Search results

It's called the first amendment, Anna. So long as they aren't committing a crime or breaking any laws, they have the right to peaceable assembly, even if they have disagreeable opinions or beliefs. Or what, do you think certain opinions should be criminalized? You might want to go read "1984"...

The same woman who was videod defecating on public transportation and has a somewhat long criminal record with multiple prior arrests?

No, you haven't. Otherwise I wouldn't be repeating them. Clete, all you've been doing is repeating your position over and over again, exactly like you demand others not do (and rightly so). This is me telling you, STOP REPEATING YOUR POSITION as though it advances the conversation. It doesn't...

Your system may solve it for an evil king, but not for the people who may remove him, nor does it guarantee that a king will always be good. That's the entire point! All you've done is moved the problem up a level at best! At worst you've created an entire legal process that has to be followed...

I think a distinction needs to be made here. One can be an American on paper, have all the proper legal documents, live here, raise a family here, etc, but if they dont share the same moral framework of "America," whatever that may be, then they are not truly "Americans" except in name only...

It's called a BRAIN, Anna. Surely you've used one before? Oh, and fingers to type, and a smartphone to post things to TOL on. And the relevant tool is called an argument. Happy now? If something I said is false, show that it is false. If the logic fails, show where it fails. But asking...

That is what I did. But you didn't engage the arguments. You asked whether I used ChatGPT, then explained that you use that as a litmus test for whether you will bother responding. That's not "engaging the arguments" no matter how you frame it. It's not an ad hominem to point out that...

No, I did not use ChatGPT. I did use a tool to help organize and refine my thoughts, similar to how people use any tool for clarity. The data, history, and reasoning are mine. Accusing someone of using ChatGPT instead of engaging the arguments is a weak dodge. Would you please address the...

Vlad’s point is basically right. The claim is not that Bob’s system makes tyranny impossible. It is that, at worst, tyranny is concentrated in one visible, mortal, personally responsible man rather than diffused through a permanent institution that can grow more corrupt across generations while...

A follow-up thought on why the legal details matter. When God gave Israel the law, He did not merely give them vague moral sentiments or private impressions. He gave them commandments written on tablets of stone. And the context matters. Israel stood at Sinai, saw the thunderings, lightning...

No, not by definition. You are conflating two different ideas because they may produce a similar practical outcome. “No lower domestic authority has jurisdiction to punish or remove the king” is not the same thing as “the king is legally permitted to ignore the law.” A king who cannot be...

They're only granted citizenship because of the modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Prior to it, and under a stricter reading of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' children of foreigners (especially those not here legally) weren't automatically citizens. Upholding expansive...

Have you ever tried to read a story chapter by chapter, but instead of starting from the first chapter, you start with the last? The only end result of that is confusion, no? And Paul does refer to the Old Testament as a whole, and particular passages throughout, many of which you need to...

At the very least, you kept avoiding saying it directly, but fair enough, we can set that side issue aside. Regardless you affirm it now: in your system, the domestic authority enforcing the law against the king is above the king in the decisive case. That has been my structural objection all...

With this you have finally admitted that the authority enforcing the law against the king is above the king. Good. But that simply punts the problem up a level. If the king, who is one man, can abuse final authority, then so can the multiple men who possess final authority over the king. Judges...

An excellent question, one that exposes just how screwed we are with the decision.

Democracy is bad.

I would appreciate it if, when you don't have the time to read through my posts, let alone take the time to respond properly, to just sit on the post until you do. You DO NOT have to respond as soon as you read my post. Because this post leaves me with very little else to say other than that...

No, that is not my premise. I am not arguing that there can be no shared authority, divided labor, subordinate offices, jurisdictional boundaries, lawful resistance, or checks of any kind. I am arguing about final earthly jurisdiction in the specific case of removing the chief civil ruler. A...

Humans are hardwired for language. Some are more flowery in their language than others.