A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protections.

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protections.

Postby Parodites » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:37 am

The piece of paper is not what gives us our rights, much less the state which takes this piece of paper as its foundational legal document. The Declaration says explicitly, in it first page- in the first sentence of its fist page,- even by allusion to the terminology of Euclidean geometry, that our rights are abstract self-evident truths granted from out of God and Nature: they are grounded in metaphysical principles. Accordingly, these rights are infinite; they are arbitrary, indefinite: without number. The Constitution tells us that a Right does not need to be explicitly stated or defined, in order to be implicitly protected just the same as rights that are so defined, like our right to free speech. The only reason that some rights are explicitly stated or added via amendment, is as a further act of protection against unforeseen complications between the different branches of government. So in other words: I have a right to be my own doctor and essentially use any drug as I see fit, to just imagine one such "implicit right". That right is just as protected as my right to free speech. Yet all these institutions have been built up through executive order, over time: all these illegal federal agencies. It is, from my perspective, simply illegal for an agency like the DEA to exist, yet a Tower of Babel kind of skyscraper of legalisms has been covertly and slowly built up over time, through the generations, on this illegitimate understanding (either intentionally or due merely to stupidity) of constitutional philosophy. Do you know what it would take to unravel this tapestry of unjustifiable legalism? 1,000 supreme court trials, that would take nearly the same amount of years to go through. It goes without saying, that such a monumental event is not likely to transpire for the sake of defending any one of these implicitly protected Rights. Now, it is only though the process of amendment, that this horrific legal machinery can be overcome and one of our implicit rights granted what is supposed to be a natural protection, equivalent to that provided for our explicitly stated rights, owed to it from the outset. I will include an excerpt from one of my books on this: I believe this point of constitutional philosophy is one of the most important things to know, at least for a US citizen. It is just sad for me to see this Tower of Babel of legalism and executive order grow taller and taller, year by year, with no end in sight. It is sad for me to see the finer and most significant realities of our foundational system of Law just, forgotten, or dismissed.

Tractatus Metapolitica:

He, [Socrates] for the first time in history, recognized and mobilized
the forces of marginalization that existed unconsciously within the collective demos or populace in their organization as 'polis',
(whose realization Aristotle had branded as the very telos of human nature) internalizing within himself these forces through a kind of
philosophic-agon or contest of the latent social stresses and various powers he saw as unjustly limiting the potential of the individual
Athenian citizen for the sake of the needs of the polis in which the given individual was absumpted into his concomitant roles in
society, as regulated by the form of arete which a culture had chosen to idealize and with which it motivated its constituents toward
civic good and conformation to the social ordo, [The example I use is women. Yes, they lacked certain rights, but this state was
balanced by their also lacking the responsibility that came with those rights, which afforded them social powers in exchange for
political powers,- social powers that men did not have. Every single social role was balanced in this way, so that the demos or
collective was organized into a political body, a "polis" that circulated libido or the life-impulse as efficiently as possible: the more
efficiently it did so, the less conscious the individual citizen was of their limitation and fate, in their being subordinated to the needs
of the State to maintain this efficiency. Thus, nobody ever became aware of their social limitation, at least on a deeper philosophical
level necessary for deriving any revolutionary potential- until Socrates.] as what he called his "conscience",- a inner "daemon" which
manifested itself as a criterion-of-judgement to which he held each of his interlocutors and in fact Athens itself,- or more properly, the
world itself,- in accordance to the needs and desires of the "individual", contra or independently from the needs (the ens-politica) of
the polis,- that organization of the demos whose perfection Aristotle championed as the supreme end of ethics. This development through
Socrates enabled, after Rome had assimilated and overpowered Greece, Christianity to emerge, which further developed and
eventually realized a true ethical conceptualization of the value of the Individual- a value taken as superior to the value of the demos,
polis, or the State. Finally, Greek political science and metaphysics was incorporated into Christianity by the Gnostics and Alexandrians
who, in turn incorporating the Platonic philosophy grounded upon- but not limited to this essential teaching of Socrates, [Plato's
Republic, while not reaching a political idea that codified the absolute primacy of the individual, should be read as a kind of
miniaturization of his understanding of anamnesis and reincarnation that succeeds in approximating the ethical value of the
Individual: he identifies the Philosopher-soul as the true and only Individual, and his Republic is set up to essentially shepherd souls
from the lowest position in society up to the heights of Philosophy.] finally laid the groundwork for- the US, essentially,- whose
constitution, at least at present, is the only one to canonize these ethical realizations of the Individual as primary, even at the level of
the super-ethical, ie. metaphysics. [The so called "rights" in European states are merely privileges afforded by the State that can be
modified at any time and to whatever extent the State pleases, whereas the rights of the US are explicitly stated to be "self-evident",
echoing Euclid's phrase and indicating that they are not granted to us by the State but by God and Nature, as furthermore grounded
upon true abstractions, that is, metaphysical principles that cannot be modified in anything but their historical presentation, never in
their essence; in fact, the Constitution goes further by stating that man's rights are infinite in potential and a right need not be
EXPLICITLY stated in the constitution in order to be granted the same protection as rights that are, for these rights are not given to us
by the piece of paper- by the constitution, but by either God or Nature, (the Constitution- in fact Law itself, as understood in the US,-
does not grant us our rights- it PROTECTS them from the tyranny of other men and from the State itself by codifying a system of
checks and balances, a mathematically rigorous coordination and dispensation of political power, in which to further organize their
exceedingly complex interplay and 'historical presentation') grounded as they are on principles based on the idea of Natural Law and
the Sphere of Nature in relation to the INDIVIDUAL and of that of the individual in relation to his fellows, ie. all that I can do of my
own power without overstepping the sphere of nature which I occupy and encroaching upon another individual's sphere, belongs to
me.]
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:34 pm

Parodites wrote: I have a right to be my own doctor and essentially use any drug as I see fit, to just imagine one such "implicit right". That right is just as protected as my right to free speech.

It is?

The US Constitution itemizes specific protected rights. Self medication isn't one of them, is it?
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Parodites » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:29 pm

Did you not... read the post? A right does not need to be explicitly stated in order to be implicitly protected the same as those that are explicitly stated. That is stated directly in our founding legal documents.

There is an infinite number of such implicit rights, (like my right to be my own doctor: these implicit rights trace all the way back to the metaphysical foundations of Western thought, Greek political science, the concept of natural law, etc.) and the only reason one of them is ever explicitly stated is simply to clarify (via amendment) its relationship to other rights or its practical application given unforeseen complications between the different branches of government. No amendment has been passed to clarify anything about my right to self-medication, therefor the DEA, as an agency existing solely through executive order, is constitutionally illegitimate.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Parodites » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:49 pm

That is what made- and makes, this country superior to similarly "free" States like England, where rights are not metaphysically grounded inviolable principles but merely privileges born out of negotiations between the people and the government that can be modified or revoked arbitrarily and at any time that government sees fit. I went over that in the self-excerpt. So to demonstrate the logic: my right to be my own doctor and self-medicate doesn't have anything to do with, for example, your right to free speech. If an eventuality were to come about where somehow it did, then an amendment would be passed- merely to clarify the relationship between these two rights, one implicit and one explicit, with their complication arising only through the interaction of different branches of government, which are not perfectly efficient or sufficient in their political representation of the sphere of nature, that is, the domain of that numberless measure of implicit rights afforded to me by God. Thus it is not any one right that is protected, but the actual sphere of nature itself, by which the capacity for self-direction is invested to every human being,- attendant by an arbitrary number of self-directed acts that it would be impractical (impossible) to codify as distinct rights in toto because their number is essentially endless. The idea of an implicit mechanism of protection then, was integral to constitutional philosophy: for those implicit rights are just as meaningful as those we have thus far explicitly codified.

I recognize that it might induce some cognitive dissonance and you may be telling yourself, no that can't be true, because the government... like, the government can't be doing all of this illegal stuff right? They kill people every day, seize our property, etc. all on the basis of legally illegitimate, bastardized deliberate misinterpretations of constitutional philosophy? A betrayal of every intention bled for in the establishment of this nation as the morally justified, presiding hegemon? Yeah, it isn't just the DEA. It is nearly every federal agency that currently exists: all constitutionally illegitimate, deep-state backed, corrupted afterbirths of generations worth (both by the populace and our leaders) of ignorance about our own founding legal documents, the political intentions and the greater philosophic underpinning upon which our forefathers had couched this Great Work.
Last edited by Parodites on Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:00 pm

So it seems like you are claiming that you should be protected in doing anything you get the urge to do - nature.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Parodites » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:17 pm

No... That isn't what a natural right means. A natural right is anything that I get the urge to do and can achieve through my own self-directed acts without infringing upon another person or their rights. So as an example, I can grow a field of Opium poppy on my own land, harvest it, and then consume it without ever infringing upon you. I can enter into a voluntary sexual relationship with another person without infringing on you or your rights. Etc. etc. So: the US was established as a nation that- yes, was meant to protect the individual in his 'pursuit of happiness' and self-determination, along whatever course he saw fit to follow, as long as it did not exceed the bounds of his natural rights. That's what... made this nation great. And I'm not claiming anything. The Constitution, Declaration and Bill of Rights grant me implicit protection of any Right not modified or addressed by an amendment or the text of the Constitution, Declaration, and Bill of Rights themselves. Self-medication has not been addressed in that way, therefor it falls under the banner of our implicitly protected rights and any federal agency created merely out of an executive order that seeks to infringe on that implicit right is constitutionally illegitimate and an act of tyranny that should not be permitted by the People.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Meno_ » Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:38 pm

Actually, the transperancy has become obvious by now, that the original document is not literal in the sense of actual intended meaning ofnthe pathogenesis is, it merely expresses a derative based on faith that resource is irrelevant.

I see Your argument disqualifies transcended moral-ethical argument based on the preferred social contract of Rousseau, not Hobbes, or rather some kind of compromise between.

In fact, if the God sourced disclaimer were to totally eclipse all further meaning of the Constitution, then of course it could be alleged that the Constitution is totally void because of the Bill of.Rights' dependant on the faith of forbearance on that part of saod document.

However the Constitution was a.transcendental vehicle , that posits objective criteria by which it can summon other sources, because of the timing of the writing, very close to the developing dissention that only the genius of Benjamin Franklin could evoke.
That is why the backward look into onthogenetic possibilities is full of holes, and that is what gives a.false blanket of.security to Trump's base.

They can not do reversely what Benjamin Franklin did forewardly, because he did not start off with the language of.contradictions that they could not surmise.

This is why the argument from deus machina is inadequate to justify of deny relevance.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5930
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Parodites » Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:48 pm

Meno, are you drunk, a Markov-chain chatbot, or both? I am genuinely curious, I"m not trying to be insulting.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:50 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:So it seems like you are claiming that you should be protected in doing anything you get the urge to do - nature.

In as far as it does not infringe upon other peoples powers to do as they please. Thats where the reason for explicit rights comes in.

Since there is not just one person in the nation, this means that persons have to be protected from each other in their right to go about as they like. Protection from government is the centre piece of this idea.

If only the things made explicit in the document amounted to rights, it would be Unconstitutional for you to draw a breath. After all the right to breathe is not mentioned.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9752
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:30 am

Parodites wrote:Do you know what it would take to unravel this tapestry of unjustifiable legalism? 1,000 supreme court trials, that would take nearly the same amount of years to go through. It goes without saying, that such a monumental event is not likely to transpire for the sake of defending any one of these implicitly protected Rights.

Are you implying the Supreme Court does not defend individual Rights?

That is its very purpose for existence. It exists, and functions to protect Rights as afforded by and through the US Constitution.

If any person believes such Rights are impinged then the Supreme Court will hear it.


The Supreme Court has ruled countless times for such Rights, against Corporations, against Bureaucracy, and against the other US Governmental branches, for the sake of individual citizens.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Parodites » Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:10 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Parodites wrote:Do you know what it would take to unravel this tapestry of unjustifiable legalism? 1,000 supreme court trials, that would take nearly the same amount of years to go through. It goes without saying, that such a monumental event is not likely to transpire for the sake of defending any one of these implicitly protected Rights.

Are you implying the Supreme Court does not defend individual Rights?

That is its very purpose for existence. It exists, and functions to protect Rights as afforded by and through the US Constitution.

If any person believes such Rights are impinged then the Supreme Court will hear it.


The Supreme Court has ruled countless times for such Rights, against Corporations, against Bureaucracy, and against the other US Governmental branches, for the sake of individual citizens.


I am entirely aware of the purpose of the Supreme Court. The point is that, like I said, a kind of Babel-Tower of legalisms has been slowly accrued over the generations, mostly through cumulative executive order,- in equal part due to the ignorance of the public and the laws for which they have cast their votes, and the misunderstanding, deliberate or otherwise, of the actual philosophy of the Constitution by even those who plant their asses in the seat of Justice. If my reasoning about this is sound, what is the supreme court going to do? We've got a three step process. 1) My right to use drugs is implicitly protected by the Constitution, for I possess the ability to grow said drug on my own land, harvest said drug with my own hands, and use said drug with my own body, without ever interfering with anyone else's liberty, (that is what a natural right is) and furthermore, no legal case has yet been tried so as to determine the potential, if any such potential exists, of that implicit right to abrogate for itself, trespass upon or contravene any other right, either implicitly or explicitly protected, belonging to another person. 2) On that basis, I assert that the DEA, as one of countless federal agencies, meaning it was created through executive order, exists for the sole purpose of preventing me from exercising that right to self-medication. The president certainly does have the power to create agencies as much as he likes, to aid him in the management of his projects and general duties,- however these agencies, established on the basis of executive order, cannot exercise any power beyond that granted to the executive branch itself: the DEA exceeds the bounds of power in both its practical formulation and its activities by trespassing upon an implicit right, ie. my right to self-medicate, which is something that only a Constitutional Amendment has the power to modify. The Supreme Court exists to carefully weight these implicit rights, explicit rights, and any modifications made to their practical realization by Amendment or the Constitution, Declaration and Bill or Rights themselves: the Supreme Court is not, in other words, intended to determine what is or isn't a right or if a right is or isn't protected. For that has already been established: everything I can do through my own power and self-direction without encroaching upon another's liberty, is a right: a natural right afforded to me, just as the Declaration states in its first page, from out of God and the hand of Nature- not by a piece of paper, not by a government, not by any other human being. All of my rights are equally protected; it doesn't matter if they are explicitly defined anywhere- they need not be. We only need an Amendment when one of these innumerable implicit rights complicates another, and we only need the Supreme Court to carefully weigh the body of law consequent to these respective modifications. So finally: 3) Dismantle hundreds upon hundreds of millions upon billions of dollars worth of political machinery, tear out 1,000 different federal agencies, etc. etc.? That simply isn't going to happen. It's a Babel Tower of Legalisms. I would have to go through 1,000 trials, each on some technical detail built into this body of law, before I ever got to the actual root of this and was able to assert the case for my implicit right to self-medication. Thus the only way to actually defend our implicitly protected rights now, is to circumvent that entire bloated political machinery and just have an Amendment passed to skip all the intermediary steps and address the problem, whatever it is- directly,- and that is in itself a nearly impossible goal.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:26 am

That all sounds nice and dandy. But there are many arguments for and against drug-use. The Religious Majority and Moral Authority, argued in the 90s, that drug-use is a social ill, and on those grounds, were granted power and restricted drug use and abuse, against individuals for the benefit of overall society. Your position is very Libertarian. It's the same as arguing 'legality' of suicide, or using experimental drugs for terminally ill patients (which was just approved by Trump by the way), or other forms of self-inebriation. Marijuana was and is being legalized as of the past few years. So it seems things are going in your direction.

There are many nuances to these positions. What is your grievance, exactly? I don't think the Supreme Court would oppose you that you have a 'Right' to poison yourself and your body, "as long as it doesn't infringe upon others".

It's basic Liberalism ideology.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Parodites » Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:38 pm

" But there are many arguments for and against drug-use. The Religious Majority and Moral Authority, argued in the 90s, that drug-use is a social ill,"

Using the State to enforce social engineering programs and "reprove social ills" is a more um, Euro-fascist way of conducting government. So whatever arguments you are talking about have nothing to do with any of this constitutional philosophy.

" What is your grievance, exactly? I don't think the Supreme Court would oppose you that you have a 'Right' to poison yourself and your body, "as long as it doesn't infringe upon others"

What... I. Like. It's illegal to possess certain drugs at a federal level, or even to grow them on my own land, by my own hand, for my own use- without ever even interacting with another person let alone infringing upon their rights. That is my grievance... My grievance is that a shitload of my implicit rights, granted to me by God himself and afforded from out of the hand of Nature to one and all, have been denied to me and sidestepped by bloated federal agencies that, from the vantage purely of constitutional philosophy, should not even be allowed to exist in the first place, since they were created solely through executive order and clearly violate the sphere of power dispensated to the Federal Government in both the Spirit and the Letter of the Law. Our Constitution states that any power not explicitly granted by it to the Federal Government is not legitimate: and it lays out very clearly a few very explicit powers that the executive branch is allowed to wield: the power to manage border security in whatever way the president deems fit, etc. Turns out that getting to decide what drugs are illegal or not, isn't one of those powers; nor is hacking into all of our Iphones to spy on us.

You mentioned weed being legalized: yes, by states. There isn't an inch of movement at the level of the federal government on that, which is the whole issue here. And drugs are just a very obvious example of what I have been talking about, ie. implicit rights and their being afforded equal protection by our constitution- just as much as any right that has been explicitly defined, like my right to free speech. So in short, my grievance is that the federal government has exercised constitutionally illegitimate and therefor illegal powers in denying me the implicit protections afforded to me by the founding documents of this nation,- me and so many others, on 1,000 different fronts besides the blatant and colorful example of the drug war. My grievance is that these illegitimate agencies should be immediately disbanded, and their entire illegal funding seized and granted to all the people of this country whose taxes have been used to fund them for so many years in the form of a kind of stimulus package; my grievance is that every federal agent who has participated in the illegal activities of these agencies (the DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. etc.) should all be brought before the Supreme Court and tried for treason against the United States as well as for aiding and abetting our sworn enemies in the case of CIA operators funding different terrorist organizations for example; etc. etc. etc.


" Your position is very Libertarian."

That's a basic philosophical school,- not even a school of philosophy, just a general philosophic attitude. I am not making a case for, against, or about that in this thread. In this thread, I am talking about the nuances of administration: Federalism, Natural right, implicit and explicit protections, etc. The idea of, instead of using the logically untenable category of the Group (meaning "the social good" for example) to ground our legal system, (The European states work this way, that is why their governments freely carry out social engineering programs, toward the object of some group-based idea of the collective good; that is why they can jail you for refusing to address a transgender person by his preferred pronoun.) as inevitably resulted from the emergence of governments in the past merely though the blind evolutionary forces of nature that have shaped an equally blind history of mankind upon the Earth, (The US alone was born out of an act of Will and deliberation; it did not just evolve out of an endless series of conflicts like other nations. A group of men sat down in a room, planned it out on paper like architects designing a building, signed their names on it, and then waged a war whose sole purpose was to defend that newly inaugurated state.) using the category of the Individual as primary, and then developing a system of internal checks and balances meant to measure out a harmonious dispensation of authority in conformity with that primary category,- a system whose purpose is only to secure the rights of said individuals, as well as to protect our border and carry out the few other duties and exercise those few powers that have been so dispensated and granted to the Federal government by our foundational documents, leaving all else to the independent state-level governments.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:46 pm

Yeah but Parodites, a dude would have to have some guts to .... allow himself to think this way.


Im sobering up to that very basic notion, mostly what humans want is to stay out of trouble. They'll go to jail for nothing, they'll pay taxes so they can be thrown in jail for nothing, they'll be slaves, as long as they can stay out of real trouble. Which is the sort of trouble you get into when you use your brain.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9752
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:32 pm

You can wax and wane libertine philosophy all you like. You may even convince the Supreme Court. But here's the rub. When you grow or produce illegal substances on your personal, private property -- it has almost nothing to do with "personal consumption non-impinging upon others" and mostly to do with Distribution and Sales, which is almost always the case. As soon as you turn profit, as soon as you make one sale, your position ends. And historically, one drug-dealer ruins it for everybody else's "personal rights". Which is why it is highly illegal, and regulated.

Drug consumption with a heart of gold, is rare-or-never. So again, although you may have a reasonable case, good luck with that. Most drug users and abusers will imbibe in their own private property anyway, and face the direct physical consequences. How are you going to sustain a drug-addiction long term, without turning profit? Eventually you'll consume your finance and lose your property, ending up like the other 1,000,000 homeless drug abusers on the streets, looking for a fix.

Then you make the perfect counter-argument as to why Personal Liberty ought to be denied by the very institution that protects them.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Parodites » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:23 pm

" But here's the rub. When you grow or produce illegal substances on your personal, private property -- it has ,""

Dude. The whole point of the thread is that... they shouldn't be illegal. The Federal Government has not been granted the constitutional authority to pronounce certain substances legal or illegal, that is the whole point.

I have to ask Unwrong, are you a US citizen? The way you talk about this gives me the feeling that you might not be entirely familiar with how our system works, or is supposed to.

"As soon as you turn profit, as soon as you make one sale, your position ends."

And then the position of the person buying it begins... and my entire argument is recapitulated in their stead. So I don't quite understand your point. Do you mean to suggest that by entering into a voluntary commercial transaction with another adult human being who has sought out my services is somehow infringing upon their liberty or over-extending the gamut of that power invested to me by natural right? Because if there was no civilization as we know it, that is,- if we existed in a state of nature, to use the terminology of Hobbes- I could grow a drug, harvest it, and you could give me a piece of goat-meat for it and in this way pay me freely. That is what natural right means: anything that we can, as individuals, accomplish through our own power, without needing to call upon anything beyond that, or marshal the State to our ends. Plus, all the thousands of pages of Federal regulations (they deliberately bury the most pernicious elements of these regulations in 10,000 pages of banal tripe,- pernicious elements that carry the State's real political intentions in passing these regulatory laws, which is simply to manipulate the economy in a way that convenient for them: thus they insidiously, and quite ingeniously, facilitate the rise of certain companies and the fall of others, simply by crafting these regulations to their purpose.) on commerce are tyrannical and illegal too.

The phenomenon of addiction is more related to psychiatric disorders and sociological problems than anything else. You seem to have this high-school DARE program view of drugs,- of a comically exaggerated junkie in your head. That's a cartoon. I'd suggest that you read some papers on addiction both from a psychiatric and sociological perspective. At any rate: when you make a substance illegal, the people who will cultivate and/sell it to you are going to charge a 1000 percent markup due to the fact that they are breaking the law and putting themselves in great danger: you must pay them for taking the risk, not just for the substance. So the price of this substance becomes massively inflated. Combine that with the social taboos surrounding drugs and you create an underground into which you push people who are already disaffected and desperate: and as Dostoevsky tells us- everything that is pushed underground rots and putrefies; be it this, sexuality, or anything else.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:42 pm

Parodites wrote:" But here's the rub. When you grow or produce illegal substances on your personal, private property -- it has ,""

Dude. The whole point of the thread is that... they shouldn't be illegal. The Federal Government has not been granted the constitutional authority to pronounce certain substances legal or illegal, that is the whole point.

I have to ask Unwrong, are you a US citizen? The way you talk about this gives me the feeling that you might not be entirely familiar with how our system works, or is supposed to.

I'm Citizen-enough to know common sense. When substances are sold to consumers, then it's no longer a matter of "individual right". It's regulation of a drug. Are you implying that it could be 'legal' to sell narcotics to teenagers or kids? I presume you have a modicrum of common sense, to say no. Thus you refuted your own position, congratulations.



Parodites wrote:"As soon as you turn profit, as soon as you make one sale, your position ends."

And then the position of the person buying it begins... and my entire argument is recapitulated in their stead. So I don't quite understand your point. Do you mean to suggest that by entering into a voluntary commercial transaction with another adult human being who has sought out my services is somehow infringing upon their liberty or over-extending the gamut of that power invested to me by natural right? Because if there was no civilization as we know it, that is,- if we existed in a state of nature, to use the terminology of Hobbes- I could grow a drug, harvest it, and you could give me a piece of goat-meat for it and in this way pay me freely. That is what natural right means: anything that we can, as individuals, accomplish through our own power, without needing to call upon anything beyond that, or marshal the State to our ends. Plus, all the thousands of pages of Federal regulations (they deliberately bury the most pernicious elements of these regulations in 10,000 pages of banal tripe,- pernicious elements that carry the State's real political intentions in passing these regulatory laws, which is simply to manipulate the economy in a way that convenient for them: thus they insidiously, and quite ingeniously, facilitate the rise of certain companies and the fall of others, simply by crafting these regulations to their purpose.) on commerce are tyrannical and illegal too.

The phenomenon of addiction is more related to psychiatric disorders and sociological problems than anything else. You seem to have this high-school DARE program view of drugs,- of a comically exaggerated junkie in your head. That's a cartoon. I'd suggest that you read some papers on addiction both from a psychiatric and sociological perspective. At any rate: when you make a substance illegal, the people who will cultivate and/sell it to you are going to charge a 1000 percent markup due to the fact that they are breaking the law and putting themselves in great danger: you must pay them for taking the risk, not just for the substance. So the price of this substance becomes massively inflated. Combine that with the social taboos surrounding drugs and you create an underground into which you push people who are already disaffected and desperate: and as Dostoevsky tells us- everything that is pushed underground rots and putrefies; be it this, sexuality, or anything else.

Once something, anything, turns into a commodity. It is no longer an "individual right" and then becomes subject to the rules and laws of commerce, which are in-fact, overseen, regulated, and monitored by the US government. If you don't like it, then you can join Rand Paul and try to 'free' up a Libertarian society. Good luck with that, the vast majority of the voting public, want some regulations. This means rules, laws, illegality, and regulation, especially on mind-altering drugs, whether they are "recreational" or not.

Pharmaceuticals are one of, if not the biggest US industry. Perhaps they would side with you and your position. Haven't they already? And haven't they already put in billions of dollars into lawsuits to push and peddle their 'drugs'?

Ask one of those corporations why you can't buy, sell, and consume Oxycontin "freely" as is your "Constitutional Right" to do so. You should already know the end to this line of questioning.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Parodites » Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:38 am

You mention selling substances to underage children. I'm sorry, but what about alcohol and tobacco? Or any number of things? What are you talking about? Local state-level governments have the ability to regulate things of that nature. I won't even bother saying anything more to that point, though it is difficult when you follow it up with "thus your argument refutes itself" like you got me or something. You understand that state-level and federal government are... not the same thing right? We're talking about Federal government man. Individual states have the ability to regulate things like age of consent both in terms of sex and the use of drugs, but the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to pronounce drugs illegal. The drugs should all be legal at the federal level, and then individual states would create their own laws about what ages they can be sold to, the same as they do for alcohol and tobacco. From what you said in your post, it really doesn't seem like you thought of that or were aware of how the State and Federal government are intended to interact in this manner, which is not a good thing. But you are not alone: almost nobody understands the actual rights the Constitution was intended to provide them with, nobody knows how much freedom they have lost; or not lost, for in legal terms it is still all right there where it was and will always be, ie. the Constitution;- freedom that has, to thus state it more apropos,- been taken from them,-- that has been stolen from them by men with guns and metal cages. Lick the steel boots of your captor and indulge your Stockholme syndrome as much as you want, for you are allowed to think as you like here. (Not in Europe!) But please, do so knowledgeably, because there is no way you could have been aware of what I just said in this paragraph and still have tired bringing up the line about children or people underage.

I would just add, going back to the outdated DARE-level understanding of the neuropsychiatric and sociological components of drugs and their users that your condescending and dismissive statements about those two things would apparently evince: the very notion of an illegal drug would have been insane to our founders. Throughout the entire history of the human race, there was no such thing, and only in modern times has this vicious cycle of addiction appeared because it is the creation of a horrible combination of sociological evils, tyrannical regulations, economic catastrophes, misunderstanding about the nature of drugs and their users, etc. etc. I hold in contempt those who would endorse these laws not only because it is a violation of our Constitution, but because the social consequences they have wrought have led to the creation of an entire secondary-citizen tier group of people who are shit on and stepped on every day after having already fallen through the cracks of this society. Not only should these substances not be illegal, but nearly-free clinics should be available with medical grade heroin, cocaine, etc. on site, twenty-four hours a day, to allow users to go in their, flash some kind of ID card and safely ingest their chosen substance at a facility administered to by trained nurses and doctors, at the expense of a kind of subscription service they would pay in advance in order to make use these clinics. Programs of that nature have already been experimented with and it turns out that drug users actually level off at a certain point and the vicious cycle of increasing dosages actually starts to reverse, plus they are able to continue functioning in a productive capacity, they don''t magically spiral out of control and lose their job when their substance doesn't cost 10,000 times more than it is worth, when the need to hide due to social taboo and the fear of imprisonment isn't forcing greater and greater reliance on the oblivion induced by the narcotic so as to escape, when they don't feel ashamed of themselves and need to keep using more and more just to avoid thinking about it, etc. etc. And those Pharm agencies you mention,- not only would they not side with me, but more: they work hand in hand with the Government in shaping their criminal regulatory pieces of illegitimate legislation. Why would they want a free society where anyone can encroach upon their business? And as long as they cut the Feds into their profit, why would the Feds stop working with them?

"Once something, anything, turns into a commodity. It is no longer an "individual right" and then becomes subject to the rules and laws of commerce, which are in-fact, overseen, regulated, and monitored by the US government. If you don't like it, then you can join Rand Paul and try to 'free' up a Libertarian society. Good luck with that, the vast majority of the voting public, want some regulations"

It is all a dreary affair. The fact that you and the "majority" of this population have forgotten or simply never been taught the real power of the US legal framework, the very reasons for which this nation was born and our founders risked their lives in so creating it, and actually want to exchange your freedom for "security" so that you can feel safe- the fact that parents for example want the US government to run their little mandated public school psyops and essentially raise their own children for them so that they don't have to worry or think about it ... (Contributing in no small part to this: the fact that everyone just accepts their dwindling freedoms like it's a virtue and basically thinks the same way about everything. That's what happens when you have a single entity raising the children of an entire 300 million strong population.) it really doesn't change anything about my argument does it? And most importantly: your argument is malformed, logically. I have an individual right to sell and grow something, you have an individual right to buy and use it. Now, if I were to create a company, and then start doing so industrially, that would fall under the sphere of certain powers invested to Federal government: but not to the extent that companies are regulated now, by various illegal federal agencies. And that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that these substances should not be illegal in the first place, based solely on the constitutional affordances granted to the federal government in terms of their sphere of legitimate powers. Again, you didn't seem to understand my argument, or be aware of how the Constitution differentiates the power invested to the Feds and the State: drugs should be legal, as a matter of Federal law, with each individual state in the US then creating their own internal regulations about what age they can be sold to, just as they do with regard to tobacco or alcohol.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:07 pm

Your arguments are all over the place. Don't blame me for your lack of cohesion.

You went from Federally granted Individual-Human-Rights-Bestowed-By-God-As-Declared-By-Our-Constitution to State regulation of controlled substances as-if there aren't countless gaps in-between.

You may as well argue for your "individual right" to commit suicide, compared to narcotic or opioid drug consumption and abuse. Do you have a God-given-Right to commit suicide? To poison yourself? To self-harm or mutilate? Perhaps, and perhaps you can already do such, in the privacy of your own home and property. Then I stipulated the primary reason for its illegality, not because of the nature of self-harm, but by the method these drugs are produced, controlled, traded, bought, sold, held, etc. You skip over the obvious. It should be illegal to sell drugs to kids. And because you agree, yes, you are trading "freedom for security". Individual Rights are not absolute, despite your interpretation otherwise. Because all actions, affect all others, no matter how small they seem. When you create a powerful, addictive drug, yes it can destroy other people's lives, especially when a drug-dealer intentionally moves his product for a profit.

The fact that you ignore the Pharmaceutical industry, demonstrates to me, that you're not really serious about the most practical and relevant applications of your hypothetical position and argument.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby phoneutria » Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:20 pm

Parodites is ~The Natural Living Man~

phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3083
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:34 pm

phoneutria wrote:Parodites is ~The Natural Living Man~


Parodites exposed:

Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:45 pm

Great, so people on a philosophy site have now overtly turned against writing and reading. I saw something like this coming but to witness it is really... boring.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Your arguments are all over the place. Don't blame me for your lack of cohesion.

Don't kid yourself, you wouldnt know what an argument is, let alone how to work through one. Like the other socialists who came in barking and went away with their tails between their legs, you weren't even able to read the posts and are just seeking excuses to make to yourself for that.

You, Kropotkin, Tab, promethean, since I invited Parodites here to talk about memes, and he went out of his way to say some more stuff, people that before seemed to have pretty big intellectual egos, now just basically come out and say they don't like or trust sentences with a lot of words in them. Its like Maos list of 9 with you guys, where the intellectuals were listed as the lowest specimens.

Now you post some video to, in your mind, shame a man for being a good and thorough writer, because you actually take pride in being half illiterate and in not knowing what the federal government is. Mao for the win.

Keep virtue-signalling. Peace.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9752
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Meno_ » Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:12 pm

Parodites wrote:Meno, are you drunk, a Markov-chain chatbot, or both? I am genuinely curious, I"m not trying to be insulting.



Yes I was drunk , but like a Chinese Zen version of Socrates , I would like to get reinvolved in this very interesting topic. Sorry for giving you a wrong impression.


Added material:

The very perfunctory evidence against. a jump into constitutive material in support of the co injunction of principles with process (democratic) is contraindicated by said separation of Rights (bill of) from the economy to sustain them, -if the so called naturally derived rights have been transformed from inherited ones to materially earned ones.

The transcendence of formal dialectical objectives have been nullified by this as a result, and the question. Is beyond the principal derivation , of the dialectic, and transposed into the derivation of the of the Principle , or Capital.

This transposition to Democratic ideals, has reduced the coherency with Republiican ideals of the content of what Natural rights of Man are, Their 're-publican' association literally evokes a prior state of what 'natural' means.

As Capital fails on a wide arrayed social ideal, it needs to expand markets , but only by sustaining present levels of social distribution of profits.

This process, or procedure is constitutionally left vague , and it is nothing else but a new version of hereditary rights. (For unlimited accumulation is structurally and effectively the same as it was before the ancien regime.

Successfully managed families of capital holding , do tend to resemble that , against which the Revolution was fought.

Logically, the illogic born of such process, tends to diminish the question of procedure, apparently based on an intentional connection, such that exists from Intentionality toward it's cover- that which posits intention to a hidden transcendental , a far off in the future plan by designers who always meant to keep this monarchical rule, albeit in a different form. The support for this is found in the long term profitability of near term objectives . that this inversion. Is causing a constitutional dilemma of interpretation, does not occur to either party, and as such, tho contradiction becomes useful on many levels.

The disjunction of the logical synthesis demotes the illogic of natural rights, and raises it to the level of identifiable subsequent reification, thereby having everyone fooled.

This Is why the necessary executive interpretation. Is solididified , and it seems the only way to balance and compensate for the ever lowering expexrative short term objectives of the worker/producer.

I find that Nietzche's approach of transvaluing moral philosophy into the social philosophy of Marx, has this contingent option to automatically shift public awareness into a relative safe harbor.

The end of a posteriori democracy therefore necessitated into an a priori alternative, gyneologically loaded, but only by the use of general principles.

Such was similar in the Democracy of archaic ideal states that come up in defense of.


Therefore , conventional wisdom rules, and social justice will suffer.
It is not a contestible view at this point, but a necessary development , whereupon ideal social philosophy of Marx can finally be put to rest.
Last edited by Meno_ on Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5930
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby phoneutria » Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:35 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Great, so people on a philosophy site have now overtly turned against writing and reading. I saw something like this coming but to witness it is really... boring.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Your arguments are all over the place. Don't blame me for your lack of cohesion.

Don't kid yourself, you wouldnt know what an argument is, let alone how to work through one. Like the other socialists who came in barking and went away with their tails between their legs, you weren't even able to read the posts and are just seeking excuses to make to yourself for that.

You, Kropotkin, Tab, promethean, since I invited Parodites here to talk about memes, and he went out of his way to say some more stuff, people that before seemed to have pretty big intellectual egos, now just basically come out and say they don't like or trust sentences with a lot of words in them. Its like Maos list of 9 with you guys, where the intellectuals were listed as the lowest specimens.

Now you post some video to, in your mind, shame a man for being a good and thorough writer, because you actually take pride in being half illiterate and in not knowing what the federal government is. Mao for the win.

Keep virtue-signalling. Peace.



For the record, my video was pertinent to the subject in the OP.

Regarding long text, in my opinion the problem with Parodites writing is not that it is long. It is that it's absolutely monolithic.

Please note that I am not at all criticizing the content of the text.

In my own experience in writing (I was at a point in my life an academic), I have learned that in order to write well, you must be prepared to throw away 50-80% of what you write in order to create clear, coherent, and strong material. If you don't, you run the risk of drowning the crux of your thought in your own verboseness.
How do you even go about trimming your writing when the whole thing is a block of text without a single paragraph?
Paragraphs are free, Parodites! It costs nothing to use them!

Admittedly I have prejudice about this as well, though in my defense I'll say it is based on statistics.
If a person can't break their text into paragraphs, it is possible that they can't break their thoughts into paragraphs, and that signals a difficulty in organizing thoughts in a logical sequence.
Can't know that without reading, of course, but if it looks dense both in content and structure, I'll skip it.
I'd rather save my dense reading time for published work, which has already gone through the scrutiny of editing, than to spend it on a forum and at the end of parsing the whole mess to find that the dude is a quack and it was a waste of time. Time is precious.

Parodites, dude, I'm only typing this out because I think it can benefit you.
If you think I can help you with editing, let me know.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3083
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:37 pm

More of the same Phon. "Im not capable of processing all this thought and let me see how I could make it sound like my weakness is your weakness." And to add to the insult, and bolster your own ego, you pretend youre doing the man a favour.

You're not the firs to try this approach. Fact it that some things just are rather complex. Its the fact that it is now normal for people to dismiss complexity and literary discipline that the world goes to shit.

Parodites is evidently the best writer on this board. Id be quite ashamed before him of having invited him here, if he gave much of a shit. But he is just bored by how little counterplay he gets. The guy is tough.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9752
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Next

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MSN [Bot]