• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

Would you support the decision of Texas to peacefully and democratically secede, if voted upon


  • Total voters
    133
Yeah, but you're wrong. I can use another person's property...and not only use it, but claim it as my own...and they can't get it back even in a lawsuit.

It's called squatter's rights here in Cali. The laws vary from state to state. I'm not sure if you really "own" the right of access you describe, but maybe. It depends on the laws in your state.
 
fail....this has nothing to do with what i was talking about with blarg, which you inserted yourself..

Exactly, because what you were saying to Blarg was incorrect. You can use another person's property...even take it away. There are laws which state a person can do so.

In the absence of government (under NATURAL RIGHTS or LAW) - how can you prevent another from using or taking your property?
 
Exactly, because what you were saying to Blarg was incorrect. You can use another person's property...even take it away. There are laws which state a person can do so.

In the absence of government (under NATURAL RIGHTS or LAW) - how can you prevent another from using or taking your property?

lost you are....

if you had paid attention my conversation had to do with natural rights.

meaning just because you need food- water- shelter does not mean you can take it from other people, because you claim you have a natural right to it.....that was the conversation......but you failed in understanding that
 
It's called squatter's rights here in Cali. The laws vary from state to state. I'm not sure if you really "own" the right of access you describe, but maybe. It depends on the laws in your state.

Yeah, exactly. In Texas such events fall under "Estopple Law". I made some improvements on a road next to my property. The owner didn't like it when he found out...he wanted to sue me but then found out that because I'd used the property for so long without being denied access - the road is now just like my own property. So now the owner is trying to get the County to assess the tax value on me. That might happen. But that's okay.
 
lost you are....

if you had paid attention my conversation had to do with natural rights.

meaning just because you need food- water- shelter does not mean you can take it from other people, because you claim you have a natural right to it.....that was the conversation......but you failed in understanding that

I do have a natural right to it because government wouldn't protect the guy who owns it. Finders Keepers...;)
 
Without recognizing the basic needs of survival a government could control the citizens by their bellies. Having a right to life covers basic survival needs. Turning that need into partisan hackery is dishonest. Certainly you wouldnt want to be barred from eating or from anything that will kill you. There is plenty of food to go around in the US that no one should starve. Your rights end where anothers would be harmed if you asserted your right. Claiming that someone worked producing a food product does not give anyone the right to tell a child that they are going to starve to death because someone else had a job and they dont want to be forced to give anything to anyone. Where could such people lead us?

Holodomor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, we have a "natural need", that's beyond our control, for food, water, and shelter. See my post 1094.
 
That also means i cannot have those rights denied to me or taken away.

no one can stop you [hinder] from seeking... food water shelter....but you cannot demand [force] anyone to give, anyone into commerce, so you can possess those things.
 
I'd love to break the US into red and blue states. then the blues would all starve to death without us and good riddance.
 
no...you need to understand rights...which you do not.

Of course I do. You have repeatedly shown that you do not.

Proprietary estoppel is one of four principal mechanisms to acquire rights over property, seen particularly in the case of land (the others being a contract, an implied trust, and adverse possession)

Adverse possession is a method of acquiring title to real property by possession for a statutory period under certain conditions - proof of non-permissive use which is actual, open and notorious, exclusive, adverse, and continuous for the statutory period.
 
Of course I do. You have repeatedly shown that you do not.

Proprietary estoppel is one of four principal mechanisms to acquire rights over property, seen particularly in the case of land (the others being a contract, an implied trust, and adverse possession)

Adverse possession is a method of acquiring title to real property by possession for a statutory period under certain conditions - proof of non-permissive use which is actual, open and notorious, exclusive, adverse, and continuous for the statutory period.

:lamo......what you have posted deals in legal rights.....not natural rights of what was being discussed......
 
I'd love to break the US into red and blue states. then the blues would all starve to death without us and good riddance.

At least somebody finally has the guts to admit such...thanks for sharing what so many who believe as you do won't.

I posted a POLL that asked who would like to see happen as you've describe...and all of the hardcore Libertarians and/or Hard Right Conservatives just talked around it. Never fessed up.
 
I know in your heart you want to really believe it, but it's really not real, it's imaginary. Sorry, but it is.

sorry guy

organic law of the u.s. which is part of u.s. code, along with the principles of the declaration of independence [one principle being natural law] which is recognized by u.s. federal law.

what is you rebuttal to this...nothing....you cannot produce anything to make your argument except you own personal words, which is why you fail.
 
sorry guy

organic law of the u.s. which is part of u.s. code, along with the principles of the declaration of independence [one principle being natural law] which is recognized by u.s. federal law.

what is you rebuttal to this...nothing....you cannot produce anything to make your argument except you own personal words, which is why you fail.

that argument was debunked over and over in your DOI thread....

Principles of the DOI aren't laws.
 
that argument was debunked over and over in your DOI thread....

Principles of the DOI aren't laws.

sorry guy..... the principles are part of u.s. code and they are recognized by federal law.......

again you have nothing to prove your point..nothing.
 
sorry guy..... the principles are part of u.s. code and they are recognized by federal law.......

again you have nothing to prove your point..nothing.

Sorry, I've proved you wrong over and over and over...not going through your circle jerk again.
 
Sorry, I've proved you wrong over and over and over...not going through your circle jerk again.

wishful thinking on your part.:2razz:

but so i can drive the point home, !

natural law recognized by u.s. federal law.

AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to make donations of public lands to such States.

(Approved February 22, 1889.) [25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676.]

[President's proclamation declaring Washington a state: 26 St. at Large, Proclamations, p 10, Nov. 11, 1889.]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of all that part of the area of the United States now constituting the Territories of Dakota, Montana, and Washington, as at present described, may become the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington, respectively, as hereinafter provided.


SEC. 4. That the delegates to the conventions elected as provided for in this act shall meet at the seat of government of each of said Territories, except the delegates elected in South Dakota, who shall meet at the city of Sioux Falls, on the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and, after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said proposed states, respectively. The constitutions shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the of Declaration of Independence. And said conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States:

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship


State History Enabling Act
 
Back
Top Bottom