I was presented with the purchase of the tractor. Execution of the contract may happen both voluntarily and with consent after the sale. It does not need to precede the sale.

No idea what it is you are saying here.

Corporations are synthetic legal entities. Their rights are conferred not naturally, as is the case with humans, but artificially through legislative instruments. Corporate ownership is not simple as is that by individual humans. It is a compound consideration in that there are two aspects, the first being that of "direct" corporate ownership of a given asset, and that the legally indirect ownership of that same asset by the owners of the corporation. That a corporation's ownership of property is treated more or less equally as that of an individual human being, it does not follow that the two are the same. They are functionally equivalent, but the former is synthetically contrived, whereas the latter is an inherent quality of a living, breathing being.

Umm, did you really say anything one way or the other about corporate ownership except say it's different (in an undefined way)?

Yes, I did. I not only made the assertion, but described the anatomy of the difference.

Sure do. Individuals are not able to exercise proper ownership rights in such cases and cannot sell their interests. This directly demonstrates that their "ownership" is not really ownership at all.

I fail to see how that demonstrates anything at all,

Without consent, there is no legitimacy to the assertion of ownership. Those who consent may be said to be co-owners... maybe. What of the rest? How is it that one subset of the population is justified in declaring joint-ownership of an asset to which the rest could make similar claims? What grant of authority do they hold to declare "this is ours in THIS WAY, for THESE PURPOSES, and if you want in you must toe our line"? This is one implication of public ownership. Another is that even those not giving explicit consent still give it implicitly. yet another is that even those who explicitly deny consent still consent. This is the thin veil of bald-faced force being applied to those who do not consent to the conditions set forth by a subset of the population who hold no inherent authority to impose such conditions upon the rest.

In other words, it is all arbitrary bullshit that is foisted by one set of humans upon all regardless of consent status of any given person. None of this is morally justifiable in any universally human manner.

Yes, you cannot necessarily withdraw a portion of the corporate property if you withdraw personally from the corporation. That is because, contractually, the decisions of what to do with that property belong to the body of the corporation, by whatever contractual method they have set up for themselves before creating or enjoining the corporation (or afterwards as their contract permits).

And here you make my very point. It is CONTRACTUAL. There is sufficient agreement by all parties to ownership such that a legitimate contract comes into effect. This is fundamentally different from "tiny subset of population imposes arbitrary conditions of ownership upon the rest with or without consent." The fact that ownership is imposed on anyone is ridiculous on its face. It is loosely similar to Obama's healthcare bill that effectively imposes ownership of insurance upon every citizen of the nation.

I have not signed any contract of this supposed "ownership". I am, therefore, not bound by the tyranny of the majority.

Is it or is it not your property? If it is not your property then you may NOT do with it as you please.

I never said nor implied that I could. Not sure what point you are trying to make, given this false characterization of my position.

If you have been granted, by the owner or a delegate of the owner of that property, the privilege of utility, you are STILL bound by their terms.

No joke. That is not the issue at hand. The issue upon which the questions at hand hinge in toto is that of ownership, which you have not established. If you can establish such ownership with sufficiency, then I will be obliged to agree with you on all points. You have yet to come even within the ballpark of proof. If you can, by all means do. My mind is open.

Yes, but these are essentially contractual rights because they are bestowed and administered governmentally. Unlike basic human rights, which are inherent and immutable, corporate rights may be modified through legislation and even policy. I hope the profound difference between these is not lost on you.

Not at all. But the right to determine what is done to their property or who may use it and under what contractual terms the property may be used is fundamentally the same.

Assuming you establish ownership where all parties have entered voluntarily. Being born in Anywhere, USA does not automagically oblige you to live by the arbitrary contractual dictates of the rest of the townspeople.

The concept of ownership fails where the commons is concerned.

I have no "disrespect" for so-called public ownership. I question the very validity of the concept

Ok, pardon me. It's not disrespect, it's disregard.

Your continued misconstruing of my words seems to indicate either some obtuse qualtiy or disingenuous intentions. I do not see how I can say "apples" so many times, yet have you quote me as having said "oranges" any other way.

In conclusion:

You assert that, in a corporation, certain property rights are lost?

Never said nor implied by any stretch such a thing. You also appear to purposely ignore my explicit differentiation between private and public corporate conditions. The two are fundamentally different. One is legitimate and the other is not - again unless you accept the legitimacy of the use of force and violence by one set of citizens against another where no crimes have been committed.

Please list. Explain which function deprives that corporation of rights. Do these rights, the incontestable privileges of utility, go to someone else or are they completely lost? Can rights really be lost?

I will write this once more and no more: corporate rights are synthetic, not inherent and basic as with human beings. They are contractual. They are granted by government. They are alterable by government. They are deniable by government.

Clear?

Remember, corporations were being formed long before laws came about to define them. They do have natural rights, of which these laws later erected may or may not support.

Your proof of this is...

 

[enjerth]

No joke. That is not the issue at hand.

Yes, it is the issue at hand. You do not have the right to speed.

 

[sratiug]

I did not miss the point. I hijacked the thread because the original post rant included anti-liberty rhetoric attributed to the liberty movement. That is more important to discuss than "Ron Paul can't win (subtext: we can't allow Ron Paul to win)."

YOU cannot stop speeders by arguing on a forum, and pundits can't stop Ron Paul by bloviating on TV.

 

[enjerth]

YOU cannot stop speeders by arguing on a forum, and pundits can't stop Ron Paul by bloviating on TV.

Certainly. I also can't stop murderers by arguing on a forum.

 

[owlbug]

You do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others. Speeding is dangerous as proven by science, and by doing so you put others at risk. Being ignorant of this science does not give you the right to act ignorantly because you think you are right. If you're drunk and/or driving like a jackass, I support someone sniping you in protection of innocent bystanders.

I find the Montana law interesting, though. I'm also not crazy about police who abuse laws when they don't apply to the situation.

I'm glad you support Ron Paul and we probably agree on many things. We owe it to ourselves to quarrel over those things we don't agree on. I think we agree Ron Paul would bring the power of freedom back to the mind of the USA and the world. I am excited that he seems to be gaining some traction and hope he does become a legitimate candidate.