Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee
Who is responsible for children if not their parents? Who do they belong to? The state?
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
I wouldn't have thought children are the 'property' of anyone at all.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
its only ok to own your children if you are strict christian, married heterosexual, middle class working parents.
I am a white, Christian, heterosexual, middle class, working parent. Formerly married. And I do not think that my child is "property" to 'own'. But he is my responsibility to raise, a responsibility that I chose to take on when I decided to have him. Not my neighbors, not my community, not the State. What kind of raising he gets, and what kind of man he grows up as, will depend on the decisions that his father and I make, since he does "belong" to our family. Which none of us owns, we make the decisions for us as members of that family.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
No, you didn't. But...if you own something, is it not your property?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
In both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany children belonged to the state, see a pattern here.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Anarchist don't believe the state should exist.
Not defacto conclusively correct.
Anarchists believe state should be at an absolute minimum and states in their present tense acting as the sovereign king to 'Lord' over those it calls 'Its' citizens should be abolished.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee
Actually, owning people is not completely outlawed by the 14th amendment. 
In law your statement lacks distinction. P/people means 'community'. Would need to say something along the lines of owning a flesh and blood 'man / woman or child'.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
In both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany children belonged to the state, see a pattern here.
In foster care, children belong to people that are not their biological parents. See a pattern here?
On most legal documents regarding children there is the line "Parent/Legal Guardian". What's the 'Legal Guardian' Define as? "A Person that Holds Legal OWNERSHIP of a Child's being and welfare". See a pattern here?
The United States of America has children it owns. Or have you never heard of Juvenile Detention/Prison? See a pattern here?
How about all those messy divorce court battles when children are involved? Who gets to 'Claim Ownership' of the children over the other parent? See a pattern here?
You can fully enslave someone not by owning the physical body but owning the right to limit their actions. Its done all the time between and by D/s couples.
That said the gubmint has been given the authority to enforce laws that are presumed in the name of the 'people', or more likely 'People'. The word people is a derivative of 'community', that said which [P]/[p]eople are we talking about?
Leego language is so much fun!
SO.........if real controls what you can and cannot do by placing you into a certain set of circumstances, the same set of circumstances that would a slave would experience, are you a then functioning as a slave by 'construction' despite real does not 'own' your physical body?
Slavery today, has a very new twist that most people fail to recognize until they get to the point of discussing precisely this topic or studying property rights under the english common law system. (the US)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
There's also the belief that human beings have rights, and children are human beings entitled to the same protections for their rights. The children don't belong to the state any more than adults belong to the state. But just as the state has the responsibility to safeguard my rights and your rights, they also have the same responsibility regarding the rights of children.
How many ways do we want to split that ancient hair as well.
the only way I am aware of, in legalese, to describe the physical body is by the use of man/woman/child.
person/people etc are all artificial abstractions [entities] and/or [contrivances] that may or may not be annexed to a living man woman or child.
hu'man means 'color' of man [person] in law color means and abstraction of or for the base. In other words not physical. You cannot touch a person but you can touch a man. Dont look at me its their crazy shit LOL
Its been known for MANY years btw but mostly limited to those who listen to the music :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4pw31njqio (ps: to skip the long musical intro and go directly to the lyrics, they start @ the 1:10 mark)
Think of it like your 'nom de guerre' or pseudonym.
'Technically' it is the entity which is being addressed not the actual flesh and blood, despite the fact the annexed flesh and blood carries the liability.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Is the more common view that children are their parents' property, then? Seems peculiar to me.
It's a peculiar thing, though. Kids aren't "property" like a car, or some inanimate thing. But, they are "property" in that the parent (or legal guardian) is the one that had authority over the child. A parent can choose to homeschool rather than send the child to public schools, for instance. Sure, there are rules and requirements made by government, but the manner in how the academic standards are reached are pretty much open to the parent.
Children do have rights, and government is still in the business of protecting a citizen's rights (especially when it's to the government's benefit), so kids aren't slaves to their parents/guardians.
The government is NOT in the business of, nor are the liable to protect your rights despite the wonderful cozy words they use: to con people into granting them the authority to rule. See the deshaney case.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
and the 49% who did not consent? where is their representation, I digress.
If they were in that business you would be a citizen with all costs covered win or lose to dispute measures taken by the gubmint against you or the people despite the form taken. Traffic, housing, property, civil rights. pick their poison.
Here is little something for the 'sniff test':
quote:
2013-14 WISCONSIN STATUTES & ANNOTATIONS
Published July 7, 2015. Certified under s. 35.18.
CHAPTER 1
SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION OF THE STATE
1.01 State sovereignty and jurisdiction.
The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries declared in article II of the constitution, subject only to such rights of jurisdiction as have been or shall be acquired by the United States over any places therein; and the governor, and all subordinate officers of the state, shall maintain and defend its sovereignty and jurisdiction.
I didnt see the words 'man' 'woman' or 'child' in there!
and this is one of my all time favorites for another thread (maybe)
quote:
1.09 Seat of government. Be it enacted by the council and house of representatives of the territory of Wisconsin, that the seat of government of the territory of Wisconsin, be and the same is located and established at the town of Madison, between the 3rd and 4th of the 4 lakes, on the corner of sections 13, 14, 23 and 24 in township 7, north, of range 9, east.
I'm not even going to touch that one! LOL
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
In both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany children belonged to the state, see a pattern here.
Sure, once again our resident conspiracy theorists are paranoid.
Its common place for people to accuse others of being a conspiracy theorist for matters which they do not understand.
quote:
ORIGINAL: bossman777
In socialist theory, the goal is to force all individuals to have a direct relationship with the state. To the extent you an rely on family, social groups, friends, charities and institutions like churches, you do not need the state's 'help.' They want to 'atomize' all individuals so they must turn to the state. This is why leftists promote anything that is anti-family and destroys the pluralistic nature of American society. Pluralism harms the power of the state. I've seen texts stating all of this when I was a poly sci major in college. What these slick politicians do, is cast this theory in terms of 'helping' people and 'protecting' children from abuse, and 'assisting' parents provide a home, food, values, moral guidance, etc. It's done that way to sell it to naive and unsuspecting people.
If anyone thinks that being raised by the state does not create as many or more monsters than some bad parents have in the past, he/she needs to study the results of our current system of foster care. It's screwed up an entire generation, and has truly atomized individuals. Imagine having no idea of who your family is, extended or otherwise. That's the reality many foster children now face as adults. They feel totally alone, with no one to turn to, but the state. Listen to some adults who were raised as foster children on youtube sometime: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=psychetruth+foster+care
Driving instead of traveling, obama care, social security, medicare, and the beat goes on!
anyone know or want to know the proof? 
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 7/17/2015 10:16:54 AM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: Our children don't belong to us - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread