- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
:lamo Yeah, it's really not English, per se!only when it comes to reading libertarianese.
:lamo Yeah, it's really not English, per se!only when it comes to reading libertarianese.
:lamo Yeah, it's really not English, per se!
oh, do you support the EPA,NLRB, HUD, DEPT EDUCATION, to name a few....becuase they are all unconstitutional.
really, then i will ask a question of you, ..so you can find understanding.
can the people of the u.s. create a right to food?....which is a commodity
now according to you , they can, becuase you say people make there own rights.......so can they?
You don't read very much law, contracts, or anything else of that sort, do you?you seem to be losing track here, you said to me, and laughed, "why am i using u.s. code", and i told you its the law currently, becuase you stated a business is not a person, but the code says it is......so please keep up with me.
Regardless of what laws are made for animals or how similar they are to laws for persons, animals are still not persons and neither are businesses.animals dont have rights per the constitution, however states can make laws re-guarding animals, in other words its not a federal duty.
"the federal government duties are few and defined, were as the states are vast"
Like I said, "only Libertarian ideals". I'm glad you agreed!actually i do, <snip>
Platform | Libertarian Party
this
What is the crime of trading?
What is a permission slip?
What does any of that nonsense have to do with having a victim or not?
Again, just talk like a normal person for heavens sake.
I googled CRIME OF TRADING and PERMISSION SLIP and got nothing helpful to explain this Von Mises Institute double talk. It was all about insider trading and needing mommies and daddies signature to go somewhere if I am a kiddie.
So the problem is in your terminology.
The "crime" is trading without a permission slip.
A document that shows permission has been granted.
Crimes have victims, no? So who are the victims?
It's possible the problem is in your comprehension.
I see nothing in the US Constitution which would stop that amendment process. Article V is the final word on that and it says nothing about restrictions of that kind.
why have not such a right have already been created since you say the people make their own rights..
That's like saying no one is safer on the roads just because everyone has to carry a little plastic card with them when they drive. :lol:
It's the actions and requirements behind the piece of paper on the wall of a business or the little plastic card in the driver's pocket that makes the difference. You know that as well as I do.
You don't read very much law, contracts, or anything else of that sort, do you?
rof
Almost all complex laws and legal documents have a definitions section to show specific meanings for the given words in that section of the law or in that contract. This is standard practice used every day in a wide variety of legal documents both public and private. The specific definitions listed in those documents only apply to the documents in question. They do not apply to the world at large or ever the legal system at large, they are very specific to that document, which is why they are defined.
As such, until such time as we start discussing the specific laws as spelled out in Title 29, Subsection II, "National Labor Relations Board", your quoted definition from that section is invalid. If I honesty thought I you knew what you were doing by quoting it - and then insisting on it as well - I would also say you are being dishonest. But for now I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it was an honest mistake on your part.
Regardless of what laws are made for animals or how similar they are to laws for persons, animals are still not persons and neither are businesses.
Like I said, "only Libertarian ideals". I'm glad you agreed!
I already answered your question. I have no idea why something which has not happened has not yet happened. I really do not do well in that sort of Twilight Zone fantasyland territory and prefer to stick with reality.
You think open mindedness is sad? That explains a lot ...so sad, what the american education system teaches today.
Then you're just not doing your home, which is really no surprise.i stated to you before dumping and polluting is a crime, of state power, you can have your rights deprived.
there is no duty which defers to air, water and ground control in our constitution.... becuase we have a federal government not a national one.
I already did, go back and look. I'm tired of your repetition.can you give the the authority where government derives that power in its duties?
I never said they didn't. In fact, I've pointed out the same.Property owners have a right to place conditions on access to their property.
Road owners?!? Well, at least you've finally decided to accept communities (government) as owners. LOL!It is perfectly reasonable that road owners might require that those using their roads show evidence of, say, competency.
You can sell your car in your driveway and no one will care. It's not a crime - try again.However, I don't see how this relates to a law that makes it a "crime" to trade on one's own property unless one has permission.
rofexcuse...lets start at the beginning to straighten you out.
you said" a business is not a person"
i said, "not true u.s.code says a business is a person"
you laughed and stated " what you going to use u.s.code now"
i stated, "its u.s.code, making business a person", and that all i was making clear to you that was all i was doing.
now you have gone over the edge into an area i never went into and telling me about laws.
so to state it to you again, i only stated a business can be a person per u.s.code..........and that's all!
so why the lesson in laws?
No, a business is not a 'person' unless we're discussing Chapter 29, Subchapter II, "National Labor Relations Board".you will see i never said animal are like people, so why are you saying such a thing.....is this an attempt at confusion on your part, .....and a business is concerned a person under u.s.code 29 152....i dont like it but there it is.
It's too bad individuals like yourself believe only your opinions are correct.well its to bad individuals like yourself, who believe government can operate outside the constitution
Of course people make their own rights, except those conditions I mentioned earlier, which all living beings share.that is becuase people dont make their own right, if they did people who grant themselves rights to commodities, and take away rights of the minority and be tyrannical.
Of course people make their own rights, except those conditions I mentioned earlier, which all living beings share.
Do you think the Bill of Rights dropped from the Heavens?!? :lol: All those people you've been quoting and numerous others both before and after them, dreamed them up to counter and control what they thought were wrongs in their society. Luckily, our Founders understood that even they could not predict the future and built a system that could be changed to meet the demands of that future. Every single one of our Founders was not only a rebel, they were also liberals, throwing away the old laws and injustices in favor of a better, more equal system of laws for all. Their posterity have changed the adjusted those original laws as needed to retain that sense of justice and equality. It's sad so many oppose it.
of course people make their own rights, except those conditions i mentioned earlier, which all living beings share.
Do you think the bill of rights dropped from the heavens?!? :lol: All those people you've been quoting and numerous others both before and after them, dreamed them up to counter and control what they thought were wrongs in their society. Luckily, our founders understood that even they could not predict the future and built a system that could be changed to meet the demands of that future. Every single one of our founders was not only a rebel, they were also liberals, throwing away the old laws and injustices in favor of a better, more equal system of laws for all. Their posterity have changed the adjusted those original laws as needed to retain that sense of justice and equality. It's sad so many oppose it.
rof
the only part of the us code to which that specific definition applies is title 29, subchapter ii, "national labor relations board". It has no other application anywhere else in law or in the world except in that subsection of title 29. We are not talking about that subsection so your cited definition does not apply.
Let's try this. Have you ever read the opening of a contract or court document where they say use the terms "party of the first part" and "party of the second part"? Those "parties" are identified at the beginning of the document and used throughout the document as a specific identifier. Does that mean that since one piece of law or one contract names "john doe of podunk usa" as "party of the first part" that all documents and laws that say "party of the first part" now refer to "john doe of podunk usa"??? What obviously silliness. :lol: The same it true for your definition. It only applies to the section of law where the definition is given and applied no where else - including this discussion.
Now you know what the lesson in laws and this will be the last one.
No, a business is not a 'person' unless we're discussing chapter 29, subchapter ii, "national labor relations board".
Is that what we're talking about, the national labor relations board as it pertains to title 29, subchapter ii?
It's too bad individuals like yourself believe only your opinions are correct.
You think open mindedness is sad? That explains a lot ...
Then you're just not doing your home, which is really no surprise.
I already did, go back and look. I'm tired of your repetition.
Are we back to talking about animals being people, too? :lol:lets see now, the constitution states that (citizens) can petition our government, and what do we have corporations, unions, petitioning it, -------------->well what do you know about that!