The Solution

[Flopsweat]

The "Lemming" party?

No... That's something different.

Traditionally, the US has been a two party system. With a few exceptions of third parties which were never successful. Splitting either of the two existing major parties will cause the remaining unsplit party to win. The system is set up for winner-take-all. The two splits of a major party will never win.

In most parliamentary systems, deals can be brokered where lesser political parties are able to share power. To some extent. That doesn't work in our two party system. Here, tradition has become institutionalized.

In some places in the US, we have a nominal two party system. That is, one of the parties becomes so dominant that its opposition has become token.

When Donald Trump pulled off a hostile takeover of the GOP, some people thought the future of the party was doomed. That idea may have been premature, based on the recent elections. Everyone was set up to expect massive losses in the House and figured on losing the Senate. In the House, the GOP actually narrowed the gap; we have yet to see the results of the GA elections, so control of the Senate is still up in the air. But there was no massive loss by the GOP in the Senate in any case. As I see it, the power struggle between the two parties these days is a matter of demographics.

Right now Republican candidates seem to benefit from traditional and habitual Republican voters as well as the new MAGA voters (many of whom are both). Neither is a given in the future.

 

[Soli]

In actual societies there aren't any unalienable rights.

People do and will always violate rights. The only questions are how often and who does it/has it done to them. Trying to codify, make law, the complete preservation of unalienable rights, the "line that won't be crossed" is futile. It's actually counter productive: it creates a mindset whereby "the law" is the master of... everything. We end up only thinking in terms of "the law" defining society. But unalienable rights only actually work when the culture supports them.

An example: my wife and I are walking, someone approaches and starts to say the most vile things to my wife. We tell him to stop, we try to walk away. He follows, continuing the harangue; we can't get away except by leaving off what we are doing and fleeing the entire area. Now, in my view I should be able to inflict enough physical pain on the guy to get him to shut up.

IMO most believers in free speech would agree with my view. Note: I'M a believer in free speech.

I challenge you to codify that, make a law, (me shutting him up) in a way that preserves free speech. I know what some say, it's the gov that can't stop "free speech", private talk is not it, blah blah blah. But that's all BS, here in the real world free speech only really matters if we Come From (70s hippy talk here lol), if our Ground Of Being is, that speech is a right that I (not just the gov) shouldn't infringe, that in day to day living I can't stop you from expressing what you think, can't infringe on your free speech.

Even as I infringe it by punching the guy in the face till he shuts up.

I'm a hypocrite; I believe in free speech and an extensive array of manners that stifle the bubblegum out of free speech.

We have come to a point where we try to substitute law for custom and culture. It's a bad substitute. It guts culture, "the law" becomes the culture. So we get to where we legislate manners ("hate" speech), as if that's what the law is for.

I don't know the solution, but I do know that any solution will be cultural. It won't be legal.

Yeah, reading this over it's... meh... trying to put into words what's been in my head for a few years now and doing it poorly. To the OP this is written with respect. Not getting on you at all.

 

[Flopsweat]

In actual societies there aren't any unalienable rights.

People do and will always violate rights. The only questions are how often and who does it/has it done to them. Trying to codify, make law, the complete preservation of unalienable rights, the "line that won't be crossed" is futile. It's actually counter productive: it creates a mindset whereby "the law" is the master of... everything. We end up only thinking in terms of "the law" defining society. But unalienable rights only actually work when the culture supports them.

An example: my wife and I are walking, someone approaches and starts to say the most vile things to my wife. We tell him to stop, we try to walk away. He follows, continuing the harangue; we can't get away except by leaving off what we are doing and fleeing the entire area. Now, in my view I should be able to inflict enough physical pain on the guy to get him to shut up.

IMO most believers in free speech would agree with my view. Note: I'M a believer in free speech.

I challenge you to codify that, make a law, (me shutting him up) in a way that preserves free speech. I know what some say, it's the gov that can't stop "free speech", private talk is not it, blah blah blah. But that's all BS, here in the real world free speech only really matters if we Come From (70s hippy talk here lol), if our Ground Of Being is, that speech is a right that I (not just the gov) shouldn't infringe, that in day to day living I can't stop you from expressing what you think, can't infringe on your free speech.

Even as I infringe it by punching the guy in the face till he shuts up.

I'm a hypocrite; I believe in free speech and an extensive array of manners that stifle the bubblegum out of free speech.

We have come to a point where we try to substitute law for custom and culture. It's a bad substitute. It guts culture, "the law" becomes the culture. So we get to where we legislate manners ("hate" speech), as if that's what the law is for.

I don't know the solution, but I do know that any solution will be cultural. It won't be legal.

Yeah, reading this over it's... meh... trying to put into words what's been in my head for a few years now and doing it poorly. To the OP this is written with utmost respect to you and your view (which I probably largely share). Not getting on you at all.

I'm OK with your scenario. The guy had it coming. You took a risk. This doesn't mean what you did is legal. In your scenario you could still be charged. Whether a jury would hold you accountable is another matter.

 

[The Resister]

In actual societies there aren't any unalienable rights.

People do and will always violate rights. The only questions are how often and who does it/has it done to them. Trying to codify, make law, the complete preservation of unalienable rights, the "line that won't be crossed" is futile. It's actually counter productive: it creates a mindset whereby "the law" is the master of... everything. We end up only thinking in terms of "the law" defining society. But unalienable rights only actually work when the culture supports them.

An example: my wife and I are walking, someone approaches and starts to say the most vile things to my wife. We tell him to stop, we try to walk away. He follows, continuing the harangue; we can't get away except by leaving off what we are doing and fleeing the entire area. Now, in my view I should be able to inflict enough physical pain on the guy to get him to shut up.

IMO most believers in free speech would agree with my view. Note: I'M a believer in free speech.

I challenge you to codify that, make a law, (me shutting him up) in a way that preserves free speech. I know what some say, it's the gov that can't stop "free speech", private talk is not it, blah blah blah. But that's all BS, here in the real world free speech only really matters if we Come From (70s hippy talk here lol), if our Ground Of Being is, that speech is a right that I (not just the gov) shouldn't infringe, that in day to day living I can't stop you from expressing what you think, can't infringe on your free speech.

Even as I infringe it by punching the guy in the face till he shuts up.

I'm a hypocrite; I believe in free speech and an extensive array of manners that stifle the bubblegum out of free speech.

We have come to a point where we try to substitute law for custom and culture. It's a bad substitute. It guts culture, "the law" becomes the culture. So we get to where we legislate manners ("hate" speech), as if that's what the law is for.

I don't know the solution, but I do know that any solution will be cultural. It won't be legal.

Yeah, reading this over it's... meh... trying to put into words what's been in my head for a few years now and doing it poorly. To the OP this is written with utmost respect to you and your view (which I probably largely share). Not getting on you at all.

Had you read all the comments found in the Charter of the Rights of Man, that absolutist argument was dealt with and debunked. For those who want to take the time, the link is: https://libertarians.freeforums.net/thread/1358/blueprint-begins

Replies #15 through # 30 revolve around this very issue, so to repeat it would be like trying to reinvent the wheel. A former slave once had this to say about change in general:

"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." Frederick Douglass

I almost envy the left. They are not afraid of the work it takes to create the society they are committed to. Those who find fault with the Charter of the Rights of Man have nothing. I suppose if it makes people feel good to make logical fallacies, straw man arguments, etc. then they will continue to do so. It's either you read the document and agree with it or you don't. Our forefathers pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor based upon their commitment to a given interpretation of Liberty that went back to the Magna Charta and even into biblical concepts about Freedom and Liberty. If you choose to live under a yoke of bondage, then I can only say good luck. I'm working off a blueprint, the principles of which have been successful on more than one occasion over a period of over a thousand years plus.

 

[Ferryman]

There is an old legal cliche that states a contract is only worth the money you're willing to spend to defend it. The US Constitution is a contract between the government and the people, and as far as I can tell, the current crop of Americans are not willing to pony up the ante that is required to defend this contract.

 

[The Resister]

There is an old legal cliche that states a contract is only worth the money you're willing to spend to defend it. The US Constitution is a contract between the government and the people, and as far as I can tell, the current crop of Americans are not willing to pony up the ante that is required to defend this contract.

You are right. THAT is what necessitated the Charter of the Rights of Man. We've already had one president to say that Constitution "was nothing except a G.D. piece of paper". He didn't abbreviate it either. The proposed Charter of the Rights of Man rectifies that in the same way the Declaration of Independence resolved the issues the colonists had with King George. The second draft of that document is at:

The Blueprint begins NOW (Second Draft) | Libertarian's Forum (freeforums.net)

 

[The Resister]

FWIW, the Charter has been revised for a third draft:

The Blueprint Begins NOW (THIRD DRAFT) | Libertarian's Forum (freeforums.net)

 

[Stomper]

No constitution or charter has any teeth but our teeth.... I suggest those of you in Georgia find the likes of Stacy Abrams, your sorry Goobernor, AG, and SoS and use your teeth upon them..... talk time is nearly over.

 

[The Resister]

No constitution or charter has any teeth but our teeth.... I suggest those of you in Georgia find the likes of Stacy Abrams, your sorry Goobernor, AG, and SoS and use your teeth upon them..... talk time is nearly over.

The time for talk IS over. The Charter is the notification to the government that we are united in claiming our Rights. Additionally, for those who sign, they know that other people have their back if / when any entity and / or individual seeks to jeopardize unalienable Rights. This IS the historical solution that works.

 

[Stomper]

But what is always lacking in these bold declarations is just HOW do you plan to claim them there rights?

 

[The Resister]

But what is always lacking in these bold declarations is just HOW do you plan to claim them there rights?

Something was lost in translation. Look dude. We laid it on the line in the Charter (and the revised drafts). We get specific. What Rights, if any, do YOU believe in? The Charter puts patriots on the same page. Let me give you an analogy:

Years ago I was sponsoring a patriot group. One night a news reporter came in and heard the crowd complaining about universal health care. There were at least 60 of us. The reported listened and took notes intently. Then she asked, "What does this group propose instead?" It became so silent you could hear my heartbeat from 10 feet away.

IF you believe in that Charter, you will ultimately sign it. IF you sign it, you have committed yourself to defend exactly what is in that Charter. Your word is your bond and there is NO mistake as to what will get you off your rump and IN the fight if / when the government tries to jeopardize the Rights you are committed to protecting. In addition, the government is being issued a notice. If they attempt to enforce any law that conflicts with the Rights in that Charter, we will not comply and will defend anyone that is put into jeopardy for noncompliance.

So, what are your alternatives? Most Americans have never read the Declaration of Independence; most Americans reject the principles therein; and the Constitution means 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what the framers intended. For all intents and purposes it doesn't exist any more. Sir, you rebuild your house, starting with a blueprint. Imagine if 20 guys went to build a house with no blueprint and most with a different idea about the house. What do you think the outcome would be? Without a political blueprint (and I called for one a couple of decades ago) one only need look at recent events to see how that played out. My own view of that is it didn't have to be like that. You gotta have a plan.

 

[Stomper]

That's all great, but WHAT does "defend" mean? Vote? File lawsuits? Physical combat?


The vast majority lack the stones or wherewithal to take it to the mat. Just sayin'.

 

[Ironbar]

Currently there are 40,000+ federal, state, county, and city statutes, rules, regulations, Executive Orders, edicts, statutes, court holdings, etc. regarding the Right to keep and bear Arms. Personally, I believe that the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right. At the same time I have to acknowledge that the legal community (therefore the courts) do not recognize unalienable Rights. Those were preempted by the 14th Amendment and the word unalienable was removed from Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative law dictionary accepted in American courts).

For a host of reasons my personal opinion is that we cannot rely on the Constitution either. It has been attacked mercilessly. We have ex post facto laws; we changed our form of government by allowing for the direct election of U.S. Senators; the courts have reduced the Right to keep and bear Arms down to a mere privilege. I'd have a long laundry list if I told you why the Constitution is no longer practical. But, I do more than complain. For example, here is a link to a proposed Charter of the Rights of Man:

The Blueprint Begins NOW | Libertarian's Forum (freeforums.net)

Unless and until we define our Rights and assert them we are doomed to be in a revolving door of legislation and fights to protect the Right to keep and bear Arms. Every so often in history it is necessary to reduce your Rights to writing and a number of dedicated people have to be willing to support the idea in both spirit and deeds.

You had me right up until paragraph 4. Your choice not to vaccinate IS endangering other people, and that infringes on MY right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

 

[GWS]

You had me right up until paragraph 4. Your choice not to vaccinate IS endangering other people, and that infringes on MY right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Assuming you are vaccinated, how does his refusal to vaccinate infringe your right to life?

 

[The Resister]

That's all great, but WHAT does "defend" mean? Vote? File lawsuits? Physical combat?


The vast majority lack the stones or wherewithal to take it to the mat. Just sayin'.

In the context of the Charter, defend would mean that you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. You would employ passive resistance (refusal to register or surrender your firearm (s) and civil disobedience (like buying and selling without going through "legal" hoops to exercise the Right), and acting as a defense force in order to protect your Rights if necessary.

Biden is going to make sure that the door to Liberty by way of the ballot box is closed as he gives citizenship to millions of undocumented foreigners. So, yeah, do your civic duty and vote, but bear in mind that as going to be about as effective as a eunuch in a brothel. File lawsuits, start working toward Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities, FULLY EDUCATE YOURSELF, organize neighborhood watch groups that can be easily retooled into functioning militia units, and develop a network so that when the government breaches the Rights of anyone, every one of us responds. Take a look at the left. Even an infringement no more than a misdemeanor is cause for a major effort to hold the government accountable.

 

[The Resister]

You had me right up until paragraph 4. Your choice not to vaccinate IS endangering other people, and that infringes on MY right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

I cannot take vaccinations. It could mean my life. Even if I did, I could still be a carrier and you'd still be in danger. Vaccinations are not for your protection, they are for the protection of the person taking the vaccination. Remember, they are putting the disease in your body with the vaccination.

 

[Stomper]

You had me right up until paragraph 4. Your choice not to vaccinate IS endangering other people, and that infringes on MY right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

I could argue (based on today's psychotic SJW bullschit logic and tactics) that by you having the ability to procreate infringes on MY right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... producing a potential future criminal, ward of the state, resource consumer, and contributor to "climate change" endangers all of us.

Therefore, for the good of all, vasectomies and tubal ligations will be mandatory. Failure or refusal to comply will result in revocation of your driver license, passport, and any/all government services you may be receiving or will receive in the future until such time as you comply.

This just shows that most people have no problem whatsoever with tyranny.... as long as it's THEIR brand of tyranny in effect.


See the slippery slope your thought process makes? It's fueled by fear and/or greed.

 

[The Resister]

"Unalienable Rights are those Rights that are above the reach of man."

This is what I like most about Libertarians, and this, to me is the most important issue of our time. We need to establish, once and for all (I know, but we must do our very best) clearly defined limits. Limits that are not subject to "yes, but". No buts, no ifs ands or maybes. You do not cross this line. No one does.

I watched an episode of Dr. Phil and he reminded me of your post. The terminology, according to Dr. Phil, is that when someone says yes, but it really means forget all I just said before the word but. You are absolutely right. There is no yes, but. Saying but cancels out all you said previous to saying the word but. Thank you for that post.

 

[Ironbar]

I could argue (based on today's psychotic SJW bullschit logic and tactics) that by you having the ability to procreate infringes on MY right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... producing a potential future criminal, ward of the state, resource consumer, and contributor to "climate change" endangers all of us.

Therefore, for the good of all, vasectomies and tubal ligations will be mandatory. Failure or refusal to comply will result in revocation of your driver license, passport, and any/all government services you may be receiving or will receive in the future until such time as you comply.

This just shows that most people have no problem whatsoever with tyranny.... as long as it's THEIR brand of tyranny in effect.


See the slippery slope your thought process makes? It's fueled by fear and/or greed.

This is the kind of post that makes me hate both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[Stomper]

This is the kind of post that makes me hate both sides of the political spectrum.

I know, right?