If you are referring to Webster's Dictionary, you will need to be more precise. I do not advise anyone to define their destiny based on the definitions presented via a corporate textbook.
Black's then. But that's too corporate too I guess. We have to have set definitions in order to properly communicate. Would you prefer to translate it into Spanish and use their definitions of law?
The point is not about picking the best book to define reality by, the point is to understand reality itself deeply enough through logic and experience that errors in books can be exposed correctly. Do you think that the libraries in North Korea contain books which correctly define reality and from which the people there can learn about reality in a totally reliable way?
If you are specifically referring to the word 'legitimate', then you can see in the following dictionary definition from 'wordnik' that alongside the various references to 'law' is the definition:
Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
This is, for me, closest to the general definition of the real meaning of the word. The laws/rules created by government and humans do not always conform to this definition and thus if we jump to the conclusion that everything a government passes into law is legitimate then we are completely denying this base requirement for legitimacy in a dangerous way.
The US courts test legitimacy of laws. Based on the US constitution using one set of definitions. Blacks' Law. I understand your point and I suppose you understand mine. But I'm not really sure about that. When I use the word legitimate I'm using it in the sense of being able to defend my land title as Legitimate in the face of Native Americans claiming it. Conquest therefore must come into the conversation as well. That's my reality. The legitimacy of our titles is directly tied to the legitimacy of our government's jurisdiction over its lands.
The context of this discussion is that of defining the existence or non existence of legitimate jurisdiction. If the source of the definition being used for the very word 'legitimate' is from the system itself which is being tested for legitimacy, then it is obviously the case that the test is not a legitimate one, according to the general and universal definition of the word. A truly legitimate system does not need to define it's own versions of words in order to legitimise itself. This is similar to the ways that police forces police themselves and nearly always declare themselves to be saintly, when it is obvious to anyone with a working brain that they are far from that.
If you truly intended to assess the situation regarding land title in an honest way, you would be forced to accept that stealing land by force, rape, intimidation, propaganda and other forms of heartlessness is not the way to integrity and deeply felt legitimacy. Being caught up in an unfortunate criminal empire is not proof that there is no better option available and certainly is not proof of the need to continue supporting it.
Again I'll repeat. We have to have definitions to communicate. A framework to communicate otherwise all I hear is Charlie Browns teacher talking.
The title to my land isn't based on right or wrong. It's based on conquest and my state defends its jurisdiction and my right to occupy the land to the exclusion of all others.
Ergo, based on the ancient Right of Conquest and the rules set up by the beneficiaries of that Conquest in America, by virtue of its original title and the United States of America's constitution, created a covenant running with the land binding all those who inhabit it either by residence or by occupancy.
If you are referring to Webster's Dictionary, you will need to be more precise. I do not advise anyone to define their destiny based on the definitions presented via a corporate textbook.
Black's then. But that's too corporate too I guess. We have to have set definitions in order to properly communicate. Would you prefer to translate it into Spanish and use their definitions of law?
The point is not about picking the best book to define reality by, the point is to understand reality itself deeply enough through logic and experience that errors in books can be exposed correctly. Do you think that the libraries in North Korea contain books which correctly define reality and from which the people there can learn about reality in a totally reliable way?
If you are specifically referring to the word 'legitimate', then you can see in the following dictionary definition from 'wordnik' that alongside the various references to 'law' is the definition:
This is, for me, closest to the general definition of the real meaning of the word. The laws/rules created by government and humans do not always conform to this definition and thus if we jump to the conclusion that everything a government passes into law is legitimate then we are completely denying this base requirement for legitimacy in a dangerous way.
The US courts test legitimacy of laws. Based on the US constitution using one set of definitions. Blacks' Law. I understand your point and I suppose you understand mine. But I'm not really sure about that. When I use the word legitimate I'm using it in the sense of being able to defend my land title as Legitimate in the face of Native Americans claiming it. Conquest therefore must come into the conversation as well. That's my reality. The legitimacy of our titles is directly tied to the legitimacy of our government's jurisdiction over its lands.
The context of this discussion is that of defining the existence or non existence of legitimate jurisdiction. If the source of the definition being used for the very word 'legitimate' is from the system itself which is being tested for legitimacy, then it is obviously the case that the test is not a legitimate one, according to the general and universal definition of the word. A truly legitimate system does not need to define it's own versions of words in order to legitimise itself. This is similar to the ways that police forces police themselves and nearly always declare themselves to be saintly, when it is obvious to anyone with a working brain that they are far from that.
If you truly intended to assess the situation regarding land title in an honest way, you would be forced to accept that stealing land by force, rape, intimidation, propaganda and other forms of heartlessness is not the way to integrity and deeply felt legitimacy. Being caught up in an unfortunate criminal empire is not proof that there is no better option available and certainly is not proof of the need to continue supporting it.
Again I'll repeat. We have to have definitions to communicate. A framework to communicate otherwise all I hear is Charlie Browns teacher talking.
The title to my land isn't based on right or wrong. It's based on conquest and my state defends its jurisdiction and my right to occupy the land to the exclusion of all others.
Ergo, based on the ancient Right of Conquest and the rules set up by the beneficiaries of that Conquest in America, by virtue of its original title and the United States of America's constitution, created a covenant running with the land binding all those who inhabit it either by residence or by occupancy.
A right is simply what is right. Conquest is not right, period. It doesn't matter how many murderers state otherwise.