As we get ready to, yet again, elect another leader ... can we ask the question?

[fncceo]

Do free, intelligent people, even need to be led at all?

Are we capable of envisioning a way for people to enjoy the benefits of a free society without having a single leader or group of leaders in control of every aspect of our lives?

I don't vote for a leader. I vote for a servant.

To be fair, has a 'servant' been an option in our lifetime?

We are presented with a slate of choices, determined by a party, all with essentially the same goal in mind, take as much of what we have as they can to pretend to give it back to us with things they believe we want.

We've permitted our political class to make themselves royalty.

Yes, we have. Royalty, once ensconced, are quite difficult to bring back to earth.

 

[fncceo]

A river runs through the land I bought. You live south of me. Do I have the right to dam the river and cut you off from Water?

There is an ancient legal precept. "Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose." (and vice versa)

Where conflict arises from a dispute over rights, that should be a civil disagreement, not a legislative one.

A civil disagreement? Explain.

Something for a civil court or arbitration to decide. Not a criminal court.

 

[rightwinger]

Considering the alternative is anarchy

Yes we need leaders

 

[progressive hunter]

A river runs through the land I bought. You live south of me. Do I have the right to dam the river and cut you off from Water?

There is an ancient legal precept. "Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose." (and vice versa)

Where conflict arises from a dispute over rights, that should be a civil disagreement, not a legislative one.

A civil disagreement? Explain.

Something for a civil court or arbitration to decide. Not a criminal court.

damning the river should be civil,, but intentionally poisoning a river should be criminal...

 

[candycorn]

A river runs through the land I bought. You live south of me. Do I have the right to dam the river and cut you off from Water?

There is an ancient legal precept. "Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose." (and vice versa)

Where conflict arises from a dispute over rights, that should be a civil disagreement, not a legislative one.

A civil disagreement? Explain.

Something for a civil court or arbitration to decide. Not a criminal court.

Why would damming the water on your stream on your land be criminal?

 

[candycorn]

A river runs through the land I bought. You live south of me. Do I have the right to dam the river and cut you off from Water?

There is an ancient legal precept. "Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose." (and vice versa)

Where conflict arises from a dispute over rights, that should be a civil disagreement, not a legislative one.

A civil disagreement? Explain.

Something for a civil court or arbitration to decide. Not a criminal court.

.Furthermore, who says you have a right to water passing through my land? I didn't tell you to buy land downstream from me.

 

[progressive hunter]

A river runs through the land I bought. You live south of me. Do I have the right to dam the river and cut you off from Water?

There is an ancient legal precept. "Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose." (and vice versa)

Where conflict arises from a dispute over rights, that should be a civil disagreement, not a legislative one.

A civil disagreement? Explain.

Something for a civil court or arbitration to decide. Not a criminal court.

.Furthermore, who says you have a right to water passing through my land? I didn't tell you to buy land downstream from me.

youre talking about property rights not human rights,,,

 

[candycorn]

A river runs through the land I bought. You live south of me. Do I have the right to dam the river and cut you off from Water?

There is an ancient legal precept. "Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose." (and vice versa)

Where conflict arises from a dispute over rights, that should be a civil disagreement, not a legislative one.

A civil disagreement? Explain.

Something for a civil court or arbitration to decide. Not a criminal court.

.Furthermore, who says you have a right to water passing through my land? I didn't tell you to buy land downstream from me.

youre talking about property rights not human rights,,,

When it comes to water...is there a difference?

 

[progressive hunter]

A river runs through the land I bought. You live south of me. Do I have the right to dam the river and cut you off from Water?

There is an ancient legal precept. "Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose." (and vice versa)

Where conflict arises from a dispute over rights, that should be a civil disagreement, not a legislative one.

A civil disagreement? Explain.

Something for a civil court or arbitration to decide. Not a criminal court.

.Furthermore, who says you have a right to water passing through my land? I didn't tell you to buy land downstream from me.

youre talking about property rights not human rights,,,

When it comes to water...is there a difference?

of course there is,,,

you would need to give specifics on the river being damned first,,,,
remember you cant just damn a river and stop the flow,, all you can do is make an impoundment of water and once full the flow continues,,,

 

[fncceo]

A river runs through the land I bought. You live south of me. Do I have the right to dam the river and cut you off from Water?

There is an ancient legal precept. "Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose." (and vice versa)

Where conflict arises from a dispute over rights, that should be a civil disagreement, not a legislative one.

A civil disagreement? Explain.

Something for a civil court or arbitration to decide. Not a criminal court.

Why would damming the water on your stream on your land be criminal?

I believe, if you read what I wrote more closely, you'll see I'm saying exactly the opposite.

 

[buttercup]

No form of gov't can survive with unethical people at the helm

True, and I'm sorry to sound so gloom and doomy, but that's why we're losing our country. And that's why I don't idolize any of them, or put all my trust into any of them, regardless of the letter by their name. There's only one power who I trust...the true power of this world.

 

[eagle1462010]

No form of gov't can survive with unethical people at the helm

True, and I'm sorry to sound so gloom and doomy, but that's why we're losing our country. And that's why I don't idolize any of them, or put all my trust into any of them, regardless of the letter by their name. There's only one power who I trust. The true power of this world.

We all see that coming............the lines are drawn..........where it goes is still in doubt but isn't looking good..............They will have to either be minimized politically......or eventually this country will go to War with itself.

 

[22lcidw]

Do free, intelligent people, even need to be led at all? Are we capable of envisioning a way for people to enjoy the benefits of a free society without having a single person in control?

A single person isn't in control. Now, if we could only get Trump to realize that. He's president, but thinks he's a CEO with a subservient board.

Progs are a single person. They all think mostly alike. Non Progs are not. And Trump runs ideas and uses people on his staff for different views. Within all of that he has tried to keep his promises on agendas or at least go in their direction.

 

[candycorn]

A river runs through the land I bought. You live south of me. Do I have the right to dam the river and cut you off from Water?

There is an ancient legal precept. "Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose." (and vice versa)

Where conflict arises from a dispute over rights, that should be a civil disagreement, not a legislative one.

A civil disagreement? Explain.

Something for a civil court or arbitration to decide. Not a criminal court.

Why would damming the water on your stream on your land be criminal?

I believe, if you read what I wrote more closely, you'll see I'm saying exactly the opposite.

I have read it...you didn't answer. It was a "yes" or "no" question....

Relying on precepts is fine...if everyone agrees to them 100%.
Saying "well, it's up to an arbitration"...isn't that appealing to authority?

Please, a simple yes or no. If a stream goes through my land, I have the right to do whatever I want with it, right? My land, my stream, my possession...right?

 

[candycorn]

A river runs through the land I bought. You live south of me. Do I have the right to dam the river and cut you off from Water?

There is an ancient legal precept. "Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose." (and vice versa)

Where conflict arises from a dispute over rights, that should be a civil disagreement, not a legislative one.

A civil disagreement? Explain.

Something for a civil court or arbitration to decide. Not a criminal court.

.Furthermore, who says you have a right to water passing through my land? I didn't tell you to buy land downstream from me.

youre talking about property rights not human rights,,,

When it comes to water...is there a difference?

of course there is,,,

you would need to give specifics on the river being damned first,,,,
remember you cant just damn a river and stop the flow,, all you can do is make an impoundment of water and once full the flow continues,,,

You can re-direct the water to someone willing to pay you for water rights...
If your land is large enough, you can create a lake
If you want, you can open a business that bottles the water and sells it....

All sorts of things you can do when there is no authority (or anyone with authority) to direct you otherwise.

 

[progressive hunter]

A river runs through the land I bought. You live south of me. Do I have the right to dam the river and cut you off from Water?

There is an ancient legal precept. "Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose." (and vice versa)

Where conflict arises from a dispute over rights, that should be a civil disagreement, not a legislative one.

A civil disagreement? Explain.

Something for a civil court or arbitration to decide. Not a criminal court.

.Furthermore, who says you have a right to water passing through my land? I didn't tell you to buy land downstream from me.

youre talking about property rights not human rights,,,

When it comes to water...is there a difference?

of course there is,,,

you would need to give specifics on the river being damned first,,,,
remember you cant just damn a river and stop the flow,, all you can do is make an impoundment of water and once full the flow continues,,,

You can re-direct the water to someone willing to pay you for water rights...
If your land is large enough, you can create a lake
If you want, you can open a business that bottles the water and sells it....

All sorts of things you can do when there is no authority (or anyone with authority) to direct you otherwise.

once again those are property rights which isnt a right but laws put in place for a populace,,,

 

[fncceo]

Relying on precepts is fine...if everyone agrees to them 100%.
Saying "well, it's up to an arbitration"...isn't that appealing to authority?

Authority in this case, is a disinterested by-stander with no interest in resolving a conflict one way or another.

In order pre-decide every possibility of what one can, or cannot do, on his property, we need an agency, a body to make rules over environmental choices. An EPA, if you will.

When we set up an EPA to resolve environmental disputes, we've gone from treating environmental conflicts as civil disagreements and elevated them to criminal offenses.

People who don't follow environmental precepts, set up by a state governing body, become enemies of the state.

 

[fncceo]

A river runs through the land I bought. You live south of me. Do I have the right to dam the river and cut you off from Water?

There is an ancient legal precept. "Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose." (and vice versa)

Where conflict arises from a dispute over rights, that should be a civil disagreement, not a legislative one.

A civil disagreement? Explain.

Something for a civil court or arbitration to decide. Not a criminal court.

.Furthermore, who says you have a right to water passing through my land? I didn't tell you to buy land downstream from me.

youre talking about property rights not human rights,,,

When it comes to water...is there a difference?

of course there is,,,

you would need to give specifics on the river being damned first,,,,
remember you cant just damn a river and stop the flow,, all you can do is make an impoundment of water and once full the flow continues,,,

You can re-direct the water to someone willing to pay you for water rights...
If your land is large enough, you can create a lake
If you want, you can open a business that bottles the water and sells it....

All sorts of things you can do when there is no authority (or anyone with authority) to direct you otherwise.

once again those are property rights which isnt a right but laws put in place for a populace,,,

The right to own property is fundamental. If no one can own anything, there is nothing to stop someone else from taking everything.

 

[candycorn]

A river runs through the land I bought. You live south of me. Do I have the right to dam the river and cut you off from Water?

There is an ancient legal precept. "Your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose." (and vice versa)

Where conflict arises from a dispute over rights, that should be a civil disagreement, not a legislative one.

A civil disagreement? Explain.

Something for a civil court or arbitration to decide. Not a criminal court.

.Furthermore, who says you have a right to water passing through my land? I didn't tell you to buy land downstream from me.

youre talking about property rights not human rights,,,

When it comes to water...is there a difference?

of course there is,,,

you would need to give specifics on the river being damned first,,,,
remember you cant just damn a river and stop the flow,, all you can do is make an impoundment of water and once full the flow continues,,,

You can re-direct the water to someone willing to pay you for water rights...
If your land is large enough, you can create a lake
If you want, you can open a business that bottles the water and sells it....

All sorts of things you can do when there is no authority (or anyone with authority) to direct you otherwise.

once again those are property rights which isnt a right but laws put in place for a populace,,,

The right to own property is fundamental. If no one can own anything, there is nothing to stop someone else from taking everything.

Which is why the thread is full of contradictions. Sometimes you need an authority...sometimes you don't. I, like you, think we rely too heavily on authority to solve problems. Which is why we have so many lawyers really. Its an easy gig. But if you don't have any authority what so ever, you will constantly butt up against these questions whether it is water rights or something else. What if I wanted to open up a nudist colony across from your 3 year old daughter's bedroom window? Without an authority telling me I can't do that...

 

[fncceo]

What if I wanted to open up a nudist colony across from your 3 year old daughter's bedroom window?

It's my right to put up curtains.