“All special charters of freedom must be abrogated where the universal law of freedom is to flourish.”

A reference back to natural law. Everywhere Marx's special charter of freedom has been applied, it has been abrogated by the universal law of freedom. The statist theocracy now infesting this land's implementing of its own special charters of freedom will likewise be eventually abrogated (sooner than later hope the lovers of freedom) before the universal law of freedom will flourish here once again.

Individual freedom and societal freedom are two different things. When I back pack and live out in the woods I know a little bit aobut universal freedom but when I come back I understand a little bit about society. Universal freedom is a thing of faith and is a sentient a felt kind of freedom. Societal freedom is a construct of the human race and is constructed differently in different places. These constructs or relationships must be set down either in charters or understandings or traditions. Thus I give the quorte a thumbs down for its lack of completeness or explanation.

Waffler...what we need according to you is a "King", an absolute ruler of the land. I'm guessing that like Hillary you just assume people are bad and need to be ruled. I disagree. Sorry but freedom is freedom, and you're splitting hairs as usual.

Waffler, so putting your logic and examples together: Those selfish witches of Salem could practice their faith while back packing alone in the woods? And, then through some magical lawful nexus, when the back packing witches returned to where multiple individuals dwelt, with a charter defining the majority's relationship, they could no longer be witches and live? The majority's charter said kill all witches. Those selfish witches should have grown the hell up and never gone into town. hmmm Waffler, where or what is this magical lawful nexus that gives me inalienable rights when alone and, takes away my inalienable rights when I'm in a group of 3 or more? Does this magical nexus have a name, is it organic, can I call this abstract society to the stand in court so I might question my injured accuser? I think you've come up with the ultimate (or at least an excellent) justification for tyranny, despotism, and all other deprivations of humanity.

Waffler, I can't quite understand freedom that is universal, or experienced by all and, is equally at the same time only an abstract belief, a sentient hypothetical, or a mystical non-anything that magically vanishes when in the presence of 3 or more. Those Afghans you mentioned, that are seeking their birthright, are doing nothing more than a mental / sensorial exercise in futility once mingling with the mob; they have to grow the hell up and submit to the construct's magical nexus of (?), held by the over lords and their representatives.

I love the thought - perhaps in another 1000 years

Waffler, I understand the concept of might makes right. I understand how more people, bigger people, more guns, bigger guns, etc. is rationalized as the ends justifying the means. I understand how and why 'power' in such scenario is substituted for principle, authority, right(s), freedom, liberty, law, and justice. BUT ! ! ! there is no lawful nexus that gives 1 person (individually or in concert with other persons) more rights, greater principle, superior authority or in anyway dominant freedom, liberty, law or justice over any other just because there is a majority consensus. The democratic vote in the US was not established to create law ! but rather, to find personal representatives that could / would discover the best code, ordinance, regulation, rule, statute, etc. for society that harmonized with the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

Universal individual freedom would seem to say that if you wish to build your house in the middle of the downtown intersection well that is one thing. The societal construct or zoning that says no but you may build your house here or there is another thing. To look at the stars or to observe the blue sky is a universal thing that all may wonder at and feel to be part of the universse. These things are universal things as is the teaching that all are created equal and that all have "freedom" but and it is a very big but, many of us live in societies where groups decide and individuasl follow. This deciding is generally refered to as law. As long as you follow the "Law" you remain free to do as you please in every other way, once you break the law you become what is known as an outlaw or outside of the law and are subject to loosing your freedom. This is easy stuff not rocket science so why cannot you understand common sense and wisdom Mike, why? Freedom needs to be defined and explained Carlton. What do you mean by freedom, some wish to be free of the ten commandments, Mike has oft expressed contempt and wishes to be free of the "law" that tells you on which side of the road to drive, or where to stop. What the hell do you guys mean by "freedom is freedom"? The underlying sentiment I get from most of you is you yearn for a freedom from Washington, and from taxation. Others may find that leadership and governance from Washington is the only thing that keeps us or at least them free, such as Civil Rights Acts, hate crime laws, environmental laws etc. Is freedom from Washington your only mantra?

Waffler, again your example is unrealistic, anti property rights, asinine, and fits nothing that has been said. A public road is owned by other than just one individual. To build a house in a downtown intersection would require the purchase of the property with no restrictions by the former owner(s) (zoning codes and all) Again, thank you for your explanation. Most here have recognized that you believe inalienable rights are nothing more than looking at the stars or observing the blue sky. Waffler law is whatever the most powerful in any given venue says it is. Freedom has been explained here ad nauseam but, you've rejected it because it doesn't harmonize with blue sky gazing or might makes right rationalizations. I have oft expressed contempt for might makes right tyranny and despotism while yearning for a government of law, as is averse to a government of men. The underlying sentiment you get from most of us is based on your love of slavery and your self induced inability to perceive anything else. I, and I believe most here, wish and hope to be free to; NOT free from. Then we would not be under the tyranny and despotism of DC, State, County, City, Local, etc. Civil rights are a diversion from the greater inalienable rights. Hate crime statutes are immoral vestiges of control mongering deviants (if a crime is committed upon life, liberty or property, it should be dealt with accordingly at law and justice). Environmental laws must be kept sacrosanct - they derive from my rights end at your nose (more than that is tyranny - such as the U.S. has sufficient oil within its (-; 57 ;-) contiguous States to supply the world for centuries / the oil in the ground could be extracted with acceptable impact and sold to eliminate the unlawful spending of governments). All organized societies rely on taxes to provide operation. It is the immoral and unlawful extractions that are objected to. Calling theft of the fruit of a man's labor, slavery in a most blatant form, tax, is a most heinous distortion, unlawful, and unjust. Hoaxes such as global warming and the planned human genocide executed by such events as shutting off water to some of the most fertile and food producing land in the world should be dealt with, in the greatest manner justice would allow.

Mike, Waffler is a communist and the only purpose he serves is to be a sounding board for presenting Freedom, Truth and the American way...as opposed to his more Stalinist views on how to "control" society. He would see us all as subservient sheep and America destroyed and that is why he and his kind are the enemy. In Liberty, J.

What is freedom to you guys? No one is absolutely free to do whatever they like when they like. Your lack of abilties to communicate and resorting to name calling does not solve or win any argument. The proof that none are totally free is the courts and litigation. If someone builds others can litigate as to where, how etcetera. And this same litigation can be brought to bear on anything you do for that matter. If some universal law were accurately known and existed in fact rather than just in feeling we would not have or need mankinds litigation. These are the cards we have been dealt, whose fault is it that you guys chosse to keep your heads in the sand and call every one above the sand names. WHAT DO YOU GUYS MEAN BY FREEDOM?

Waffler, I don't believe anyone here is trying to win an argument but rather, dispel the ignorance that is sustaining the tyranny, despotism, slavery, and otherwise loss of freedom. Freedom is the authority, power, and right to act, think, feel, etc. as one perceives fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. Freedom is only found in a self expression that harmonizes with natural law. Freedom only exists in natural law harmonization (by way of principled example: your rights end at my nose). The laws of nature is that which brought about man's existence and that displays ultimate cause and effect. Those laws of nature that are within man's de jure jurisprudence, for defining (legislating) conduct are limited to life, liberty, and property (anything more or less is unlawful tyranny) All legislation is not equal. By way of example: gravity is a natural law (we hold this truth to be self evident). There are fiscal laws that cover bankruptcy, theft, etc. (we hold this truth to be self evident) There are laws concerning property such as allodial ownership, titled use, theft, slavery, etc. (we hold this truth to be self evident) Liberty is the being's venue to participate at freedom. (we hold this truth to be self evident) Legislated injustices such as compelled compliance, license, victimless crimes, and larceny with impunity are all rules (law) of man as are contrary to natural law. Such anti-natural law legislation is anti-freedom and defines tyranny and despotism. Unwarranted litigation would, at natural law, be dealt with as an injustice and the perpetrator would be contended with appropriately. When courts and litigation infringe on natural law, it is up to man to discover the law and place his rules, statutes, etc. in harmony therewith. The Constitution set-forth a 3 way check and balance that was capable of fixing unlawful court actions. Now that the Constitution and law (actually known to universally exist in fact, rather than just in feeling) have been set aside in favor of man's tyrannical rule, freedom only remains in the individual sovereign's heart, expressions, and not in the administrations of man. Waffler, your practical acceptance of tyranny, despotism, and slavery, that being 'that's just the way things are and, the way things have always been' is / was a dogma temporarily set aside when the founders established a republic of extremely limited representatives. Again, freedom has been explained (by definition, examples, practical applications, etc) ad nauseam but you refuse to accept it because you profit from unlawful misery, and guilt would rack your self image if you ever choose freedom over tyranny.

Mike, well said. I just want to add that it is because all Americans (Waffler included) are commanded by the laws of nature to first realize that their own personal actions are responsible for the death of American freedom before they can turn around in spirit first and actionnext to fix things as nature would have it. This, as I'm sure you know, is a major humbling experience to a power and intelligence that puts mans' intelligence and abilities to shame. Those like Waffler will never understand because their egos won't allow them to admit anything is more intelligent than them but other men who they put full faith in to save them from financial ruin thus spiritual (the love of money) ruin. These people understand humility not at all and this will be their downfall in the long run. Again well said Mike.