K, D'rok and cwalner. This is the last time I'll bother. My time is too precious... may you guys become marry and happy slaves of the state.
Call the London Police for confirmation: +1 519-661-5670
You call a notarized affidavit of truth a "worthless fantasy document"? Dude, what are you on? What do you think "propper ID" is?
That is the biased claim of someone who under no circumstances would allow "authority" to fail, when it is us humans who form authority, which makes it everything but perfect. Even if the camera would have stayed on till the end. You wouldn't allow it as prove. The answer would have been like: "This cop must have been new" or "he'll probably get a ticket in the mail".
It is only ever the things we push ahead that will work. Us humans constitute our own environment, which is only ever as perfect as the scope of granted individual freedom. Again: Right and wrong cannot be distinguished based on which side has the force of weapons. And the more the force is abused, the more people will stand up for the right (thats a historical fact).
I'm sorry to have gone over you head. All I said is that there is natura/god-given/call it whatever state of things, that constitutes natural law: That every human is equal and has to mutually respect others the way they are. That no living being is to be hurt (except for survival. BTW, I'm surviving almost 10 years as a vegetarian). Simple reasoning. Or do you claim that you as a human have no capacity for that?
How do you figure? Being truly free IS being truly responsible! No (State-defined) duties, and definitely no benefits!
I assume you're pertaining to public roads. Are they not paying taxes on gas? Not to mention the hidden tax of inflation. Show me how that can be avoided. It would be interesting to see.
They apply it only to remind "persons" they deal with to abide by it. For example they may use whatever statute grants a fair hearing.
By using the term "freeloader" you have confirmed the feelings of your kind, that I attempted to describe before. You feel that you are working hard and "paying in for them", when in fact they aint getting nothing. Or you feel that "we all need to pay in". Do we? Who are the people to decide that? Are they better in any way than the people who are against this idea?
Maybe some day you will understand that "the sake of the common good" flourishes best where there is individual freedom, not coercion. Truly free people and self-responsible people recognize that solidarity and love is a necessity of human live. Of course, some will never learn. These people are definitely better of staying where they are, being nannied and taken care of by some supervising state.
Oh, so you recognize that things are the way they are, but still stand for deceiving codification? Wow.
You don't need "minority group rights" when you have natural individual rights (which in the case of the US have been constitutionalized).
Do you honestly believe that in a world of party-dictatorship, the left-right-paradigm, backroom deals, and massive lobbyism my voice or anyone elses really matters? Wake up! Look at Ireland who clearly said NO to the Lisbon treaty. Well, lets make them vote again, till we have what we want... meanwhile we bombard them a bit more with propaganda material. Then there's the German government elected by not even 30% of the people who entitled to vote, who gave a **** about their constitution (the "basic law") and simply ratified the Lisbon-decision over their people's heads. This is how "democracy" works.
Purely natural right and necessity driven... that simple. What you live is what we teach. The same applies to our "society", or shall I call it ideocracy?
There can only ever be one thing at stake. And that's the grant of being part of the community. Nobody is forced to stay and those who don't respect natural law or are unsolidary can go and try elsewhere. Mind you, that wouldn't mean they'd have to move.
Learn the difference between lawful and legal. Once you understand it, you will also understand the difference between statutes and actual law.
Actual law isn't man made but is merely based on the natural state of life and the capacity of human reason. Personally I'm not into the common law. Although it does interpret natural law fairly well, it is none the less a man-written version. I repeat: UNALIENABLE RIGHTS (that is un-saleable un-negotiable, and un-modifiable nature given rights!) cannot be defined by man. They are divine and the very opposite of lawlessness. Sorry for taking your conventional reasoning to capacity.
Not all humans but the vast amount of today's "society" needs the rule of law - that I agree with you. This however must not be an eternal state and is only the case, because they have (intentionally) been raised to be un-response-able (irresponsible), conform and fearful.
The following could be from me, but unfortunately isn't:
"
A man's RIGHT to exist for his own sake
Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators - the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors - stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won!
It is an ancient conflict. It has another name: "The individual against the collective." "
Edited by LashL:
Removed moderated content
