Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Is anarchy better than no government at all?


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

Poll: Is anarchy better than no government at all? (0 member(s) have cast votes)

Is anarchy better than no government at all?

  1. Yes (6 votes [20.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.69%

  2. No (15 votes [51.72%])

    Percentage of vote: 51.72%

  3. Huh? (8 votes [27.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.59%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 12:24 AM

:confused:
  • 0

#2 Baton Rouge

Baton Rouge

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 263 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 12:59 AM

It must be a joke!

LOL

It is like asking...

Is the bottle half full or half empty?

Anarchy or 'no government'

is the same thing, or am I mistaken?

unless you want to clarify that for us!
  • 0

#3 Guest_Storm Shadow_*

Guest_Storm Shadow_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 April 2003 - 01:17 AM

I have never been to anarchy so I couldn't really say.:)
  • 0

#4 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 01:22 AM

The last anarchy I ever saw was when the substitute
teachers came into our grade 8 classrooms.
  • 0

#5 sleestak

sleestak

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 01:36 AM

If I had to choose between anarchy and no government I think I would choose no government. But that would be sort of anarchic so, on second thought I think I would choose anarchy and then let the government deal with it.
  • 0

#6 Baton Rouge

Baton Rouge

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 263 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 04:00 AM

Again I must argue the ambiguity of Anarchy.

Does your definition of Anarchy means 'chaos'?

As far as I am concerned...

Anarchy is a pure state of mind!
  • 0

#7 bellisaurius

bellisaurius

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 403 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 04:51 AM

Viggy, they had classrooms when you were younger? I wouldn't have thought the caves had room for those... :)
  • 0

#8 sleestak

sleestak

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 08:15 AM

The anarchists need to get together, have a meeting and organize. They will never be able to establish anarchy in their disorganized state. I would suggest that each of the anarchists decide on a meeting time and place for themselves and then show up there.
  • 0

#9 Psycho Thylacine

Psycho Thylacine

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1501 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 09:30 AM

Is anarchy preferable?

That would depend on the anarchy and that would depend on the government.

Remove state control from a given society and the regulation for behaviour will be whatever cultural paradigm its subjects operate by.

You could remove the government from Yamano Amazonians or Pensylvanian Amish without any noticable changes in either community.

It would seem a really bad anarchy is better than a really bad government, but it might be hard to tell the difference from the results you see on the ground.
  • 0

#10 Psycho Thylacine

Psycho Thylacine

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1501 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 11:09 AM

Literally
  • 0

#11 bellisaurius

bellisaurius

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 403 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 02:54 PM

Wouldn't a collective under the social rules no longer be an anarchy, as people would be enforcing those rules in some fashion forming a de facto governemnt?

I think this brings up an important fact though; that people will probably function as if rules existed for the most part, with or without a government, as we function under various sets of rules above and beyond those given by a government.

Besides, I think the real problem with anarchy won't be an increase in killings and such, but a decrease in the ability of people to actually support themselves from lack of organization and a following loss of distributive capability (which is usually the cause of famines and starvation, as opposed to hunger and food shortage).

Looking at what azov said, "if anarchy were based on a democratic confederation of autonomous collectives..." really struck me that the ensuing system of anarchy would ironically be more confusing than current systems (with the associated negative murphy law related effects based on unwieldiness of systems) as opposed to simpler.

While I would agree such a system would work in a small scale, and would probably be quite natural (to the extent that the better speakers or bigger gents go along with it), since the controllers of power would be close to the ability to utilize said power. I think it becomes akward as size increases, and schedules need to be kept, and sometimes penalties need to be performed (for example, would the collectives have extradition treaties for crimes commited, or contracts broken?)
  • 0

#12 Orak the Grate

Orak the Grate

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2748 posts

Posted 20 April 2003 - 03:09 PM

As long as everyone can stay cool and non-violent/non-aggresive, I'm for anarchy. If not then I'm all for no government.
  • 0

#13 xagversum

xagversum

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6872 posts

Posted 29 October 2003 - 02:20 AM

good to see belli's reasonable post didn't quite kill the thread...
  • 0

#14 Bilbo Baggins

Bilbo Baggins

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12782 posts

Posted 29 October 2003 - 02:23 AM

At least it's not in the traditional sense! More like true, direct Democracy!

Certainly NOT chaos-that's what's being imposed on the world by the yanks now!
  • 0

#15 bellisaurius

bellisaurius

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 403 posts

Posted 29 October 2003 - 09:09 AM

Reasonable posts kill more threads these days....
  • 0

#16 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 29 September 2005 - 03:33 PM

everything old is new again
  • 0

#17 BUDDIEE

BUDDIEE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2785 posts

Posted 29 September 2005 - 05:06 PM

Those who practice anarchy are called anarchists wherein they recognize no ruler over themselves. What is wrong with no ruler?
[Note: THIS site is a GGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOD read!!!!!!!!]

http://64.233.161.10...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

This is the html version of the file http://famguardian.o... on Words.doc..

These search terms have been highlighted: ballentine's law dictionary human beings defined

From: BDR1@EROLS.COM Number: 1989 To: JOHN JENNINGS Date: 7/27/2000 1:00 AM
Subject: Some more info on words Reference: Read: 7/27/2000 9:24 AM

I enjoyed your research in your other articles. here is some more indepth research you might enjoy.

I also have a copy from a page I found in a law journal while I was in california that has a few columns dedicated to the use of Fictitious names. The names are all capitalized. I can fax it if you have a fax #.

Anyway here is my research, and you may incorporate anything you feel which may enlighten others within your articles on your web site.

The law of cause and effect = Clearly, we are required to analyze the problems backwards, from the observable evidence of fact in the nature of effects, so as to arrive at concise causes. Because the effects to causes analysis is backwards, always functioning from the observable evidence of facts, as effects, we must take account of the facts, if we were to arrive at a concise definition of the causes, in the first instance.

Definitions of words:
Person: = persona - {{Understand that the references in Latin were to the earliest periods of Latin language as they understood the meanings going back to the B.C. era at least 43 B.C. Most of the quotes below are from 43 B.C. to 400 A.D. There are many more Latin quotes I did not include after part. II.}}

From ---A Copious and Critical Latin-English Lexicon founded on the Larger Latin-English lexicon of Dr. William Fruend, with additions and corrections from the Lexicons of Gesner, Facciolati, Scheller, Georges, etc. By E.A. Andrews, LL.D. 1860 persona: ? ?. [Acc. to Gabius Bassus in Gell. 5, 7, from per-sono, to sound through, with the quantity of the second syllable altered] I.- A mask , esp. that used by players, which covered the whole head, and was varied according to the different characters to be represented:

Gell. 5,7: personam tragicam forte vulpis viderat, Mart. 3,443: persona adjicitur capiti, Plin. 12, 14, 32. The masks were usually made of clay: cretea persona, Lucr. 4, 296; cf. Mart. 14, 176. And sometimes of the bark of wood: oraque corticibus sumunt horrenda cavatis, Virg. G. 2,387: ut tragicus cantor ligno tegit ora cavato, Prud. adv. Symm. 2, 646. The opening of the mouth was very large: Juv.3,175:-"personis uti primus coepit Roscius Gallus praecipuus histrio, quo oculis obervsis erat, nec satis decorus in personis nisi parasitus pronunciabat." Diom. p. 486 P.-Heads with such masks were used as ornaments for water-spouts, fountains, etc. ... II.-Transf. A personage, character, part, represented by an actor:
parasiti persona, Ter. Eun. prol. 25 sq..: sub persona militis, Gell. 13,22:(tragici) nihi ex persona poetae dixerunt, Vellej. 1, 3, 2--Hence, B. Also transf. beyond the scenic lang. in gen. The part or Character which any one sustains in the world (quite class): quam magnuum est personam in republica tueri principis.

2. A human being who performs any function, plays any part, A person, personage To persons and things of less importance - Suet.Caes. 43: minoribus quoque et personis et rebus. personatus: a. um, adj. [persona] Provided with or wearing a mask, masked. II. Trop. Assumed, pretended, counterfeited, ficticious, in an assumed character.

+++ When the word person came to be used from this original Latin defined by that of an actor in a play, as guise, ruse, fiction etc. to the meaning now in use by referring to a human being as a whole body, as evidenced by 1788 "The First American Dictionary" by Isaiah Thomas; Noah Wwebster's 1831 Dictionary, 1860 Unabridged Dictionary, and others etc. is not certain to me. However, the etymology is certain that it had a specific meaning in Latin that DID NOT MEAN HUMANS IN GENERAL, is obvious by researching other Latin dictionaries as I have done, and studying the root of words. Remember too that in Law most of the Language used even in English times was to use Latin words. So Lawyers certainly knew that a person in Latin and law was a fiction!

They create a PERSON, Black's 5th pg. 1028, or abridged 5th page 595. In general usage, a human being (i.e.natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. The origin of the word is derived from the Latin word persona which literally means - Webster's ( I do not know which version I got it from)- [ 2 a plural personas [New Latin, from Latin ] : an individual's social facade or front that especially in the analytic psychology of C. G. Jung reflects the role in life the individual is playing compare ANIMA b : the personality that a person (as an actor or politician) projects in public : IMAGE 3 plural personae : a character in a fictional presentation (as a novel or play) usually used in plural
  • 0

#18 BUDDIEE

BUDDIEE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2785 posts

Posted 29 September 2005 - 05:09 PM

Here is some more fun with words:

INCLUDE - Black's 5th Law Dictionary pg.687- include from Latin inclaudere - to shut in, keep within.

The word include is not a conjunction. Conjunction is a word which connects two clauses together. There are 5 coordinating conjunctions are required in the English structure to be able to connect 2 independent thoughts, they are and, but, for, nor, or. For can be tricky because it can be a coordinating conjunction or it can be a preposition. The mouse went for the table , there its a preposition, otherwise it couldn't be a coordinating conjunction.Very important to understand the word include is not a conjunction.

The word include is a verb. When they say the Unites States includes Guam, Puerto Rico, Mariana Islands, etc., then to include this area is to exclude all other areas. Black's 5th pg. 687, - The Latin meaning "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" translated means - The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others.

Black's 6th adds - This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.

Basically, to include one is to exclude the alternate. Include is not a conjunction. It is a misleading word because it misleads you into thinking something is included when in fact it is not. We have been badly trained in our upbringing by the use of this word which has been used as a conjunction when it is not one. Include excludes everything else. The universe is excluded by that which is included. So what we need to do is when we see the word include in law, we need to understand it to mean "means" or "means this". Include only applies to that which specifically follows the word include. So when reading laws, codes, regulations, the Constitution, etc. the word include is to be understood to mean "means".

PLEDGE - I pledge allegiance to the flag, what is a pledge, what is allegiance & what is a flag? These are key questions. They teach us when we are 3 years old to say this, but they never tell us what it means.

Webster's Dictionary - As a noun [1 a : a bailment of a chattel as security for a debt or other obligation without involving transfer of title b : the chattel so delivered c : the contract incidental to such a bailment 2 a : the state of being held as a security or guaranty b : something given as security for the performance of an act 3 : a token, sign, or earnest of something else 4 : a gage of battle 5 : TOAST 3 6 a : a binding promise or agreement to do or forbear b (1) : a promise to join a fraternity, sorority, or secret society (2) : a person who has so promised ]
As a transitive verb [ 1 : to make a pledge of ; especially : PAWN 2 : to drink to the health of 3 : to bind by a pledge 4 : to promise the performance of by a pledge ]

So basically it means to pawn or an aliening of a property or property right for these purposes, Rights & property are synonymous.

pawning - Black's 5th pg. 1015 verb pawning- -to deliver personal property to another in pledge, or as security for a debt or sum borrowed. noun- -A bailment of goods to a creditor, as security for some debt or engagement; a pledge. In common usage a pawn means a pledge of chattels as distinguished from pledge of choses of action, and in more limited sense means a deposit of personal property made to a pawn broker as security for a loan; that sort of bailment when goods or chattels are delivered to another as security to him for money borrowed of him by the bailor. Also the specific chattel delivered to the creditor as a pledge. Black's 5th pg. 219 - CHOSES IN ACTION - A thing in action and is right of bringing an action or right to recover a debt or money. A personal right not reduced into possessions, but recoverable by suits of law, a right to personal things of which the owner has not the possession, but merely a right of action for their possession. The phrase includes all personal chattels which are not in possessions; and all property in action which depends entirely on contracts express or implied. A right to receive or recover a debt, demand, or damages on a cause of action ex contractu or for a tort or omission of a duty.

Basically a pawning means an act of aliening or transferring a proprietary right.

to alien or aliene - verb. to transfer the title to something. If you lien something you transfer the title. Some Rights are alienable and other Rights are unalienable. To make an aliening of something, inside that word is the word lien & alien means to lien or take possession of the title.

ALLEGIANCE - Derived from ALLEGE derived from LIEGE. Bouvier's 1868 dictionary defines = The tie which binds the citizen to the government, in return for the protection that the government affords him. Webster's dictionary says = the duty that was owed by a vassal to his feudal lord. Black's 5th pg 69 Natural allegiance... In American law, the allegiance due from citizens of the United States to their native country and from naturalized citizens and which cannot be renounced without the permission of government, to be declared by law.
The essence of a pledge is if I take a watch and go into a pawn shop & say to the pawn broker I want to borrow $10. on the watch, the brokers agrees & takes possession of the watch in exchange for the $10. The watch is a pledge on the loan, a surety. So a pledge is a surety.

Allegiance comes from 2 words old French & Latin. Latin "ad" which means "to" " toward" "at". The French word LIEGE is derived from the Latin LIGARE from LIGO which means "to bind", so Liege was to bind the relationship of a vassal to his feudal lord.

Allege = means to a liege lord, or to the liege lord with the root suffix. "Liege" has many different applications. Here the root or suffix can come from the writing or decree from a liege lord - a king or lord of a city to which one would pledge his allegiance. As the prefix "al" means "to" suffix "legiance" as in pledging allegiance to something or someone. The pledge is the pawning. The root suffix liege is again found in such words as religion, or re liege or to be attorned so as to transfer ones homage or so as to continue as a new land lords tenant. To attorn is almost like to alien - to transfer the tenant on a property from one land lord to another land lord, the tenant stays on the property. This is all fuedal law. The allegiance from someone or something is to transfer this allegiance or to be attorned.

ATTORN = from "at" + "torn" or turn, at=to, torn=turn. Black's 5th pg 117 To turn over; to transfer to another money or goods, to assign to some particular use or service. To consent to the transfer of a rent or reversion to agree to become tenant to one as owner or land lord of an estate previously held of another, or to agree to recognize a new owner of a property or estate and promise payment of rent to him.

So to attorn is "to turn", to turn over ones homage from a land lord to another land lord. Now the man who does the attorning is called an attorney. This is the guy you hire to protect your rights. Under Corpus Juris Secundum Attorney and Client Vol. 7 section 4 pg. 799-802, under subtitle Nature and duties of Office "An attorney is an officer of the court with an obligation to the courts and the public as well as to his clients, and his duty is to facilitate the administration of justice. An attorney does not hold an office or public trust, in the constitution or statutory sense of that term, and strictly speaking, he is not an officer of the state or of a governmental subdivision thereof. Rather, as held in many decisions, he is an officer of the court, before which he has been admitted to practice. An attorney is not the court or one of its ministerial officers, or a law enforcement officer. He is, however, in a sense an officer of the state, with an obligation to the courts and to the public no less significant that his obligation to his client.

Thus an attorney occupies a dual position which imposes dual obligations.
"HIS FIRST DUTY IS TO THE COURTS AND THE PUBLIC, NOT TO THE CLIENT, AND WHEREVER THE DUTIES OF THE CLIENT CONFLICT WITH THOSE HE OWES AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THE FORMER MUST YIELD TO THE LATTER."

Do you understand what it says? The attorney's first order of business is to the courts & to the public & not to his client. SO the attorney does the attornment, who makes the transaction between you & the next feudal lord.

The suffix "liege" has many applications - the king's legion means the king's army. The suffix is also found in writing of a ruler as in legislature, legislator, legislation, or in privilege, a lege is a renting from the liege lord.

from the same Latin Lexicon above:
Privilegium - [privus-lex] A bill or law against an individual.(remember an individual is a fiction).
2. In Post Aug. period (A.D. 430) An ordinance in favor of an individual, privilege, prerogative. privus: - each, every, single, One's own, private, peculiar, particular. lex:: A proposition or motion for a law made to the people by a magistrate, a bill. . A law, precept, regulation, rule, mode, manner, a contract, stipulated agreement, covenant
Therefore:
Privilege = "privi" means private + "ledge" is a writing = a private writing.Or a private law. Therefore a privilege is a private writing effectively issued by a sovereign or liege lord & issued usually for the function of a license.

RES = Webster's (: a particular thing : MATTER used especially in legal phrases) the thing, the property - a body is a res, a microphone is a res, "res publica" = [ 1 : COMMONWEALTH, STATE, REPUBLIC ] or public property. Black's 5th pg. 1172 - The subject matter of a trust or will. In civil law, a thing,;; an object. ...This has reference to the fundamental division of the Institute, that all law relates either to persons, to things, or to actions.

RE = to do it again. So religion = to make all new allegiances - to take up with a new liege lord, which makes one pledge allegiance. To re something forms a transitive verb meaning to do it again. As in repaint, repair, refurbish, remake or to do that again.

PUBLIC The word can be either an adjective Webster's [ b : of or relating to a government c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation) or a noun.( 1 : a place accessible or visible to the public usually used in the phrase in public 2 : the people as a whole : POPULACE 3 : a group of people having common interests or characteristics ; specifically : the group at which a particular activity or enterprise aims ] When in law, it is used as a Adjective, and it means basically government. Then to republic means to regovern. The noun Public can mean one who is a publican. Now a PUBLICAN Webster's = [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin publicanus tax farmer, from publicum public revenue, from neuter of publicus 1 a : a Jewish tax collector for the ancient Romans b : a collector of taxes or tribute 2 chiefly British : the licensee of a public house ]

So a PUBLICAN is a merchant in commerce, it's derived from the noun public. So a publican is one who is a farmer of the public revenue. So the tax farmer is the collector of the tax & tolls, and a republican form of government is government which employs the services of a publican, to farm the Public re venue as a collector of taxes & tolls.

So a republican is farmer, refarming of the public revenue. Black's 5th law dictionary pg 1105= In civil law a farmer of the public revenue; one who held a lease for some property from the public treasury, a collector of taxes & tolls.
  • 0

#19 BUDDIEE

BUDDIEE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2785 posts

Posted 29 September 2005 - 05:10 PM

Now, Let's look at some prefix's Patri, Matri, at, a, an, con, & suffix's archy & tribute.
PATRI = father.
MATRI = mother.
Suffix ARCHY = ruler

So a Patriarch = Father Ruler. Matriarch = Mother Ruler. Arch+bishop = Ruling bishop. Mon + arch= 1 Ruler. Heir + arch = Higher Ruler. Olig+archy = form of government in which the ruling power only belongs to a few people. Webster's - oligarchy[ 1 : government by the few 2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes ; also : a grou exercising such control 3 : an organization under oligarchic control ] Oligo = few, scant, small. So oligarchy means where the ruling power belongs only to a few. Does this sound like Washington,D.C.? Prefix "an" means "no", as in anhydrous means without water or no water, the substance is without water or anhydrous. So an + archy = no ruler.

Those who practice anarchy are called anarchists wherein they recognize no ruler over themselves. What is wrong with no ruler?

The nouns Institution & Constitution are related, as are the transitive verbs, to institute & to constitute, as well as reinstitute & reconstitute. The prefix "con" means "with" as in chili con carne = peppers with meat. So con + tribute = contribute = with tribute. So when you go to your liege lord & you give him your 47% every week from your paycheck, it's a contribute or with tribute. They call it your fair share.

You have heard of amending the constitution, or amending a complaint.
What does amend mean?
TO AMEND = Webster's [ transitive verb 1 : to put right ; especially : to make amendations in (as a text) 2 a : to change or modify for the better : IMPROVE
  • 0

#20 BUDDIEE

BUDDIEE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2785 posts

Posted 29 September 2005 - 05:12 PM

Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it under the pretence of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign, he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurpations of the bench.

It is said that every fiction must be framed according to the rules of law, and that every legal fiction must have equity for its object. To prevent their evil effects, they are not allowed to be carried further than the reasons which introduced them necessarily require.

The law abounds in fictions. That an estate is in abeyance; the doctrine of remitter, by which a party who has been disseised of his freehold and afterwards acquires a defective title, is remitted to his former good title; that one thing done today, is considered as done at a preceding time by the doctrine of relation; that because one thing is proved, another shall be presumed to be true, which is the case in all presumptions; that the heir, executor, and administrator stand by representation in the place of the deceased are all fictions of law.

"Our various introduction of John Doe and Richard Roe; our solemn process upon disseisin by Hugh Hunt; our casually losing and finding a ship (which never was in Europe) in the parish of St. Mary Le Bow, in the ward of Cheap; our trying the validity of a will by an imaginary wager of five pounds; our imagining and compassing the king's death, by giving information which may defeat an attack upon an enemy's settlement in the antipodes; our charge of picking a pocket or forging a bill with force and arms; of neglecting to repair a bridge, against the peace of the king, his crown and dignity are circumstances, which, looked at by themselves, would convey an impression of no very favorable nature, with respect to the wisdom of our jurisprudence."
--b--

HERCULES INC. v. UNITED STATES, ___ U.S. ___ (1996)
HERCULES INCORPORATED, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

No. 94-818.
Argued October 30, 1995
Decided March 4, 1996

The distinction between "implied in fact" and "implied in law," and the consequent limitation, is well established in our cases. An agreement implied in fact is "founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding." Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 592, 597 (1923). See also Russell v. United States, 182 U.S. 516, 530 (1901) ("[T]o give the Court of Claims jurisdiction the demand sued on must be founded on a convention between the parties - `a coming together of minds'"). By contrast, an agreement implied in law is a "fiction of law" where "a promise is imputed to perform a legal duty, as to repay money obtained by fraud or duress." Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., supra, at 597.

some more intersting things:
The New HAmpshire constitution is a bit more explicit concerning right to bear armsthan Massachusetts:
Article 2-a "All persons have the right to keep and bears arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."

So New hampshire is very definite about a right to protect yourself andfamily by bearing arms. Mass Constitution says common defense. I guess one would have to define "common defence". So lets go to the language used at that period of time.

Isaiah Thomas Jan. 1, 1788 - The first English Dictionary printed in America:
p. 155 - Com'mon: S. (S is for Substantive- NOUN) an open uncultivated country
Com'mon: a. usual, vulgar, equal, public.
Com'mon: ad. Frequently, ordinarily.

p.187 - De-fence: S. guard, resistance, vindication.

p.187 - De-fensive, S. safeguard: a. proper for defence, serving to defend.
There is no word known as De-fense in this dictionary.

Abridged Noah Webster 1831:
p. 90 - Com-mon, a. public, usual, belonging to a number.
Com-mon, n. a tract of land belonging to two or more.
Com-mon, v.i. to use together, to diet together.

p.116 - De-fens'e, n. protection from injury, vindication.

There is no word De-fence in this dictionary.
Noah Webster Unabridged 1860:
p. 231 - Com'mon a. [L. "communis"; Fr. "commun"; Arm. "coumun"; It. "comune"; Sp. "comun"; Port. "commun"; Goth. "gamains"; Sax. "gem?n"; D. "gemeen"; Sw."gemen"; Dan. "gemeen"; Ir. "cumann"; Goth. "gamana", a fellow, fellowship. This word may be compaosed of "cum" and "man", "men", the plural "men" being equivalent to "people" and "vulgas". The last syllable is clearly from the root of many, which seems to belong to the root "of man", and "mean" is of the same family. Hence we see the connection between "common" and "mean", as "vulgar", from "vulgas" Eng. "folks".

1. Belonging equally to more than one, or to many indefinitely; as, life and sense are common to man and beast; the common privileges of citizens; the common wants of man.

2. Belonging to the public; having no separate owner. The right to a highway is common.

There are 10 definitions in all and there is a whole column on different uses after the 10 definitions.
Here is a good one:

10. "common law"; in Great Britain and the United States, the unwritten law, the law that receives its binding force from immemorial usage and universal reception, in the distinction from the "written" or statute law. That body of rules, principles, and customs, which have been received from our ancestors, and by which courts have been governed in their judicial decisions. The evidence of this laws is to be found in the reports of those decisions, and the records of the courts. Some of these rules may have originated in edicts or statutes which are now lost, or in the terms and conditions of particular grants or charters; but it is most probable that many of them originated in judicial decisions founded on natural justice and equity, or on local customs.

p. 310 - de-fence' n. Protection against injury; vindication when attacked.
2. The art or science of defending against enemies; skill in fencing.
3. in law, the defendant's answer or plea.
{for remarks on spelling see defense}

p. 311 - de-fense n. [L. defensio]

1. Anything that opposes attack, violence, danger, or injury; any thing that secures the person, the rights, or the possessions, of men; fortification; guard; protection; security. A wall, a parapet, a ditch, or a garrison, is the defense of the city or fortress. The Almighty is a defense of the righteous. Ps LIX.

2. Vindication; justification; apology; that which repels or disproves a charge or accusation.

3. In law, the defendant's reply to the plaintiff's declaration, demands, or charges.

4. Prohibition. [Obs.] Temple.

5. Resistance, opposition. Shak.

6. the science of defending against enemies; skill in fencing.

7. In fortification, a work that flanks another. [ this word, like expense, has, till of late, been spelled with a "c", though Bailey gave it an "s". It ought to undergo the same change with expense, the reason being the same viz. that s must be used in defensive as expansive. Defense was the original spelling in the French, and defensio in the Latin. It is therefore desirable, on every ground, to exchange the "c" for the "s".]

MY COMMENT: OUGHT TO has no power of enforcement, not a command. Ought:" to be held or bound in duty or moral obligation."

p. 272 - Council: n. [This word is often confused with counsel, with which it has NO CONNECTION. Council is a collection or assembly.]
1. An assembly of men summoned or convened for consultation., deliberation or advice.

I have found something interesting about Massachusetts.
M.G.L. (Massachusetts General Law) has a chapter called:
Part V
THE GENERAL LAWS, AND EXPRESS REPEAL OF CERTAIN ACTS AND RESOLVES.
Chapter 281
THE GENERAL LAWS AND THEIR EFFECT
Sec. 1 DESIGNATION AS GENERAL LAWS; CITATION; EFFECTIVE DATE
This act shall not in any citation or enumeration of the statutes be reckoned as one of the acts of 1920, but may be designated as the General Laws, adding the number of the chapter and section when necessary, and shall take effect from and after December 31, 1920.

Historical and Statutory Notes
R.S. 1836, c.146, secs. 1,2.
G.S. 1860, c.181, secs. 1,2
P.S. 1882, c.223, sec. 1.
R.L. 1902, c.226, sec. 1.
-----------
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru