Hancock is not subject to the U.S Constitution
Not like any jail could hold him, but what's with the sopenas?
Im the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega
It's spelled "subpoena" . . . and why wouldn't he be subject to the Constitution, or to any other federal, state or local law?
shareHe's not human.
Im the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega
That's interesting. Never thought about that before. I mean, it's not like dogs or cats or any other non-human animals are subject to civil or criminal laws are they?
Hmm . . . still, the language of most written laws don't usually mention "humans" explicitly. Usually they just say "persons" or "people".
So if Hancock is a "person" then the law would pertain to him, just like it would a normal human being.
That might be how they forced Hancock to be subject to the law.
In the US, it apparently only applies if he's a citizen. Otherwise they could just label him an "enemy combatant" or some other new term to apply only to people with special/super powers... Since he's lived for thousands of years, he wasn't born in the US, I wonder if he immigrated legally.
shareMaybe Americans brought him to the US against his own will and sold him into slavery.
shareHe can't be an enemy combatant if he's not part of an armed force.
He could be considered a terrorist I suppose what with the random destruction he causes.
But on the flip side for all we know he was a colonist back in the day before the US was even formed.
Light travels faster than sound,
that's why people seem bright,
until you hear them.
he is to human
a human is simply a humanoid which is a humanoid
Laws are only good if they are enforceable. They can't arrest Hancock nor can they kill him. How can anyone hold him accountable for his actions? And calling him an a****** doesn't count!
Alright look, there's only one return, okay, and it ain't "of the King," it's "of the Jedi."
The king returned first than the Jedi. Tolkkien wrote the books before Lucas even had an erection of Luke and Leia incestous relationship
LOL
I was thinking the same thing about the king, far superior movie and story anyway.
Clerks 1 and 2 are fun, but in that regard they are just retarded.
Pretending otherwise is just lying to yourself.
Anyway, Hancock is the suprime being in that universe, and on top of the food/evolutionairy chain. The humans have to obey his laws, not the other way around.
LOL that was his signature quote, not part of his comment. It's from, "clerks 2".
shareHe submitted to the punishment. Simple as.
Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
First of all, the Constitution simply states what the government is allowed to do. It doesn't place any kind of restrictions on citizens because it is designed to limit the powers of government... that's its entire purpose.
Secondly, what makes ANYONE subject to state or local laws? Force. If you don't choose to abide the law (and the government actually cares enough to enforce it), they will put you in jail. If you refuse to go to jail, they will send people to your house with guns. Why one arbitrary group of people (the government) has the right to force everyone else to do as they say under threat of violence is a question I frequently ask. Most people don't even bother to consider WHY they accept our system of government, they just blindly accept it as reality.
Hancock may have been in America when (or before?) the Constitution was created .. so like all others that were from some other place, they became citizens of the United States.
Or maybe he immigrated legally.
Also, the Constitution can and has been changed by the people who do not accept government blindly.
It has also been changed back.
Hancock may have been in America when (or before?) the Constitution was created .. so like all others that were from some other place, they became citizens of the United States.
Sure, as long as you arbitrarily assume that one random group of people can assert authority and ownership of property over everyone else. Personally, I'd be pretty pissed if I lived peacefully on a piece of land only to have a bunch of people move in and claim ownership of it and establish a bunch of rules I was forced to obey without having any say in the matter.
Also, the Constitution can and has been changed by the people who do not accept government blindly.
The Constitution has been changed by all kinds of people. There are those that even argue that the Constitution is only binding amongst the people that actually signed it, and I would probably agree with that. The point is that to even participate in government in an attempt to change it is to accept it blindly.
What I don't understand is why so many people buy into the idea that democracy is somehow better than other forms of government. I mean, I get it, the stuff is drilled into our heads as kids as a part of the government-run public school system. But why is it that so many people never bother to think for themselves? share
[deleted]
There is also NOTHING that gives YOU any right to that "piece of land" either.
Sure there is. If a person is using a piece of land for productive purposes, there's no reason why they shouldn't own it.
Defeating your moronic argument and any vague point you've attempted to make with your paranoid ignorance of the law and reality.
It's clear you don't even understand the point that I made. All you've done is attempted to insult me. share
[deleted]
Here's a helpful hint: the quote tags make it a lot easier to quote someone. For example:
Point out where it states or the justification is for "if a person is using a piece of land for productive purposes, there's no reason why they shouldn't own it."
Where what states? What are you talking about? I think you've gotten confused by some other conversation. I was offering my justification for ownership of personal property, in this case land, within a stateless society. As I said, this discussion is clearly out of your intellectual grasp.
Defeating your moronic argument and any vague point you've attempted to make with your paranoid ignorance of the law and reality.
Again, you fail to understand that I'm talking about the ownership of private property under a stateless society. Hence, what the law currently says has nothing to do with this argument at all. share
So Mojo. Help me understand your point. You feel that a person has the right to that land if they are using it for "productive purposes" yet you frown on others taking away that piece of land by force. If that's the case, then this country doesn't belong to us. It belongs to the American Indians. The early settlers took it by force. Isn't that being hypocritical?
Im the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega
Also, I don't think you making yourself clear. ( At least not to me) Are you saying that your arguments regarding property ownership, apply only to a "stateless society"?
Im the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega
Mojo is clearly (at least to my way of thinking) an anarchist... but one that understands what anarchy actually means... not one who says 'yeah, lets have chaos.
SpiltPersonality
Mojo wants the wild wild west. Every man for himself. The Goverment is only there to provide protection from outside invaders..
Im the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega
Mojo is clearly (at least to my way of thinking) an anarchist... but one that understands what anarchy actually means... not one who says 'yeah, lets have chaos.
Precisely. I tend to avoid that word because that's exactly what people assume it means.
Mojo wants the wild wild west.
The "wild wild west" is a fallacy, a creation of Hollywood. Reality was nothing like you imagine it was.
Every man for himself.
Yes, I feel quite strongly that every man should be accountable to his peers for his own actions and not use government to deflect responsibility.
The Goverment is only there to provide protection from outside invaders..
No, in an anarchic society, the government is not there. That's the whole point. share
You feel that a person has the right to that land if they are using it for "productive purposes" yet you frown on others taking away that piece of land by force.
One has nothing to do with the other. If a person moves onto a plot of land that is not being used and creates a field to grow crops, then obviously he is using that land. I just think if you've got a bunch of land and some people that want to own it, then maybe the people who are using it productively deserve to own it, rather than letting a few individuals steal all of it and squat on it.
Regardless of the situation, I think it's wrong to take things from others by force, whether it's land or other property.
If that's the case, then this country doesn't belong to us. It belongs to the American Indians. The early settlers took it by force. Isn't that being hypocritical?
I didn't take anything from them, so how is it hypocritical? In no way am I advocating settlers taking land from Indians. I'm a product of history. I cannot change that which happened before my existence. I can only learn from it and try to be a better person. share
I didn't take anything from them, so how is it hypocritical? In no way am I advocating settlers taking land from Indians. I'm a product of history. I cannot change that which happened before my existence. I can only learn from it and try to be a better person.
Claiming rights to a property, which you admitted was originally stolen, without any intention to compensate the people the property was stolen from makes you a hypocrite whenever you protest the act of taking something by force, unless you have done or are doing something to help improve the lives of Native Americans to a level agreeable to current norms.
Key phrase here is "claiming rights". Sharing and using the land in the US is not the same as claiming rights to it, in the way that the prior indicates a certain tacit respect towards the indigenous people.
I just think if you've got a bunch of land and some people that want to own it, then maybe the people who are using it productively deserve to own it, rather than letting a few individuals steal all of it and squat on it.
Your sentences imply that the people who deserve to own a land are limited to those who are using it productively. Either you've phrased those sentences inconsistently from what you had in mind or you're inclined towards the principles of a Communist. Certainly you can't be the judge of who should own a piece of land, and no one can kick someone off their own property simply because they feel what they're doing with it isn't as productive as someone other would.
Also, in order to mutually agree about the certain level of productivity required to own a land according to your idea, some form of authority is required, which contradicts the concept of anarchism itself. Congratulations on being just another anarchist claiming idiot who doesn't truly understand anarchism. The old adage "finders, keepers" is the more acceptable principle that are followed by majority of the world and is protected by laws in the US and other countries. Prior to the enforcement of property laws, whoever finds and is living on a piece of land first is the original owner, and no one can say what other people do on their land is productive enough or not. Same principle applies to other properties such as intellectual properties and other types of properties.
share
It's not "claiming rights," it's using land.
Also, in order to mutually agree about the certain level of productivity required to own a land according to your idea, some form of authority is required, which contradicts the concept of anarchism itself. Congratulations on being just another anarchist claiming idiot who doesn't truly understand anarchism.
Wrong. Congratulations on being just another non-anarchist idiot who doesn't truly understand anarchism. Anarchism is not lawlessness, it's statelessness. When you understand the difference, then you understand what anarchism is. share
[deleted]
What I don't understand is why so many people buy into the idea that democracy is somehow better than other forms of government.
"Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people". Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
"Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects". Will Rogers (1879-1935) share
Democracy must be something more than two wolves and lamb voting on what to have for dinner. James Bovard
Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy. Plato
But whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or it is powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. Lysander Spooner
Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H.L. Mencken
I appreciate mojorecord's attempts to enlighten IMBD members on a much misunderstood subject: Man made law vs. Natural Law, anarchy vs. the State, and the concept of the ethics of private property.
Judging by some of the know-nothing, products of public school inculcated education that US,democracy,Constitution good, everything else, bad, it is readily apparent that undoing those lessons will take some time or a very rude awakening.
Yes.
Anarchy is the only real form of 'Government', and I'm not being sarcastic.
Personally I believe that all humans are actually chickens. Chickens don't deal with being in a group larger than about 12 either.
SpiltPersonality
[deleted]
God-like beings are not constrained to your puny mortal codes of conduct. Muahahahahahhaa!
No seriously. A God-like being, who can't be harmed and could decimate your armies and cities will probably only allow himself to be privy to our laws depending on his own code of ethics.
[deleted]