Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 136
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?Page 7 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
@ Paul

<div class="quote">when you adopted THEIR values, YOU lost..
I didn't adopt their values. What I would do is out of necessity to ensure my survival and therefore justified under natural law. How have I infringed on their rights? I haven't. Have they infringed on mine? What rights? Obviously I have no right to live in peace there, so I'm under no corresponding obligation to let them live in peace either, am I?
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 137
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/5/2010 6:00:32 AM
I dont think either one of you will ever leave each other alone in peace which makes for very interesting threads anyway. I feel like that chick in the boxing ring standing around all cute (in a little hot pink outfit with a padded push up bra making me look even bigger) with a ROUND ### sign held up in the air... BING!
 milt_n_bradley
Joined: 10/14/2009
Msg: 138
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/5/2010 6:50:39 AM
I stated:
OP...who makes the decision whether one is "fundamentally good" or not?
Unless,and until, that has been established...then wouldn't this just be an exercise in futility?


You replied:
That's easy. I did in my OP.

Frankly, I was expecting more resistance than I got on that assumption. I took the amount of buy in from y'all that I got as an affirmation, albeit from a decidedly unscientific sample.

I suppose a related discussion could center around a presumption that people passionately oppose each other because a whole bunch of people are fundamentally bad with nothing but evil intent, but I don't see the world that way.


At what point (unless you are attempting to play Devil's Advocate) do you,OP, to get to determine what is fundamentally good...or bad?
Wouldn't a more precise statement be what you "BELIEVE to be fundamentally good or bad?"
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 139
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/7/2010 1:22:49 AM

i doubt you would be attacked for NOT citing "oddball" sources

If I wasn't attacked for doing so (and thus compelled to respond to defend my action), then why are we even having this conversation?
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 140
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/8/2010 7:30:54 AM
O.k., dukky.

1. You appear to have complaints about the BIS. Just identify one thing the BIS has done wrong, in your view. And please back it up with a credible source: invented theories with no factual basis do not count.
2. You are not a self-governing man. This is imaginative fantasy on your part. I can call myself a smurf, that does not mean that Peyo’s heirs owe me money for appropriating my likeness to write children’s comics.
3. Stop contradicting yourself. You observe that loans and fiat currency are not the same thing, then claim they are “essentially” the same thing. Whenever caught in an obvious inconsistency, you pull out multi-syllable words then jump to a different level of generality. And the one who pays for goods is not necessarily the one who owns them, a point which is obvious whenever you observe that you can buy someone a gift and have it direct-delivered.
4. There are good reasons not to scrap loans at interest. First, permitting them to exist (properly regulated, mind you) is economically efficient. Just ask small-hold farmers in countries with dysfunctional land ownership and secured loan enforcement systems. Lack of credit at interest hampers economic development. And as anyone familiar with Islamic banking would also point out, if you ban or scrap them, timed sale transactions can be engineered to create the same economic effect.
5. Sigh. The provinces efforts to regulate banking are unconstitutional because section 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867 clearly assigns banking, the incorporation of banks and the issue of paper money to the Federal government to regulate. This argument is as pointless as the one about citizenship and your completely unsupported claim that it is somehow contractual. The question of why is possibly more interesting, but that’s about constitutional history, not logic. Why is the age of consent now 16, except in cases where one partner is in a position of trust or authority? Because Parliament said so, in a duly enacted law.
6. You can have all the arguments you like about titles or ranks to stratify it’s membership, the fact of the matter is that they exist. If you think the current arrangement is unjust because of that, well, that’s your prerogative.
7. There is no universal, rational and innate desire for justice. Well, let me phrase that differently: what would constitute empirically viable evidence for the existence of such a thing? And if such a thing were to exist, please explain, well, the actually observed characteristics of virtually every government human beings have ever had, from Hammurabi on down?
8. You have a problem with authority, clearly. Black’s Law Dictionary simply contains accurate reports of the legal usage of terms.
9. You are subject to statutory law. If you do not think you are, feel free to break a few of them in front of some cops. Again, hold your breath until you turn blue all you like. Reality is not going away.
10. Well, you would probably call our government a tyranny because you resolutely insist on this odd fantasy that a government only has authority over you if you agreed to give it that authority. So call it a tyranny if you want. The rest of us probably will not, because we do not share your odd belief system.
11. Governments do not derive their authority from the consent of the governed. That’s a justificatory ideology adopted by Americans and some other groups. It’s effectively false as a factual matter. Governments derive their authority from collectively held perceptions of historical legitimacy. And human beings’ innate tendency to adopt hierarchical behaviours.
12. As for your business about the GG, it is just incorrect. If you would just read a bit of serious constitutional law and actual constitutional history you would not go off on wild tangents that have nothing to do with what is actually going on. I have plenty of issues with Ms. Jean, but they concern her actual misbehaviour, like acceding to Harper’s request/demand to prorogue Parliament. Blame people for what they actually do, not invented theories.
13. As for getting you into Court, you are served with proceedings by a bailiff. If you do not come, the Court can issue a summons. If you still do not come, they invoke the contempt power and issue a warrant. Then the cops hunt you down, cuff you and drag you there, kicking and screaming if necessary. Most cops being impatient types, they’ll likely taser you until you quit it with the kicking and screaming.
14. In theory, yes, you can be imprisoned for not paying income tax. No one in the country is currently serving jail time for it—very much unlike the US in that respect. Your lack of consent for deductions at source is completely irrelevant. It’s a duly enacted law and if your employers do not deduct it, they’ll wind up with bigger legal problems than yours. Income tax law is not contractual either, you just have a completely fantasy-based belief about the ambit of contract law. Your liability to pay income tax is based on residency in Canada, not some agreement on your part.
15. Technically speaking, the plea of “autrefois convict” does not apply to foreign convictions. So, yes, if you sexually abuse children in another country you can be jailed for it there, then jailed for it here, all over again. Lesson? Don’t sexually abuse children. Full stop.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 141
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/8/2010 11:20:17 AM
@ sly
Firstly, welcome back. I was worried we'd lost you. It really is fun debating you.

1. You appear to have complaints about the BIS. Just identify one thing the BIS has done wrong, in your view. And please back it up with a credible source: invented theories with no factual basis do not count.

My main concern about the BIS is its unaccountability. What prevents it from keeping any number of sets of books and only publishing (if it feels like it) its "favorite"? Can you cite ANY man, government, or agency to which the BIS is publicly accountable? I haven't been able to find one. Who are the main shareholders of the BIS and what is their stake? The BIS as you know is the central banker's central bank and even on a national level, many BIS run central banks are unaccountable to the governments they finance. (as the US is learning with regard to the FED, much to its chagrin)
A bank that essentially runs the world's economy and lends money to most of the world's nations ought to at least be accountable and occassionally audited by a public agency, no?

2. You are not a self-governing man. This is imaginative fantasy on your part. I can call myself a smurf, that does not mean that Peyo’s heirs owe me money for appropriating my likeness to write children’s comics.

I will accept your offer that I'm not self-governing subject to proof of your claim that I'm not.

3. Stop contradicting yourself. You observe that loans and fiat currency are not the same thing, then claim they are “essentially” the same thing. Whenever caught in an obvious inconsistency, you pull out multi-syllable words then jump to a different level of generality. And the one who pays for goods is not necessarily the one who owns them, a point which is obvious whenever you observe that you can buy someone a gift and have it direct-delivered.

There is no contradiction at all. A Cadillac isn't a Lincoln, but they are both cars. In the same manner fiat currency isn't a loan, but both are promises to pay, which in this day and age is taken (erroneously) to be money.

4. There are good reasons not to scrap loans at interest. First, permitting them to exist (properly regulated, mind you) is economically efficient. Just ask small-hold farmers in countries with dysfunctional land ownership and secured loan enforcement systems. Lack of credit at interest hampers economic development. And as anyone familiar with Islamic banking would also point out, if you ban or scrap them, timed sale transactions can be engineered to create the same economic effect.

Why not scrap the interest AND the fee-based islamic banking for an economic system based on credit, rather than deficit financing, like social credit? Wouldn't it be better to have a national dividend to distribute than a national debt to service through income tax?

. Sigh. The provinces efforts to regulate banking are unconstitutional because section 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867 clearly assigns banking, the incorporation of banks and the issue of paper money to the Federal government to regulate. This argument is as pointless as the one about citizenship and your completely unsupported claim that it is somehow contractual. The question of why is possibly more interesting, but that’s about constitutional history, not logic. Why is the age of consent now 16, except in cases where one partner is in a position of trust or authority? Because Parliament said so, in a duly enacted law.

Your answer is only a more explicit repetition of your last answer. You have not addressed my question, which is WHY is provincial regulation of banking unconstitutional?

With regard to citizenship, the burden of proof lies on the de facto government of Canada to show that citizenship is NOT contractual. By what authority can they declare it so?

Because Parliament said so, in a duly enacted law.

And what is parliament to me that I'm affected by its legislation?

6. You can have all the arguments you like about titles or ranks to stratify it’s membership, the fact of the matter is that they exist. If you think the current arrangement is unjust because of that, well, that’s your prerogative.

It is unjust under natural law, which is the only law I recognize as legitimate (Though subsets of the common law and even some statutes are consistent with natural law and I therefore abide by those that are.)

7. There is no universal, rational and innate desire for justice. Well, let me phrase that differently: what would constitute empirically viable evidence for the existence of such a thing? And if such a thing were to exist, please explain, well, the actually observed characteristics of virtually every government human beings have ever had, from Hammurabi on down?

Evidence for it goes back to the schoolyard playground and the creation & playing of games. What is the primary consideration?...Whether or not it is fair. I'm sure even you remember kids catching the other kids: "Hey!!...No fair!!" There is a natural instinct to introduce fairness into a world which is entirely unfair; it is the desire to level the playing field. We can't do much about volcanoes killing the deserving & underserving arbitrarity and without regard to whether or not it is fair, but man has always had control over his dealings with his fellow man. It in those things that Man can control that he has introduced this sense of fairness. We call it justice and it is the intent of all valid law.

8. You have a problem with authority, clearly. Black’s Law Dictionary simply contains accurate reports of the legal usage of terms.

I have no problem with legitimate authority. I only contest the imposition of false authority by those who have no lawful right to do so. Black's law dictionary has changed many of its definitions over the years. Were they wrong the first time? has the language changed to the point that the definitions need to be updated? Does this then imply that all laws prior to changes of definition, by their very wording have now changed, or are all the prior laws changed to accomodate the new definitions? Are the definitions of legal dictionaries binding on anyone outside of a law society? Why?

9. You are subject to statutory law. If you do not think you are, feel free to break a few of them in front of some cops. Again, hold your breath until you turn blue all you like. Reality is not going away.

Not if I'm not an agent or officer, or citizen of Canada I'm not. If I'm not, I can break statutes with impunity, and unless any statutory crime I commit is a crime under the (natural law subset of) common law, I cannot be prosecuted, though I may agree to discuss the matter in court if the Court agrees to my fee schedule for doing so.

10. Well, you would probably call our government a tyranny because you resolutely insist on this odd fantasy that a government only has authority over you if you agreed to give it that authority. So call it a tyranny if you want. The rest of us probably will not, because we do not share your odd belief system.

If your assertion is correct (fortunately it isn't) how could you call the imposition of false authority and the binding of men to the ridiculous money gabbing and unjust statutes of a de facto government anything but tyranny? To not consider it one is what I would call the oddest of belief systems.

11. Governments do not derive their authority from the consent of the governed. That’s a justificatory ideology adopted by Americans and some other groups. It’s effectively false as a factual matter. Governments derive their authority from collectively held perceptions of historical legitimacy. And human beings’ innate tendency to adopt hierarchical behaviours.

Then their authority is not legitimate under natural law. My own innate tendency is toward egalitarianism, brotherhood and equality of "rank". Sorry if that upsets the government's applecart, but maybe it's long past due to be overturned. Are you telling me under full commercial liability as a n agent of the Crown that the paramount principle of equality before the law no longer exists?

12. As for your business about the GG, it is just incorrect. If you would just read a bit of serious constitutional law and actual constitutional history you would not go off on wild tangents that have nothing to do with what is actually going on. I have plenty of issues with Ms. Jean, but they concern her actual misbehaviour, like acceding to Harper’s request/demand to prorogue Parliament. Blame people for what they actually do, not invented theories.

Are you suggesting I lied? The constitution doesn't apply to me, why should i be obliged to study it? The simple fact is, the government of canada is de facto and therefore illegitimate. What more do I need to know. Shouldn't the burden of proof be upon the government of Canada to prove its legitimacy in a de jure court of the common law?

3. As for getting you into Court, you are served with proceedings by a bailiff. If you do not come, the Court can issue a summons. If you still do not come, they invoke the contempt power and issue a warrant. Then the cops hunt you down, cuff you and drag you there, kicking and screaming if necessary. Most cops being impatient types, they’ll likely taser you until you quit it with the kicking and screaming.

False. An attempt is made to serve my legal person, which is not me. I therefore have the option of redirecting the bailiff to the correct party to serve, unless it is my wish to represent my legal person (which I may do if my fee schedule is accepted). The summons is a kind offer and invitation by the Crown which I'm free to either decline, or to make a counteroffer of payment for any services I may render to the Crown by attending.

they invoke the contempt power and issue a warrant.

If I have responded to the judicial notices, why would a warrant be issued? If I have not, they had better not mistake the man for the legal person, since I choose not to identify myself with it!

14. In theory, yes, you can be imprisoned for not paying income tax. No one in the country is currently serving jail time for it—very much unlike the US in that respect. Your lack of consent for deductions at source is completely irrelevant. It’s a duly enacted law and if your employers do not deduct it, they’ll wind up with bigger legal problems than yours. Income tax law is not contractual either, you just have a completely fantasy-based belief about the ambit of contract law. Your liability to pay income tax is based on residency in Canada, not some agreement on your part.

I charge 5 Troy ounces of fine gold per hour (based on a 24 hour day) for all time spent incarcerated or in a lockup awaiting trial (on behalf of my legal person). Are you trying to suggest I may not legitimately charge for services provided to the Crown?

15. Technically speaking, the plea of “autrefois convict” does not apply to foreign convictions. So, yes, if you sexually abuse children in another country you can be jailed for it there, then jailed for it here, all over again. Lesson? Don’t sexually abuse children. Full stop.

Much as I hate child molesters, how & why is it that the constitutional and common law prohibitions against double jeopardy don't apply?

That was a heepa stuff!... Let's get out of the court of public opinion for awhile & go for beers....
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 142
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/8/2010 1:39:06 PM
It's fun reading the debate!
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 143
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/8/2010 3:55:03 PM
1. O.k., I will take that as an indirect admission that you have no proof whatsoever of any wrongdoing by the BIS.

What you have is a suspicion, based on lack of transparency in accounting. And there, I agree with you. It is one thing to say, "insulate this central bank from political pressures", another thing to say "by not compelling it to account to anyone for what it is doing." The real question is: whom should it be rendering account to?

It is an extravagant claim to say that it runs the world's economy. You've got no basis for that.

2. You are holding your breath again. First, you are well aware that proving negatives is impossible at the level of classical logic, which is why you are attempting, as a rhetorical stunt, to shift the burden of proof. That cuts no ice: you're the one who claimed to be self-governing, in the face of the obvious evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof lies with you.

Next, if you bother to read Hogg on constitutional law, which I invite you to do (if only because this debate will get less burdensome and more meaningful), you will swiftly discover that Canada has a constitution that is "similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom" or, more properly, similar in principle to the constitution which the United Kingdom had in 1867, plus the modifications made in writing to that fundamentally unwritten constitution since that time.

Parliamentary supremacy, as a matter of constitutional history, has virtually nothing to do with contract law, which in its modern formulation is largely a result of the evolution of 19th century common law (in Canada, outside Quebec) and the evolution of 19th century judicial decisions on the Civil Code of Lower Canada (in Quebec). Parliamentary supremacy was inherited from U.K. legal institutions well before Upper and Lower Canada or the other pre-Confederation colonies existed.

3. You are engaged in very simple rhetorical trickery. Just because you can leap from one level of generality to another in one subject matter, with accuracy, does not mean that you *are* leaping from one level of generality to another in the subject matter under discussion. Cows and sheep are both mammals, that does not mean that eating beef and eating mutton is "essentially" nutritionally equivalent. It is not, nor are fiat money and loans equivalent.

Fiat currency and loans are just **not** the same thing under the law. Just read, please, section 13 of the federal Currency Act: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-52/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-52.html

A loan has to be denominated in fiat money. Ergo, a loan is not fiat money, and fiat money is not a loan. Q.E.D.

4. Social credit has never been demonstrated to work. For all of its defects, and there are many, the current economy has limped along in one jury-rigged fashion or another for decades. (Or centuries, depending on how you define segmentation between one economic era or another.)

No burden lies on the government of Canada to demonstrate to you that your fantasy of being supposedly free from the government's authority is a fantasy. The government happens to be sovereign over you. You obviously do not like that. Hold your breath until you turn blue if you want, Peyo's heirs do not owe you money, no matter how many epithets you throw in the government's direction.

I will agree with you on one thing: the rule of law, viewed through an anthropological lens, is an "odd" belief system.

5. With regard to provincial regulation of banking, you are either (1) just being pointlessly stubborn, or (2) asking several questions in one. Let me assume (2), for the sake of entertainment.

6. You can only advance the argument which you advance in #6 out of near-total ignorance of the actual structure, operation and historical foundations of the common law. It is as if you were to adhere to Halakha, and yet deny the both the existence and the law-giving activity of the deity that is central to Judaism, or claim that you were following Shariah while denying the existence of Allah. It makes no sense. You have arbitrarily said "natural law is whatever I say it is", then said "and it's only law if it is consistent with natural law".

(a) From the point of view of constitutional history, when the framers of Canada's original constitutional document, the Constitution Act, 1867, initially met, they hammered out a fundamental structure that would divide legislative authority between the respective provinces and the Federal government. Some of it was based on examination of the U.S. constitution's division of legislative authority, some of it was based on explicit rejection of other elements of the U.S. constitution's division of legislative authority. If you just look at 91(14), 91(15), 91(16), 91(18), 91(19) and 91(20), virtually the entire field of banking, currency, interest, paper money, bills of exchange (e.g. cheques, drafts, notes) are all assigned to the Federal government.

(b) Second, from the point of view of jurisprudential history, all the decisions of the Courts since Confederation have consistently upheld the obvious, which is that in light of the plain-language content of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provinces' efforts to legislate on banking are unconstitutional. If you want a good example of how this actually works in practice, try reading Bank of Montreal v. Hall, which demonstrates the interaction between "property and civil rights" (a provincial field) and banking, a Federal field.
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=banking&language=en&searchTitle=The+Constitution+Act%2C+1867&origin=%2Fen%2Fca%2Fconst%2Fconst1867.html&translatedOrigin=%2Ffr%2Fca%2Fconst%2Fconst1867.html&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii157/1990canlii157.html

7. Are you seriously arguing that there is a timeless and culturally invariable sense of fairness that is innate in every human being and gives inerrant guidance to the solution of any dispute between individuals? That's pretty far-fetched, dude.

8. Your point about Black's Law Dictionary is philosophically interesting and deserves a detailed answer.

First, dictionaries are not sets of timeless rules about word usage. They are reports of actual word usage. In the case of Blacks', very detailed, very accurate, very pedantic and very broadly accepted reports of actual usage. A report of how a word is used is not "binding", except in the sense that if you want to communicate accurately, you use words the way they are commonly accepted to be used.

When a definition of a legal term in Black's has changed, it is because the legal usage of that term has changed. Black's does not effect the change, it merely reports it.

Second, your argument demonstrates that you do not understand many fundamentals about the common law. You seem to believe that statutes are the primary source of law, for one thing. That's not just accurate, or more carefully, only very very recently in terms of legal history have the conditions been such that anyone could think that statutes were the primary source of law, and certainly since 1982 that particular trend has been in abeyance. I could go on, but we've already spent to many pixels on this subject.

11. Your tendency towards egalitarianism is not innate, it's learned. I really do not understand the question you are asking in the second part of #11 and I'm not sure you do, either. First off, technically speaking, I'm not speaking in any capacity other than as a private citizen on here. Second, were I even speaking in a professional capacity, in that capacity I'm not an "agent" of the "Crown", be it Federal or provincial. I'm an Officer of the Court, if you care, but if you want to talk to agents of the Crown, I suggest you phone the Canada Revenue Agency.

As for equality under the law, no, actually, section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is alive and well. Unless you ask the Canadian sitting in Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray. Not sure he'd agree.

12. I am not calling you a liar Dukky, just pointing out that you are incorrect. They're two different things. The Constitution does apply to you, you just do not like it. You're holding your breath again.

The common law courts you are referring to are actually part of the government of Canada. They are all de jure, just as the government is de jure.

The argument you are making makes no sense at all. The legitimacy of the common law Courts themselves is part and parcel with the legitimacy of the Dominion of Canada and the several provinces thereof.

Even the attorneys for the various aboriginal peoples recognize this. They just argue that the rights of the various aboriginal peoples **under the Constitution** have been violated, in various ways.

13. Your argument on the subject of service of legal process is fantasy. Full stop. Again, you are holding your breath. Try that with a real lawsuit and you'll be surprised to discover a default judgment has been rendered against you and your opponent has proceeded to seize your bank accounts and garnish your wages.

You can "choose" not to identify yourself with a legal person all you want. You'll still be sitting in a cell if you fail to obtemporate to a summons from the Court.

14. Yes. You see, you have no contract with the Crown. (Isn't it fun when your obsession with contracts comes back to bite you?)

I don't hope you're jailed, Dukky. But if you ever are, I sincerely hope I'm in the courtroom when your lawsuit against the government for the "services" you rendered while incarcerated is heard. It will be the funniest thing since Valery Fabrikant sued Concordia for provoking him into a shooting rampage against his former colleagues. And no, I'm not making this sh*t up.

15. A valid and fair question.

A starting point towards the answer is to actually read and understand how the plea of "autrefois convict" actually works, and how to distinguish it from the plea in Kienapple. R. v. Melanson is a good starting point: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2001/2001canlii24054/2001canlii24054.pdf
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 144
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/8/2010 6:12:07 PM

1. O.k., I will take that as an indirect admission that you have no proof whatsoever of any wrongdoing by the BIS.

...and of course you won't even comment on their unaccountability, or the questionable ethics of the men involved in setting it up. Believe me...If I had proof, what good would it do? who's going to prosecute them ? with their diplomatic immunity, they stand above the law of every nation on earth. Even the ICC can't prosecute them for fraud. It's a pretty cozy spot to be in if you are committing crimes against humanity by manipulating the economies of nations for personal gain.

The real question is: whom should it be rendering account to?

The real answer is "the world" or at least every nation using its "services."

It is an extravagant claim to say that it runs the world's economy. You've got no basis for that.

Except that it's members are the central banks of the largest economies on earth, acting in concert under directives of the board of the BIS.
What do these institutions control and at who's behest? It ought to be a matter of some concern; especially in light of this:
"As a result of allegations that the BIS had helped the Germans loot assets from occupied countries during World War II, the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference recommended the "liquidation of the Bank for International Settlements at the earliest possible moment." [2] This task, which was originally proposed by Norway and supported by other European delegates, as well as the United States and Morgenthau and White, was never undertaken.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_for_International_Settlements

If it can slough off the serious recommendations of the UN, The US, Norway and most of Europe, I dare say the BIS has some clout, to spite the fact that it's privately owned by "mere" bankers.


. You are holding your breath again. First, you are well aware that proving negatives is impossible at the level of classical logic, which is why you are attempting, as a rhetorical stunt, to shift the burden of proof. That cuts no ice: you're the one who claimed to be self-governing, in the face of the obvious evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof lies with you.

What evidence to the contrary? I am what I am. If the de facto government of Canada has a problem with that, I'm sure they'll let me know.

What Canada's constitution contains or doesn't contain is of little interest to me. It doesn't pertain to me. I have my own constitution to worry about and I think I'm getting a cold.

3. You are engaged in very simple rhetorical trickery. Just because you can leap from one level of generality to another in one subject matter, with accuracy, does not mean that you *are* leaping from one level of generality to another in the subject matter under discussion. Cows and sheep are both mammals, that does not mean that eating beef and eating mutton is "essentially" nutritionally equivalent. It is not, nor are fiat money and loans equivalent.

You just called fiat currency "money." Surely you know it isn't. Do you know what backs it? What does Canada list as its assets when it needs a loan if not the value of the Canadian citizens' collective promise to pay? Earlier you said there was no distinction between "legal and "lawful"; do you still want to hold to that? If so, are you saying there is no difference between legal tender and lawful tender?

A loan has to be denominated in fiat money.

False. A loan need only be "denominated" in units of whatever commodity is being borrowed. Can I get a bankloan denominated in "special drawing rights"? If I write up a loan agreement with my neighbor in which I will lend him my lawnmower to be returned on a certain date with an extra gallon of gas, do I have to legally value both in dollars?

4. Social credit has never been demonstrated to work.

That's because it hasn't been tried. It never will be tried in our economy as long as private banks have a say (it will destroy their profits). Unfortunately for Canadians, the banks run your government.

The government happens to be sovereign over you.

No it isn't. As I said I'm a sovereign man and all are equal before the law.

5. With regard to provincial regulation of banking, you are either (1) just being pointlessly stubborn, or (2) asking several questions in one. Let me assume (2), for the sake of entertainment.

actually, I was trying to make a point that the financial administration of Canada is easier for the Crown if there is only one financial system to deal with and that is quite probably the only reason provinces have no control over the banks.

You have arbitrarily said "natural law is whatever I say it is", then said "and it's only law if it is consistent with natural law".

Where did I say natural law is what i say it is? That's kinda dumb isn't it? I wouldn't say a thing like that. Where did I say it?
While we're on the topic of law being what people say it is, why should I be subject to laws that somebody else made up? Because he (they) said so?

virtually the entire field of banking, currency, interest, paper money, bills of exchange (e.g. cheques, drafts, notes) are all assigned to the Federal government.

...and they've been abusing those privileges ever since.

7. Are you seriously arguing that there is a timeless and culturally invariable sense of fairness that is innate in every human being and gives inerrant guidance to the solution of any dispute between individuals? That's pretty far-fetched, dude.

I wouldn't say the guidance is inerrant (after all, we're only human), but outside of that, yes, that's what I'm saying and being the burned-out old hippie that I am, I'd say it's much more "far out" than "far fetched."
I'm pretty sure the human (and possibly other species) sense of justice & fair play probably precedes spoken language (let alone the written one).
How's that for precedent, eh?

8. Your point about Black's Law Dictionary is philosophically interesting and deserves a detailed answer.

My point was that not being a member of a law society or the BAR, I'm not bound by it's definitions.

You seem to believe that statutes are the primary source of law

Not at all. Statutes aren't law. They are only rules and regulations given the force of law within the society to which they apply. The movement of Canada to statutory law was a great shame, but it is my understanding that canada IS still a common law jurisdiction, no?

11. Your tendency towards egalitarianism is not innate, it's learned. I really do not understand the question you are asking in the second part of #11 and I'm not sure you do, either. First off, technically speaking, I'm not speaking in any capacity other than as a private citizen on here. Second, were I even speaking in a professional capacity, in that capacity I'm not an "agent" of the "Crown", be it Federal or provincial. I'm an Officer of the Court, if you care, but if you want to talk to agents of the Crown, I suggest you phone the Canada Revenue Agency.

As an officer of the court, and with the corresponding oath, are you not then an agent of the Crown? If you defend a client in court, is your first allegiance to your client or to the court? When your client makes you his lawyer, does he not then become a ward of the court, even before trial?
As for the Canada Revenue Agency, they will be hearing from me in due course.

Unless you ask the Canadian sitting in Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray.

That's another reason I have no respect whatsover for that miserable excuse for government. It doesn't even look after its own Canadians. Frankly it disgusts me!

The Constitution does apply to you

Only if I want it to. It doesn't apply to me so much as my person.

The common law courts you are referring to are actually part of the government of Canada. They are all de jure

Glad to hear it... I was beginning to wonder.

just as the government is de jure.

Oh, here we go again! The government is de facto, unless you have a presuasive answer for the GG being Canada's de facto head of state AND for elizabeth being a usurper of a title (in Canada) to which she is not heir.

Even the attorneys for the various aboriginal peoples recognize this. They just argue that the rights of the various aboriginal peoples **under the Constitution** have been violated

That's not what they should be arguing. Their rights have been violated period, as the Crown has screwed them "Royally."

you'll be surprised to discover a default judgment has been rendered against you and your opponent has proceeded to seize your bank accounts and garnish your wages.

How can that be if I've responded to the notice within a reasonable period of time?

You'll still be sitting in a cell if you fail to obtemporate to a summons from the Court.

Even if I surrender the person in chambers?

14. Yes. You see, you have no contract with the Crown.

Damn right I don't! Not a binding one anyway (in case I overlooked something by accident).

I don't hope you're jailed, Dukky. But if you ever are, I sincerely hope I'm in the courtroom when your lawsuit against the government for the "services" you rendered while incarcerated is heard.

It wouldn't be a lawsuit. I wouldn't contract with the court until they agreed to my fee schedule. If there were to be a lawsuit, it would be because the Crown stiffed me for a lawfully tendered bill, forcing me to sue them.

15. A valid and fair question.

I thought so, but I won't pursue the matter, since I'm not a child molester and therefore not likely to get tried & convicted for it in another country, or for that matter, in this one either.

Beer?...
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 145
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/9/2010 6:37:22 PM
@ Paul

It didn't work then, it won't work now. But, it is amusing.

That's because you don't know the distinction between the lawful man and the legal person. I assure you there is one great big distinction and it is not knowing what it is that enslaves people to the "system."

In my own case I am not a person; I am a man, a living soul that HAS a person. Moreover, my person is a private person and my allodial property (My person is not and cannot be in any way owned or held in servitude by anyone other than me). If there is anyone who can prove otherwise, I invite them to do so.
 ryanrucker
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 146
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/9/2010 7:33:29 PM
passionate perception, rational judgment, and logical reasoning ~

all of these attributes vary in each individual and culture, separating the 'good' from the 'bad'.

so this dichotomy creates : right, wrong, weak, strong,authority, laws~ the SYSTEM of ORDER...

so DuKKy........... how do you propose to revolt against a system, that we are surrounded by on such a complex scale. if you 'breakdown' the system (whatever the underlying cause) it will re-spawn. we cannot beat the system until we find the true cause of it's creation.
(which could possibly be intelligence)
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 147
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/9/2010 7:33:48 PM
BING!!! Round # ?- Thank you gentlemen kindly for the continued source of free entertainment.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 148
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/9/2010 10:19:30 PM

how do you propose to revolt against a system

I don't revolt against it. What do you do when you're tired of playing roulette?
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 149
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/10/2010 7:00:43 AM
That depends~ If it's Nerf dart gun roulette, and when you shoot yourself you have to remove an item of clothing, or take a shot of liquor, MMM that's the fun kind...

generally speaking you PUT THE GUN DOWN!
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 150
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/10/2010 12:16:05 PM
And here goes another round

1. I did comment on the unaccountability of the B.I.S. Again, however: you have no basis for making allegations of wrongdoing on their part. The fact that no one is watching someone does nothing to establish that that person is doing something wrong.

Your response to the question of whom the B.I.S. should be accountable to is completely impractical.

As for your wikipedia citation, not only are you (1) citing a source you previously attacked (again), you are brazenly misrepresenting its content. The B.I.S. did not "slough off the serious recommendations of the UN, The US, Norway and most of Europe". Specifically, you omit to cite the following sentence:
"In April of 1945 the British and Harry S. Truman stopped the dissolution of the BIS."

2. I'm not going to bother continuing the consitutional debate with you, it's pointless. Whenever confronted by accuracy, you do the rhetorical equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling.

3. A loan has to be denominated in fiat money. That's the law. The other contracts you are talking about are not even loans. This is getting tiresome.

4. The point of my posting is that the level of government with the constitutional authority to impose "social credit" is the Federal Parliament, not any of the provincial legislatures.

5. Just read sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Banking is in section 91. It is really just that simple.

The Federal Parliament that happens to be sovereign over you, within it's consitutionally-defined fields of jurisdiction, whether you like that fact or not. Whether they are enacting good laws or effectively enforcing the ones that have been enacted is another matter.

7. If what you are arguing is that a supposedly innate human sense of fairness ought to govern all disputes, that's pretty impractical. The whole starting point of this thread stems from the elementary observation that that sense of fairness leads different people to completely different views. Pointing at a supposed sense of fairness does nothing to solve the problem.

8. No one is "bound" by a definition in the Black's Law Dictionary. Those definitions are not rules, they are reports of usage.

The sentence "Statutes aren't law" is just false.

And technically speaking, Canada is a "mixed" jurisdiction in that part of Quebec's legal system is civilian in origin, not common law.

11. "As an officer of the court, and with the corresponding oath, are you not then an agent of the Crown? If you defend a client in court, is your first allegiance to your client or to the court? When your client makes you his lawyer, does he not then become a ward of the court, even before trial?"

I'll take them in order.
(1) no. You do not understand the law of agency, for one thing. The Crown and the Court are distinct, as you can easily note from the fact that criminal cases are styled R v. [Defendant's Name]. The defendant's attorney remains an Officer of the Court, and under a barrister's oath, but is not an agent of the Crown.

(2) "Allegiance" is the incorrect term to use. As an Officer of the Court, one has duties to the Court. As an attorney for a client, one has duties to the client. Sometimes they conflict, but it is impossible to give a detailed answer to how each one of those potential conflicts are to be resolved, for reasons of space.

(3) You have no understanding whatsoever of what it means to be a "ward of the Court". A ward of the Court is an infant or a person of unsound mind placed by the Court under the care of a guardian, like a trustee.

And to repeat, the government is de jure. Ms. Jean, the GG, is not the de facto head of state, she is the de jure representative of the head of state, who presently happens to be embodied in the person of Elizabeth II.

As for the technical question about how it could come about that a default judgment would get rendered against you, I'll give one technical example and then leave the subject alone.

If you are served with civil proceedings in the Province of Quebec, attached to the proceedings will be a notice of presentation that states that you must file an appearance in person or by attorney at the Court House in the judicial district of the action within 10 days of being served, otherwise a default judgment can be rendered against you. An "appearance" is literally a signed piece of paper with the head-note information for the case printed on it. You also have to have a copy of that piece of paper served on the other party or the other party's attorney, if they have one.

As for the aboriginal peoples, I'll personally leave the judgment calls about what they "should" be arguing to their lawyers.

14. The comments you have made in response to 14 are too silly to even bother answering.

Oh, and I'd be avoiding the attentions of the Canada Revenue Agency if I were you. Bizarre constitutional arguments, and failure to pay taxes, followed by deliberately bringing yourself to their attention?!?! That's about as smart as poking a bear in the coinpurse with a stick while it's eating.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 151
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/10/2010 3:58:43 PM
@ sly (What is this, round 3?...getcher gloves on...)

1.The fact that no one is watching someone does nothing to establish that that person is doing something wrong.

Correct; I'm only trying to make people aware of the BIS and its connection to the global monetary system. It is because nobody watches the magician's slight of hand that he is able to perform his amazing tricks; it is also when you are inattentive to your wallet that your pocket can be easily picked by a similar slight of hand. I just want people to know where their money is going. They can decide for themselves if guys like Shacht (one of the creators of the BIS) could really be trusted to handle their money ethically.

"In April of 1945 the British and Harry S. Truman stopped the dissolution of the BIS."

WHY? I haven't looked into it yet, but I'll bet Allen Dulles had a major role in that. He seems to turn up a lot in my research into international banking.

2. I'm not going to bother continuing the consitutional debate with you, it's pointless. Whenever confronted by accuracy, you do the rhetorical equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling.

No I don't. I just tell you it doesn't pertain to me, as it is the constitution of the government of Canada (an illegitimate de facto government, as I've mentioned before).

3. A loan has to be denominated in fiat money. That's the law. The other contracts you are talking about are not even loans. This is getting tiresome.

So I can't write a loan contract for my lawnmower unless I put a dollar value on it? How about a loan in monetized metal, like silver or gold? the value (in terms of fiat currency) fluctuates daily. Do I have to put a fixed dollar value on it and perhaps screw myself if it's value goes the wrong way in terms of the fiat currency?

4. The point of my posting is that the level of government with the constitutional authority to impose "social credit" is the Federal Parliament, not any of the provincial legislatures.

Well DUH!...I already knew that. My question was to get your speculation as to WHY.

5. Just read sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Banking is in section 91. It is really just that simple.

I read them. Their is nothing about WHY, only about who has the "right", which I already knew.

The Federal Parliament that happens to be sovereign over you, within it's consitutionally-defined fields of jurisdiction, whether you like that fact or not. Whether they are enacting good laws or effectively enforcing the ones that have been enacted is another matter.

Am I not equal before the law? Is parliament then a tyranny to impose its will on me? Oh, wait..."its constitutionally defined fields of jurisdiction"...What a relief...For a moment there you almost had me fooled. I don't fall under any of those fields, so it obviously has no jurisdiction over me...whew!

7. If what you are arguing is that a supposedly innate human sense of fairness ought to govern all disputes, that's pretty impractical. The whole starting point of this thread stems from the elementary observation that that sense of fairness leads different people to completely different views. Pointing at a supposed sense of fairness does nothing to solve the problem.
7. If what you are arguing is that a supposedly innate human sense of fairness ought to govern all disputes, that's pretty impractical. The whole starting point of this thread stems from the elementary observation that that sense of fairness leads different people to completely different views. Pointing at a supposed sense of fairness does nothing to solve the problem.
Let's take abortion as an example of where people may differ on what is and isn't fair. Suppose (for argument's sake) that Canada's government was the Catholic Church, but that all who lived in the land were not catholics, just the majority. Suppose further, that a non-catholic woman was pregnant by rape and wanted an abortion. Does the government have the right to force her to have the child against her will since they passed statutes that all catholic citizens cannot have abortions and that abortion is a crime of murder and punishable as murder? Can she be tried and convicted of murder if she had an abortion? If so, would you consider that verdict morally right or just? Can an unjust law be law?

8. No one is "bound" by a definition in the Black's Law Dictionary. Those definitions are not rules, they are reports of usage.

Good, then I'm free to attach my own (probably colloquial) definitions to what is legal or lawful.

The sentence "Statutes aren't law" is just false.

A statute (by my definition) is a rule or regulation given the force of law within a society. A law would apply across societies as law (e.g. murder is a punishable crime). Got a problem with my definitions?

Quebec's legal system is civilian in origin, not common law.

So a de jure court of the common law cannot be convened in Quebec?

he defendant's attorney remains an Officer of the Court

As a sworn officer of the court, is the defense attorney's first allegiance to the court or to the defendant?

As an attorney for a client, one has duties to the client. Sometimes they conflict

Why would a defendent entrust his defence to someone who may suffer from conflict of interest?

A ward of the Court is an infant or a person of unsound mind placed by the Court under the care of a guardian, like a trustee.

Or a defence attorney?

the government is de jure. Ms. Jean, the GG, is not the de facto head of state, she is the de jure representative of the head of state, who presently happens to be embodied in the person of Elizabeth II.

False. Don't even say that unless you have some proof. The GG's website called the GG a de facto head of state for YEARS, until just a couple of months ago, so I hardly think it was a typo! They may now conceal that little fact, but it is still a fact, unless you are aware of lawful change in her status in the last two or three months.

If you are served with civil proceedings in the Province of Quebec, attached to the proceedings will be a notice of presentation that states that you must file an appearance in person or by attorney at the Court House in the judicial district of the action within 10 days of being served

Which I would do, to tender my response to the judicial notice. IF the notice was properly and duly served to the correct party.

otherwise a default judgment can be rendered against you.

Tell me something I don't know.

14. The comments you have made in response to 14 are too silly to even bother answering.

OK

I'd be avoiding the attentions of the Canada Revenue Agency if I were you.

Don't think I can do that. There are some matters I want to bring to their attention.

Bizarre constitutional arguments, and failure to pay taxes, followed by deliberately bringing yourself to their attention?!?! That's about as smart as poking a bear in the coinpurse with a stick while it's eating.

I eat bears for breakfast. Don't tell me what I can or can't do. I'm a pretty tough li'l Dukky and I win the fights I pick! (when I pick fights...I am after all a pacifist) whether or not the CRA wants to get into a fight with me will be totally up to them...I just wanna negotiate... fairly...as an equal before the law. I'd only file suit as a last resort...After all, I don't want to create a controversy, but if I can't resolve it out of court than I'll have to resort to adjudication to get the matter resolved. They owe me money...a lot of money.
 Uncle Fist
Joined: 12/18/2006
Msg: 152
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/10/2010 6:29:04 PM
Here's the problem with that idea. People that are truly fundamentally good will have the end result in mind no matter what views they align themselves with. Their ultimate goal will be to do whatever will benefit the most people. So they will be willing to listen to and work with people with differing or even opposing ideas if their ultimate goal is still the same.

But people that are so married to a specific set of ideas that they would rather hurl insults at people who think differently than work with them do not truly care about the people as a whole. They only care about getting their own way. In essense, they only care about themselves. Thus, by defninition, they are NOT fundamentally good people.

It's like two divorced parents fighting over child custody for their own selfish benefits. If either of them truly cared about what was best for the child, they'd be willing to work together even if they hated one another.
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 153
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/11/2010 9:41:07 AM
Gloves are on.

1. Fine.

2. (Not continuing a pointless exhange on #2).

3. When you are transferring possession of your lawnmower for a fixed period of time, the contract you have is either (1) rental, if you are charging, (2) bailment, if you are not, (3) an entirely different kind of contract if you are in Quebec because Quebec's contract law is not common law, but civilian. And yes, if you lend money you run the risk of relative fluctuations in the value of currencies, unless you back the loan contract with a second contract, commonly referred to as a hedging contract. Satisfied?

4. I'm not speculating as to why. No minutes from the Charlottetown Conference in 1864 survive. If the answer is anywhere, it's probably in the private papers of Alexander Tilloch Galt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Tilloch_Galt

7. I'd prefer not to get into your hypothetical about abortion because it makes no sense. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Catholic Church cannot be involved in the government.

Take a real example, the Republic of Ireland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland.

Unjust laws are laws. Unconstitutional laws are not laws, strictly speaking. Depending on the specific example, an unjust law might or might not be unconstitutional, depending on the constitution that was applicable. An abortion ban is unconstitutional in Canada. It's not unconstitutional in the Republic of Ireland. Q.E.D.

8. Your first answer to #8 is just silly. I can call a dog a cat but that does not make it a cat. Anyone talking to me about dogs and cats will just get confused. As for the rest of it:
(a) I said that "part" of Quebec's legal system is civilian in origin. The Federal common law applies in Quebec, and in the proceedings before the Federal Court which happen to take place in Quebec, as well as criminal proceedings, as opposed to penal proceedings. The Federal Court is sitting in Quebec as I write this.

(b) Your question about a defence attorney's allegiance is muddled. There is no such thing as one simple rule that determines the answer as to how a defence attorney is to conduct his or herself in the case of a conflict between his or her duties to the Court and his or her duties to the client. It's not that simple, it depends on what the specific conflict is. If you really care, read Layton & Proulx, most of the major issues are answered in there: http://www.irwinlaw.com/store/product/47/ethics-and-canadian-criminal-law.

(c) Defendants in criminal proceedings are free to handle their own cases. It is called representing oneself pro se. More colloquially, it's called a bad decision, most of the time.

(d) The attorney-client relationship has nothing to do with the law of trusteeship. Both happen to be fiduciary relationships at common law, but that's it.

(e) Many government websites are replete with incorrect statements of the law. If what you are saying about what the GG's website **used** to say is true, which obviously I cannot check now, I'd hardly be surprised. Besides, I thought (accordingly to Dukky's Law Dictionary) Canada was an illegitimate de facto state, so why would it's Head of State's statement about the law matter? Dude, you just contradict yourself left and right.

(f) Default judgments get rendered after improper service of proceedings all the time. That's why we have motions in revocation of Judgment.

Congratulations on your ursine breakfasts and best of luck with your upcoming warfare with the tax department.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 154
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/11/2010 11:45:27 AM
Hi Sly...Round 4 comin' up...Ding!...

. When you are transferring possession of your lawnmower for a fixed period of time, the contract you have is either (1) rental, if you are charging, (2) bailment, if you are not, (3) an entirely different kind of contract if you are in Quebec because Quebec's contract law is not common law, but civilian. And yes, if you lend money you run the risk of relative fluctuations in the value of currencies, unless you back the loan contract with a second contract, commonly referred to as a hedging contract. Satisfied?

No, not quite satisfied yet. Your response raises some questions in my mind...
Don't both Quebec's contract law and contract law in general conform to the UCC? If so, what is the difference in law between a common law contract and Quebec civil law contract? Does common law not conform to UCC? If not, why not? Also if not, does that imply that a private two party contract negotiated in Quebec under common law auspices can't be adjudicated in Quebec in the event of controversy? If Canada is a common law jurisdiction (and Canada includes Quebec), how can it be that Quebec isn't also a common law jurisdiction?

4. I'm not speculating as to why. No minutes from the Charlottetown Conference in 1864 survive. If the answer is anywhere, it's probably in the private papers of Alexander Tilloch Galt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Tilloch_Galt

Is it not proper to justify a law with its intent in a preamble? How can unknown or lost information be used to simply make something law? Why is there no justification in the Constitution regarding the division of powers (like who can or can't make money or regulate the banking)?

7. I'd prefer not to get into your hypothetical about abortion because it makes no sense. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Catholic Church cannot be involved in the government.

My question was a hypothetical to get your take on just what makes laws valid or invalid, but OK, if you don't wanna address it or try to answer it, that's your prerogative. You can see where I'm going with it though, right?

Unjust laws are laws. Unconstitutional laws are not laws, strictly speaking.

So slavery was OK because the law said so at the time? Did we have laws before we had a constitution? If so, what did we need the constitution for?

An abortion ban is unconstitutional in Canada. It's not unconstitutional in the Republic of Ireland.

Aren't both societies common law jurisdictions? If so, do their constitutions override the common law? If not, how can they both be common law when one of them would necessarily lead to injustice? Is it a defined society's prerogative to decide what is and isn't unjust?

8. Your first answer to #8 is just silly. I can call a dog a cat but that does not make it a cat.

Such things can get confusing, especially in the courts. Tell me though, why does a section of the Income tax act define a person as "officer" instead of as a human being? Most people don't bother to read all 2600 plus pages of the act (and this year, they removed the definitions, so it's no longer enough to get a copy of the act itself). Most people don't realize that as citizens, and with "ignorance of the law being no excuse" that they are required to read and understand ALL of the federal & provincial legislation and ALL of the annual revisions, if they are not to be ignorant of the laws and inadvertantly break some. Seems like a lot of reading, don'tcha think...especially when its all written in legalese that has to be deconstructed with reference to all the special definitions and changes thereof. It would seem that trying NOT to be ignorant of the law is an unreasonable herculean task and a bit much to ask of anyone (even the lawmakers), let alone average people. How can the courts make the presumption that anyone before them should know the law because "ignorance is no excuse" when even the judge himself probably hasn't read & understood every Canadian or provincial statute?

(b) Your question about a defence attorney's allegiance is muddled. There is no such thing as one simple rule that determines the answer as to how a defence attorney is to conduct his or herself in the case of a conflict between his or her duties to the Court and his or her duties to the client. It's not that simple, it depends on what the specific conflict is.

A defendant without a lawyer might simply say he doesn't understand a law (and would therefore not be subject to a law he doesn't understand) or that his understanding of the law is different than the understanding of the the law by the court (which would give the defendent's view the colour of law). Can the defence attorney use that as a defence of his client without implying that the man is incompetent and should therefore be made a ward of the court? Is it even going to dawn on a defence attorney that his client may have legitimate defence under the colour of law? In representing the client, can the defence attorney even use the client's colloquial definitions (as opposed to the explicity & precisely defined non-colloquial definitions used in law) as part of the defence, or is he bound as a lawyer to use only the legal definitions?

It is called representing oneself pro se

what if one doesn't want to "represent" himself, but to BE himself? What if a man refuses to plead because he is equal before the law and therefore need not besmirch his honor by pleading to a "higher authority"?

Besides, I thought (accordingly to Dukky's Law Dictionary) Canada was an illegitimate de facto state, so why would it's Head of State's statement about the law matter? Dude, you just contradict yourself left and right.

No contradiction. That the GG used to admit to it is neither here nor there. the government is de facto owing to the ignoring of the repeal of section 2 of the BNA act. and the fact that the government of Canada doesn't serve the people of Canada (it is NOT part of their oath of office); it serves Her Majesty as her loyal servants.

Congratulations on your ursine breakfasts and best of luck with your upcoming warfare with the tax department.

There will be no war unless they declare it. I am after all only a peaceful li'l Dukky...with a sweet tooth for bear meat.

It goes really well with beer....

Have one on me...
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 155
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/11/2010 2:43:01 PM
Hey now Dukky Im the "Ding" girl; your taking my job away from me : (
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 156
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/11/2010 3:38:28 PM
1. “Don't both Quebec's contract law and contract law in general conform to the UCC?”
a. The short and easy answer is “no”, but explaining why takes a bit more effort.
b. The UCC is not actually a law. It is a “model” law, upon which many (but not all) U.S. states have based the commercial laws they have enacted.
c. The commercial codes of the various U.S. states that are modeled on the UCC vary from the terms of the UCC to greater or lesser degrees.
d. Your question about whether the “common law in general” conforms to the UCC has a suppressed premise, which is that it would be meaningful to speak about the common law “in general”. Contrary to what its name might tend to suggest, the common law actually varies a lot from place to place. And the United States of America (other than Louisiana) is only a common law country in a very attenuated sense anyhow.
e. The common law also covers subject matters much broader than mere commercial law.
f. It would take WAY too long to explain here the difference between a common law contract and a civil law contract. That’s a two semester first year contract law course at a law faculty with a comparative-law approach.
g. In theory it is possible to include a choice-of-governing-law and choice-of-forum clause in a contract to stipulate, for example, to have the laws of Ontario govern any dispute with respect to a contract, but that the parties irrevocably attorn to the jurisdiction of the Quebec courts. No one with enough knowledge to properly draft a clause like that would do anything so ludicrous because it would make an indecipherable and expensive mess in Court.
h. You do not negotiate a contract in Quebec under common law auspices because common law is not the jus commune in Quebec. The Civil Code of Quebec would govern. The fact that the Civil Code of Quebec does permit for choice-of-law clauses in some circumstances does not alter that fact.
i. Quebec’s private law is civilian in origin because Quebec was originally a colony of France, and the civilian private law was retained after the English conquest of what was called Nouvelle-France at the time. A similar situation exists in South Africa, which retained Roman-Dutch private law, in Scotland, which retained un-codified civilian law, and in Louisiana, which was part of a large area sold to the United States. Quebec is simultaneously a common law jurisdiction (for Federal law) and a civilian jurisdiction (for provincial law).
2. Not all statutes (yes, I did notice you just admitted statutes are laws) come with preambles. That’s a particular legislative practice that is not universally followed.
a. The lost information was not used to enact the law. You are confusing the debates leading up to the enactment of a statute with the technical process of enacting it. They are not the same thing.
b. There actually is a preamble in the Constitution Act, 1867. This is what it says:
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:
And whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the Interests of the British Empire:
And whereas on the Establishment of the Union by Authority of Parliament it is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but also that the Nature of the Executive Government therein be declared:
And whereas it is expedient that Provision be made for the eventual Admission into the Union of other Parts of British North America:
3. Slavery was legal. It was unjust. A perfect example of what I am talking about.
4. As for your question as to whether we had laws before we had a constitution, it depends on what you are talking about. The Dominion of Canada had no laws before it had a constitution because it did not exist prior to Confederation. The various colonies that joined up to form it had English common law, or (in Quebec’s case) a mix of English common law and civilian law, which meant they had a constitution, but an unwritten one: the Constitution of the United Kingdom at the time. That’s why the Constitution Act, 1867 refers to a Constitution “similar in principle” to that of the United Kingdom. Canada’s constitution is partly written, partly unwritten, and remains so up to this day.
5. The unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom was always part of the common law. Or to be more precise, as far back as it is meaningful to speak of, in common law terms: time immemorial. Which, at common law, is a specific date: 1189.
6. Both the Republic of Ireland and Canada are common law jurisdictions. But the common law is not invariable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. And the Consitution of Canada and the common law are not completely distinct from one another either, so it’s nonsense to speak of one as overriding the other. Which is a very different statement than pointing out that the Constitution Act, 1982 in some respects mandated changes to the common law.
7. Justice and legality are distinct from one another. Unless you are talking about “fundamental justice” which is a technical term with a specific meaning that varies depending on the specific legal context you are talking about.
8. Citizens of Canada are not “required” to read and understand all the provincial and Federal statutes, regulations, etc. which are in force at any time, which is a good thing, because that would be humanly impossible. They are “deemed” to know the law, which is very different. You are actually asking a fairly deep philosophical question about the structure and operation of the law. But legally speaking, the answer is clear.
9. Your follow-up question on defence attorneys continues to be muddled. Every citizen is subject to laws he does not in fact understand, but is deemed to understand. The validity of a law does not depend on one individual’s actual knowledge of it. Well, to be precise, in some limited circumstances it can. There is a defence of “officially induced error” which can apply where an official responsible for actually enforcing a regulation, for example, actually mislead the Defendant into believing that he was complying with it. Otherwise, a defendant’s actual understanding of the law is completely irrelevant. And in fact, technically speaking, the Judge’s actual understanding of the law is completely irrelevant; a judgment is either legally correct or wrongly decided.
10. This “colour of law” business is a pure invention on your part. The actual phrase is “colour of right” and has a technical meaning. Any defence attorney who did any of the things you are suggesting would themselves be incompetent, both professionally and in practical terms. As a defence attorney, you are supposed to conduct a case with the aim of winning it, not with the aim of giving your client a soapbox for bizarre and false legal theories, such as so-called ‘colloquial’ legal definitions.
11. If you refuse to plead in a criminal case in Canada, that is legally deemed a plea of not guilty. What you think you are doing by refusing to plead is completely irrelevant.
a. This is a legal advance, by the way. At one point in time, what they used to do was pile heavy rocks on top of you until you gave up and pleaded, or died. I’m not kidding about that. The logic was pretty sound, oddly. At the time, most offences were punishable by death, and if you were not pleading not guilty voluntarily, well, they could pretty much assume why, and the bit with the rocks avoided the whole time and effort of a trial.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 157
Politicians are just lawyers who fell further down on the tree of evolution
Posted: 2/12/2010 1:52:06 AM
Thank you sly for your very informative and well written response to my questions. There are still some things as yet unclear to me, but I feel sure you might be able to clear them up. I will be addressing only those parts of your post that still concern me or confuse me somewhat.

The UCC is not actually a law. It is a “model” law, upon which many (but not all) U.S. states have based the commercial laws they have enacted.

I thought "UCC stood for universal commercial code and served as the model for international business law. You say it isn't even valid across all states in the US (in the sense of conformity to the model). Was I mistaken?

g. In theory it is possible to include a choice-of-governing-law and choice-of-forum clause in a contract to stipulate, for example, to have the laws of Ontario govern any dispute with respect to a contract, but that the parties irrevocably attorn to the jurisdiction of the Quebec courts. No one with enough knowledge to properly draft a clause like that would do anything so ludicrous because it would make an indecipherable and expensive mess in Court.

I guess a lot of software companies & websites must be using hack lawyers, because those cross jurisdictional clauses sound a lot like a lot of software license agreements & commercial agreements people are asked to agree to on a lot of websites.

in Scotland, which retained un-codified civilian law

Uncodified?...What was it based on? Natural law? The Bible? Traditions? What? Could it be correctly called an uncodified common law?

2. Not all statutes (yes, I did notice you just admitted statutes are laws) come with preambles. That’s a particular legislative practice that is not universally followed.

Actually, I didn't admit that statutes were laws; what I said was that they were rules & regulations given the force of law within a society. They are not law in the sense that they do not apply to anyone outside the society. For instance, you are undoubtedly a member of a law society. I assume it has a constitution or equivalent document, an oath of allegiance or something similar, by which you are bound (voluntarily) to the society, and a set of rules & regulations (or statutes), which, as a member of that society, you are bound to follow, or be subject to some sort of fine or disciplinary action. Those rules & regulations (wearing powdered wigs & funny robes in some jurisdictions) would only pertain to you, as a member of that society, but not to (for instance) Dukkys without a licence to practice law (and are too small for those robes anyway). So I think we established pretty clearly that statutes are only binding on the members of a society.

a. The lost information was not used to enact the law. You are confusing the debates leading up to the enactment of a statute with the technical process of enacting it.

Actually, I was thinking more in terms of some sort of preamble being necessary to show a justification for a law (by that I mean statute) being enacted and to clarify the intent of a law. For instance I once beat a traffic ticket for an equipment violation by simply pointing out to the judge that it was my understanding that the purpose of the equipment was blah blah. He said yes that was the intent of the law, to which I replied that other equipment on the vehicle served that purpose and he immediately dismissed the case. How can a law be enacted without specifying a reason or intent?

3. Slavery was legal. It was unjust. A perfect example of what I am talking about.

It's a perfect example of what I'm talking about too. An unjust law can't long stand on the books because it is finally seen to be unjust. It is our duty to repeal unjust laws. I feel an unwritten law would be quicker to act on such injustices because there would immediately be no law to repeal, so the inertia to change would be lessened considerably. In the case of slavery, as soon as it was seen that it was wrong to consider slaves as less than men, or to consider them property. Bang... the law is changed without the need of waiting for a landmark case to come to trial to have the codified law struck down and all precedents related to it reexamined or nullified.

The Dominion of Canada had no laws before it had a constitution because it did not exist prior to Confederation.

So did we have chaos and anarchy and rioting in the street and lawlessness? (some on these forums would think so, so I think we should dispel those rumors). While we are on the subject of earlier laws, I notice that what I'm espousing as natural law might more correctly be termed "Stoic natural law", (at least in its roots), the law of rational reason as best manifested in the Roman law concept of lus natural and probably first implemented as the Roman lus gentium, which led to the legal philosophy of natural justice (employed in many jurisdictions) which forms something of a foundation for the common law, which I consider the codification of natural law with some feudalistic implications I'd just as soon dispense with. So your "time immemorial" date of 1189 for "common law" is at odds with the law by which I abide, which I call the common law (or more correctly, the "law of the people", which goes back considerably farther.

But the common law is not invariable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

The law of rational reason ought not vary from one jurisdiction to another. It ought to be universal, though I concede that unique societies, having different customs & beliefs as they do may vary intheir interpretation. Given that variance across jurisdictions, laws that are not common to all rational societies do not therefore form part of the set of what I call natural law, until better defined by logic and reason. By that I mean that where a law must rely on unreasonable assumptions (a fertilized egg is a human being, etc) rather than reasonable ones (one is not a human being until expelled living from the mother - or of equivalent development if cloned in a vat lol) it is not a reasonable or natural law.

Unless you are talking about “fundamental justice” which is a technical term with a specific meaning that varies depending on the specific legal context you are talking about.

It is a fairly recent term, closely associated with what I'm talking about, but as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't enter my terminology as it is too recent, too ill-defined (by the lawyers trying to make it into some sort of legalese) and too restricted. It has the right idea, but IMO the idea is not sufficiently developed for me to use the term. Suffice it to say that the essence of its implied meaning relates closely with my concept of natural law.

8. Citizens of Canada are not “required” to read and understand all the provincial and Federal statutes, regulations, etc. which are in force at any time, which is a good thing, because that would be humanly impossible. They are “deemed” to know the law, which is very different.

Is that a reasonable assumption for the courts to make? You just said it is impossible, yet the ONLY way to know legislated law is to read and study it, so how may they reasonably be "deemed" to know it if knowing it is an impossible task? How may the maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" possibly apply? In my mind the only possible interpretation in which the maxim may be true is if legislated law isn't law.

But legally speaking, the answer is clear.

See above and tell me again how clear it is.

9. Your follow-up question on defence attorneys continues to be muddled. Every citizen is subject to laws he does not in fact understand, but is deemed to understand.

...by assumpsit. What if he announces that he doesn't understand the law? If he doesns't stand under a law how is he subject to it?

10. This “colour of law” business is a pure invention on your part.

An accidental one. I really meant to say colour of right, but got caught up in the moment...my bad...sorry. I forget now what I was arguing...I'll get back to it later...maybe...

11. If you refuse to plead in a criminal case in Canada, that is legally deemed a plea of not guilty. What you think you are doing by refusing to plead is completely irrelevant.

That only comes under the criminal code, with which I (largely) agree, at least in crimes of harm, but not the victimless ones, like drug possession (if indeed that forms part of the criminal code,I haven't checked). How does your argument regarding pleas fare under the rest of statutory law in Canada?

a. This is a legal advance, by the way. At one point in time, what they used to do was pile heavy rocks on top of you until you gave up and pleaded, or died. I’m not kidding about that. The logic was pretty sound, oddly. At the time, most offences were punishable by death, and if you were not pleading not guilty voluntarily, well, they could pretty much assume why, and the bit with the rocks avoided the whole time and effort of a trial.
a. This is a legal advance, by the way. At one point in time, what they used to do was pile heavy rocks on top of you until you gave up and pleaded, or died. I’m not kidding about that. The logic was pretty sound, oddly. At the time, most offences were punishable by death, and if you were not pleading not guilty voluntarily, well, they could pretty much assume why, and the bit with the rocks avoided the whole time and effort of a trial.
Ouch!!...Is it really true what I hear about the origin of the word "testify"?
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 158
Politicians are just lawyers who fell further down on the tree of evolution
Posted: 2/12/2010 10:09:18 AM
To Dukky: Thank you for your courtesy.

1. The UCC stands for Uniform Commercial Code. Technically speaking, it is not even valid in one state. It's a model law drafted by several private organizations working in collaboration. Most states base their commercial laws on it, but that does not mean that even one state has laws in total conformity with it.

What is stated about the UCC on wikipedia is largely accurate, if very vague at points and totally incomplete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code#cite_note-2

Read what it says about Payne v. Stalley to see the consequences of what I am talking about.

2. As for a lot of software companies using hack lawyers, under the rules of professional ethics I'm not going to leap to conclusions about professional incompetence of attorneys I do not even know.

A lot of those companies are using no lawyers at all. It is very common for businesspeople to cut and paste together contracts they do not even understand because they do not want to hire lawyers. The result is frequently contractual gibberish like incompatible or nonsensical clauses, which leads to very, very expensive fights in Court. If you are writing a contract to deal with a U.S.-based outfit and they insist on having U.S. .law apply to it, you either stipulate for the law of the state you will actually be doing the business in, and attorn to the Courts of that state, or you stipulate for New York or Delaware, the latter being generally by far the superior choice as the Delaware Court of Chancery is among the finest commercial courts in the world, both in the quality of its appointees and the quality of its commercial law.

Scotland's private law is uncodified Roman law in origin, just as the applicable law in Southern France was, prior to the Code Napoléon. This is similar to South Africa, wherein the private law is uncodified Roman-Dutch law, a variant of civilian law. Actually, to call it "uncodified" civilian law is a bit of a misnomer. Much of the content of that law ultimately derives (through a long process of evolution) from the Corpus Juris Civilis of the Roman Emperor Justinian, which was a codification of earlier uncodified Ancient Roman law. Civilian law is a lot older than the common law and has been around in one form or another since the Laws of the Twelve Tables and the founding of the Ancient Roman Republic.

Wikipedia's article is not a terrible introduction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) but there are much better texts in any law library worthy of the name.

2. Your point about membership in a law society is fundamentally accurate. Your extrapolation from it is not. You are subject to Canadian law whether you like it or not, merely by virtue of being in Canada. It's not a matter of consent on your part.

2a) Laws are enacted without specifying a reason or intent all the time. It's actually advantageous to someone in your position, because then if you're prosecuted under a statute you are free to argue whatever intent is minimally plausible and supports your position.

3. Slavery stayed "on the books" for centuries in many of the territories that eventually became part of what is now the U.S. The U.S. had a civil war over it, and even after the civil war, once the period of Reconstruction was over, the former slave states enacted Black Codes to reinstitute a legally inferior status for people descended from Africans. Many of them wound up sharecroppers, which in economic terms was almost worse than being a slave, because the plantation owners did not even have to ensure they had enough to eat. Were it not for determined NAACP lawyers, the Warren Supreme Court and the U.S. President Gerald Ford, African-Americans would collectively still be treated as inferiors. If there was no written law to rely on, they'd still be slaves.

4. Your argument about the supposed "law of rational reason" is completely muddled and historically inaccurate. The ius gentium is in no way based on Stoicism. That's just completely wrong. The ius gentium never had any relationship to Stoicism per se. I'm not stating that Stoicism per se was wrong, I think it had some impressive insights, but it is just not accurate that the ius gentium derived from it.

If you think the ius gentium formed the foundation for the common law you need to spend five minutes reading something about the actual history of the common law because that is 100% inaccurate. Time immemorial at common law is 1189. That's just accurate. You are completely confusing two distinct legal systems.

5. Law just is not based on rationality. It's a completely unjustified assumption or belief on the part of various Enlightenment philosophers that that is even possible.

6. As for the point about ignorance of the law, what you have to do is think a contrario. What would be the effect of failing to deem that every citizen knows the law? If ignorance of the law was an excuse, it would be literally impossible to have laws of general application, because anyone called upon to obey them in any context, can simply argue that they were unaware of them. It would also be impossible to have meaningful equality before the law, because laws would apply to people, or not, based on whether they were aware of them or not.

You are failing to make a fundamental distinction because you have bought into the completely false rationale of contractarianism, the bizarre notion that all laws are based on explicit and knowing consent of the governed. Even the contractarian philosophers (Locke, Hobbes, etc.) fudge their logic by advancing the self-contradictory claim that laws are supposedly based on consent of the governed, but that the governed can consent on behalf of their offspring, which makes no sense at all.

You are right that the maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" would be contradictory if the force of law was based on consent, but the force of law is not based on consent. Or, to be more precise, it is not based on consent in the way that you seem to think. The practical efficacy of the law to a certain extent is based on mass 'consent', in the limited sense that sufficient groups of people who are organized actively enforce it, and the rest passively acquiesce. But that's practical efficacy, not legality. Laws are breached all the time left and right, and enforcement is always very imperfect.

Contract law is particular law that applies between the parties only, but it exists by virtue of non-contractual law that makes it possible, by stipulating the necessary conditions for formation of a contract.

9. You have no idea what idebitatis assumpsit was.

Read Lionel Smith on the Law of Restitution: http://books.google.com/books?id=CIvr-XmBRBwC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=%22indebitatus+assumpsit%22&source=bl&ots=z7AuDbC8SR&sig=rLdEe_zYyLJyEjZ0i9yoyeM1nuE&hl=en&ei=UoSoSeD8DMiLngeu5JjeDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#v=onepage&q=%22indebitatus%20assumpsit%22&f=false

In short, indebitatis assumpsit is a largely obsolete form of pleading. It's got nothing to do with what you're talking about, Dukky.

If a defendant announces he does not understand tha law, the Judge will tell him that does not matter, unless he's pleading officially induced error. And the Judge will probably tell the defendant that getting a lawyer would be a good idea.

11. Drug possession actually is not in the Criminal Code. It's in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. If you are charged under a statute other than the Criminal Code, the same rules for pleading apply. Criminal Procedure is laregly common law, although some elements of it are codified.

I personally do not think that "victimless" crimes should remain criminalized, but my belief is not based on some airy legal theory, it's based on the practical consequences of criminalizing victimless crimes, which is creating extremely lucrative markets for organized criminals to peddle poison, sexually exploit the vulnerable, and engage in various rackets. You guarantee supply by purporting to forbid it, which is ludicrously counter-productive.

It leads to generalized contempt for the law when citizens observe that people are incarcerated at public expense for selling substances that are more innocuous than alcohol, also.

If illegal drugs were legalized, the prices for them would drop through the floor and no one would bother supplying them because the profit would disappear. Then we could public-health-propaganda their use into slow extinction, as is being done with cigarettes today. And needle-injected spread of HIV is also a serious consideration in favor of legalization, in my view.

a. I do not know what you've heard about the origin of the word testify. The "peine forte et dure" I'm talking about (the bit with the rocks) was not nearly the most ridiculous element of the early common law.

Trial by fire ranks up there, but the real winner in my view was "benefit of Clergy". At one time, if you were a cleric, a member of the Church, you were not subject to the common law, you were tried before ecclesiastical Courts. These had the distinct benefit of a lot fewer death-penalty offences.

But the Church at the time was a much more massive institution, and there was in fact all kinds of uncertaintainty and ambiguity about who was and wasn't a cleric, depending on the office they held. So they needed a consistent and systematic legal test to tell if someone claiming to be a cleric was in fact a cleric. They settled upon literacy, because the Church was pretty much the only institution that taught people how to read at the time.

But very soon, they developed the practice of having everyone subject to the test "read" the same psalm out of the Bible. So if you had a lawyer to explain to you which psalm it was, and if you could concoct some semi-plausible claim to clerical office, and you were capable of memorizing a psalm, basically you got a free pass out of a bunch of death-penalty offences, you know, for things like stealing bread.

All of this nonsense was eventually abolished, but if you think the current Court system is out of whack, believe me, we've come a long way, baby.
 Dansk Bjorn
Joined: 9/19/2007
Msg: 159
view profile
History
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/13/2010 2:51:34 PM
Humanity has becomed Hard-Wired towards Ignorance. Not so much to BE Ignorant..but more so not to Expose..Our Ignorance.

"In times of famine the Devil feeds on Flies" ..Joseph Goebbels
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 160
Politicians are just lawyers who fell further down on the tree of evolution
Posted: 2/18/2010 10:37:18 PM
@ sly
Sorry for my enforced absence. There are a couple of points worthy of further discussion and I'd like to continue a bit.


2. Your point about membership in a law society is fundamentally accurate. Your extrapolation from it is not. You are subject to Canadian law whether you like it or not, merely by virtue of being in Canada. It's not a matter of consent on your part.

What does "being in Canada" mean? If I resign from Canada (the corporation) and am no longer a government employee, how am I subject to Canadian statutes? How may it be said that I still fall under the jurisdiction of the Crown?

4. Your argument about the supposed "law of rational reason" is completely muddled and historically inaccurate.

So there was no law before Hammurabi codified it? What is the intent of law if not the administration of justice? What is justice if not fairness?

5. Law just is not based on rationality

If law is not based on justice and reason, but only on majority opinion and force, then I refuse to be subject to it and will oppose it to my dying breath for the sake of every virgin ever "lawfully" sacrificed on an altar, or a volcano. Frankly, I'm surprised that such an intelligent & nice guy such as yourself would want to be part of a system like that.

What would be the effect of failing to deem that every citizen knows the law?

Making the law knowable by eliminating the garbage "laws" through simplification?

Even the contractarian philosophers (Locke, Hobbes, etc.) fudge their logic by advancing the self-contradictory claim that laws are supposedly based on consent of the governed, but that the governed can consent on behalf of their offspring, which makes no sense at all.

Obviously the governed CAN'T consent for their offspring. That's what makes treaties and approved constitutions such a joke. How is it in the least rational to suppose that you are subject to laws & agreements that were made & approved by your great-grandparents? Just because the philosophers screwed part of their theses because they refused to slaughter a sacred cow or two is no reason to suggest the concept's invalidity.

the force of law is not based on consent.

The force of law is based on the social contract made with the society in which you live. In the absence of any such contract, something akin to universal jurisdiction ought to apply.

based on mass 'consent', in the limited sense that sufficient groups of people who are organized actively enforce it

The you have no rights...only privileges granted by the majority. That can't be right.

9. You have no idea what idebitatis assumpsit was.

You're right...at least until you mentioned it and I looked it up. What I meant by "assumpsit" (and what I now know to be the incorrect word for what I wanted to express) was the concept that it may be presumed that if one does not respond in a timely manner to a notice, it is because one has no dispute with allegations/assertions in the notice. What is the correct word for that? (i.e. a form of tacit acceptance or consent)

11. Drug possession actually is not in the Criminal Code.

Am I correct that everyone is in violation of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act since every one produces DMT naturally in their brains?

if you think the current Court system is out of whack, believe me, we've come a long way, baby.

No doubt, but we still have a long way to go.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?