14th Amendment Birthright Abuse

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

I own my house, and I am given a vote in local, county, State, and Federal Elections. We all know this.

Should I have a right to vote on local and county issues on a rental property that I own? The rental property is in a different city and county than my primary residence, but in the same state and nation. Should I have a say in the laws that affect my rental property at the city and county level? I do not think I should have a second vote on State and Federal Level, but maybe we could explore this also.

42

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
OG, forget for a moment the idea of anarchy. I am not even bringing that idea into this discussion.

Let’s pretend for one minute that governments actually were INSTITUTED AMONG MEN TO PROTECT LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY.

How does a government protect property rights while simultaneously infringing upon them?[/quote]

To explain why I dismiss a lot of what you post is because you seem to bash away at what things shouldn’t be and post about this hypothetical what should be, but I don’t see you suggesting a workable solution for the current situation.

If you have suggested workable solutions then I have missed them.

Even your question now is more of a rage against the machine then how do we solve the problem of anchor babies.

Currently the law provides that any child born in the US is an automatic citizen. That family may be entitled to benefits which are provided with my taxes.

I don’t want my taxes spent that way but currently that is the reality in which I live.

So I can see your question as how it relates to my upset. How can a government that is to represent me allowed to use my taxes to support anchor babies when that is not my wish?

Is that along the lines of your question?
[/quote]
The problem is that you do not see what I offer as a solution. I can respect that.

But to suggest that peace and freedom does not work to resolve problems is to have no hope for humanity.

I am merely suggesting that every person – whether working for the state or private industry – mind his or her own business and not hurt other people.

Imagine what kind of society that would be if it were to happen down to the last tax and bullet fired!

And you precisely see my point: why should anyone be taxed to fund anchor babies? The problem is not with the babies themselves but of the original expropriation that must take place to permit it. It is a matter of property rights, always.

43

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The problem is that you do not see what I offer as a solution. I can respect that.

But to suggest that peace and freedom does not work to resolve problems is to have no hope for humanity.

I am merely suggesting that every person – whether working for the state or private industry – mind his or her own business and not hurt other people.

Imagine what kind of society that would be if it were to happen down to the last tax and bullet fired!

And you precisely see my point: why should anyone be taxed to fund anchor babies? The problem is not with the babies themselves but of the original expropriation that must take place to permit it. It is a matter of property rights, always.[/quote]

(cropped so the posts aren’t so long)

I am a citizen in a country and have the right to vote on those policies enacted by my government, or if not the actual policies I can vote for my chosen representative.

I prefer to live here. I could move to a different country. I could become a nomad, I choose to live as a citizen wherein I pay taxes and vote on policies and receive services and benefits from my country. Since I do participate and I do pay taxes I do have the right to vote on policies.

That is the trade off.

What if you invite someone in to your private property and that person decides they want to play loud music all day or night? Or what if that person chooses to spy on me with their binoculars? You may say I can then contact law enforcement, but isn’t that contradictory to minding my own business? Where does your responsibility to me end?

44

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The entire realm of humanity is centered around property rights, first and foremost.[/quote]

Do you believe this to be a historical truth (what I’d call a real or actual truth), or is it a thought experiment/philosophical “truth”, like the “state of nature” for Hobbs?[/quote]

It is the truth, freedom is intertwined with property rights, if you do not have property rights you are not free.[/quote]

Question because I don’t know, how does that affect people who don’t own property? What would that relate to then?

[/quote]

At the basic level, property rights gives you the right to do as you wish with your own body.[/quote]

Would you explain that please?
[/quote]

Property rights at its basic level without any wordiness. Is the control over your body (and anything you own) as long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else.

45

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The entire realm of humanity is centered around property rights, first and foremost.[/quote]

Do you believe this to be a historical truth (what I’d call a real or actual truth), or is it a thought experiment/philosophical “truth”, like the “state of nature” for Hobbs?[/quote]

It is the truth, freedom is intertwined with property rights, if you do not have property rights you are not free.[/quote]

Question because I don’t know, how does that affect people who don’t own property? What would that relate to then?

[/quote]

At the basic level, property rights gives you the right to do as you wish with your own body.[/quote]

Would you explain that please?
[/quote]

Property rights at its basic level without any wordiness. Is the control over your body (and anything you own) as long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else.[/quote]

So a woman owns her own body and has complete dominion over her body?

46

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

I don’t know if I would trust a private army or a private sector to negotiate treaties and tariffs.

As for roads, I don’t know the cost of a road.

In San Diego we used to out source our data processing but then found that it was cheaper to create a department that handles the data. That saves my tax money.

[/quote]

Why would you not trust a private army? You must remember that a private army would be made up of many different companies. And why do we need treaties and tariffs, free people can interact with who they choose.

Private roads run better, and if you take the tax off gas would be cheaper for the vast majority of people.

Something tells me San Diego didn’t explore all options/had a lot of shady deals going on. Because private beats public every time.[/quote]

Really? How did the Enron thing workout?
[/quote]

The Federal Government gave a false sense of security for the public and did not have proper protocols in place.

47

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
So a woman owns her own body and has complete dominion over her body?
[/quote]

As long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else.

48

This thread has gone far afield of my original post

49

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
So a woman owns her own body and has complete dominion over her body?
[/quote]

As long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else.[/quote]

ah so only a man always has complete dominion over his person, at least in some people’s opinions

50

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
So a woman owns her own body and has complete dominion over her body?
[/quote]

As long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else.[/quote]

ah so only a man always has complete dominion over his person, at least in some people’s opinions

[/quote]

The limit of “doing harm to others” limits everyone’s rights to do as they wish with themselves.

51

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
So a woman owns her own body and has complete dominion over her body?
[/quote]

As long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else.[/quote]

ah so only a man always has complete dominion over his person, at least in some people’s opinions

[/quote]

The limit of “doing harm to others” limits everyone’s rights to do as they wish with themselves.

[/quote]

really? so what would be the scenario within your own body as a man?

52

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
So a woman owns her own body and has complete dominion over her body?
[/quote]

As long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else.[/quote]

ah so only a man always has complete dominion over his person, at least in some people’s opinions

[/quote]

The limit of “doing harm to others” limits everyone’s rights to do as they wish with themselves.

[/quote]

really? so what would be the scenario within your own body as a man? [/quote]

I can’t free extend my arm if someone is standing infront of me. I cannot yell the word “fire” in man situations. The physical actions of everyone are limited by that rule.

53

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
So a woman owns her own body and has complete dominion over her body?
[/quote]

As long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else.[/quote]

ah so only a man always has complete dominion over his person, at least in some people’s opinions

[/quote]

The limit of “doing harm to others” limits everyone’s rights to do as they wish with themselves.

[/quote]

really? so what would be the scenario within your own body as a man? [/quote]

I can’t free extend my arm if someone is standing infront of me. I cannot yell the word “fire” in man situations. The physical actions of everyone are limited by that rule.[/quote]

What is this thread about?

54

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
So a woman owns her own body and has complete dominion over her body?
[/quote]

As long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else.[/quote]

ah so only a man always has complete dominion over his person, at least in some people’s opinions

[/quote]

The limit of “doing harm to others” limits everyone’s rights to do as they wish with themselves.

[/quote]

really? so what would be the scenario within your own body as a man? [/quote]

I can’t free extend my arm if someone is standing infront of me. I cannot yell the word “fire” in man situations. The physical actions of everyone are limited by that rule.[/quote]

no… not the same thing as a pregnancy. It isn’t within your own body.

But it does prove the point that not everyone has complete dominion over their body.

But it isn’t the topic of this thread.

55

[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
So a woman owns her own body and has complete dominion over her body?
[/quote]

As long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else.[/quote]

ah so only a man always has complete dominion over his person, at least in some people’s opinions

[/quote]

The limit of “doing harm to others” limits everyone’s rights to do as they wish with themselves.

[/quote]

really? so what would be the scenario within your own body as a man? [/quote]

I can’t free extend my arm if someone is standing infront of me. I cannot yell the word “fire” in man situations. The physical actions of everyone are limited by that rule.[/quote]

What is this thread about?[/quote]

Well, my intention was to discuss birth tourism and the 14th Amendment and it has gone the way of a dinner party conversation and evolved into property rights and government versus private business and the not conclusive statement that everyone is self owned.

56

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
So a woman owns her own body and has complete dominion over her body?
[/quote]

As long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else.[/quote]

ah so only a man always has complete dominion over his person, at least in some people’s opinions

[/quote]

The limit of “doing harm to others” limits everyone’s rights to do as they wish with themselves.

[/quote]

really? so what would be the scenario within your own body as a man? [/quote]

I can’t free extend my arm if someone is standing infront of me. I cannot yell the word “fire” in man situations. The physical actions of everyone are limited by that rule.[/quote]

no… not the same thing as a pregnancy. It isn’t within your own body.

But it does prove the point that not everyone has complete dominion over their body.

But it isn’t the topic of this thread.
[/quote]

The physiological nature of movement is entirely internal.

You are making a fairly arbitrary distinction anyway. The space in the womb could easily be argued as external to the female body. If I take an ant and close my hand around it, the ant isn’t really internal to my body.

57

I wish some people could visit another country and see how they value their policies towards immigration, tourism, and travel. My best friend (who was also born in Italy) was arrested when landing at the airport because he did not handle a mandatory obligation that the government has for Italian men. After a 14 hr flight, he was cuffed and jailed for ditching his mandatory military obligation. He spent 3 weeks in jail, and was sent back to the US with a 5 yr ban on traveling back. THAT is how you handle business, and he is a citizen too.

Trust me, if we had a government with strict policies and enforcement like that, this probably would be minimized by a huge margin.

58

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
So a woman owns her own body and has complete dominion over her body?
[/quote]

As long as it doesn’t bring harm to anyone else.[/quote]

ah so only a man always has complete dominion over his person, at least in some people’s opinions

[/quote]

The limit of “doing harm to others” limits everyone’s rights to do as they wish with themselves.

[/quote]

really? so what would be the scenario within your own body as a man? [/quote]

I can’t free extend my arm if someone is standing infront of me. I cannot yell the word “fire” in man situations. The physical actions of everyone are limited by that rule.[/quote]

no… not the same thing as a pregnancy. It isn’t within your own body.

But it does prove the point that not everyone has complete dominion over their body.

But it isn’t the topic of this thread.
[/quote]

The physiological nature of movement is entirely internal.

You are making a fairly arbitrary distinction anyway. The space in the womb could easily be argued as external to the female body. If I take an ant and close my hand around it, the ant isn’t really internal to my body.[/quote]

uh noooo not external. Talk about reaching. Keep your hands to yourself.

Stop trying to relate how your muscles moving make it an internal event even though the subject of what might be objectionable would be the effect OF the external impact or influence

59

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I wish some people could visit another country and see how they value their policies towards immigration, tourism, and travel. My best friend (who was also born in Italy) was arrested when landing at the airport because he did not handle a mandatory obligation that the government has for Italian men. After a 14 hr flight, he was cuffed and jailed for ditching his mandatory military obligation. He spent 3 weeks in jail, and was sent back to the US with a 5 yr ban on traveling back. THAT is how you handle business, and he is a citizen too.

Trust me, if we had a government with strict policies and enforcement like that, this probably would be minimized by a huge margin. [/quote]

Thanks Max for getting things back on track regarding citizenship and immigration.

60

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
What if you invite someone in to your private property and that person decides they want to play loud music all day or night? Or what if that person chooses to spy on me with their binoculars? You may say I can then contact law enforcement, but isn’t that contradictory to minding my own business? Where does your responsibility to me end?
[/quote]

The thing about being a property owner is that one has the right (or should have the right) to evict bad tenants.

Maybe “minding one’s own business” is not the right way to put it. Rather, enabling someone else to use aggression on your behalf is what I really had in mind – institutionalized aggression. This only applies if no aggression had been committed on you. An easy example I have in mind would be “the war on drugs” – which enables law enforcement to commit aggression on drug users/dealers on the behalf of taxpayers prior to any original aggression on the drug user’s/dealer’s part. If you are the victim of a crime it would not be unacceptable to ask for assistance; however, it is wrong for you to expect non-victimized taxpayers to pay for it.

The peeping tom issue, as undesirable as it may be to be peeped on, is not a form of aggression unless one gains access to your property (see above, re: bad tenants). Keep your blinds closed.