Itinerant Air-Cooled

steve74baywin wrote:

Amskeptic wrote: "Our government has been violating this" ... what? Be specific please.
After we have banished the "greedy Mf'ers", then let's see what sort of government we have.

Sure thing Colin.
Our government tells us what we can and cannot do in our homes. It is our right to be in charge of our selves. If man A say has a cow that produces milk. Man A is willing to sell this Raw milk to man B. Man B is willing to buy this raw milk from man A. It is man A and man B's inherent right as understood by natural law to sell and buy from each other.
So the answer to your "what?" question, the government violates natural law,which is understood to mean man's right to be in charge of or govern his own property, property to include his body or something he made or acquired, the only limitation on your rights is the equal right of others

There are so many good examples of malfeasance, that your choice of example mystifies me.
What exactly does "the government" tell me I *can* do in my home?
What exactly does "the government" tell me I can't do in my home?
Are we talking local or state or Federal?

I *do* want my government to regulate a seller that he has to maintain a minimum standard of cleanliness in order to sell a substance that is ingested. Duh. Seller can live in a pigsty at home, I don't care. Have you seen the wide-ranging individual interpretations of cleanliness out there?? What is wrong with standards, and where else but government would these standards come?

steve74baywin wrote: If the "greedy Mf'ers" have been able to use the system for their gain by violating our Natural inherent rights, Natural Law, then, like I said in another post minutes ago, the answer is to correct/undo the wrongs. This wrong (violating Natural Law) is what has enabled the "greedy Mf'ers" to use the government for their benefit. And, alot of it is the peoples fault. The people, momentarily thinking that they could gain by getting the government to violate someone else's rights, had or allowed the government to do this. Once the gov is in the practice of doing this, those with the most money have been able to influence the government the most, hence where we are at today. Stop the gov from doing this, and the problem is solved. To some others, please note I said problem solved as in that problem, I did not say "rose garden" or world with "no problems".

I have never met a "the people" who all "momentarily thinking" that they could gain "getting the government" to do "this". We have a beautiful system of representation that has been overrun by special interests who now game the system via financial support to our Congressional representatives who now need the money to maintain viability.

"Stop the gov from doing 'this' and the problem is solved"?
What is the method by which we "stop the gov from doing 'this'"?
Colin

ruckman101 wrote: Who is the arbiter of limitation?

The limited gov to protect natural rights. This limited gov isn't there to invent more laws, but to insure no wrong doing of the basics.

ruckman101 wrote: Doesn't Man B have an equal right to health, but Man A feels there are no negative health consequences to the antibiotics and other nastiness he doses his cows with to maximize milk production and his profits?

Man B knows this when he buys the milk. That is his choice. If he thinks the bacteria is better then the sterilized, that is his chose, is it not? Do you want to be ruler of his life?

ruckman101 wrote:Not to mention the profits of the companies supplying/manufacturing those products? What "natural law" recourse does Man B have if Man A sells him tainted raw milk that kills his children?

A limited government based on natural law is there to protect your natural law rights.
If there was wrong doing, this gov could still punish.
What exactly are you talking about here? An incident where something went wrong and this guys milk is all of a sudden poison? What kind of scenario or example are you setting up? If the man poisoned the milk, that certainly would be a crime.
I really don't see your concern, or think it is warranted. There are no guarantees today, either. Any milk you pick off the shelf today a child could die from something bad in it. What recourse do we have today? Is the child resurrected? If there was wrong doing the courts decide. That would still exist in the limited gov scenario. A law preventing someone from buying raw milk would not. If this milk was poison due to neglect or intent, the gov would be there to determine and punish if necessary.

ruckman101 wrote: And what of Community A downstream from Man A's operation that has ruined their groundwater and stream from bovine urine and feces? Is that the only recourse they have, to not buy milk from Man A?

No, they can use the great, uncluttered, uncorrupted limited government for that.
Yes, wow, this time it would work for them. Yes, they wouldn't find a big, broken corrupted gov worried about all BS it shouldn't be worried about, they wouldn't find a gov that had the rules bent by the rich, no, it would find a govern just ready and willing to ensure their right to life not hindered. Anyone or thing destroying something like that would have to answer to the good correct limited gov.

ruckman101 wrote: Has there ever been a time in history that the "natural law" of freedom and liberty hasn't needed "government" to ensure it?

neal

I'm not sure and don't see what that has do to with me...That question.
Remember, I am the one here wanting and mentioning a limited government just for those things. A limited gov, not no gov, a limited gov to protect natural rights.

I want to apologies in advance for the following, but feel it is needed. Something is wrong here.

Limited Government to protect natural rights is a government set up to protect natural rights. It is not NO gov to protect nothing.
Limited gov to protect rights is not no gov, the very words limited gov imply limited gov. War is not peace. Limited Gov is not no gov.
Limited gov to protect rights is not no gov, the very words limited gov imply limited gov. War is not peace. Limited Gov is not no gov.
Limited gov to protect rights is not no gov, the very words limited gov imply limited gov. War is not peace. Limited Gov is not no gov.
Limited gov to protect rights is not no gov, the very words limited gov imply limited gov. War is not peace. Limited Gov is not no gov.
Limited gov to protect rights is not no gov, the very words limited gov imply limited gov. War is not peace. Limited Gov is not no gov.

Neal, Is this another form of your sarcasm? The way you take limited gov for the protection of Natural inherent rights and say no gov. Has this been conditioned in-limited gov for natural rights=no gov, libertarian gov=no gov, war=peace

Amskeptic wrote:

steve74baywin wrote:

Amskeptic wrote: "Our government has been violating this" ... what? Be specific please.
After we have banished the "greedy Mf'ers", then let's see what sort of government we have.

Sure thing Colin.
Our government tells us what we can and cannot do in our homes. It is our right to be in charge of our selves. If man A say has a cow that produces milk. Man A is willing to sell this Raw milk to man B. Man B is willing to buy this raw milk from man A. It is man A and man B's inherent right as understood by natural law to sell and buy from each other.
So the answer to your "what?" question, the government violates natural law,which is understood to mean man's right to be in charge of or govern his own property, property to include his body or something he made or acquired, the only limitation on your rights is the equal right of others

Amskeptic wrote: There are so many good examples of malfeasance, that your choice of example mystifies me.

I think I can demystify this for you. You asked me for some examples.
I was surprised you had to ask, there are so many.
I figured shit, I will just pick one we talked about on here a few months ago, jog your brain, I couldn't believe you had to ask for an example.

Amskeptic wrote: What exactly does "the government" tell me I can't do in my home?

Colin, if I pick one, please don't tell ask me why I picked it, there are many and I am surprised you have to even ask. Once again I am going to pick a very obvious one that many talk about often on here. Cannabis.

Amskeptic wrote: Are we talking local or state or Federal?

Both, but mostly Federal, and the states were pushed and bribed by the Feds to enact the drug laws.

Amskeptic wrote: I *do* want my government to regulate a seller that he has to maintain a minimum standard of cleanliness in order to sell a substance that is ingested. Duh. Seller can live in a pigsty at home, I don't care. Have you seen the wide-ranging individual interpretations of cleanliness out there?? What is wrong with standards, and where else but government would these standards come?

My response would be. If you want YOUR gov to do it, then move to a smaller area or even community that has such a gov, but to impose a want or desire for a gov that you want onto everyone else living in a geographical area is wrong and selfish.
If you want your milk from a super clean place and to have several recent man invented techniques used on your milk, then seek out the seller of such milk and buy it from him. To get the government to impose such a law across the entire country to just suit your desires is wrong and selfish.

steve74baywin wrote: If the "greedy Mf'ers" have been able to use the system for their gain by violating our Natural inherent rights, Natural Law, then, like I said in another post minutes ago, the answer is to correct/undo the wrongs. This wrong (violating Natural Law) is what has enabled the "greedy Mf'ers" to use the government for their benefit. And, alot of it is the peoples fault. The people, momentarily thinking that they could gain by getting the government to violate someone else's rights, had or allowed the government to do this. Once the gov is in the practice of doing this, those with the most money have been able to influence the government the most, hence where we are at today. Stop the gov from doing this, and the problem is solved. To some others, please note I said problem solved as in that problem, I did not say "rose garden" or world with "no problems".

Amskeptic wrote:I have never met a "the people" who all "momentarily thinking" that they could gain "getting the government" to do "this".

Maybe you never met them. But they exist. Some examples. If a person feels he would be better off with lower medical cost and he wants his politicians to enact a system that takes money from others to fund this system, he is asking the gov to violate the other peoples right to be in charge of their life/labor to benefit him.
If a person thinks it would look better to his visitors if the houses up the road had to keep their property looking neater and he wants his leaders to enact a law, he is asking the government to violate that persons rights for his benefit.

Amskeptic wrote: We have a beautiful system of representation that has been overrun by special interests who now game the system via financial support to our Congressional representatives who now need the money to maintain viability.

Yes, and if they couldn't get the gov to violate the natural inherent rights they'd be wasting their money, but now that we have given the government the okay to do such things it is a good investment for the rich to spend some money on the politicians, cause they can now get them to violate rights for their benefit.

Amskeptic wrote:"Stop the gov from doing 'this' and the problem is solved"?
What is the method by which we "stop the gov from doing 'this'"?
Colin

If people were aware of the following.
1) Natural Law was a great thing behind the founding of this country.
2) That Natural law is the only true basis for a government.
3) One must honor these very same rights in others if we are to expect them to be honored in us.
And then we stand united and only recognize a government that is true to these principles.

I'm more suspect of the negative health aspects of corporate modeled food production systems, including milk, thus the reference to antibiotics and such, which are legal.

And the community downstream? How would that limited government protect them? Our current system has failed in this regard. Take frakking. Bad for groundwater, possibly causes earthquakes, yet try to stop a company from frakking in your community. Their "legal" rights prevail.

Mountain top removal coal mining is another good example.



neal

ruckman101 wrote: How would that limited government protect them? Our current system has failed in this regard. Take frakking. Bad for groundwater, possibly causes earthquakes, yet try to stop a company from frakking in your community. Their "legal" rights prevail.

Mountain top removal coal mining is another good example.

neal

Okay, so if it is proven that Frakking is damaging ground water that people need or use it would be stopped if it violates others rights, which if it is damaging water they use then it is. A very simple thing.
It seems that you only see a Libertarian or limited gov only removing a few things wrong in this system and don't apply it correctly. Like you said, it can't be done now, well now is the corrupted crony big money corporation system with rights invented via the influence of money, etc, etc. This system that protects and allows them to keep violating other humans rights would be abolished. They can't claim it is their right to do something that violates someone else's.
There you go, something you can't get done in this system should be real easy in a Libertarian system.

Below is part of my first reply, but I added the above to more directly answer but will leave the rest.

Their "legal rights" prevail in THIS current system. Not in a Libertarian one. Or better yet, they have LEGAL rights because of a corrupted legal system.
What you speak of is one of the things the gov is there for. Not to police what people do that DON't hurt each other. You speak of one of the few things left for the government to do and wonder how they would do it?????

When I explain rights I have included one of the needed aspects, "The only limitation on your rights is the equal right of others".
They won't have the RIGHT to damage your water or ground, just like you don't.
Remember, the current way corporations GAME the legal system would not exist.
The corporation thing is a long one and I think you know some of it.
Short version---First a corp was set up to aid a community to do something an individual couldn't, it was temporary and only for that purpose. Then, the cronies perverted the system because we made it a changing system violating rights and corporations now get extra rights and things like "limited liability" due to the corrupt legal system. NO PERSON or CORP can violate rights. You wouldn't have a worry. You have worries now because the system doesn't follow Natural Law and Libertarian principles, it follows "who ever pays more or screams the most and loudest gets to bend or make the rules" type of system.
That would go away.
The corp would be no more than one or multiple people jointly owning it as property, there rights are subject to "The only limitation on your rights is the equal right of others." also.


It means they are set up to protect our natural rights.
A corporation doing what you speak of violates this.
So now the government can do it's job, it won't be tied up going after drug users, drug dealers, prostitutes, raw milk sellers, terrorist, etc, in other words it won't be a gov controlled by big money and big corporations. It would be one set up to protect your rights to be in charge of your life, you can do what you want with your property, as long as it doesn't prevent others same right.
A man destroy the stream, or several men destroy the stream, you can go wake up the police who hadn't had much to do, dust out the court room that hasn't been filled with innocent people, and stop this man or men from doing this.

Romney by eight votes over Santorum?

Am I missing something here? Caucus. Only votes cast are by those motivated enough to attend the caucus meetings (no photo ID needed to vote). Were the results still tabulated through a diebold machine?


neal

ruckman101 wrote:Romney by eight votes over Santorum?

A smashing victory for both ... a clear mandate from the American people ...
After the lead-up to the caucus (a selection process participated by barely 120,000 people, the talking heads are feverishly scaring up a new round of frothy commentary about the stunning significance of this startling twist in the history of the Republic.

But seriously folks, I think the myopic over-focus of the 24/7 commentary crowd is contributing to our nation's growing apathy. Like bloviating guests at the holiday dinner table who stun everybody into embarrassed silence, they eventually trigger a powerful avoidance.
Colin

The clown circus is just too bizarre to take seriously.

ruckman101 wrote:Am I missing something here? Caucus. Only votes cast are by those motivated enough to attend the caucus meetings (no photo ID needed to vote). Were the results still tabulated through a diebold machine?

If I understand what I read or if what I read is the truth, it may be even one step worse than that. They pick delegates later in the night from those who stay late at the caucus.
And then, those picked delegates go to a conference later in the year and they get to vote. Seems like a failsafe system by those who wrote the system.

RussellK wrote:The clown circus is just too bizarre to take seriously.

And to think, these clown have the might to violate our rights.

Bachman bows out. God's will be done. It seems to me that this is the first smart decision she has made.


neal

ruckman101 wrote:It seems to me that this is the first smart decision she has made.

She didn't decide anything. She ran out of other people's money.

dtrumbo wrote:

ruckman101 wrote:It seems to me that this is the first smart decision she has made.

She didn't decide anything. She ran out of other people's money.

Or, the people decided, ie, she did bad in Iowa.
I've been thinking for months that the powers to be, the money creators who usually get their man in office, the ones who provided Obama for the people in 2008, are favoring Romney as the Repub candidate. I think these controllers probably would be okay with Obama another four years, but may let Romney get a shot.

Mitt Romney Fights With Reporter After Being Exposed As A Liar, I watched this, "Don't be argumentative with the candidate." No lobbyist running it, but they are there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG7c7m37 ... AAAAAAAAAA

steve74baywin wrote: I think these controllers probably would be okay with Obama another four years, but may let Romney get a shot.

Obama or Romney, what's the diff?

BellePlaine wrote:

steve74baywin wrote: I think these controllers probably would be okay with Obama another four years, but may let Romney get a shot.

Obama or Romney, what's the diff?

Obama is different than Romney.

Obama is a self-made man in the Republican Horatio Alger mold who started his career on the street.
Romney is a silver-spoon.

Please ....
Colin