1) it would NOT be a right to frisk/search/etc.
Again. We agree about that. You are making the same disingenuous twist. We agree. We publish it to the entire planet.
And it means NOTHING if others d...
I’m not being disingenuous— perhaps I misunderstood your earlier comment.
I’m glad we’re in agreement and it seems the agreement may possibly on the very core matter (IMO): we understand what’s right and what’s wrong… although if this is the case, I may still not understand your issue with my initial note…
Perhaps you’re thinking I care more about understanding right v wrong instead of doing right and actively defending against wrong?
It also seems from your recent comment, you think government can be used to defend against wrongdoing/ infringement of individual rights?
…IF your government quite literally ONLY protected individual rights, then I would support it …the only thing is, it would no longer be “government.” Since you have the right to defend yourself, others have that right to defend you too; no one would be believed to have special rights beyond the rights of any individual if “government” were purely limited to true defense. Therefore in such a scenario, it’s *just people* voluntarily cooperating and organizing… not “government.” No monopoly on violence or justice; no special jurisdictions imposed upon a region, no forceful funding, etc.
To tie this back to that 4A discussion and clarify what I mean: if I were to forcibly stop and frisk you (assault), you would have the right to defend yourself. Another or others would have the right to step in for your defense too. You could have hired others to be at your defense or anyone could spontaneously and voluntarily choose to come to your defense. Since there’s no monopoly on justice nor defensive force nor belief in the right to assault you… there’s no “government” in such scenario.
However, government does get away with wrongs all the time **because the masses have been duped into thinking such a group possesses the right to commit wrongs.** The constitution is part of this deception.
Our conversation reminds me of one I had recently too:
I hope this addresses what you’re getting at.
PS thank you for the discussion. Please let me know if there’s more I’m not addressing or misunderstanding.
I’m glad we’re in agreement and it seems the agreement may possibly on the very core matter (IMO): we understand what’s right and what’s wrong… although if this is the case, I may still not understand your issue with my initial note…
Perhaps you’re thinking I care more about understanding right v wrong instead of doing right and actively defending against wrong?
It also seems from your recent comment, you think government can be used to defend against wrongdoing/ infringement of individual rights?
…IF your government quite literally ONLY protected individual rights, then I would support it …the only thing is, it would no longer be “government.” Since you have the right to defend yourself, others have that right to defend you too; no one would be believed to have special rights beyond the rights of any individual if “government” were purely limited to true defense. Therefore in such a scenario, it’s *just people* voluntarily cooperating and organizing… not “government.” No monopoly on violence or justice; no special jurisdictions imposed upon a region, no forceful funding, etc.
To tie this back to that 4A discussion and clarify what I mean: if I were to forcibly stop and frisk you (assault), you would have the right to defend yourself. Another or others would have the right to step in for your defense too. You could have hired others to be at your defense or anyone could spontaneously and voluntarily choose to come to your defense. Since there’s no monopoly on justice nor defensive force nor belief in the right to assault you… there’s no “government” in such scenario.
However, government does get away with wrongs all the time **because the masses have been duped into thinking such a group possesses the right to commit wrongs.** The constitution is part of this deception.
Our conversation reminds me of one I had recently too:
I hope this addresses what you’re getting at.
PS thank you for the discussion. Please let me know if there’s more I’m not addressing or misunderstanding.
3
