“Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.” — Dr. Samuel Johnson.

Hint: “Scoundrel” is not a flattering term. Neitehr therefore is “patriot”.

indicating that your “actual education in actual law” (ha!) didn’t cover logic worth a shit.

Note that I quoted Dr. Samuel Johnson. Are you saying you know “logic” better than he?

if you weren’t a colossal dumbass on wheels, you’d know that i wasn’t referring to any of your argument-by-quotation premises. try again, dimwit.

Not being a member of the “mob,” you must then be an “elitist” “intellectual,” right?

another logic failure.

This is the Constitution your ilk claims to be about “defending”:

you fucked up again. far from defending the constitution, i think it’s shit. oh the time you wasted.

And from New Hampshire’s constitution (1784):

III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society . . . .

not by mere coincidence, you’ve quoted part of the NH constitution i’ve excoriated explicitly on this site. fucked up again in your argument by quotation.

Freedoms have limits; criminals refuse to accpt that reality.

mutual freedom (i.e., non-aggression) has no limit beyond non-aggression. no shock that overconfident parasite-brained idjits like you find this confusing.

You law-illiterates always distort — which is DISHONEST, which makes you a LIAR — in accordance with whatever fantasy you want to bash or advance.

There you go again worshiping the law again as if its a sin to not have our heads chock full of the nonsensical drivel a bunch of bribed-up bureaucrats crapped out for special interest groups or to fix things they broke in the first place.

In fact, asshole, the Constitution ALSO imposes limits on the STATES, and the Bill of Rights both constrains the gov’t AND secures rights which shall not be infringed thereby.

Yeah, and it even spelled out the 18 things the Federal government was allowed to do. Guess what? It failed miserably and limited jack squat. They do whatever they can get away with. Who decides what the laws are? Government. Who enforces those laws? Government. Who does the judge work for? Government. And what about the lawyers? They all swear an oath to the government.

We can do it the way you dumber-than-dead-rocks loons want — which the human race tried, and which didn’t work, so the human race established rules and the gov’ts to enforce them.

Voluntaryism has never been tried on a mass scale.

We can accept the fact that nothing is perfect. That means, in this context, that humans, being imperfect, cannot make anything that is perfect. As consequence, our system of laws isn’t perfect.

Yeah, sorry, not interested in your violence and coercion, perfect or not.

Or we can do as you want: demand that the laws all be perfect, or that they don’t exist at all.

Again you show your ignorance on what we espouse. No one is saying there shouldn’t be rules, just that your LAWS are a chaotic, arbitrary, random, immoral method of obtaining them, subject to corruption and abuse. The Philosophy of Liberty and Non-Aggression Principle trump your system of corrupt lawmakers with logic and reason. They don’t bend just because someone greased a palm here or there.

It’s the extremist in you that refuses to learn to count beyond two. Beyond that, refuses to learn anything at all that will alter your absolute rejection of learning and reasoning.

Take your own advice, pal. Statists like you promote murder, assault and theft which we completely reject. Our way is toward peace and reason, yours is the path to a police state.

That “fictitious” entity executed Tim McVeigh for your sort of elitism-of-the-ignoramous. McVeigh is pretty damned dead for having been executed by a “fiction”. That is sufficient evidence that the “fictitious” entity isn’t fictitious after all.

Completely incorrect. People claiming to be part of the gang known as government executed him. Considering he initiated violence by murdering a bunch of people, I’d say he got what he deserved. You must be on crack if you think anyone here has anything good to say about McVeigh let alone believes any of the horseshit he did. Dumbass.

Art. Vi., c. 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land. . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” In short: ther US Constitution also applies to the States, you Jim Crow interposition and nullification racists notwithstanding.

Don’t care what your piece of paper says and I have no idea why you’re suddenly claiming we’re racists. Do you even know where the fuck you are, son?

We promote peace and equality for all races and genders, dipshit. The ignorance must be pouring out of your ears.

It was signed by those ELECTED to represent We the people. And we do not reject all the laws, every fucking generation, so law-illiterates such as you can go about reinventing the wheel all over again.

It wasn’t signed at all, lawyerboy. The Declaration was. Even if it had been, it would only apply to the people who signed it. And since it has failed to reign in the government it was supposed to control, I think most of us here would much prefer to follow the Philosophy of Liberty and Non-Aggression Principle.

I see: you’re one of those democray-hating elitist who hates elitists, and in order to make your tantrum stick, you absolutely refuse to learn anything whatsoever, beginning with the basics of reasoning.

I dislike Democrats and Republicans alike. You’re all out to take stuff that isn’t yours by gunpoint. I’m far from elitist, pal. Sounds like you’re projecting.

1. Because of the First Amendment, which they “wrote down,” you are able to freely rant and rave your lunacies, even in public.

You mean except in those nice cozy “Free Speech Zones” they’ve secured for everybody?

2. Thanks to their having “written them down” — secured in LAW — you have a handy list of “rights” you otherwise wouldn’t have, and wouldn’t have thought of, and the freedom to rant and rave about unsubstantiated violations of those rights.

The Bill of Rights was included at the last minute, mainly because a bunch of the Founding Fathers didn’t trust your new government not to turn out like the old one (and they were right). Again, we have the Philosophy of Liberty. We know what our rights are.

This is how the obligation is created:

NH Con. Art. I., III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society . . . .

Yeah, I don’t agree and didn’t sign that. No contract, no obligation.

That isn’t only the law: it is REASON staring you in the face: your “rights” end where those of others begin; and that is where your legal and ethical RESPONSIBILITIES BEGIN.

Yeah, I already know not to aggress against others thanks to the Philosophy of Liberty. And it doesn’t cost me a thing nor does it try to murder me or steal from me. Thanks but no thanks.

Unless, of course, your delusion were the reality: that your “rights” are “absolute,” therefore infinite, therefore nothing can or should prohibit you trampling the rights of others.

Already said before, everyone has the right not to be aggressed against and to defend their lives, liberty and property. Don’t need your laws and your government to know that.

And you’re ilk is a lawless gang of exactly that sort of bullying thug: When you do harm to others, you deny it by accusing them of being “too sensitive” or the equivalent, and keep right on doing them harm.

There you go again comparing us to some roving motorcycle gang from Mad Max and try to twist it so that we’re the bad guys event though we only want peace while you and your statist pals in government want to drain us like the parasites you are.

You are obligated to obey the laws of this society by dint of the fact that (1) you were born into this society, and (2) others ALSO have rights not to be trampled by the likes of profoundly ignorant individuals such as you.

1) No contract, no obligation.
2) Already know not to trample others rights, don’t need you and your murdering, thieving pals to know it.

Unless, of course, you choose to LEAVE, which you’re more than welcome to do.

How cliche. “Love it or leave it!”. No thanks. I’ll just continue to live my life as a peaceful, free man, harming no one and bowing down only to your statist gods when they threaten the well-being of myself or others.

Now onto someone whom has been hurt by the government in the last ten years lets see that’s not hard to find but I’ll pick a person that has been on FTL I think 3 times maybe more.

http://injusticeinseattle.blogspot.com/2007/11/my-story.html

This shows everything that is wrong with the current system we are forced to fund by the real threat of violence.

According to baldfaced unsubstantiated assertion, anything one asserts can be claimed to be a “liberty” even if objective reality shows it not to be.

“LAWS are arbitrary rules written down by fallible men and women, often illogical and seeking to control the actions of other men and women that harm no one.”

Laws are rules arrived at by discussion, debate, and consensus, and they accomplish two ends, one of which you paranoid bigots constantly ignore and deny: they secure rights which are not to be violated, and the remedies for violations thereof.

That YOU don’t “get” why a particular law exists is not a judgment on the law; it is a judgment on your ignorance. And we note that you provide example of a law that is OBJECTIVELY “illogical”.

And again, there are two basic ends accomplished by the rule of law: one to secure rights, which includes protections of them, and the other being remedies for violations. Your ilk simply claims that it alone has rights, and that you will dictate to the rest of the world what those rights are, and fuck whatever objections they may have to your thuggery.

“Most of us here ascribe to The Philosophy of Liberty and the Non-Aggression Principle because they are logical and peaceful and relegate your LAWS unnecessary and antiquated (and useless since your own government ignores its own LAWS whenever convenient).”

Name ONE society in which that gibberish has actually ACCOMPLISHED that you claim it does.

“I need no permission to defend my body and my property.”

Yes, you do, asshole, precisely because those you would effect to “defend against” A-L-S-O have rights, including that of not being arbitrarily threatened by criminals who take the law into their own hands, based wholly upon self-serving rationalizations.

I’ll say it again, for the UMPTEENTH time, jackass: “self-defense” has OBJECTIVE LIMITS, and those are found in WRITTEN LAW evolved over many hundreds of years. As said to one of your fellow loons, merely pointing an UNLOADED gun at another is the crime of “Assault with a Deadly Weapon”. Do you know why that is? No, you don’t — and you don’t ask, because you couldn’t care less about others’ rights.

Instead, your fellow loon endeavored to insert an additional step between the pointing and the assault so as to justify his pointing his gun at others while lying to himself and others that that wouldn’t be exactly that it is: “Assault with a Deadly Weapon”.

I’d love to be there when he trys that bullshit “argument” as defense against that charge in a court of law.

“The Yin to that Yang, however, is that I cannot expect to live in peace if I aggress against the bodies and property of others.”

The reality is that you do aggress against others while denying you do, and are susceptible to the very same thing by others. Your problem is that you leave only one remedy: killing. The weakness in that irrational “plan” is that, like every other reality, it runs in BOTH directions.

“I need no LAW to tell me that murder, assault, rape, theft, fraud, vandalism, kidnap and slavery are wrong.”

Except that it is PRECISELY BECAUSE the law tells you so that you know they are wrong. But it isn’t that simple, as in reality there are acts which harm others which you insist aren’t harmful to others, by means of which you are telling them: “Fuck you. I can do anything I want.”

“All real crimes boil down to a violation of property (including the body).”

There is a distinction in law made between assault and battery. Do you know what they are? No, you don’t. Do you care? Obviously not. You want the non-existent “right” to point your gun at others by denying it is a violation of rights, because in your warped and narrow view that right isn’t reducable to “property”.

Your ilk claims, as example, a “right” to take up arms against the gov’t/rule of law — even though no such right exists, as per the law of the land.

“Every man and woman has a right to defend themselves from the depredations of others.”

Again, ASSHOLE: any right of “self-defense” is LIMITED, not only by law but also by R-E-A-L-I-T-Y: OTHERS have rights NOT to be “defended against” on HORSESHIT grounds. Can you gauranteee that everyone will follow yourr simpleton’s REFUTED hypothetical? That NO ONE will LIE about “depredations” as excuse to kill YOU?

Imperfect as it is, the law secures, protects, prohibits, and provides remedies. Your only ‘remedy” is kill or be killed, even if you have to hallucinate or lie an excuse into being.

“Assault my body or my property and I will defend it regardless of your random, fallible LAW.”

Right: unlike the LAW, YOU are INfallible.

1919: “Hey everybody! We’ve decided booze is illegal today! Anyone caught with booze is now a criminal and subject to murder by state enforcers or incarceration paid for with money stolen from other people!”

1933: “Oops! Our bad! You can all drink again. Except those of you who are dead or in jail.”

That’s how SOCIETIES of more than one work, asshole: through discussion and debate a consensus is arrived at, and if both desirable and feasible is implemented. And if the society discovers it was in error, it changes it.

Really? Try enforcing an unwritten “contract” which is denied as to existence by the other party/ies to the “contract”.

“And yet your government asserts we have some obligation to it even though there is no contract. How ironic.”

Except that there IS a contract, which is why OUR gov’t exists.

Now respond to what I DID say, WITHOUT the dishonest dodge, thug.

And yet law enforcement can put your ass in jail for violating the rights of others, BECAUSE those writes are WRITTEN DOWN.

“Law enforcement can put your ass in jail and murder you (and does on a regular basis) regardless of the LAW.”

Hasn’t happened yet. And I’ll bet it hasn’t happeend to you either. ANYONE can bullshit, asshole; but doing so doesn’t make you clever, or a philosopher.

So how about dealing in reality, instead of dodging into self-justifying “what ifs” when you can’t address reality or answer the question?

To reject the reality of limits to freedom — you DO NOT live in a society of one, no matter how much pot you smoke — and the fact of written law is wholly contrary to logic and reason.

“You act as if we don’t have rules.”

If the law didn’t give you the idea of “rules” you wouldn’t know not to piss in your food.

“This shows your ignorance of our beliefs. Rules are fine so long as they’re logical, peaceful and moral.”

You don’t show any ability to reason — which begins with acpeting that reality isn’t perfect, that it includes limits, and that you, being a part of reality, are imperfect, and have limitations.

Who elected YOU to decide for EVERYONE ELSE what is “moral”? Exactly: YOU elected YOURSELF because your’re nothing more than a bullshitting vigilante.

“Your LAWS are arbitrary, fallible,”

And yours are perfectly certain and INfallible?

“unreliable and rarely apply to your government, only the serfs they presume they own.”

Gibberish rhetoric, and as ever unsubstantiated.

Try enforcing your unsubstantiated assertion as being the “law”. And when that doesn’t happen, act out that you show yourself to be: a bully who has no respect for lawful limits, including those which protect others and their rights from infringement by ignorant bullies such as you.

“Right, we’re the bullies.”

Yes, you are: you substitute your ignorantce and hatreds for the OBJECTIVE rule of law — which is you being entirely arbitrary — based upon rejection of anything “fallible” which doesn’t originate with YOUR FALLIBILITY.

“Your government”

OUR gov’t.

“steals”

Taxation is Constitutional. And its purpose is to pay the costs of protecting your bullshitting ass from the hard realities of real life so you can play cowboy “social philosopher” with dangerous objects and consequences.

“half our paychecks in taxes,”

I very much doubty it’s “half”. And how’s the unemployment doin’ ya?

“sends our sons and daughters to die in wars of aggression in lands they have no business being in,”

You’re too young to have sons and daughters.

“seeks to monitor us 24/7,”

According to whom? Your fellow Bushit supporters?

“tells us what we can and cannot do with OUR own bodies,”

Here’s a fact for you:

“Libertarian” loons insist they have the right not to wear motorcycle helmets. They leave out that when they don’t wear helmets, and smash their heads into the pavement, they end up on life support paid for by the taxpayer.

Meanwhile, how’s them private insurance premiums?

“assaults and murders people on a regular basis”

Really? And to how many of your ilk has that happened within the last ten years?

“and we, who simply want to live our lives in peace without being violated, are the bullies.”

Yes, you are the bullies: you reject the objective system of laws in order to take the law into your own hands. That’s is not only claiming a right to bullshit and bully; it is also claiming a right to be judge, jury, and executioner, all based upon your allegedly INfallible good faith.

And yet we’ve seen, in this very post, your IRRESPONSIBLE dodging of questions your “approach” raises, and which demand answers. And we also know that you don’t see when you are dodging the questions because you don’t engage in genuine critical thinking.

Rejecting our system of laws, regardless how many imagined-up excuses for doing so, is not critical thinking. It is simply ignorant thumb-suckers whining — the arrested growth of a third-grader who doesn’t have to think, or grow up, because he’s got a gun with which to defend his non-existent right to be a sociopathic pants-wetting LEECH on the rest of us.

And doesn’t even know how to be honest about those facts.

What you are demanding is to live in constant “kill or be killed” fear. That isn’t a “polite” society; it is a hostile, paranoid hell which the rule of law is established to mitigate.

We already live in constant fear of your government”

YOU live in constant, manufactured “fear” of our gov’t.

“and what they’ll do to us or take from us next in their endless, insatiable desire to control every aspect of our lives.”

Get your GED, then get an education in basic philosophy, so at very least you’ll begin to be able to distinguish between philosophy and bullshit. Do something to become a productive citizen. Or put the gun to your head and pull the trigger “because you can”.

“This is the Constitution your ilk claims to be about “defending”

“The Constitution is little more than a charter meant to limit the abuses of government.”

You law-illiterates always distort — which is DISHONEST, which makes you a LIAR — in accordance with whatever fantasy you want to bash or advance.

In fact, asshole, the Constitution ALSO imposes limits on the STATES, and the Bill of Rights both constrains the gov’t AND secures rights which shall not be infringed thereby.

“While there’s nothing wrong with wanting the state to adhere to its own rules, we’ve had 233 years to see how well that worked out. “Bind men down from mischief” my ass.”

There are three options:

We can do it the way you dumber-than-dead-rocks loons want — which the human race tried, and which didn’t work, so the human race established rules and the gov’ts to enforce them.

We can accept the fact that nothing is perfect. That means, in this context, that humans, being imperfect, cannot make anything that is perfect. As consequence, our system of laws isn’t perfect.

Or we can do as you want: demand that the laws all be perfect, or that they don’t exist at all.

It’s the extremist in you that refuses to learn to count beyond two. Beyond that, refuses to learn anything at all that will alter your absolute rejection of learning and reasoning.

“Considering that a group of men who are now long dead wrote up the Constitution specifically to govern a fictitious entity (a gang called “The Federal Government of The United States”)”.

That “fictitious” entity executed Tim McVeigh for your sort of elitism-of-the-ignoramous. McVeigh is pretty damned dead for having been executed by a “fiction”.

That is sufficient evidence that the “fictitious” entity isn’t fictitious after all.

“rather than external parties (like the people on this site and even yourself)”

Art. Vi., c. 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land. . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

In short: ther US Constitution also applies to the States, you Jim Crow interposition and nullification racists notwithstanding.

“and is signed by no one (let alone anyone alive today),”

It was signed by those ELECTED to represent We the people. And we do not reject all the laws, every fucking generation, so law-illiterates such as you can go about reinventing the wheel all over again.

“please explain how any of us are obligated to give a damn what that mobocracy’s”

I see: you’re one of those democray-hating elitist who hates elitists, and in order to make your tantrum stick, you absolutely refuse to learn anything whatsoever, beginning with the basics of reasoning.

“LAWS are other than “because somebody wrote some stuff down saying you have to and if you refuse, we’ll throw you in a cage or kill you”.”

You miss two crucial points:

1. Because of the First Amendment, which they “wrote down,” you are able to freely rant and rave your lunacies, even in public.

2. Thanks to their having “written them down” — secured in LAW — you have a handy list of “rights” you otherwise wouldn’t have, and wouldn’t have thought of, and the freedom to rant and rave about unsubstantiated violations of those rights.

“Where is the contract with our signatures that creates that obligation?”

This is how the obligation is created:

NH Con. Art. I., III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society . . . .

That isn’t only the law: it is REASON staring you in the face: your “rights” end where those of others begin; and that is where your legal and ethical RESPONSIBILITIES BEGIN.

Unless, of course, your delusion were the reality: that your “rights” are “absolute,” therefore infinite, therefore nothing can or should prohibit you trampling the rights of others. And you’re ilk is a lawless gang of exactly that sort of bullying thug: When you do harm to others, you deny it by accusing them of being “too sensitive” or the equivalent, and keep right on doing them harm.

You are obligated to obey the laws of this society by dint of the fact that (1) you were born into this society, and (2) others ALSO have rights not to be trampled by the likes of profoundly ignorant individuals such as you.

Unless, of course, you choose to LEAVE, which you’re more than welcome to do.

According to baldfaced unsubstantiated assertion, anything one asserts can be claimed to be a “liberty” even if objective reality shows it not to be.

LAWS are arbitrary rules written down by fallible men and women, often illogical and seeking to control the actions of other men and women that harm no one.

Most of us here ascribe to The Philosophy of Liberty and the Non-Aggression Principle because they are logical and peaceful and relegate your LAWS unnecessary and antiquated (and useless since your own government ignores its own LAWS whenever convenient).

I need no permission to defend my body and my property. The Yin to that Yang, however, is that I cannot expect to live in peace if I aggress against the bodies and property of others.

I need no LAW to tell me that murder, assault, rape, theft, fraud, vandalism, kidnap and slavery are wrong. All real crimes boil down to a violation of property (including the body).

Your ilk claims, as example, a “right” to take up arms against the gov’t/rule of law — even though no such right exists, as per the law of the land.

Every man and woman has a right to defend themselves from the depredations of others. Assault my body or my property and I will defend it regardless of your random, fallible LAW.

1919: “Hey everybody! We’ve decided booze is illegal today! Anyone caught with booze is now a criminal and subject to murder by state enforcers or incarceration paid for with money stolen from other people!”

1933: “Oops! Our bad! You can all drink again. Except those of you who are dead or in jail.”

Really? Try enforcing an unwritten “contract” which is denied as to existence by the other party/ies to the “contract”.

And yet your government asserts we have some obligation to it even though there is no contract. How ironic.

And yet law enforcement can put your ass in jail for violating the rights of others, BECAUSE those writes are WRITTEN DOWN.

Law enforcement can put your ass in jail and murder you (and does on a regular basis) regardless of the LAW.

To reject the reality of limits to freedom — you DO NOT live in a society of one, no matter how much pot you smoke — and the fact of written law is wholly contrary to logic and reason.

You act as if we don’t have rules. This shows your ignorance of our beliefs. Rules are fine so long as they’re logical, peaceful and moral. Your LAWS are arbitrary, fallible, unreliable and rarely apply to your government, only the serfs they presume they own.

Try enforcing your unsubstantiated assertion as being the “law”. And when that doesn’t happen, act out that you show yourself to be: a bully who has no respect for lawful limits, including those which protect others and their rights from infringement by ignorant bullies such as you.

Right, we’re the bullies. Your government steals half our paychecks in taxes, sends our sons and daughters to die in wars of aggression in lands they have no business being in, seeks to monitor us 24/7, tells us what we can and cannot do with OUR own bodies, assaults and murders people on a regular basis and we, who simply want to live our lives in peace without being violated, are the bullies.

What you are demanding is to live in constant “kill or be killed” fear. That isn’t a “polite” society; it is a hostile, paranoid hell which the rule of law is established to mitigate.

We already live in constant fear of your government and what they’ll do to us or take from us next in their endless, insatiable desire to control every aspect of our lives.

“This is the Constitution your ilk claims to be about “defending”

The Constitution is little more than a charter meant to limit the abuses of government. While there’s nothing wrong with wanting the state to adhere to its own rules, we’ve had 233 years to see how well that worked out. “Bind men down from mischief” my ass.

Considering that a group of men who are now long dead wrote up the Constitution specifically to govern a fictitious entity (a gang called “The Federal Government of The United States”) rather than external parties (like the people on this site and even yourself) and is signed by no one (let alone anyone alive today), please explain how any of us are obligated to give a damn what that mobocracy’s LAWS are other than “because somebody wrote some stuff down saying you have to and if you refuse, we’ll throw you in a cage or kill you”.

Where is the contract with our signatures that creates that obligation?

What you are demanding is to live in constant “kill or be killed” fear. That isn’t a “polite” society; it is a hostile, paranoid hell which the rule of law is established to mitigate.