Debate Now I'm Leaving! Who Is With Me?

[Foxfyre]

In your post you said: "Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns. . ."

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

When the U.S. government dictates what we can and cannot do with our own private property, that is imposing it's own 'zoning' laws on the private sector. Ask anybody who purchased land for a specific legal purpose and was told they couldn't do it because there was some endangered species spotted on that property. I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

All I meant was that the U.S Constitution does not grant rights to anybody re zoning laws--that is NOT an authority given to the U.S. government to have. I didn't say that you explicity said that it did, so likewise, do not make what I post into something I didn't say.

These are your exact words;

"While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere"​

I didn't say anything of the sort!

I was venture that this overreach by the federal government has contributed far more destruction of endangered species than would a small change in their habitat. If a person cannot afford to lose his investment in a property, he is far more likely to make damn sure no endangered species are found on it.

I would hope a new and more free nation would offer more common sense.

So as long as you own your land you should be free to dump whatever toxins you like on it?

How about if I own the house next door to yours and start a home based business storing nuclear waste in my bathtub? That wouldn't endanger anyone as long as I made sure the tub was always full, right? The fact that I like to take long vacations in dangerous parts of the world is of no concern since I always check that the tub is full before I leave.

Your property value won't be affected at all if I am kidnapped and detained for a year or so and the tub is bone dry when I return. All of that radiation won't show up when you try to sell it during the daylight hours.

So please explain exactly how I won't be at "liberty" to store toxic waste on my property in the BCSA?

I explained the intent of my post. I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but if you will not accept the explanation, then we will have no further discussions, okay?

There are some toxic materials that are so dangerous--say highly radioactive material--that I can see regulation of that as being the prerogative of the federal government. And the federal government would have justification to regulate any shared air, water, land, etc. that cross state lines and therefore would not be practical for the states to regulate.

But so far as paint or other similar toxins common to human life go, the state or local community should decide how to handle that. It should not be a prerogative of the federal government to do. My rights to use and enjoy my property end when that affects the ability of my neighbor to use and enjoy his property or otherwise violates his rights.

Fair enough but we are right back where we started again.

Everything you just posted is already available under the current law of the land. Where is the need for this "liberty" that you perceive is somehow missing?

The example of having the "liberty" to do as you please on your own land has already been trumped by your own response establishing that individuals don't have the "liberty" to do anything that will impose on the rights of others. I don't have the right to destroy the habitat of an endangered species on my own land because others have the right to enjoy the continued existence of that species.

I am still not seeing any "advantage" to the BCSA that doesn't already exist.

Maybe you missed the illustration I provided to make my point? Try reading it again. My right to the use and enjoyment of my property trumps your right to enjoy whatever exists on my property. However, most people enjoy having those endangered critters around and will actually try to protect them UNLESS their existence ruins their property values or they are prohibited from enjoying their right to use and enjoy their property.

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all. The existing government no longer respects such rights and that is why we are seceding in the first place.

There are proven reasons why the extinction of species is detrimental to humanity as a whole. That's why the US and much of the world has an endangered species list. Should those that don't see all species as necessary to our ecosystem be allowed to harm that entire ecosystem because it is on their land? How is that different from the pig farmer whose smell is harming the people in the next town. Both can show where harm is being done.

But the brutal fact is that those who enjoy the prestige of having rare and endangered species on their property are far more likely to respect and preserve that species if they aren't forced to sacrifice their investment in their property because that species exists. A small infringement on the habitat of something is a far less risk to that something than is a land owner who can lose his entire investment if it is known that species exists there.

 

[BULLDOG]

What if your town or area is mostly pig farmers who don't really mind the smell, but the next town over, which also has to smell it, hates it. Whose liberty should be restricted?

That would be and actually has been an issue. It isn't a matter of 'rights'--nobody has a 'right to infringe on anybody else's rights. So the two groups can get together and work out something or the town that is bothered can file suit against what they deem a public nuisance that violates their ability and right to enjoy their own property. But it should not be a federal matter.

If not federal, then who? Filing suit in the town with pig farms probably wouldn't be fair to the other towns, just like filing in one of the other towns probably wouldn't be fair to the pig farmers. Sounds like they would need an authority agreed upon by all parties to decide. The only way I know to do that is for each town to elect representatives to be part of that agreed on authority. Of course those elected people probably wouldn't be experts in wind distribution of smell and exactly which part of the smell is harm full, so they have to hire someone that is. There....It's already starting to look like the EPA. You got a better fair way to handle it?

When you file suit you leave it up to a judge, and sometimes a jury, to determine whether any party has been injured or whether there are damages. That can be handled quite nicely at the local level.

Even better the folks from both the towns can get together and work out something that is satisfactory to both without getting the courts involved.

As a representative of my state I will work hard to see that New America restores that kind of power to the people to work out and keep the federal government out of it.

There was never a question of whether there should be some sort of "judge", I wasn't aware that you had instituted a court system in your country yet. The question is about jurisdiction. How big an area does this judge cover, and is each judge totally autonomous, or do they answer to a centralized set of laws that fairly apply to the entire country?

It is my hope for New America that centralized laws will be extremely limited, far and few between. If that is not the case, then there really won't be much reason to secede.

You do see that centralized laws are necessary though, and the bigger and more complex the country is, the bigger and more complex those laws have to be. Otherwise, only the rich will control everything. We haven't even discussed the problems with corporations and how they aren't really concerned with the "GOOD NEIGHBOR" vibe that you seem to think your country will exude.

 

[Foxfyre]

I explained the intent of my post. I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but if you will not accept the explanation, then we will have no further discussions, okay?

There are some toxic materials that are so dangerous--say highly radioactive material--that I can see regulation of that as being the prerogative of the federal government. And the federal government would have justification to regulate any shared air, water, land, etc. that cross state lines and therefore would not be practical for the states to regulate.

But so far as paint or other similar toxins common to human life go, the state or local community should decide how to handle that. It should not be a prerogative of the federal government to do. My rights to use and enjoy my property end when that affects the ability of my neighbor to use and enjoy his property or otherwise violates his rights.

Fair enough but we are right back where we started again.

Everything you just posted is already available under the current law of the land. Where is the need for this "liberty" that you perceive is somehow missing?

The example of having the "liberty" to do as you please on your own land has already been trumped by your own response establishing that individuals don't have the "liberty" to do anything that will impose on the rights of others. I don't have the right to destroy the habitat of an endangered species on my own land because others have the right to enjoy the continued existence of that species.

I am still not seeing any "advantage" to the BCSA that doesn't already exist.

Maybe you missed the illustration I provided to make my point? Try reading it again. My right to the use and enjoyment of my property trumps your right to enjoy whatever exists on my property. However, most people enjoy having those endangered critters around and will actually try to protect them UNLESS their existence ruins their property values or they are prohibited from enjoying their right to use and enjoy their property.

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all. The existing government no longer respects such rights and that is why we are seceding in the first place.

If property rights trumps all other rights, those who seek to exploit their property for immediate financial gain will, in fact, ruin the property value of others. Someone decides to allow strip mining on their property for their individual financial gain. But abutting properties suffer a loss of value as a result. Someone else wants to divert a stream to water a pasture, but those downstream who rely on that water suffer.

I'm wondering if this "New America" is a good idea or not. Was it born from a fear and mistrust of our current system? Does it improve on it by recognizing a paramount position of property rights over the sustainability, even viability of other's property?

Wrong because again my right to the use and enjoyment of my property end when that use and enjoyment infringes on the rights of others. When it comes to zoning laws or shared resources, those things have to be worked out via social contract among those who will be affected by whatever laws and regulation are agreed upon.

The issue is not what the social contract will be. The people will work that out.

The issue is whether the central government will be allowed authority to dictate those laws and regulations. I say no. My vision of New America would leave it to the local people to work out.

There is a township in Western Pennsylvania that has been trying to get zoning regulations for twenty years now. If you drive through the township, you will see a massive junk yard. Surrounding it, folks have bought up lots upon which some have built their 'dream homes' only to find that the junk yard owner has blunted their dreams by expanding his enterprise. No social contract at play there, no governmental authority to restrict the junk yard owner either.

There, there is only one winner. The guy with the most cash.

That is the risk you take in giving liberty to people. Some will make the most of it to everybody's advantage and some will screw it up. But if there is no ability to be wrong, then there is no liberty. If the junk yard dealer was there first, or if the people didn't take measures to insist that such operations were in more suitable places, then that is the way it is. It is like people who buy homes near an airport and then complain about the noise from the planes.

But social contract usually works well when people get together and figure out a way to organize themselves that will be mutually beneficial to all. It always requires some give and take and compromise, just as our New America constitution will require, but a free people usually manage to work it out.

 

[Foxfyre]

That would be and actually has been an issue. It isn't a matter of 'rights'--nobody has a 'right to infringe on anybody else's rights. So the two groups can get together and work out something or the town that is bothered can file suit against what they deem a public nuisance that violates their ability and right to enjoy their own property. But it should not be a federal matter.

If not federal, then who? Filing suit in the town with pig farms probably wouldn't be fair to the other towns, just like filing in one of the other towns probably wouldn't be fair to the pig farmers. Sounds like they would need an authority agreed upon by all parties to decide. The only way I know to do that is for each town to elect representatives to be part of that agreed on authority. Of course those elected people probably wouldn't be experts in wind distribution of smell and exactly which part of the smell is harm full, so they have to hire someone that is. There....It's already starting to look like the EPA. You got a better fair way to handle it?

When you file suit you leave it up to a judge, and sometimes a jury, to determine whether any party has been injured or whether there are damages. That can be handled quite nicely at the local level.

Even better the folks from both the towns can get together and work out something that is satisfactory to both without getting the courts involved.

As a representative of my state I will work hard to see that New America restores that kind of power to the people to work out and keep the federal government out of it.

There was never a question of whether there should be some sort of "judge", I wasn't aware that you had instituted a court system in your country yet. The question is about jurisdiction. How big an area does this judge cover, and is each judge totally autonomous, or do they answer to a centralized set of laws that fairly apply to the entire country?

It is my hope for New America that centralized laws will be extremely limited, far and few between. If that is not the case, then there really won't be much reason to secede.

You do see that centralized laws are necessary though, and the bigger and more complex the country is, the bigger and more complex those laws have to be. Otherwise, only the rich will control everything. We haven't even discussed the problems with corporations and how they aren't really concerned with the "GOOD NEIGHBOR" vibe that you seem to think your country will exude.

The New America I envision will employ a free market capitalism that allows all who choose to do so to prosper legally, ethically, and within their moral convictions. Under a regulated capitalism that keeps everybody as honest and ethical as possible, there is advantage to all for everybody to prosper. There will be a role for the federal government to regulate what the states and local communities cannot realistically regulate, but that will be a teensy role compared to what the government is now.

 

[Derideo_Te]

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all.

Assumes facts not in evidence. How does protecting an endangered species mean that you have no rights at all? Are you prevented from speaking out about it? Are you prevented from voting? Are you denied the right bear arms, assemble, lobby?

Which rights have you lost?

Don't you get tired of saying 'assumes facts not in evidence' most especially when it is totally non sequitur to the point being made?

What part of being denied the right to use my property for the purpose it was legally acquired do you not understand? And both of us can find many facts in evidence in which that has been the case using the most cursory of Google searches. THAT is the issue I have been discussing. What have you been discussing?

Since zero evidence was provided that any rights whatsoever had been lost it was extremely apt to use it in that instance.

If you are getting "tired" of it then perhaps by providing actual credible evidence to back up your claims you would deprive me of the need to use it as often. How about we try that in future?

Your "right" to use your property is constrained by law. That is part of the purchase contract that you agreed to when you took possession of it. You agreed to abide by those laws under the terms required by whichever authorities have jurisdiction for that property.

You cannot invent "rights" that you don't have for your property. If you want unconstrained "rights" to your property you are going to have to look elsewhere on the planet because all property that falls under the jurisdiction of the We the People falls under the Law of the Land.

Given all of the above are you simply objecting because your property comes with legitimate constraints that ensure that no one else is harmed by your use of your property? If you don't like those constraints you do have the right to lobby any and all of the authorities concerned and state your position which will be given due consideration and weighed against whatever other legitimate concerns may be appropriate. If your position is valid you will be granted the "right" to do as you want and if it isn't then you will have to go elsewhere.

That is how the system works and I haven't seen you post anything that would be any different under the BCSA.

 

[BULLDOG]

These are your exact words;

"While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere"​

I didn't say anything of the sort!

So as long as you own your land you should be free to dump whatever toxins you like on it?

How about if I own the house next door to yours and start a home based business storing nuclear waste in my bathtub? That wouldn't endanger anyone as long as I made sure the tub was always full, right? The fact that I like to take long vacations in dangerous parts of the world is of no concern since I always check that the tub is full before I leave.

Your property value won't be affected at all if I am kidnapped and detained for a year or so and the tub is bone dry when I return. All of that radiation won't show up when you try to sell it during the daylight hours.

So please explain exactly how I won't be at "liberty" to store toxic waste on my property in the BCSA?

I explained the intent of my post. I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but if you will not accept the explanation, then we will have no further discussions, okay?

There are some toxic materials that are so dangerous--say highly radioactive material--that I can see regulation of that as being the prerogative of the federal government. And the federal government would have justification to regulate any shared air, water, land, etc. that cross state lines and therefore would not be practical for the states to regulate.

But so far as paint or other similar toxins common to human life go, the state or local community should decide how to handle that. It should not be a prerogative of the federal government to do. My rights to use and enjoy my property end when that affects the ability of my neighbor to use and enjoy his property or otherwise violates his rights.

Fair enough but we are right back where we started again.

Everything you just posted is already available under the current law of the land. Where is the need for this "liberty" that you perceive is somehow missing?

The example of having the "liberty" to do as you please on your own land has already been trumped by your own response establishing that individuals don't have the "liberty" to do anything that will impose on the rights of others. I don't have the right to destroy the habitat of an endangered species on my own land because others have the right to enjoy the continued existence of that species.

I am still not seeing any "advantage" to the BCSA that doesn't already exist.

Maybe you missed the illustration I provided to make my point? Try reading it again. My right to the use and enjoyment of my property trumps your right to enjoy whatever exists on my property. However, most people enjoy having those endangered critters around and will actually try to protect them UNLESS their existence ruins their property values or they are prohibited from enjoying their right to use and enjoy their property.

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all. The existing government no longer respects such rights and that is why we are seceding in the first place.

There are proven reasons why the extinction of species is detrimental to humanity as a whole. That's why the US and much of the world has an endangered species list. Should those that don't see all species as necessary to our ecosystem be allowed to harm that entire ecosystem because it is on their land? How is that different from the pig farmer whose smell is harming the people in the next town. Both can show where harm is being done.

But the brutal fact is that those who enjoy the prestige of having rare and endangered species on their property are far more likely to respect and preserve that species if they aren't forced to sacrifice their investment in their property because that species exists. A small infringement on the habitat of something is a far less risk to that something than is a land owner who can lose his entire investment if it is known that species exists there.

So the existence of a rare species whose extinction will affect the entire ecosystem is dependent on whose land the creature decides to stop? If they respect and preserve a species, the requirement to do that probably wouldn't be a problem. It's the ones who don't really care that need the guidance.

 

[Foxfyre]

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all.

Assumes facts not in evidence. How does protecting an endangered species mean that you have no rights at all? Are you prevented from speaking out about it? Are you prevented from voting? Are you denied the right bear arms, assemble, lobby?

Which rights have you lost?

Don't you get tired of saying 'assumes facts not in evidence' most especially when it is totally non sequitur to the point being made?

What part of being denied the right to use my property for the purpose it was legally acquired do you not understand? And both of us can find many facts in evidence in which that has been the case using the most cursory of Google searches. THAT is the issue I have been discussing. What have you been discussing?

Since zero evidence was provided that any rights whatsoever had been lost it was extremely apt to use it in that instance.

If you are getting "tired" of it then perhaps by providing actual credible evidence to back up your claims you would deprive me of the need to use it as often. How about we try that in future?

Your "right" to use your property is constrained by law. That is part of the purchase contract that you agreed to when you took possession of it. You agreed to abide by those laws under the terms required by whichever authorities have jurisdiction for that property.

You cannot invent "rights" that you don't have for your property. If you want unconstrained "rights" to your property you are going to have to look elsewhere on the planet because all property that falls under the jurisdiction of the We the People falls under the Law of the Land.

Given all of the above are you simply objecting because your property comes with legitimate constraints that ensure that no one else is harmed by your use of your property? If you don't like those constraints you do have the right to lobby any and all of the authorities concerned and state your position which will be given due consideration and weighed against whatever other legitimate concerns may be appropriate. If your position is valid you will be granted the "right" to do as you want and if it isn't then you will have to go elsewhere.

That is how the system works and I haven't seen you post anything that would be any different under the BCSA.

Fine. If you're leaving it up to me to satisfy you, I think you're going to be really disappointed. Now you can choose to get into the spirit of the exercise proposed in the OP and make your argument for why your argument is better or you probably won't have much fun with this thread. I have no obligation to provide evidence for an expressed opinion, and you have every right to offer an argument for why my opinion is wrong and, if you choose to do so, can offer your evidence to support your argument.

Certainly the Founders did a lot of that hammering out their Constitution as they were not in agreement on many things and kept at it until they arrived at a concept they could all live with.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If not federal, then who? Filing suit in the town with pig farms probably wouldn't be fair to the other towns, just like filing in one of the other towns probably wouldn't be fair to the pig farmers. Sounds like they would need an authority agreed upon by all parties to decide. The only way I know to do that is for each town to elect representatives to be part of that agreed on authority. Of course those elected people probably wouldn't be experts in wind distribution of smell and exactly which part of the smell is harm full, so they have to hire someone that is. There....It's already starting to look like the EPA. You got a better fair way to handle it?

When you file suit you leave it up to a judge, and sometimes a jury, to determine whether any party has been injured or whether there are damages. That can be handled quite nicely at the local level.

Even better the folks from both the towns can get together and work out something that is satisfactory to both without getting the courts involved.

As a representative of my state I will work hard to see that New America restores that kind of power to the people to work out and keep the federal government out of it.

There was never a question of whether there should be some sort of "judge", I wasn't aware that you had instituted a court system in your country yet. The question is about jurisdiction. How big an area does this judge cover, and is each judge totally autonomous, or do they answer to a centralized set of laws that fairly apply to the entire country?

It is my hope for New America that centralized laws will be extremely limited, far and few between. If that is not the case, then there really won't be much reason to secede.

You do see that centralized laws are necessary though, and the bigger and more complex the country is, the bigger and more complex those laws have to be. Otherwise, only the rich will control everything. We haven't even discussed the problems with corporations and how they aren't really concerned with the "GOOD NEIGHBOR" vibe that you seem to think your country will exude.

The New America I envision will employ a free market capitalism that allows all who choose to do so to prosper legally, ethically, and within their moral convictions. Under a regulated capitalism that keeps everybody as honest and ethical as possible, there is advantage to all for everybody to prosper. There will be a role for the federal government to regulate what the states and local communicates cannot realistically regulate, but that will be a teensy role compared to what the government is now.

Wow!

Did I read that correctly?

You are advocating for a well regulated capitalist economy?

Please expound on more of these advantages for the BCSA. I want to hear how you see this happening in real life. How will you constrain corruption and pollution?

 

[Derideo_Te]

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all.

Assumes facts not in evidence. How does protecting an endangered species mean that you have no rights at all? Are you prevented from speaking out about it? Are you prevented from voting? Are you denied the right bear arms, assemble, lobby?

Which rights have you lost?

Don't you get tired of saying 'assumes facts not in evidence' most especially when it is totally non sequitur to the point being made?

What part of being denied the right to use my property for the purpose it was legally acquired do you not understand? And both of us can find many facts in evidence in which that has been the case using the most cursory of Google searches. THAT is the issue I have been discussing. What have you been discussing?

Since zero evidence was provided that any rights whatsoever had been lost it was extremely apt to use it in that instance.

If you are getting "tired" of it then perhaps by providing actual credible evidence to back up your claims you would deprive me of the need to use it as often. How about we try that in future?

Your "right" to use your property is constrained by law. That is part of the purchase contract that you agreed to when you took possession of it. You agreed to abide by those laws under the terms required by whichever authorities have jurisdiction for that property.

You cannot invent "rights" that you don't have for your property. If you want unconstrained "rights" to your property you are going to have to look elsewhere on the planet because all property that falls under the jurisdiction of the We the People falls under the Law of the Land.

Given all of the above are you simply objecting because your property comes with legitimate constraints that ensure that no one else is harmed by your use of your property? If you don't like those constraints you do have the right to lobby any and all of the authorities concerned and state your position which will be given due consideration and weighed against whatever other legitimate concerns may be appropriate. If your position is valid you will be granted the "right" to do as you want and if it isn't then you will have to go elsewhere.

That is how the system works and I haven't seen you post anything that would be any different under the BCSA.

Fine. If you're leaving it up to me to satisfy you, I think you're going to be really disappointed. Now you can choose to get into the spirit of the exercise proposed in the OP and make your argument for why your argument is better or you probably won't have much fun with this thread. I have no obligation to provide evidence for an expressed opinion, and you have every right to offer an argument for why my opinion is wrong and, if you choose to do so, can offer your evidence to support your argument.

Certainly the Founders did a lot of that hammering out their Constitution as they were not in agreement on many things and kept at it until they arrived at a concept they could all live with.

You made the following claim;

"New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all."​

How exactly do you place property rights above the right to vote and/or free speech for example? If someone has no property and therefore no property rights does this mean that they have no free speech or voting rights either?

 

[Foxfyre]

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all.

Assumes facts not in evidence. How does protecting an endangered species mean that you have no rights at all? Are you prevented from speaking out about it? Are you prevented from voting? Are you denied the right bear arms, assemble, lobby?

Which rights have you lost?

Don't you get tired of saying 'assumes facts not in evidence' most especially when it is totally non sequitur to the point being made?

What part of being denied the right to use my property for the purpose it was legally acquired do you not understand? And both of us can find many facts in evidence in which that has been the case using the most cursory of Google searches. THAT is the issue I have been discussing. What have you been discussing?

Since zero evidence was provided that any rights whatsoever had been lost it was extremely apt to use it in that instance.

If you are getting "tired" of it then perhaps by providing actual credible evidence to back up your claims you would deprive me of the need to use it as often. How about we try that in future?

Your "right" to use your property is constrained by law. That is part of the purchase contract that you agreed to when you took possession of it. You agreed to abide by those laws under the terms required by whichever authorities have jurisdiction for that property.

You cannot invent "rights" that you don't have for your property. If you want unconstrained "rights" to your property you are going to have to look elsewhere on the planet because all property that falls under the jurisdiction of the We the People falls under the Law of the Land.

Given all of the above are you simply objecting because your property comes with legitimate constraints that ensure that no one else is harmed by your use of your property? If you don't like those constraints you do have the right to lobby any and all of the authorities concerned and state your position which will be given due consideration and weighed against whatever other legitimate concerns may be appropriate. If your position is valid you will be granted the "right" to do as you want and if it isn't then you will have to go elsewhere.

That is how the system works and I haven't seen you post anything that would be any different under the BCSA.

Fine. If you're leaving it up to me to satisfy you, I think you're going to be really disappointed. Now you can choose to get into the spirit of the exercise proposed in the OP and make your argument for why your argument is better or you probably won't have much fun with this thread. I have no obligation to provide evidence for an expressed opinion, and you have every right to offer an argument for why my opinion is wrong and, if you choose to do so, can offer your evidence to support your argument.

Certainly the Founders did a lot of that hammering out their Constitution as they were not in agreement on many things and kept at it until they arrived at a concept they could all live with.

You made the following claim;

"New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all."​

How exactly do you place property rights above the right to vote and/or free speech for example? If someone has no property and therefore no property rights does this mean that they have no free speech or voting rights either?

Since I believe rights exist whether or not we have ability to exercise them, I should have said if property rights are not inviolate, then nothing is. The government can infringe on any of our rights it chooses to restrict.

A government that has the power to deny us our property rights is a government who can take deny us any rights. The USA was put together under the concept that the rights rest with the people and the people assign the government whatever authority and power it can exercise. If property is not inviolate where the central government is concerned, nothing is.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Assumes facts not in evidence. How does protecting an endangered species mean that you have no rights at all? Are you prevented from speaking out about it? Are you prevented from voting? Are you denied the right bear arms, assemble, lobby?

Which rights have you lost?

Don't you get tired of saying 'assumes facts not in evidence' most especially when it is totally non sequitur to the point being made?

What part of being denied the right to use my property for the purpose it was legally acquired do you not understand? And both of us can find many facts in evidence in which that has been the case using the most cursory of Google searches. THAT is the issue I have been discussing. What have you been discussing?

Since zero evidence was provided that any rights whatsoever had been lost it was extremely apt to use it in that instance.

If you are getting "tired" of it then perhaps by providing actual credible evidence to back up your claims you would deprive me of the need to use it as often. How about we try that in future?

Your "right" to use your property is constrained by law. That is part of the purchase contract that you agreed to when you took possession of it. You agreed to abide by those laws under the terms required by whichever authorities have jurisdiction for that property.

You cannot invent "rights" that you don't have for your property. If you want unconstrained "rights" to your property you are going to have to look elsewhere on the planet because all property that falls under the jurisdiction of the We the People falls under the Law of the Land.

Given all of the above are you simply objecting because your property comes with legitimate constraints that ensure that no one else is harmed by your use of your property? If you don't like those constraints you do have the right to lobby any and all of the authorities concerned and state your position which will be given due consideration and weighed against whatever other legitimate concerns may be appropriate. If your position is valid you will be granted the "right" to do as you want and if it isn't then you will have to go elsewhere.

That is how the system works and I haven't seen you post anything that would be any different under the BCSA.

Fine. If you're leaving it up to me to satisfy you, I think you're going to be really disappointed. Now you can choose to get into the spirit of the exercise proposed in the OP and make your argument for why your argument is better or you probably won't have much fun with this thread. I have no obligation to provide evidence for an expressed opinion, and you have every right to offer an argument for why my opinion is wrong and, if you choose to do so, can offer your evidence to support your argument.

Certainly the Founders did a lot of that hammering out their Constitution as they were not in agreement on many things and kept at it until they arrived at a concept they could all live with.

You made the following claim;

"New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all."​

How exactly do you place property rights above the right to vote and/or free speech for example? If someone has no property and therefore no property rights does this mean that they have no free speech or voting rights either?

Since I believe rights exist whether or not we have ability to exercise them, I should have said if property rights are not inviolate, then nothing is. The government can infringe on any of our rights it chooses to restrict.

A government that has the power to deny us our property rights is a government who can take deny us any rights. The USA was put together under the concept that the rights rest with the people and the people assign the government whatever authority and power it can exercise. If property is not inviolate where the central government is concerned, nothing is.

Property rights are no more of less inviolate than any other right. Does a convicted criminal have a 2A right to bear arms? If they don't then there is no such thing as an inviolate right of any sort.

So let me understand where you are coming from.

In your hypothetical BCSA a convicted criminal would have a 2A to own a firearm because what is a firearm if not just another type of property?

Please confirm that is your position because a lot is hanging on where exactly this topic goes from here and I most certainly don't want to be accused of making the wrong assumptions about where you actually stand on the concept of inviolate property rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

When you file suit you leave it up to a judge, and sometimes a jury, to determine whether any party has been injured or whether there are damages. That can be handled quite nicely at the local level.

Even better the folks from both the towns can get together and work out something that is satisfactory to both without getting the courts involved.

As a representative of my state I will work hard to see that New America restores that kind of power to the people to work out and keep the federal government out of it.

There was never a question of whether there should be some sort of "judge", I wasn't aware that you had instituted a court system in your country yet. The question is about jurisdiction. How big an area does this judge cover, and is each judge totally autonomous, or do they answer to a centralized set of laws that fairly apply to the entire country?

It is my hope for New America that centralized laws will be extremely limited, far and few between. If that is not the case, then there really won't be much reason to secede.

You do see that centralized laws are necessary though, and the bigger and more complex the country is, the bigger and more complex those laws have to be. Otherwise, only the rich will control everything. We haven't even discussed the problems with corporations and how they aren't really concerned with the "GOOD NEIGHBOR" vibe that you seem to think your country will exude.

The New America I envision will employ a free market capitalism that allows all who choose to do so to prosper legally, ethically, and within their moral convictions. Under a regulated capitalism that keeps everybody as honest and ethical as possible, there is advantage to all for everybody to prosper. There will be a role for the federal government to regulate what the states and local communicates cannot realistically regulate, but that will be a teensy role compared to what the government is now.

Wow!

Did I read that correctly?

You are advocating for a well regulated capitalist economy?

Please expound on more of these advantages for the BCSA. I want to hear how you see this happening in real life. How will you constrain corruption and pollution?

Corruption and pollution will be local and state issues except in cases in which they cross state lines in a way that the states themselves cannot realistically regulate. For instance, the Rio Grande water is shared by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas thus regulation of the Rio Grande, its general health, and how much water each state is entitled to realistically has to be managed by the central government. But aquifers and lakes wholly contained within a given state would not be within federal jurisdiction to regulate or control.

Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms.

 

[BlackSand]

Piss on it ... Travel to a foreign country and make your own rules.
Let the folks here in the states squabble about what is right a good for everyone ... And make your corner of the world perfect by your design.
It is a lot easier to accomplish when people are not fighting you and want the better business, higher revenues and to establish a protection of rights or the environment.

Sorry ... But I don't think any place or system will work in this country ... Especially if anyone thinks a government can secure what is best for us.
Better to go to a place where they are looking for answers ... Are willing to make tough choices ... And are more interested in accomplishing something than fighting over votes.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There was never a question of whether there should be some sort of "judge", I wasn't aware that you had instituted a court system in your country yet. The question is about jurisdiction. How big an area does this judge cover, and is each judge totally autonomous, or do they answer to a centralized set of laws that fairly apply to the entire country?

It is my hope for New America that centralized laws will be extremely limited, far and few between. If that is not the case, then there really won't be much reason to secede.

You do see that centralized laws are necessary though, and the bigger and more complex the country is, the bigger and more complex those laws have to be. Otherwise, only the rich will control everything. We haven't even discussed the problems with corporations and how they aren't really concerned with the "GOOD NEIGHBOR" vibe that you seem to think your country will exude.

The New America I envision will employ a free market capitalism that allows all who choose to do so to prosper legally, ethically, and within their moral convictions. Under a regulated capitalism that keeps everybody as honest and ethical as possible, there is advantage to all for everybody to prosper. There will be a role for the federal government to regulate what the states and local communicates cannot realistically regulate, but that will be a teensy role compared to what the government is now.

Wow!

Did I read that correctly?

You are advocating for a well regulated capitalist economy?

Please expound on more of these advantages for the BCSA. I want to hear how you see this happening in real life. How will you constrain corruption and pollution?

Corruption and pollution will be local and state issues except in cases in which they cross state lines in a way that the states themselves cannot realistically regulate. For instance, the Rio Grande water is shared by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas thus regulation of the Rio Grande, its general health, and how much water each state is entitled to realistically has to be managed by the central government. But aquifers and lakes wholly contained within a given state would not be within federal jurisdiction to regulate or control.

Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms.

So if NM decides that convicted felons can have guns in their jail cells and one of them is to be extradicted to CO that doesn't allow convicted felons serving time to have guns who takes the gun away from the felon?

Wouldn't it be a violation of NM property rights to take it away before sending them to CO?

How will CO feel about having to take control over a fully armed felon from the NM authorities?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

What will happen when a convicted felon sues CO and claims that he has a right to bear arms?

 

[BULLDOG]

It is my hope for New America that centralized laws will be extremely limited, far and few between. If that is not the case, then there really won't be much reason to secede.

You do see that centralized laws are necessary though, and the bigger and more complex the country is, the bigger and more complex those laws have to be. Otherwise, only the rich will control everything. We haven't even discussed the problems with corporations and how they aren't really concerned with the "GOOD NEIGHBOR" vibe that you seem to think your country will exude.

The New America I envision will employ a free market capitalism that allows all who choose to do so to prosper legally, ethically, and within their moral convictions. Under a regulated capitalism that keeps everybody as honest and ethical as possible, there is advantage to all for everybody to prosper. There will be a role for the federal government to regulate what the states and local communicates cannot realistically regulate, but that will be a teensy role compared to what the government is now.

Wow!

Did I read that correctly?

You are advocating for a well regulated capitalist economy?

Please expound on more of these advantages for the BCSA. I want to hear how you see this happening in real life. How will you constrain corruption and pollution?

Corruption and pollution will be local and state issues except in cases in which they cross state lines in a way that the states themselves cannot realistically regulate. For instance, the Rio Grande water is shared by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas thus regulation of the Rio Grande, its general health, and how much water each state is entitled to realistically has to be managed by the central government. But aquifers and lakes wholly contained within a given state would not be within federal jurisdiction to regulate or control.

Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms.

So if NM decides that convicted felons can have guns in their jail cells and one of them is to be extradicted to CO that doesn't allow convicted felons serving time to have guns who takes the gun away from the felon?

Wouldn't it be a violation of NM property rights to take it away before sending them to CO?

How will CO feel about having to take control over a fully armed felon from the NM authorities?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

What will happen when a convicted felon sues CO and claims that he has a right to bear arms?

Damn you're making things complicated. It would be so much easier to just say " Guns Good....Regulation Bad " . That wouldn't deal with all the problems that the country would inevitably have, but it would be easier for the silly people who might think this idea makes any sense at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

I explained the intent of my post. I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but if you will not accept the explanation, then we will have no further discussions, okay?

There are some toxic materials that are so dangerous--say highly radioactive material--that I can see regulation of that as being the prerogative of the federal government. And the federal government would have justification to regulate any shared air, water, land, etc. that cross state lines and therefore would not be practical for the states to regulate.

But so far as paint or other similar toxins common to human life go, the state or local community should decide how to handle that. It should not be a prerogative of the federal government to do. My rights to use and enjoy my property end when that affects the ability of my neighbor to use and enjoy his property or otherwise violates his rights.

Fair enough but we are right back where we started again.

Everything you just posted is already available under the current law of the land. Where is the need for this "liberty" that you perceive is somehow missing?

The example of having the "liberty" to do as you please on your own land has already been trumped by your own response establishing that individuals don't have the "liberty" to do anything that will impose on the rights of others. I don't have the right to destroy the habitat of an endangered species on my own land because others have the right to enjoy the continued existence of that species.

I am still not seeing any "advantage" to the BCSA that doesn't already exist.

Maybe you missed the illustration I provided to make my point? Try reading it again. My right to the use and enjoyment of my property trumps your right to enjoy whatever exists on my property. However, most people enjoy having those endangered critters around and will actually try to protect them UNLESS their existence ruins their property values or they are prohibited from enjoying their right to use and enjoy their property.

New America must put property rights first or the people have no rights at all. The existing government no longer respects such rights and that is why we are seceding in the first place.

There are proven reasons why the extinction of species is detrimental to humanity as a whole. That's why the US and much of the world has an endangered species list. Should those that don't see all species as necessary to our ecosystem be allowed to harm that entire ecosystem because it is on their land? How is that different from the pig farmer whose smell is harming the people in the next town. Both can show where harm is being done.

But the brutal fact is that those who enjoy the prestige of having rare and endangered species on their property are far more likely to respect and preserve that species if they aren't forced to sacrifice their investment in their property because that species exists. A small infringement on the habitat of something is a far less risk to that something than is a land owner who can lose his entire investment if it is known that species exists there.

So the existence of a rare species whose extinction will affect the entire ecosystem is dependent on whose land the creature decides to stop? If they respect and preserve a species, the requirement to do that probably wouldn't be a problem. It's the ones who don't really care that need the guidance.

Any species who depends on a handful of land owners for its existence is doomed anyway.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is my hope for New America that centralized laws will be extremely limited, far and few between. If that is not the case, then there really won't be much reason to secede.

You do see that centralized laws are necessary though, and the bigger and more complex the country is, the bigger and more complex those laws have to be. Otherwise, only the rich will control everything. We haven't even discussed the problems with corporations and how they aren't really concerned with the "GOOD NEIGHBOR" vibe that you seem to think your country will exude.

The New America I envision will employ a free market capitalism that allows all who choose to do so to prosper legally, ethically, and within their moral convictions. Under a regulated capitalism that keeps everybody as honest and ethical as possible, there is advantage to all for everybody to prosper. There will be a role for the federal government to regulate what the states and local communicates cannot realistically regulate, but that will be a teensy role compared to what the government is now.

Wow!

Did I read that correctly?

You are advocating for a well regulated capitalist economy?

Please expound on more of these advantages for the BCSA. I want to hear how you see this happening in real life. How will you constrain corruption and pollution?

Corruption and pollution will be local and state issues except in cases in which they cross state lines in a way that the states themselves cannot realistically regulate. For instance, the Rio Grande water is shared by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas thus regulation of the Rio Grande, its general health, and how much water each state is entitled to realistically has to be managed by the central government. But aquifers and lakes wholly contained within a given state would not be within federal jurisdiction to regulate or control.

Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms.

So if NM decides that convicted felons can have guns in their jail cells and one of them is to be extradicted to CO that doesn't allow convicted felons serving time to have guns who takes the gun away from the felon?

Wouldn't it be a violation of NM property rights to take it away before sending them to CO?

How will CO feel about having to take control over a fully armed felon from the NM authorities?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

What will happen when a convicted felon sues CO and claims that he has a right to bear arms?

I would presume that Colorado would not agree to take custody of a fully armed felon. I give people credit for not being total idiots. I believe, as the Founders did, that a free people will much more often get it right than wrong. I don't believe that those in the central government are any more pure or noble or smart than is the average man taking care of his business and his family and being a good citizen in his community or those who choose to be public servants in that community. People have been doing the right thing without government telling them to for a very long time.

 

[Foxfyre]

Piss on it ... Travel to a foreign country and make your own rules.
Let the folks here in the states squabble about what is right a good for everyone ... And make your corner of the world perfect by your design.
It is a lot easier to accomplish when people are not fighting you and want the better business, higher revenues and to establish a protection of rights or the environment.

Sorry ... But I don't think any place or system will work in this country ... Especially if anyone thinks a government can secure what is best for us.
Better to go to a place where they are looking for answers ... Are willing to make tough choices ... And are more interested in accomplishing something than fighting over votes.

.

Oh come on BlackSand. I too am jaded when it comes to trust in government, but we have no assurance than anyplace else would have people longing for liberty and the right to be who and what they are any more than here. But get into the spirit of the exercise here. As I told somebody else I don't easily concede that something can't be done however difficult it is, and the impossible requires even more effort.

But the exercise in possibilities can be fun.

I am already willing to compromise and concede that we won't be able to get all 50 states as some folks will not ever agree to give up an enormous powerful authoritarian government and allow the people to govern themselves. But hope springs eternal that there are enough freedom loving people left to populate a New America. But even those need to agree on some basic concepts of what will go into a new Constitution and decide how important that is to them for we can make our official Declaration of Independence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You do see that centralized laws are necessary though, and the bigger and more complex the country is, the bigger and more complex those laws have to be. Otherwise, only the rich will control everything. We haven't even discussed the problems with corporations and how they aren't really concerned with the "GOOD NEIGHBOR" vibe that you seem to think your country will exude.

The New America I envision will employ a free market capitalism that allows all who choose to do so to prosper legally, ethically, and within their moral convictions. Under a regulated capitalism that keeps everybody as honest and ethical as possible, there is advantage to all for everybody to prosper. There will be a role for the federal government to regulate what the states and local communicates cannot realistically regulate, but that will be a teensy role compared to what the government is now.

Wow!

Did I read that correctly?

You are advocating for a well regulated capitalist economy?

Please expound on more of these advantages for the BCSA. I want to hear how you see this happening in real life. How will you constrain corruption and pollution?

Corruption and pollution will be local and state issues except in cases in which they cross state lines in a way that the states themselves cannot realistically regulate. For instance, the Rio Grande water is shared by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas thus regulation of the Rio Grande, its general health, and how much water each state is entitled to realistically has to be managed by the central government. But aquifers and lakes wholly contained within a given state would not be within federal jurisdiction to regulate or control.

Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms.

So if NM decides that convicted felons can have guns in their jail cells and one of them is to be extradicted to CO that doesn't allow convicted felons serving time to have guns who takes the gun away from the felon?

Wouldn't it be a violation of NM property rights to take it away before sending them to CO?

How will CO feel about having to take control over a fully armed felon from the NM authorities?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

What will happen when a convicted felon sues CO and claims that he has a right to bear arms?

I would presume that Colorado would not agree to take custody of a fully armed felon. I give people credit for not being total idiots. I believe, as the Founders did, that a free people will much more often get it right than wrong. I don't believe that those in the central government are any more pure or noble or smart than is the average man taking care of his business and his family and being a good citizen in his community or those who choose to be public servants in that community. People have been doing the right thing without government telling them to for a very long time.

Noble sentiments in order to avoid answering this question?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

 

[Foxfyre]

The New America I envision will employ a free market capitalism that allows all who choose to do so to prosper legally, ethically, and within their moral convictions. Under a regulated capitalism that keeps everybody as honest and ethical as possible, there is advantage to all for everybody to prosper. There will be a role for the federal government to regulate what the states and local communicates cannot realistically regulate, but that will be a teensy role compared to what the government is now.

Wow!

Did I read that correctly?

You are advocating for a well regulated capitalist economy?

Please expound on more of these advantages for the BCSA. I want to hear how you see this happening in real life. How will you constrain corruption and pollution?

Corruption and pollution will be local and state issues except in cases in which they cross state lines in a way that the states themselves cannot realistically regulate. For instance, the Rio Grande water is shared by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas thus regulation of the Rio Grande, its general health, and how much water each state is entitled to realistically has to be managed by the central government. But aquifers and lakes wholly contained within a given state would not be within federal jurisdiction to regulate or control.

Also it must be left up to the states to determine whether a felon is to be allowed possession of firearms.

So if NM decides that convicted felons can have guns in their jail cells and one of them is to be extradicted to CO that doesn't allow convicted felons serving time to have guns who takes the gun away from the felon?

Wouldn't it be a violation of NM property rights to take it away before sending them to CO?

How will CO feel about having to take control over a fully armed felon from the NM authorities?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

What will happen when a convicted felon sues CO and claims that he has a right to bear arms?

I would presume that Colorado would not agree to take custody of a fully armed felon. I give people credit for not being total idiots. I believe, as the Founders did, that a free people will much more often get it right than wrong. I don't believe that those in the central government are any more pure or noble or smart than is the average man taking care of his business and his family and being a good citizen in his community or those who choose to be public servants in that community. People have been doing the right thing without government telling them to for a very long time.

Noble sentiments in order to avoid answering this question?

How many people do you imagine will uphold the right of a convicted felon to have a gun in his possession at all times?

I don't know and really don't care within the context of this thread. I would guess nobody though. You've raised the issue, but I don't see that it is necessary to make that a component of a new Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I don't see it as a grievance that we have against the existing federal government.

So make your case for why that needs to be in the new Constitution if you can. What I think about it is irrelevent.