pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Cje95 30 Apr \ parent \ on: Congress To Vote On The US Joining Ukraine, Dan Held To Advise Military bitcoin
Close bud but if you read the bills you would see that well its the opposite of what you said.
- Trust the Science Act actually To require the Secretary of the Interior to reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
- Not sure how protections for hunters stops hunting when it ya know does the opposite but again nice try
- Forest Act clearly states To rescind Public Land Order 7917, to reinstate mineral leases and permits in the Superior National Forest, to ensure timely review of Mine Plans of Operations, and for other purposes.
Only takes a second to read but I get that it is hard.
- So if you remove the gray wolf is because you have a long list of other things you still have which you agree a gov should have competence over.
- Protection of hunters really means regulating hunters, which shouldn't. Hunters don't need privileges or help, specially if the rest pay for them.
- Minining permits? I am fully sovereign on what I can mine in my land. Why would I need a permission? And who is the alleged gov to say the public land is theirs to allow or disallow leases in the first place?
You see, the problem here is that you believe and submit to a ficticious authority and try to impose that believe on others. It doesn't matter if what the gov says coincides with what you want or not, because there will be a time in which it doesn't, and you will regret asking to them in the first place.
As @DarthCoin said, you are eating their shit. It doesn't matter if sometimes it is tasty shit, it is shit anyway.
reply
I absolutely love the social psych around the sovereign citizen movement! Tell me more about your beliefs cause they truly are one of a kind! One question though.... Say I mine on my land and fill it with mercury and it ends up poisoning your water... how does that work because with what you said I mined on my land and I did not directly access yours. Mother Nature did her thing and caused it so am I off scot-free while you have no more water?
reply
Natural Law:
You have the right to free use of your property and agreement with other beings, as long as it is voluntary and in full knowledge of the conditions and risks, and if not, you would be fairly responsible and liable to compensate them.
If I contaminate your land with my activities I am responsible and liable to compensate you fully. Is it that so difficult to understand?
reply
Well but how do you decide or enforce this? Say you do something to a tree on my property and it dies and I say well you owe me $20 million because that's what that single tree is worth. I put a value on it that is obviously absurd and no one would agree a single oak tree is worth $20 million and how would I force you to actually pay? There are not any enforcement mechanisms in place and if I crossed over onto your land to extract payment then obviously you have a right to defend yourself and shoot me.
reply
You put the typical example that a statist would put, because that is what you are.
If I kill your tree then I own you a tree, not $20M. I can either transplant another similar tree in the same place or we can both agree on an amount. If we don't agree on that amount, then I owe you a tree, nothing else. You have the right to seize me another tree, nothing else.
Read again the law. It says "you would be fairly responsible". Note the "fairly".
About crossing your land, think about it. Land cannot really be of anyone, because it was not created by anybody. What is your creation or recreation may be a plantation, a house, a garden, or any other modification you have made to the land. So if I cross your land without comiting any damage or traspasing a building I am not liable of anything. But if I cross causing damage or stealing, then yes, I am liable and you have the right to defend your property.
reply
What is fair in your eyes does not mean it is fair in my eyes and this is a huge reason I can't wrap my head around it. Just like art and the saying value is in the eye of the beholder if you kill a 20-year-old tree you realistically cannot plant a new one. So just giving me a tree wouldn't work its not a fair trade because of the loss in variable things like shade, idk a tire swing could be attached to it, it could have been planted by a deceased relative so therefore what is fair to me and to you would be dramatically different and extremely hard to rectify.
reply
Fair is a pretty objective deffinition:
Fair: that which must be done according to (natural) law or reason. This is where the fine line lies between a civilized action in accordance with the Law, or an arbitrary one that subverts the Law to use it at will. A claim about an allegation must be fair, meaning it must be true and accurate. Since it is very easy for the alleged victim to invent a crime and then claim damages, the accused has the right to prove that he committed the crime in question. And if both parties do not agree and the accused does not recognize the damage or fails to reach an agreement, then the intervention of a totally neutral external arbitrator who judges with absolute alienation from Natural Law is necessary.
If I killed your tree, it is fair I provide you with another similar tree. If we disagree on what a "fairly similar tree" is, then a neutral party can intervine, which would decide what a fair substitute is. There is really not much variation on what fairly similar trees are, only possible variables are species, quality of fruits, age, size, etc. All measurable things. If you refuse to acknowledge evident similarities, we can call a judge.
This is all logical and natural. We all have it inside us. And we all know this is good.
reply