Irrelevant to the argument that I was making. The rules of the association can contain a right to overthrow the association leadership.

The responsibility to overthrow tyranny is literally written into the American and German association founding documents.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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."

And the Constitution allows for States circumventing the Federal government by calling a constitutional convention.

GERMAN BASIC LAW

"Article 20

[Constitutional principles – Right of resistance]

(1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.

(2) All state authority is derived from the people. It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, executive and judicial bodies.

(3) The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order, the executive and the judiciary by law and justice.

(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available."

I don’t remember a part he says about government using retaliation using tech, what I’m saying is that mass democracy will not be compatible with the next decades. So I think nations as we known now will fall, and they will probably become smaller.

Anyone heard of using apple cider vinegar for post nasal drip?

#asknostr

There’s a book I’m reading called “The Sovereign Individual”, and there’s a part in which the authors say that in the Information Age, mass democracy will fail, because it’s not compatible to what technology will bring and do to nation states and people. They say that the nation state as we know today will collapse, middleman will be eliminated and the world we know will drastically change in the next decades. Maybe,this is what we are witnessing. I don’t know if it’s going to be good or not, but definitely, people that depend on the state for their living, in Information Age, will have their quality of life way decreased. We are seeing that happening now in front of our eyes.

The fact that communists are atheists makes them hostile to the church that's why i told you so... So... The orthodox church doesn't like them in general.

Good morning crazy people 👋 ☕️

Orthodox church doesn't use them since centuries. Catholics do.

Communists are atheists as far as i know... They also say Socrates was the first christian... People say much. Sometimes they may have right, some times not...

Christian justification of the origins of property...

That sounds like a joke to orthodox ears like mine. All the first christian communities were ... yes communal. Something like monasteries function until today. Probably you don't want to hear what kind of opinion i have for popes (the same as almost all orthodox christians have).

Yes even gregorian chants were orthodox at the beginning...

Christian justification of the origins of property...

That sounds like a joke to orthodox ears like mine. All the first christian communities were ... yes communal. Something like monasteries function until today. Probably you don't want to hear what kind of opinion i have for popes (the same as almost all orthodox christians have).

I work in the US mortgage industry, and seeing the administrative state run wild , especially these last 4 years, via the FHFA...its been something else.

Take the HomeReady mortgage program offered by Fannie Mae, a taxpayer owned entity. Consider thesr market distortions to utilize:

- Borrowers must be under an AMI ( adjusted median income ) for the location of the property they want to buy. And areas the agency wants to encourage people with lower incomes to live, they waive the AMI requirement.

-AMI requirement also gets waived if you are moving FROM a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The list is arbitrary as all hell but essentially if you are moving from a blessed county ( DC is included... ), you can get Homeready pricing along with a $2500 grant and credits towards appraisal regardless of how much you make. Only ONE borrower needs to be from an MSA.

This is just one example but ive watched this administration go absolutely haywire with their hair brained ideas to 'fix housing'. At this point there is lots of economic juice flowing to low income, low fico, low credit borrowers and the result is significantly worse pricing for a borrower with good fico, 25% down, high income. Whatever you think of that morally it is not remotely prudent. I have more thoughts and info on this if people wanna hear it and would be glad to type something more structured up. But im sitting here trying to understand this program and the latest system distortion layered on top and had to tell the plebs.

Over and Out 🤙

He just wanted to emote.

Ok. We can discuss that and many more but a christian cover (and especially from a pope) is not needed. Philosophy is more than enough.

And a nice quote...

Yes.

What we are not supposed to do is try to stay within the tribe or state and disdain the association rules. That is merely disrespect.

We either have to leave the association, overthrow it, or reform it. Or split into different associations with different rules.

But we should always be allowed to leave. The DDR didn't allow anyone to leave. Same with modern North Korea or Cuba.

This is why socialism leads to excommunication: it inherently denies people the right to own themselves.

So, he's saying that men can band their families together with other families, to form a tribe, village, state, etc., but all property remains private and no one can be expected to excersize less control over his property than the group does because his rights come first, both in time and in weight.

This would also require that he can revoke the common use of his property, for instance.

He later writes:

"The rights here spoken of, belonging to each individual man, are seen in much stronger light when considered in relation to man's social and domestic obligations. In choosing a state of life, it is indisputable that all are at full liberty to follow the counsel of Jesus Christ as to observing virginity, or to bind themselves by the marriage tie. No human law can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage ordained by God's authority from the beginning: "Increase and multiply."(3) Hence we have the family, the "society" of a man's house - a society very small, one must admit, but none the less a true society, and one older than any State. Consequently, it has rights and duties peculiar to itself which are quite independent of the State.

That right to property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must in like wise belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, that right is all the stronger in proportion as the human person receives a wider extension in the family group. It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, it is natural that he should wish that his children, who carry on, so to speak, and continue his personality, should be by him provided with all that is needful to enable them to keep themselves decently from want and misery amid the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance.

A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, "at least equal rights"; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire."

"his neighbor's wife" is actually key here.

His wife belongs to him, through marriage, and marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, that neither the State nor the Church can create or break.

That is because marriage existed in Paradise, between Adam and Eve. It predates all human institutions, as those only came into existence after they left Paradise.

So private property began in Paradise.

Adam left the Garden with nothing but "his wife".

The natural right to property is included in the Ten Commandments.

"The same principle is confirmed and enforced by the civil laws-laws which, so long as they are just, derive from the law of nature their binding force.

The authority of the divine law adds its sanction, forbidding us in severest terms even to covet that which is another's:

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his.""