"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
Red-Light Cameras Haven't Improved Safety, L.A. City Controller Says
Los Angeles’ much-debated red light camera program has bypassed some of the city’s most dangerous intersections, cost more than $2.5 million over the last two years and failed to adequately demonstrate an improvement in safety, according to an audit due to be released Wednesday by City Controller Wendy Greuel.
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
Oh, goody, yet another article about red light cameras. http://strike-the-root.com/search/node/red%20light%20cameras
Bet they'd really be scratchin' their heads tryin' to decide who to send a ticket to if their cameras took a picture of a tag that read across the top, STATE OF NATURE, through the middle UNINCORPORATED and across the bottom PERMANENT. ;)
Create Your Own http://tinyurl.com/33rdk8n ...but if you do, you'd better BE what you say you are, 'cause it's guaranteed you'll be tested.
You see, in the STATE OF NATURE one, who has not contracted them away or forfeited them, has, and enjoys[1], all of his natural rights.
Thus far, in our ten years in the state of Natural Persons[2], the most troublesome "natural right" to "support and defend" has been the right to travel. That it is a "natural right" is even recognized by their own courts.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941 [Emphasis added]
It is recognized by their courts as a "natural right", because without that most fundamental right it is virtually impossible for a man or woman to even live. It "does not owe its existence to the federal government" because it is self-evident that individuals had a "natural right" to travel long before that artificial entity known as "federal government" was ever created.
Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law. Co. Litt. 347. ~ Bouveir's 1856 Law Dictionary [Emphasis added]
Unfortunately, and apparently something that most people don't realize, (or are unwilling to accept), these same natural rights gives each of us, individually, as Robert Nozik correctly (IMO) pointed out in his book entitled, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), the right to enslave himself, i.e. "voluntary servitude". This is, IMO, one of the primary purposes of the 14th Amendment.
"Most controversially, Nozick argued that a consistent upholding of the libertarian non-aggression principle would allow and regard as valid consensual/non-coercive enslavement contracts between adults. He rejected the notion of inalienable rights advanced by most other libertarian academics, writing in Anarchy, State and Utopia that the typical notion of a "free system" would allow adults to voluntarily enter into non-coercive slave contracts." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nozick
Definitions:
[1] enjoy verb: have for one's benefit
[2] NATURAL PERSONS. Such as are formed by nature, as distinguished from artificial persons, or corporations, formed by human laws for purposes of society and government. Wharton. ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black’s 1st c. 1891), pg. 802
I do not "reject the notion of inalienable rights", as Robert Nozick evidently did, because what is meant by the word "inalienable", in my opinion, is that no one, or group of ones, without the consent the owner of these rights, has the authority to "alienate", i.e. "cut off", those rights from him. Here is the Maxim of Law upon which this opinion is based.
Alienatio licet prohibeatur, consensu tamen ominium, in quorum favorem prohibita est, potest fieri, et quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se introducto. Although alienation be prohibited, yet, by the consent of all in whose favor it is prohibited, it may take place; for it is in the power of any man to renounce a law made in his own favor. Co. Litt. 98 ~ A Dictionary of Law (Black's 1st c.1891) page 59
The owner can consent to be "alienated", i.e. "cut off", from them in three ways, (1) express consent, (2) tacit consent[1], and (3) by his actions, he shows men what he wants done to him by what he does to others. He shows men that he wants his inalienable rights abridged[2] (without his consent) by depriving others of their inalienable rights (without their consent).
[1] TAC'IT, a. [L. tacitus, from taceo, to be silent, that is, to stop, or to close. See Tack.] Silent; implied, but not expressed. Tacit consent is consent by silence, or not interposing an objection. So we say, a tacit agreement or covenant of men to live under a particular government, when no objection or opposition is made; a tacit surrender of a part of our natural rights; a tacit reproach, &c. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
If we pay attention to a couple of old Noah's examples, he demonstrates, nicely, what is being said here. "So we say, a tacit agreement or covenant of men to live under a particular government, when no objection or opposition is made; a tacit surrender of a part of our natural rights..."
[2] Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1057
ABRIDGE', v.t. ...2. To lessen; to diminish... 3. To deprive; to cut off from... as to abridge one of his rights, or enjoyments. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
I am truly amazed at how many "government educated" individuals believe that unalienable, when it pertains to our natural rights, means, "incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred[1]". Here is why I am truly amazed.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men... are endowed by their Creator[2] with certain unalienable Rights...” ~ The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
If it is true that all men are created equal, that is to say they are, each and every one, "endowed[3]...with certain unalienable rights", who in hell could they be "sold or transferred" to?
There are, basically, two definitions, (and two different pronunciations), for the word inalienable, and the same two definitions, (and pronunciations), apply to the word unalienable. One is based on the word "lien", as in aliened, and the other is based on the word "alien", as in alienated. When it is used in reference to real, that is tangible, property, particularly real estate, it means property which is "incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred".
However, when it pertains to our natural rights, it means, "Inalienable", which means, "Rights which can never be abridged [cut off] because they are so fundamental[4]." They can never be alienated from you except by your own action or inaction.
If you find all this a bit confusing, that is how they meant it to be. "...through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you".
Feigned, that is, "(by implication) artificial or (figuratively) fictitious (false)"[5].
[1] Source: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1523
[2] If you are offended by the phrase "by their Creator", simply substitute the phrase "by Nature" in its place, don't be foolish enough to "throw the baby out with the bathwater".
[3] endowed ...provided or supplied or equipped with (especially as by inheritance or nature) ~ Wordnik
[4] Source: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1523 Same source, same page!
[5] Dr. James Strong
So, what is the point of all this subterfuge when it comes to these words in-alien-able/in-a-lien-able and un-alien-able/un-a-lien-able?
The leeches[1] are trying to undo the damage done by the immortal words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men...are endowed by their Creator[2] with certain unalienable Rights...”
Those who desire power over you do not want you to know that you, in your natural state, have natural rights, innate, inherent rights that are limited only by the natural law (of man). Hell, they would rather have you believe that these rights don't even exist, that you have no "just claim" to your life, no "just claim" to your liberty, and no "just claim" to your justly acquired property!
Just imagine what might happen if the vast majority of their hosts[3] knew that these natural rights existed and that they are in-alien-able/un-alien-able, that the only way they can rightfully be "cut off" from the enjoyment (benefit) of these rights, is via their own individual consent. These blood-sucking, parasitic, plunderers are vastly outnumbered, and they know it.
Footnotes:
[1] leech noun: blood-sucking, parasite who hangs around a host in hope of gain or advantage ~ My definition ;)
[2] If you are offended by the phrase "by their Creator", simply substitute the phrase "by Nature" in its place, don't be foolish enough to "throw the baby out with the bathwater".
[3] host noun: an animal or plant that nourishes and supports a parasite; the host does not benefit and is often harmed by the association ~ http://public.onelook.com/?w=host&ls=a