The Judge Is A SCREAMING Hypocrite
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-07-10 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Musings , 139 references Ignore this thread
The Judge Is A SCREAMING Hypocrite
[Comments enabled]

This is the sort of article that makes you want to set an ambush and urinate on a guy off the top of a building.

The two central values of the declaration are the origins of human liberty and the legitimacy of popular government.

When Jefferson wrote that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was referring to the natural law. The natural law teaches that right and wrong can be discerned and truth discovered by the exercise of human reason, independent of any commands from the government.

The natural law also teaches that our rights come from our humanity — not from the government — and our humanity is a gift from our Creator.

So far we're doing well.  Yes, this was a radical idea prior to 1776.  But not that radical.  There were others who espoused it. If was just that the ruling class didn't believe in any of it.

The interesting part of the so-called American Experiment is that this point of view really hasn't changed at all.  Oh sure, from time to time lessons are taught, frequently out of the barrel of a gun.  Indeed, thugs listen to only one thing: The credible threat, or actual use, of force.

Why would they listen to anything else?  Reason is inconvenient.  Rationalization; that one is better because of their skin color, sex, or simply who ****ed who and thus begat what child from which paired off set of penis and vagina is not only ancient it's literally timeless.

Even those who question or reject the existence of the Creator can embrace natural rights; they can accept that our exercise of human reason leads us all to make similar claims. Rights are essentially claims made against others, including the government.

Oh really?

A right is a claim against others?  Did you mean to qualify that Judge, or did you omit the qualification on purpose?

See, there are two forms of alleged "rights": Negative and positive.

The distinction is this: A negative right enjoins you from doing something to someone.  A positive right requires someone to do something for you.

But there is only one form of actual natural-law right: The negative one, and the reason is simple -- all "positive" alleged rights are in fact slavery, in that they compel the taking from one person, without consent, for another person's benefit.

One cannot believe in natural rights -- that is, that one is entitled as a human being to life from whatever form creation is believed to have sprung, and at the same time compel someone to give up that which defines them by other than mutual agreement for another's benefit.

Therefore there are no positive rights.  Any assertion of one is in fact a declaration of intent to enslave and deserves exactly one response.

The idea that each human being possesses inherent natural rights by virtue of one's humanity is not just an academic argument. It has real-life consequences, which Jefferson recognized. Those consequences are implicated when government seeks to curtail rights for what it claims is the common good or the good of the government itself.

Jefferson recognized that you can consent to the curtailment of your own rights, but you cannot consent to the curtailment of mine. To Jefferson, government can take away your rights without your consent only if you have violated someone else's rights; it cannot do so by majority vote.

Well gee, Judge, it appears we both agree with Jefferson.

Or do we?  You see, I don't believe you agree with him at all.

In America, consent of the governed is married to the natural law. Under the natural law, what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine. If I attempt to take your land or car or cellphone, you can stop me, either directly or through the government to which we have both consented.

Can I?

Do you actually believe that, Judge?

If one of us has not consented to the government's existence, it can still enforce natural rights as the agent of the person whose rights are being violated — just as it does for bank depositors when it captures a bank robber. If we have not consented to the government and it takes our liberty or property, it has no moral legitimacy and is merely a common thief.

And just above, literally in the previous paragraph, the Judge tell us what we can do with common thieves.

We can stop them.

By whatever means we have to employ.

Thieves rarely respond to polite language.  They do, however, usually respect a credible threat of immediate lead poisoning, although sometimes it has to be proved that credibility by delivering same.

So Judge, where was the obvious and clear follow-up statement to your claimed perspective?  It seems to be missing, and I do wonder why.  I wonder if you really mean anything of what you wrote above, or for that matter, below:

Did you consent to a Congress that steals liberty and property on a whim without due process; to a president who starts wars, raises taxes and spends money in defiance of Congress; or to courts that let folks be tried twice for the same crime or punished for crimes not yet committed?

Well uh, no.

To make the question direct so you can't dodge it: Are you suggesting that we shoot them?

Oh, and how about our state and county governments?  Do I consent to the theft of my liberty and property on a whim by them as well?  If not, are you suggesting that we shoot them as well?

I'd like to know exactly what you are suggesting, Judge -- and do you really mean any of it?  Are you willing to back up any of your bull**** with your life, fortune and sacred honor -- or is it all only for good as long as there's no cost?

Isn't that -- the fact that if you really believe what you wrote then you have to be willing to pledge your life, fortune and sacred honor -- the real lesson of Independence Day?

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 



 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info The Judge Is A SCREAMING Hypocrite in forum [Market-Ticker]
Twainfan2
Posts: 45
Incept: 2018-12-04

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
He certainly did skip past the part of the Declaration where it talks about abolishing abusive govts... ie overthrowing them.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I used to like Judge Nap.. but he has since thrown his lot in with the criminals that run this nation. He flip flops and says some really dumb things.
Bearcubs9497
Posts: 29
Incept: 2017-02-01

Huntsville, AL
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Nap's a globalist bastard. Like every one of them, he's only concerned about himself. his opinion regarding the rest of us? cattle to be slaughtered.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ