This Just In--Of Drained Resevoirs

[jvquarterback]

Individuals (and their liberties and property) exist prior to the state. What right do you have to remove someone who does not accept the Constitution? The founders acknowledged that defect of the Constitution. But you seem to know so much more than them, sort of like our current and most recent presidents.

Yeah, so your reading comprehension is still lacking. SpiffCoug said nothing about removing people who don't accept the Constitution. I know you wish he said that, so that's how you interpreted it, but he didn't say that. Your ability to read people as saying something they never said simply because you want it to be there is quite astonishing.

Nice. Now let's see what spiff has to say about his point. Given past posts I feel pretty sure of my interpretation. But spiff why don't you settle a little dispute between sno and I: What did you mean by "Those who choose not [to accept the Constitution], may leave the country?"

[Lawboy]

Actually, if you are in the the USA, by virtue of your mere presence here, you are presumed to have accepted the Constitution as the binding law of he land, and the force that binds you to its law. You really have no choice or say in the matter, other than to leave the country. Staying means consent. And if you do not understand that fact, that reality, then you would rather tilt at fictional windmills than deal in cold, hard facts.

[jvquarterback]

Actually, if you are in the the USA, by virtue of your mere presence here, you are presumed to have accepted the Constitution as the binding law of he land, and the force that binds you to its law. You really have no choice or say in the matter, other than to leave the country. Staying means consent.

And you call that a contract?

[snoscythe]

Verse 2:"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."

Verse 2 of section 134 sets out the minimum responsibilities for a government to exist in peace. It says nothing of society much less what you claim.

You are forwarding Lawboy's (Rousseau's) argument that society has more rights than the sum of the rights of each individual member of the society. Neither the first nor the second verse of Section 134 are a basis for that interpretation. If individual rights are inviolate, it should be clear (as Ezra Taft Benson taught) that individuals can give no more rights to government than what they possess as individuals. If the government (which you equate with society) pretends it has more rights than the individual it would be in violation of the second verse of section 134.

I'm not forwarding anyone's arguments. I simply asked you whether or not government has an interest in making laws and administering them for the good and safety of society. You said no, and then proceeded to misconstrue scripture that I doubt you even bothered to read before replying. You were the one that referred back to Lawboy's post and his construction of society, not me. I am merely asking whether you agree with D&C 134:1, which states that God holds men accountable for their acts in relation to governments, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society. All I've said is that your refutation of any concept that society as a whole might have legally protected interests doesn't mesh with D&C 134 that explicitly talks about safety of society.

I still don't think you've read verse 2, because all verse 2 does is set forth the minimum requirements of a government to exist in peace--to secure to the individuals free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. It doesn't say that is the sum total of what governments should do (else we wouldn't need verse 1), it merely says you have to preserve at least these three things for your government to exist in peace. These three things are merely limits on the government's right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest.

[Schmoe]

I wonder how old JVQB's kids are, seeing as he feels he has complete control over their actions. I would guess that he'll sing a different tune as they get older. There's nothing I love more than people who haven't gone through certain experiences critiquing those who currently are.

[SpiffCoug]

Individuals (and their liberties and property) exist prior to the state. What right do you have to remove someone who does not accept the Constitution? The founders acknowledged that defect of the Constitution. But you seem to know so much more than them, sort of like our current and most recent presidents.

Yeah, so your reading comprehension is still lacking. SpiffCoug said nothing about removing people who don't accept the Constitution. I know you wish he said that, so that's how you interpreted it, but he didn't say that. Your ability to read people as saying something they never said simply because you want it to be there is quite astonishing.

Nice. Now let's see what spiff has to say about his point. Given past posts I feel pretty sure of my interpretation. But spiff why don't you settle a little dispute between sno and I: What did you mean by "Those who choose not [to accept the Constitution], may leave the country?"

Sorry, posted this morning then it got crazy at work and just getting back.

It's a free country. I don't know why you want to remain in a country which you did not support. Those who didn't want to support the country/Constitution would be free to leave and find their idyllic country elsewhere, because it's clearly not here.

I was not implying that we would force those out. Although, I would question anyone who 1) remain in a country in which they did not believe and 2) deal with anyone with whom they could be not sure were operating under the same set of standards and principles.

I would fully support boycotting those not willing to accept the Constitution on a yearly/monthly/weekly/daily basis.

[SpiffCoug]

Actually, if you are in the the USA, by virtue of your mere presence here, you are presumed to have accepted the Constitution as the binding law of he land, and the force that binds you to its law. You really have no choice or say in the matter, other than to leave the country. Staying means consent. And if you do not understand that fact, that reality, then you would rather tilt at fictional windmills than deal in cold, hard facts.

Well said, Lawboy.

[SpiffCoug]

Actually, if you are in the the USA, by virtue of your mere presence here, you are presumed to have accepted the Constitution as the binding law of he land, and the force that binds you to its law. You really have no choice or say in the matter, other than to leave the country. Staying means consent.

And you call that a contract?

Yes, it is a contract. And one that if you don't feel you can accept, you may leave and find a better place that will accept your views on the social contract.

[hawkwing]

How dishonest would one have to be to live in a society and enjoy all the perks associated with such, but then deny they are part of the society when it comes to giving anything back to that society. By jvc's own standards of restorative justice the members of society which that person is guilty of mooching off of would be well within their rights to take by force all that the thief has taken.

[SpiffCoug]

How dishonest would one have to be to live in a society and enjoy all the perks associated with such, but then deny they are part of the society when it comes to giving anything back to that society. By jvc's own standards of restorative justice the members of society which that person is guilty of mooching off of would be well within their rights to take by force all that the thief has taken.

Or simply force from our lands and prevent from further mooching.