Christie to a constituent: It’s none of your business!

Now I get your spelling (hitlery?). You mean the saul alinsky disciple?

Rush’s song parodies are 2nd to none.

I know about jury nullification, and if I had the money for the gas I would be informing people about it outside the courthouse whenever I could, I’m glad to see someone else understands it as well.
———————————–
As for Alien & Sedition acts not having to do with money, that’s irrelevent. Property is not only in wages or land/things, your body is your property (you are your body, after all), as is the use of that property. Freedom of speech is not merely a utilitarian virtue for the benefit of the dialectic in political discourse to me. Freedom of speech is the exercising/expression of your body just as much as physical labor is, and just as nobody has the right to your labor and the product of it, nobody has the rights to your speech but you yourself. The claim of authority* to regulate your speech is just as much an ownership claim of you as a person as any income tax, and for the same reasons.

Eminent domain takes a few more steps to reach the same conclussion, and requires more than simply the acceptance of self-ownership to do so, but if you accept the very general idea of property rights I do, then the conclusion is unavoidable.

1. You own yourself.
2. Your body is you, so you own your body.
3. Labor is the use of that body, ie. you, so you own your labor.
4. That which you take from the unnowned state of nature -the commons- by mixing with labor becomes your property, you acquire it, you own it. (henceforth referred to as “homesteading”)
5. Ownership can also be gained through exchange, trade or gift.

This applies just as much to land property as it would to your wage or goods you might produce. If that understanding of property rights is accepted, then property tax and eminent domain laws are both a violation of property rights if you truly own the land.
——————————
It comes down to four possibilities, rather than two.
1. You homesteaded the land or acquired it through exchange
2. They own the land.
3. They own you.
4. Nobody owns the land

So I ask…

A. Does the government own all of the land within it’s borders regardless of homesteading?
B. Does the government own all of the people called “citizens,” and thus whatever they homestead/produce?
C. Does the government own neither, making eminent domain and property tax unjust?

I contend the government implicitly claims A and B, but that only C is correct.

*Authority defined in this as the right to command and be obeyed

Would that be why a sitting Congressman was jailed under Adams for the simple act of calling the President “His Rotundity?” It was used against American citizens as well, and even if that isn’t acceptible to you, there are the bipartisan examples of Woodrow Wilson and Abraham Lincoln jailing Americans for speech.

Haha, I’ve had gay friends so it wouldn’t be a worry anyway. I’m not really a bear drinker, though, but I’m always up for arguing or talking about these things. my focus is more on political philosophy than legal sophistry.

Well to be perfectly honest I only know about the arrest from listening to a talk by Judge Napolitano at the Mises Institute. The best part of the Representatives story is that he was reelected while in prison. Napolitano is also the first person I ever heard of the Writs of Assistance from, his presentations are great. Everything from the Mises Institute is good.

The constitutionality seems pretty straight forward to me though…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

But I’ve never been one who considered the Constition effective at restraining “… the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments …” described by James Madison. Even when I was a die-hard Constition loving Conservative rather than a market anarchist.

I’m not entirely opposed to all hierarchies on the face of it, like Anarchism is traditionally, I’m only opposed to coercive hierarchies exemplified by the State (“the government”). I have no opposition to voluntary hierarchical firms in the market, and don’t view the role of the Capitalist as inherently exploitative, nor am I opposed to horizontally structured firms in the market.

I’m no fan of the word “anarchist,” but it’s one that people recognize right away so I sometimes grudgingly use it. If you are averse to it’s use, Agorist, Autarchist, Voluntaryist, or Radical Libertarian work just as well. All of those terms refer to someone who would if given the opportunity abolish the State, and works towards that abolition.

I thought the issue you had asked to which I brought up the A&S Acts was about the first time the US government claimed ownership overactual people. Aside from direct taxes on property and money, that was the earliest example I could come up with off the top of my head.

Now, if you want a modern example of the violate of people’s freedom to speak, then look no further than the Patriot Act. If you are served with a Patriot Act warrant, it is verboten to speak of it to absolutely anyone, your spouse and legal counsel included. More than a few people have been prosecuted under this law for exactly this, and it’s considered a felony.

I haven’t really thought of this as sparring as much as a simple discussion. Sparring implies a combativeness I have’t sensed so far, but I’m terrible at reading other people’s tones through text.

Haha, I’ve had gay friends so it wouldn’t be a worry anyway. I’m not really a bear drinker, though, but I’m always up for arguing or talking about these things. my focus is more on political philosophy than legal sophistry.

Well to be perfectly honest I only know about the arrest from listening to a talk by Judge Napolitano at the Mises Institute. The best part of the Representatives story is that he was reelected while in prison. Napolitano is also the first person I ever heard of the Writs of Assistance from, his presentations are great. Everything from the Mises Institute is good.

The constitutionality seems pretty straight forward to me though…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

But I’ve never been one who considered the Constition effective at restraining “… the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments …” described by James Madison. Even when I was a die-hard Constition loving Conservative rather than a market anarchist.