In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. (fact checking time)

breitbart.com ^ | July 5th | TruthFinderXXX

[DiogenesLamp]

Man has a natural right of liberty, to name one cited in the Declaration, but we imprison large numbers of people.

In punishment of a crime.

Man has a natural right of life, but we execute people.

In punishment of a crime.

People have a natural right to the "pursuit of happiness," but if driving at 150 mph is what makes you happy, you're going to have a hard time of it.

That is a crime.

The fact is the "natural rights"--a slippery term that tends to mean whatever one wants it to mean--are trumped by laws all the time.

I might agree if you could provide some examples.

For as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of war.

Look up the "paradox of tolerance."

[Stepan12]

I might add the first legally owned slave in this country was owned by a black man....

Here is the link authored by Ben Kinchlow.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Your claim is NOT an extension of my position.

The fact that your position leads you to some awkward places does not mean that they aren't valid extensions of your position. And you can't claim an absolute right to secede for any reason, at any time, and then say that you can't secede if your cause violates some rights of some class that are currently protected. Because once you invoke the magic words, you're now a different country and the rights of citizens in your previous country are meaningless.

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the led-hander is not equal to the right-handed man"

[DiogenesLamp]

The fact that your position leads you to some awkward places does not mean that they aren't valid extensions of your position.

This is where we differ monsieur, I see no awkwardness in any of my positions. If you arrive in an awkward place then you aren't extending my position correctly.

And you can't claim an absolute right to secede for any reason, at any time, and then say that you can't secede if your cause violates some rights of some class that are currently protected.

And this is an example of what I mean. Yes, you can. The natural law principles involved are not a buffet. They go together as a set.

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the led-hander is not equal to the right-handed man"

And if this is also the position of the Union, then as far as both sides are concerned, this claim is valid for both parties.

They are both wrong, and to the same degree.

Oh, and rockrr, are you getting this? More examples of what I keep telling you about other people bringing it up.

[rockrr]

He’s not “bringing it up” - he’s responding to your nonsense.

[DiogenesLamp]

He’s not “bringing it up” - he’s responding to your nonsense.

Don't lie to yourself. Try and develop some intellectual honesty. You know very well i'm not bringing it up. You know very well *HE* is bringing it up.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

In punishment of a crime.

So there's a loophole in natural law that allows its violation? Ultimately, crime is a societal construct, and imprisonment for crime a violation of someone's natural right of liberty agreed upon by society in exchange for the benefits and protections of that society. In the State of Nature, nothing is a crime. It's the "Bellum omnium contra omens."

I might agree if you could provide some examples.

Why don't you start by naming exactly what our natural rights are.

[DiogenesLamp]

So there's a loophole in natural law that allows its violation?

More like there is a requirement to balance it.

Ultimately, crime is a societal construct, and imprisonment for crime a violation of someone's natural right of liberty agreed upon by society in exchange for the benefits and protections of that society. In the State of Nature, nothing is a crime.

Malum prohibitum is the toy of society.

Malum in se is not.

You casually attempt to equate one with the other, and I suspect it is because you are just now being informed that there is a difference.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

More like there is a requirement to balance it.

You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you? Of course, as I said before, "Natural Law" tends to mean whatever someone wants it to mean. But I would argue that that requirement is why societies and governments are formed, and we surrender (or "balance") our absolute natural rights for the benefits derived from that man-made balance. That balance is not part of the natural law, but it's compromise by men to lead in order to lead less nasty, less brutish, less short lives.

You casually attempt to equate one with the other, and I suspect it is because you are just now being informed that there is a difference.

Which one is slavery? Is that only wrong because we say it's wrong, or is it inherently evil?

[DoodleDawg]

They could have simply informed the lower court that their understanding of the purpose of "Imminent Domain" is incorrect; That public need and usage does not extend so far as to allow them to seize property to give to someone else to use to make a profit, and thus indirectly stimulate the economy which might indirectly benefits the state.

So then you're saying it's proper for the U.S. Supreme Court to tell states how to handle things like eminent domain. That there are limits to what the 10th Amendment allows the states to decide for themselves.

Having a Federal Court point out to a State court that their understanding of the meaning of Imminent Domain is incorrect is not giving the Federal Government any new Authority over the state.

Sure it is. It's telling the state that they are not competent to interpret their own state constitution and that the federal courts have to do it.

It's insuring that the state recognizes and protects the long understood rights as outlined by the common law, and by specific protections in the Constitution and the Bill of rights.

You are saying that Connecticut cannot decide for itself what "public use" means. That the Tenth Amendment does not allow it do do that. That only the federal courts can decide that. Your view of what the states can and cannot do seems dependent on the whims of that "Fedzilla" you claim to dislike.

So again, if federal courts can tell the states what "public use" is then why can't they also tell the states what marriage is?

[DiogenesLamp]

You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you? Of course, as I said before, "Natural Law" tends to mean whatever someone wants it to mean.

No it doesn't. You can get different results from using different foundations of natural law, but depending on the foundation you use, the results work out consistently for whichever foundation you chose.

But I would argue that that requirement is why societies and governments are formed, and we surrender (or "balance") our absolute natural rights for the benefits derived from that man-made balance. That balance is not part of the natural law, but it's compromise by men to lead in order to lead less nasty, less brutish, less short lives.

You need to read more natural law. Locke is pretty good for starters.

Which one is slavery? Is that only wrong because we say it's wrong, or is it inherently evil?

Oh, depending on your foundational assumptions, it's inherently evil, but often people who grew up with it being acceptable may not be aware of it until it is pointed out to them. In other foundational assumptions, it is not evil, but is instead perfectly consistent with the laws of nature.

But while we're on this point, the concept of a "solid" anything doesn't exist in physics or in philosophy. Something I have learned is that Schrödinger's Cat like states exist everywhere and everywhen.

Doing Vector Math taught me that a number can be three numbers, or even a matrix. Calculus taught me that a number can be a function, and may not have any single state condition, but an infinite number of them, with in ranges.

"Solid" answers often depend on a whole lot of specific factors of interest.

[DoodleDawg]

No, it is quite accurate.

Not accurate at all.

If Ft. Sumter did not in any way match the level of destruction which would have been the result of a 35,000 man invasion.

Depends on your point of view. Considering the South really had no justification at all in bombarding the fort in the first place you hold the North to a much higher standard. Had the tables been turned and it was Sumter which bombarded the city of Charleston for 24 hours, fortunately without casualties? Or had they bombarded Fort Moultrie and the rebel batteries with killing anyone? Would you expect the Confederates to say, "no harm, no foul" and not consider that an act of war and respond accordingly? Or would you consider it justification for starting the conflict?

The answers to this question are in the eyes of the beholder.

But not the North's reaction. That's all black-and-white.

I have read that they regarded this game playing with them as a deliberate affront and insult, and so perhaps they thought it was justified to put an end to it.

Forget what they thought, I'm asking what you think. Would the attack on Sumter be justified under those conditions?

As an objective third party observer, (meaning me)...

Objective? Oh please.

Though the thought of killing 600,000 people for a humiliation abhors me...

But killing over 600,000 for an affront and insult is OK.

[DiogenesLamp]

So then you're saying it's proper for the U.S. Supreme Court to tell states how to handle things like eminent domain. That there are limits to what the 10th Amendment allows the states to decide for themselves.

This is the same thing i'm currently discussing with Bubba Ho-tep. A Nation founded on Natural Law has natural law limits.

Sure it is. It's telling the state that they are not competent to interpret their own state constitution and that the federal courts have to do it.

And that is different how? Sic Semper.

You are saying that Connecticut cannot decide for itself what "public use" means. That the Tenth Amendment does not allow it do do that. That only the federal courts can decide that. Your view of what the states can and cannot do seems dependent on the whims of that "Fedzilla" you claim to dislike.

Interpreting laws in accordance with a long held and common understanding is not FedZilla. Objecting to excess and overreach is one thing, while objecting to normal and proper behavior, is quite another. Fedzilla is improper behavior and excessive overreach. Normal functionality is not objectionable.

Connecticut was being "StateZilla", and FedZilla went along with it.

So again, if federal courts can tell the states what "public use" is then why can't they also tell the states what marriage is?

Marriage is not a Federal Issue. Taking away someones property against their will is a Federal Issue under the Bill of Rights and through the common law.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Oh, depending on your foundational assumptions, it's inherently evil, but often people who grew up with it being acceptable may not be aware of it until it is pointed out to them. In other foundational assumptions, it is not evil, but is instead perfectly consistent with the laws of nature.

So basically you're saying that there is no absolute moral truth, merely societal constructs.

[DiogenesLamp]

So basically you're saying that there is no absolute moral truth, merely societal constructs.

No, i'm saying the differences in culture opinions are the result of differences in foundational assumptions, but I believe that morals that differ from objective morality are inherently wrong. Slavery is inherently wrong.