• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Can't Require a License to Exercise a Right

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
By your logic, the existence of criminals conveys upon them an authority to act criminally.

Frankly, I have yet to hear a single valid defense for any authority per se.

Maybe, but. Criminals are not brought into existence by voting, nor is their role delineated in a document from the founding of our country.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Maybe, but. Criminals are not brought into existence by voting, <snip>
I beg to differ on this point. There have been law abiding, yet unscrupulous, individuals that have become criminals after a vote was conducted because they were now on the "in" and knew that they were virtually untouchable.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I beg to differ on this point. There have been law abiding, yet unscrupulous, individuals that have become criminals after a vote was conducted because they were now on the "in" and knew that they were virtually untouchable.

That wasn't what was claimed. Disingenuous.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
That wasn't what was claimed. Disingenuous.
You claimed that criminals are not brought into existence by voting. I pointed out that some criminals are brought into existence by voting. I did not dispute your valid premise, I pointed out a exception, not with clarity it now appears.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
You claimed that criminals are not brought into existence by voting. I pointed out that some criminals are brought into existence by voting. I did not dispute your valid premise, I pointed out a exception, not with clarity it now appears.

Then it would have been useful to state 'here is an exception,' as opposed to 'I disagree on this point.'


And, no, those you appear to describe are not brought into existence by voting. They are simply voted into a position of power via election. That does not 'create a criminal.' They are such by their actions, not by proclamation.


Persons are placed into a position of authority using the election process, holding the position given authority by the documents that our government is based upon and defined by. Criminals are not such, they are criminal by their actions.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I beg to differ on this point. There have been law abiding, yet unscrupulous, individuals that have become criminals after a vote was conducted because they were now on the "in" and knew that they were virtually untouchable.

There is exactly what you posted.


The vote doesn't create a criminal, it only places someone in a position where they choose to become one because they know they were virtually unouchable. That is THEIR action, not OUR action that created criminal activity.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
...Pedantry. Not useful. And you wail about me being condescending......

And he is flat wrong about legislatures not writing the codes. Case in point: The recent change in the law in Ohio. The entire law was written as edits to the code.

Codes may have started as codifications of passed bills, but now generally, the codes are being directly written by the legislatures.

Again, this thing has no idea how well-versed in the law folks around here are. It thought we were the same soft target it encounters in real life or on other message boards. It doesn't seem to understand that we live and die by written law and case law 'round here.
_______________

On edit:

I kept reading your posts beyond this one and kept thinking "nailed it." Especially in regards to our Republic. You save me the trouble of replying to that one post, with your own thorough, but concise, answer. So, me being lazy, I will simply give you a +1 * (all of your posts since the quoted one).
 
Last edited:

idea(l)s

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
73
Location
, , USA
And he is flat wrong about legislatures not writing the codes. Case in point: The recent change in the law in Ohio. The entire law was written as edits to the code.

Codes may have started as codifications of passed bills, but now generally, the codes are being directly written by the legislatures.

Again, this thing has no idea how well-versed in the law folks around here are. It thought we were the same soft target it encounters in real life or on other message boards. It doesn't seem to understand that we live and die by written law and case law 'round here.
_______________

On edit:

I kept reading your posts beyond this one and kept thinking "nailed it." Especially in regards to our Republic. You save me the trouble of replying to that one post, with your own thorough, but concise, answer. So, me being lazy, I will simply give you a +1 * (all of your posts since the quoted one).

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks
 
Last edited by a moderator:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
What a proud man you must be: along with your previous invective commentary you feel the need to denigrate your fellow man, spewing venomous misdirection in the process by stating others know nothing while knowing even less than nothing but craving for it to be something.


You must feel all powerful acting as the ultimate keyboard commando while wearing your badge and gun as a card carrying member of the mad land you live in. Kudos though for coming to the rescue of your fellow dysfuctionally illiterate "buddy" who suffers from the same reading comprehension problem as you do.


It's ok, continue to wallow in your dystopia and enjoy the journey.

He presents as much more knowledgable and rational than you, for instance. Do you place yourself that far down?


'Disfuctionally illiterate?' That is not accurate. And, it is spelled in an illiterate manner.
It is simply a good indicator of the hatred you hold towards those who disagree with your CT claptrap.



NOTE: "Disfunctionally"
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Notice that it never posts about OC. Why is it here? It clearly has an agenda (not about OC) and will go anywhere to regurgitate that agenda (that it no doubt read elsewhere, but clearly does not understand). Like I said though, surely it thought we were a soft target. It will never acknowledge that, but it sure found out otherwise! The fact that it is not embarrassed by its pitiful performance should be all the more embarrassing.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
And he is flat wrong about legislatures not writing the codes. Case in point: The recent change in the law in Ohio. The entire law was written as edits to the code.

Codes may have started as codifications of passed bills, but now generally, the codes are being directly written by the legislatures.
Yep, you are correct. I hadn't thought all the way through to that end, but that IS how it is being done in Nevada. The bills are actually sections of existing code, showing the strike-through of code deletions, added text, re-outlining including re-letter and re-number, which gets directly implemented after passage. Bills that create NEW sections of code are written in the format that will show in the NRS database, and are not text documents that get put into codified format later. They are written 'literally' as they will be published.

In fact, 'legislative intent' statements are dicta, and the code as written and as passed IS the 'law,' whether it matched the legislative intent dicta or not.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I refer you to the LP website. Those libertarians see a necessary role for a government.
I don't know what the "LP website" is but I imagine it's a forum that a guy that calls himself a libertarian created in which said guy says that there are cases in which it's ethical for one person to murder, enslave or steal from another person. That doesn't make it so, nor does it him a libertarian. Oh, and a "representative" writing a law that says so doesn't make it so either. Isn't that the whole point of this thread?

Our Founding Document, the Constitution, contains the mechanism for reshaping our government. The trick is to get a democratic majority to keep liberty alive and well in our republic.
It's good that they tried to include a mechanism for reshaping government. I don't think it addresses that there is a disconnect between two statements I was replying to, which was the point.

Congress has the authority to declare was, Article I, Section 8. No pretext for such a declaration is present in that short passage. Should congress declare war without a justified pretext? Different question. But, Congress clearly has the authority regardless of the morality of such a declaration.
Saying something is clear is not a rebuttal. Citing the law as proof of legitimacy of the law is not logical. Citing the law as proof of legitimacy of the law repeatedly when it's been explained that it's not logical is insane. This would be a great example if it wasn't for the fact that the authority of congress to declare war is one of the very things that's being challenged in this discussion and, therefore, the premise that delegation of authority outlined in the law, is not automatically accepted as correct. I thought that was the whole point of this thread.

Lawmakers by definition have the authority to write laws.
Noah Webster is not God.

Our republican form of government has checks to ensure that the laws written or constitutional. The fact that unconstitutional laws are written is not germane to this discussion. But the authority clearly exists. Laws are essentially the will of the citizenry, delegated to our elected representative, to manage how the powers granted in US Constitution and the respective state constitutions are implemented. Correct or incorrect implementation is also not germane to this discussion.
The purpose of this thread seems to me to be about the legitimacy of the claim of authority by government.Not about how much authority the government has actually claimed through legislation. The correctness of implementation is not something I was attempting to discsuss.

Anyway. Authority is clearly granted to the necessary government officials via our elected representative. Just cuz it ain't getting done right is not germane to this discussion.

I guess the problem in our communication is that we don't have a similar understanding of the word authority. You seem to be using it completely differently. Either that, or you're just evil. :confused: Do you believe that the basis of authority is morality or power?

What exactly IS germane to this discussion? Interpretation of the law? Is that really all this thread is about? Doesn't seem to be to me! But if it is, I'll happily withdraw!
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Saying something is clear is not a rebuttal. Citing the law as proof of legitimacy of the law is not logical. Citing the law as proof of legitimacy of the law repeatedly when it's been explained that it's not logical is insane. This would be a great example if it wasn't for the fact that the authority of congress to declare war is one of the very things that's being challenged in this discussion and, therefore, the premise that delegation of authority outlined in the law, is not automatically accepted as correct. I thought that was the whole point of this thread.
Nope, the thread is about a SCOTUS case where the opinion was 'license not required to exercise a Right.'

se said:
The purpose of this thread seems to me to be about the legitimacy of the claim of authority by government.Not about how much authority the government has actually claimed through legislation. The correctness of implementation is not something I was attempting to discsuss.
Nope, that is a separate discussion. THIS discussion thread was about whether a Right enumerated (or not enumerated) in the BoR could be restricted by licensing beyond cost retrieval.




se said:
I guess the problem in our communication is that we don't have a similar understanding of the word authority. You seem to be using it completely differently. Either that, or you're just evil. :confused: Do you believe that the basis of authority is morality or power?

What exactly IS germane to this discussion? Interpretation of the law? Is that really all this thread is about? Doesn't seem to be to me! But if it is, I'll happily withdraw!
The 'basis of authority' for the usg itself is from the implementation of the founding documents, and is supposed to be limited to those items allowed to the fed for control. The rest are supposed to be ceded to the States / citizenry via the 10th Amendment.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I don't know what the "LP website" is but I imagine it's a forum that a guy that calls himself a libertarian created in which said guy says that there are cases in which it's ethical for one person to murder, enslave or steal from another person. That doesn't make it so, nor does it him a libertarian. Oh, and a "representative" writing a law that says so doesn't make it so either. Isn't that the whole point of this thread?
http://www.lp.org/

Speculation regarding that LP website on your part is understandable. What is confounding is that you appear to not have investigated that LP website. I take responsibility for making a investigation of the LP website difficult for you. I have rectified my error as is indicated above.

The point of this thread is, in my reading of it, is whether or not a government has the authority, the legitimate authority, to require that a citizen obtain a license to exercise a right. I categorically object to a government claiming the authority to require a license to OC. I do not object to a government claiming the authority to require a license to CC. Though I disagree with a license requirement to CC. See Missouri constitution Article I, Section 23. Further more, OC and CC is not mentioned in the US Constitution so I, understandably, defer to the state as is mentioned in the US Constitution. See Amendment 10. We here in Missouri are working to rescind the constitutional authority of the state to require a license to CC.

It's good that they tried to include a mechanism for reshaping government. I don't think it addresses that there is a disconnect between two statements I was replying to, which was the point.
Your refusal to accept the obvious is on you, and not on those participating in this thread. The US Constitution clearly provides for the reshaping of our republican form of government. Liberty has been eroded due to the correct use (utilization?) of our form of government, not because our government was used incorrectly. Elections have consequences.

By the way, ignorant and anti-liberty judges can be removed from the bench using our current form of government. The very same form of government that placed these ignorant and anti-liberty judges on the bench. Elections have consequences.

Saying something is clear is not a rebuttal. Citing the law as proof of legitimacy of the law is not logical. Citing the law as proof of legitimacy of the law repeatedly when it's been explained that it's not logical is insane. This would be a great example if it wasn't for the fact that the authority of congress to declare war is one of the very things that's being challenged in this discussion and, therefore, the premise that delegation of authority outlined in the law, is not automatically accepted as correct. I thought that was the whole point of this thread.
Citing the obvious rebuts your position. But, I will indulge you on your finer point regarding what is being discussed here. Congress has the enumerated power to declare war. There is no provision for the executive branch to prosecute a war. A checks and balance mechanism is in place to ensure that the act of going to war is more than just a legal endeavor but a moral endeavor also. The failure of the executive branch to prosecute wars that are not only "legally declared".....'cough cough'.....but that are also morally just is irrelevant to the point of this thread.

Noah Webster is not God.
Elected officials have the authority to write laws, even unconstitutional laws. The citizenry has a obligation to fix unconstitutional laws by either voting or seeking a redress of wrongs via the courts.

The purpose of this thread seems to me to be about the legitimacy of the claim of authority by government. Not about how much authority the government has actually claimed through legislation. The correctness of implementation is not something I was attempting to discuss.
What exactly are you trying to discuss? I explained how a lawmaker gains his authority and that that authority is legitimate.

I guess the problem in our communication is that we don't have a similar understanding of the word authority. You seem to be using it completely differently. Either that, or you're just evil. :confused: Do you believe that the basis of authority is morality or power?
You refuse to accept the obvious meaning of authority and thus your accusation that I am evil because I disagree with your understanding (use) of the word authority makes our continued discussion impossible. You have demonstrated that you are not a rational person when you resort to "name calling."

{QUOTE}What exactly IS germane to this discussion? Interpretation of the law? Is that really all this thread is about? Doesn't seem to be to me! But if it is, I'll happily withdraw![/QUOTE]Good day to you Sir.
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
Regarding authority, we vote for people. These people are then authorized to represent us in our government.

Too simple?
 

JmE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
358
Location
, ,
Regarding authority, we vote for people. These people are then authorized to represent us in our government.

Too simple?

Yes, it is too simple. We might select a contractor to work on our houses but we don't authorize that contractor to steal our possessions, burn it down, sell it, or demolish it. The persons that are voted into office aren't authorized to violate the constitution.
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
But they are authorized to not vote the way you want them too, right? That's the risk we take in having the convenience of a representative government.

And it's not up to the legislative branches to determine is something is constitutional or not.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Nope, the thread is about a SCOTUS case where the opinion was 'license not required to exercise a Right.'

Nope, that is a separate discussion. THIS discussion thread was about whether a Right enumerated (or not enumerated) in the BoR could be restricted by licensing beyond cost retrieval.

...

That must be the problem.

You refuse to accept the obvious meaning of authority and thus your accusation that I am evil because I disagree with your understanding (use) of the word authority makes our continued discussion impossible. You have demonstrated that you are not a rational person when you resort to "name calling."

That ("either that, or you're just evil") was obviously meant as humor.
 
Last edited:
Top