Dirt poor?

[Radar]

Citation please.

Marbury vs. Madison is in full agreement with my statement, but being that case law is irrelevant when it comes to the Constitution and that the Constitution (the highest law in the land) was created by the people to keep tight control on government, it is the people who have the ultimate judgment over whether or not a law is unconstitutional in its face.

The role of government is to defend our rights, but let's see what the founders thought of this...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Clearly the people (individuals) have the right to make the determination of whether or not government has become destructive towards life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness and as such they have the right to determine whether or not government has abided by the strict limitations of its powers enumerated in the Constitution. Rights are the opposite of privileges. Rights are what we do without asking. This means we do not require permission to make that determination from judges or any other part of government. Government is our creation and we the individual people of America are the masters while government is our servant.

[Radar]

Also if you want a Constitutional reference, feel free to look at the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution. The 9th says that those rights listed in the Constitution by no means are the only rights that people have and the 10th says that any rights NOT listed belong to the people. The right to determine whether a law abides by the Constitution is not listed, so it is therefore a right of the people.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Happy Monkey]

Do you believe that gold has a fixed value? Wouldn't gold mines cause inflation?

[jaguar]

Ah but Radar, the relationship between money supply and inflation is a funny beast, and herein line the problem. Velocity of Circulation. It's what they discovered when they actually tried it. Due to the unpredictable nature of velocity of circulation targetting inflation with controls on money supply proved hamfisted.

I could have sworn I said as much 5 pages ago.

As an individual, you have no right to take the life of others unless it is in your own defense. You have no right to murder others and you do have a right to defend yourself even with deadly force or to allow your agents to defend you so yes, individuals CAN give this power to government because it is a right that individuals would have even without government.

Says who exactly.
I would like to know where these rights come from, who defines them, who established them? This is a real question.

[Radar]

Do you believe that gold has a fixed value? Wouldn't gold mines cause inflation?

Gold doesn't have a fixed value, but the term "dollar" originally was a measurement. It equalled 1/20th of an ounce of gold. Dollar should still equal 1/20th of an ounce of gold. The buying power of that gold depends on the scarcity of gold. It would take one huge gold mine to change the value of gold globally.

Due to the unpredictable nature of velocity of circulation targetting inflation with controls on money supply proved hamfisted.

I don't think the velocity with which currency is circulated requires more currency to be minted, although it may cause a need for more sturdy currency; coins instead of paper for instance.

The short answer is "rights come from nature". We're born with them. They can't be bought, sold, traded, taken or given away. Rights are as immutable as gravity. Even if every person on earth voted for gravity to disappear, it would not because it is a natural law. Natural rights are also part of natural law. You have the right to life. Someone may kill you but they have not taken away your right, they have only violated it. You have a right to your property. Someone may steal your property but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to own it. You may live in a country that doesn't protect natural rights or one that actually violates them, but that doesn't mean you don't have the rights.

Some would argue that mineral rights are rights that can be sold, but the term "mineral rights" itself is a misnomer. The actual right in question is the right of ownership. When you own something, it is yours to do with as you wish, whether you do something good with it or something destructive. If I own land, it is mine. I own the land itself. When someone buys so-called "mineral rights" they are not buying rights, they are making a contract with the owner of the land to have permission to keep all minerals on the owner's land but they still have no ownership of the land itself.

Natural rights are a self-evident subset of natural law. They were so important among the founders that they used them as a basis for our government.

If you would like to read a couple of essays on the subject that are far more eloquent than anything I could write I'll post a couple of links. Keep in mind these were written 100+ years ago so while the language might be different, the principles within them are timeless and as fresh today as the day they were written. I'll give you links to pdf files so you can print these and read them at your leisure.

Natural Law by Lysander Spooner

The Law by Frederic Bastiat

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Radar

Natural rights are a self-evident subset of natural law. They were so important among the founders that they used them as a basis for our government.

If you would like to read a couple of essays on the subject that are far more eloquent than anything I could write I'll post a couple of links. Keep in mind these were written 100+ years ago so while the language might be different, the principles within them are timeless and as fresh today as the day they were written. I'll give you links to pdf files so you can print these and read them at your leisure.

Natural Law by Lysander Spooner

The Law by Frederic Bastiat

I've read these, at your request, and I don't think that they'll find them any more satisfying than I did.

[Undertoad]

I am with Jag on Friedman's new take on monetarism. He has changed his view. Most interesting. Another big chink in the L-ism armour, as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.wanniski.com/PrintPage.asp?TextID=2694

[Radar]

I've read these, at your request, and I don't think that they'll find them any more satisfying than I did.

You could also read John Locke, Peter McWilliams, Thomas Jefferson, or any number of others who promote natural rights or you could just ask yourself who owns you.

Do you own yourself? If not, who owns you? When you own something it is yours to do with as you please. You don't require permission to do anything you choose with it. You can destroy it, give it away, or do something great with it. The choice is yours.

To say you don't own yourself is to say that others have more of a claim on your life than you do. If you say that you do not own yourself, you have no right to complain or resist if someone else enslaves you, beats you, takes your property, or even kills you. After all, if you don't own yourself, you don't own your mind so your not allowed to think for yourself. If you don't own your mouth, you may not speak freely. If you don't own your body, you may not procreate or do anything other than what your owner tells you to do. If you don't own yourself, you don't own your labor and you don't own the fruits of that labor.

You can't have it both ways. Either you own yourself or someone else does. If you own yourself, you own your body, mind, and labor and the fruit of that labor and nobody else has any claim to them. They are yours to do with as you please. This means you have rights. You can't own something if you don't have rights.

If you are still unsatisfied, you are beyond any help I can offer you and I'll just refuse to entertain any other absurd questions you may ask.

[Clodfobble]

Another big chink in the L-ism armour, as far as I'm concerned.

Radar is extreme, yes, but I hope he doesn't turn all of you away from the general goals of all the moderate Libertarians out there (many of whom don't even know there's a word for what they feel about the government.) No, most of us don't think there's a need for a bloody revolution, or a complete and total removal of all income taxes and social programs--but seriously, do any of you think the government doesn't need to take at least three big steps back out of our lives? I feel we could certainly stand to have a smaller government, which is different from a complete stripping of it as Radar proposes.

A lot of Libertarian desires are perfectly reasonable. Don't let the logical extreme of any position keep you from examining it in a more realistic (moderate) setting.

[lumberjim]

clodfobble, I like you more with each post....

could we get a picture of you?

[Clodfobble]

If I can find one... I don't have any on my computer here at work. You'll have to be patient.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Clodfobble
Another big chink in the L-ism armour, as far as I'm concerned.

A lot of Libertarian desires are perfectly reasonable. Don't let the logical extreme of any position keep you from examining it in a more realistic (moderate) setting.

I know, but watching Radar froth at the mouth is fun.

Radar is essentially right, it's the ideal and it's application and how he'd, apparently, like to see it come about at this point that is the issue.

[jaguar]

I don't think the velocity with which currency is circulated requires more currency to be minted, although it may cause a need for more sturdy currency; coins instead of paper for instance.

See now I'm not sure. You could be making a joke. That would however imply you have a sense of humor. You could, on the other hand, simply not have read anything I've written (wouldn't come as much of a shock, you've avoided the point for pages) or simply have little or no real knowledge of economic terminology.

In case is it the latter I'll give you a brief definition:

Basically, Velocity of Circulation is the number of times money changes hands, it's technical definition is GNP divided by money supply. Since we're dealing with basics here I'll define GNP: Gross National Product, GDP + income from foreign investments - pay sent overseas by foreign workers. Mostly replaced by GNI in national accounts at any rate.

I've taken the essays, I'll read over them some time in the next few days and get back to you on that point.

[Radar]

Radar is extreme, yes, but I hope he doesn't turn all of you away from the general goals of all the moderate Libertarians out there

Sorry, but I'm not the one who is extreme. It's extreme to want to steal from others but not to expect them to get upset. It's extreme to violate the Constitution or to support those who do it. It's extreme support starting wars. It's extreme to support oppression and slavery and to paint a happy face on them. It's extreme throw away everything great this nation was built on.

It is not extreme to fight in the defense of your country, your rights, your property, and your person from unwarranted attacks by those who would oppress you.

I'm an extremely reasonable, well-adjusted, intelligent, articulate, and well educated man but I'm not afraid to tell the truth, even when the truth is uncomfortable for some or isn't what they want to hear.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by Radar


extreme

[inigo montoya] you keep using that word. I do not thin' it means what you thin' it means[/inigo montoya]