Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The demonstrated writing papers and successful writers to be work nearly as good means and properly. We are managing every and each paper as recent mind. The standard is main for each paper. The subject is user selection. The great writing company should be having high rates in content quality, sensible English to use and given satisfaction guarantee additionally. The natural trying papers and muck organized is feasible for that. The format ought to be support for consumer to use and apply to tend for his or her purchasers. While not losing quality is vital for each writing company. The young writer’s area unit exploitation thesis applies for his or her future development.
2
I would like to know about this content that there is a source that can find more knowledge?
3
Introduce yourself! / Re: From Buenos Aires, Argentina
« Last post by Emilianod on Today at 03:30:35 AM »
I think the knowledge gained this time is very important because I am looking for.
4
Florida / Re: Florida State Coordinator
« Last post by DPalmer on April 19, 2018, 07:06:45 PM »
Hello id like to become involved in any way i can
[email protected]
8505253646
5
International Support / Re: Support from Argentina!
« Last post by Edwardnut on April 18, 2018, 02:51:53 AM »
Hello, I need some help Can you tell me where I can go?
6
Alaska / Re: Alaska State Organization
« Last post by Edwardnut on April 18, 2018, 02:51:01 AM »
I like Alaska very much. I love that special. I want to go there again
7
Iowa / Des Moines
« Last post by Dylan Martindale on April 11, 2018, 01:28:19 AM »
Hello! I am based out of Des Moines Iowa and would love to team up with some others and get involved! Please message me if you're interested or if I'm all alone!
8
Washington / Re: Who wants to be a delegate?
« Last post by MountainMan on April 10, 2018, 11:18:44 PM »
Let's go...
9
This time I wrote a bit on how states fails to qualify for the collective authority John Stuart Mill establishes in his essay On Liberty. Wrote this one in a rush, but managed to get the general point across (I hope).
***
In his treatise, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill asserts the rights an individual has in governing his own mind, body, and pursuits are absolute and the only justification for encroachment upon these rights, whether by another individual or the collective, is to prevent harm to others. This ‘harm principle’ is a doctrine on the limits of government authority in many contemporary political discussions in which the equivalence of the collective and government is treated as a given and Mill’s conception of collective rights are assumed to hold true for state entities. I argue the collective rights Mill establishes are for freely participating natural persons of a civil society and reducible to the rights of the individuals therein. I also argue that juridical entities with legal personalities separate from that civil society (like the modern day state) fail to meet these conditions and have no legitimate authority over the individual or collective under Mill’s principle.

Mill establishes grounds for individual and collective rights through his discussion on the limits in which society may legitimately exercise control over the individual. Though Mill often uses the terms collective, society, state, and government interchangeably throughout the text, he stipulates early on that the object of his essay is to assert a principle which governs the dealings of society with the individual “in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion” (9). Here it is clear Mill intends his principle to be antecedent to socially constructed means of enforcement such as law or government. He then goes on to say, “That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (9). Mill’s phrasing here indicates his intended domain to be that of natural persons (mankind and any of their number) within a civil society (any member of a civilized community).

Mill premises his principle upon civilized society saying:

 As soon as mankind have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion (a period long since reached in all nations with whom we need here concern ourselves), compulsion, either in the direct form or in that of pains and penalties for non-compliance, is no longer admissible as a means to their own good, and justifiable only for the security of others (10).

He establishes conditions for civilized society mainly with regard to the cognitive development of its members, but also with regard to its civil structure. Though the latter is not a constituent feature of Mill’s argument, a close reading of the desideratum he presents on the ‘appropriate region of human liberty’ reveals key propositions setting parameters for the kind of social organization that legitimizes collective authority.

Mill sets out to define the sphere of liberty he deems absolute, unqualified, and requisite to his harm principle. He maintains the validity of these liberties exist within a civil society “whatever may be its form of government” (12). This sphere consists of the following three areas: the inward domain of consciousness, tastes and pursuits, and combination among individuals. It is Mill’s treatment of the liberties associated with ‘combination among individuals’ that reveals criteria for legitimate membership within a community, and also clarifies the manner in which a collective can be said to have rights and duties. Mill says:

Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age and not forced or deceived (12).

The rights of a collective, then, are reducible to the rights of its individual members and bound by the same terms. That the combining be free from force or deception is also stated at the top of Mill’s discussion here where he stipulates any conduct affecting others is to be carried out “only with their free, voluntary, and undeceived consent and participation.” Mill has established a structure of civilized society here that is a precondition for its legitimate governance.

Though Mill is not attempting to prescribe forms of government in his essay, he says enough to preclude certain forms from being legitimate under his conception. If the precepts of liberty have primacy over government authority within a civil society, then governments constructed in violation of those precepts cannot justify their authority on the rights and duties generated by adherence to those precepts. That is, a state claiming to have the collective rights and duties Mill establishes must then be comprised of individual citizens who are natural persons and whose citizenship is free, voluntary, and undeceived. The collective rights and duties must also be within the same limits of those belonging to each of its citizens. Such is not the case for states operating as independent legal personalities. These states fail every standard Mill establishes for legitimate collective authority.

The modern day state is a non-living artificial entity recognized by law as being an independent ‘person’. In international law sovereign states are defined as juridical entities which govern territories and have international personhood. In United States code, the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals (1 U.S. Code § 1). Here in Texas ‘person’ includes corporation, organization, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, and any other legal entity (Sec. 311.005). States have come to be regarded as ‘moral agents’ who are treated as sentient persons with fundamental rights as a matter of state, federal, and international law. But they are neither moral nor sentient. Nor do they represent a civil community. Sovereign states represent territory and property thereby having rights not reducible to individual citizens. Membership within a sovereign state is based upon being born within that state’s territory. Considering that we as natural persons are drawn into contractual membership (before the age of consent) with legal fictions (divested of natural persons) representing themselves as the collective members of a community, it is reasonable to infer that citizenship within these states is not being generated under free, voluntary, and undeceived conditions.

Mill objects to governments which oppose the will of the people throughout his discussion. In his chapter “Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion” he draws a distinction between governments ‘not identified with the people’ and governments ‘entirely at one with the people’ to make the point that even the best government has no more right to restrict individual thought and discussion than the worst. Mill further admonishes corrupt government toward the closing of his essay saying:

The mischief begins when, instead of calling forth the activity and powers of individuals and bodies, it substitutes its own activity for theirs; when, instead of informing, advising, and upon occasion denouncing, it makes them work in fetters, or bids them stand aside and does their work instead of them. The worth of a state, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it (113).

That the interests of sovereign states have come to operate in opposition to the people within their territories is no longer a matter of theory. It is a matter of law. The sovereign state, in fact, legally substitutes its own activity and powers for those of its citizens. If Mill’s criticisms of corrupt and tyrannical government are not enough to damn the modern day state, his conditions for ‘combination among individuals’ necessarily preclude it from claiming the individual and collective rights he establishes through his harm principle.

If a legally constructed fiction, which is neither human nor comprised of humans, asserts control over a civilized people by virtue of its legally defined territory, it will need to justify its authority under a different theory.
10
As i said im new and am happy to be here my name is joshua gendron from MA and im proud to stand next to adam on his journey to better the lives of all of us.  I am a victim of injustices and had my life fall apart after my constitutional rights where completely taken away from me over a bumper sticker saying piss off the librals buy a gun.  Long story but parked on side of the road a terrorist in blue who did not like my first amendment right decided to ruin my life at that moment.  Destroy my property arrest me on unjust charges and physicaly asualt me.  Wright a report making me look like a peice of human trash.  Arrested me over a prescription med perscribed to me i through away in my trash in the truck with lable pealed off.  I even got charged for two empty pill bottles with no labels that had my drill bits in them.  Charges classs c substance with intent and 3CountsOF LABLE PEALING.  LOL YA THATS RIGHT LABLE PEALING. 
NEEDLES to say after this my life was ripped apart i was paraded in local nees paper as a criminal lost my union job.  WAS FORCED TO GIVE MY FIRE ARMS UP TO FULL MILITARIZED. ARMED VIOLENT TERRORISTS WITH A BADGE WITHIN 48 HOURS OF ARREST.  nothing i could do but stand therevas my young 7 year old son stood there with me.  For his safety i had to just take it and swallow my anger.  That day spiraled my life out of controle.  Fighting it in court winning i was than set up by anouther officer who was freinds with arressting officer during the months of the trial and had a class a substance planted in my vehicle during a stop and arrested again.  Making it impossible to win my case and reclaim my 2nd amendment right.  Im all about banning assault weapons only the ones with a badge.  And if you read this adam thank you for the few minuts to chat with me this morning.  Knowing your position and how many people you have to interact with.  By taking the time to talk with me showed me how everyone is equals that each of us has importance so thank you. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10