Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Stories Commentaries
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Stories Commentaries (Read 665 times)
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6110
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #10 - Nov 4th, 2019 at 2:13pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 4th, 2019 at 2:05pm:
Story does a creditable job of explaining how land in the Americas came to be owned by Europeans.
]]

What’s to explain?   The Europeans took the land by brute force.  Guns against bows and arrows.  Not exactly a close contest.

Quote:
The philosophical possibilities of ownership of land, as Story mentioned, are better explained in theories of natural rights than in a commentary on the Constitution.

Such ideas have in fact been discussed on this forum quite a few times. Why don't you dredge up one of those threads and breathe new life into it?


That’s another poster’s bag, not mine.


  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #11 - Nov 4th, 2019 at 2:24pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 4th, 2019 at 2:13pm:
]]

What’s to explain?   The Europeans took the land by brute force.  Guns against bows and arrows.  Not exactly a close contest.

Right. European kings used the same law of the jungle that the native tribes had always used, they just gussied it up with legalisms like "the Divine Rights of Kings" and actually kept records of what was taken, and who took it, so that the next time it was taken, they could say they held a valid title to it.

Rights of ownership by conquest are still invoked around the world from time to time.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6110
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #12 - Nov 4th, 2019 at 3:39pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 4th, 2019 at 2:24pm:
Right. European kings used the same law of the jungle that the native tribes had always used, they just gussied it up with legalisms like "the Divine Rights of Kings" and actually kept records of what was taken, and who took it, so that the next time it was taken, they could say they held a valid title to it.

Rights of ownership by conquest are still invoked around the world from time to time.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution.


You brought it up.


  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #13 - Nov 4th, 2019 at 4:57pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 4th, 2019 at 3:39pm:
You brought it up.


Indeed. I wanted you to hear it from someone other than me. Smiley

Besides after I brought it up I said "Now that that's out of the way...".

Obviously, it was still in your way, preventing you from continuing on to other more important things.

Edit: Were this a Harvard Law class in the early 1800s, you would probably be asked to leave as being unable to master even the most basic things involved with the course. Smiley You would be holding the bright, well prepared students back. Cry
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #14 - Nov 4th, 2019 at 6:27pm
Print Post  
A bit long, but it clears up some essential basic issues, which need to be understood before proceeding onward:

§ 208. In like manner the word “state” is used in various senses.* In its most enlarged sense it means the people composing a particular nation or community. In this sense the state means the whole people, united into one body politic; and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions.29 Mr. Justice Wilson, in his Law Lectures, uses the word “state” in its broadest sense. “In free states,” says he, “the people form an artificial person, or body politic, the highest end noblest, that can be known. They form that moral person, which in one of my former lectures,30 I described, as a complete body of free, natural persons, united together for their common benefit; as having an understanding and a will; as deliberating, and resolving, and acting; as possessed of interests, which it ought to manage; as enjoying rights, which it ought to maintain; and as lying under obligations, which it ought to perform. To this moral person, we assign, by way of eminence, the dignified appellation of STATE.”31 But there is a more limited sense, in which the word is often used, where it expresses merely the positive or actual organization of the legislative, executive, or judicial powers.32 Thus, the actual government of a state is frequently designated by the name of the state. We say, the state has power to do this or that; the state has passed a law, or prohibited an act, meaning no more than, that the proper functionaries, organized for that purpose, have power to do the act, or have passed the law, or prohibited the particular action. The sovereignty of a nation or state, considered with reference to its association, as a body politic, may be absolute and uncontrollable in all respects, except the limitations, which it chooses to impose upon itself.33 But the sovereignty of the government, organized within the state, may be of a very limited nature. It may extend to few, or to many objects. It may be unlimited, as to some; it may be restrained, as to others. To the extent of the power given, the government may be sovereign, and its acts may he deemed the sovereign acts of the state. Nay the state, by which we mean the people composing the state, may divide its sovereign powers among various functionaries, and each in the limited sense would be sovereign in respect to the powers, confided to each; and dependent in all other cases.34 Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state.35
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6110
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #15 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 11:54am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 4th, 2019 at 4:57pm:
Indeed. I wanted you to hear it from someone other than me. Smiley

Besides after I brought it up I said "Now that that's out of the way...".

Obviously, it was still in your way, preventing you from continuing on to other more important things.


More important than consent of the governed. 

Right.


  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #16 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:05pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 5th, 2019 at 11:54am:
More important than consent of the governed. 




Did you read Story's explanation of how the first Continental Congress was created with the consent of the people?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6110
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #17 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:07pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:05pm:
Did you read Story's explanation of how the first Continental Congress was created with the consent of the people?


I did, but Story did not mention what percent of the consented.

Will you?


  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #18 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:10pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:07pm:
I did, but Story did not mention what percent of the consented.

Will you?


§ 200. No redress of grievances having followed upon the many appeals made to the king, and to parliament, by and in behalf of the colonies, either conjointly or separately, it became obvious to them, that a closer union and cooperation were necessary to vindicate their rights, and protect their liberties. If a resort to arms should be indispensable, it was impossible to hope for success, but in united efforts. If peaceable redress was to be sought, it was as clear, that the voice of the colonies must be heard, and their power felt in a national organization. In 1774 Massachusetts recommended the assembling of a continental congress to deliberate upon the state of public affairs; and according to her recommendation, delegates were appointed by the colonies for a congress, to be held in Philadelphia in the autumn of the same year. In some of the legislatures of the colonies, which were then in session, delegates were appointed by the popular, or representative branch; and in other cases they were appointed by conventions of the people in the colonies.1 The congress of delegates (calling themselves in their more formal acts “the delegates appointed by the good people of these colonies”) assembled on the 4th of September, 1774;2 and having chosen officers, they adopted certain fundamental rules for their proceedings.

You just don't like representative government, do you?

Edit: Yes, there were Tories living in the colonies at the time. They weren't in favor of any of that revolutionary stuff and thought those engaged in it should all be hung.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6110
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #19 - Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:15pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 5th, 2019 at 1:10pm:
§ 200. No redress of grievances having followed upon the many appeals made to the king, and to parliament, by and in behalf of the colonies, either conjointly or separately, it became obvious to them, that a closer union and cooperation were necessary to vindicate their rights, and protect their liberties. If a resort to arms should be indispensable, it was impossible to hope for success, but in united efforts. If peaceable redress was to be sought, it was as clear, that the voice of the colonies must be heard, and their power felt in a national organization. In 1774 Massachusetts recommended the assembling of a continental congress to deliberate upon the state of public affairs; and according to her recommendation, delegates were appointed by the colonies for a congress, to be held in Philadelphia in the autumn of the same year. In some of the legislatures of the colonies, which were then in session, delegates were appointed by the popular, or representative branch; and in other cases they were appointed by conventions of the people in the colonies.1 The congress of delegates (calling themselves in their more formal acts “the delegates appointed by the good people of these colonies”) assembled on the 4th of September, 1774;2 and having chosen officers, they adopted certain fundamental rules for their proceedings.

You just don't like representative government, do you?

Edit: Yes, there were Tories living in the colonies at the time. They weren't in favor of any of that revolutionary stuff and thought those engaged in it should all be hung.


I still see no percentage there.

Since we know that women, blacks, Native Americans, and non-landowners were not allowed to consent or not consent, the percent I would estimate about ten or less.

That is assuming that all white male landowners agreed.  But you are correct, there was rarely more than a few percent more "patriots" than "torries" in any given location.  So it was like 51% of the 10%.

Yeah.

Consent of the governed is awesome!  If you are in that 5.1% . . .




  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Stories Commentaries
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy