Whether you vote or not does not mean that you are a slave under the law so that you must obey the those who presume to be your masters. The representation thing is just a way for government officials to pretend that they are in the right. What right is there in the laws being written by those who enforce them. Seems pretty unjust to me when you throw in stuff like they did when I was a kid listening to such radio programs like the story "A man without a country" to scare the pants of of a little guy.

You accept the validity of the state, and say that we must accept that.

I reject that premise. I contend that we have no obligation to move elsewhere, but instead have a greater obligation to make that change here where it can free the most people from the chains of statism.

The cost of freedom in America is the willingness to defend it when called upon.

The people of America are not now, nor have they ever been, "free". They have always been subjects, given some minimal structured say in how their masters rule them, but don't kid yourself that we've ever been "free" in any sense of the word.

That doesn't sound like fun at all. I lived in an apartment where the couple above me had a very nice sound system - which they insisted on using at high volume. At one in the morning. They were kind enough when I told them I had sleeping children to keep the volume down, but I was definitely glad to get out of those apartments!

In your case, it seems like they have presumed a right to play their music as loud as they want, which of course is fictitious. The problem seems to be enforcing some decorum, and from what you describe it does not sound like an easy solution. I hope you can find respite.

There is nothing stopping you from moving to another nation. Many have talked here about creating Atlantis where they can determine their own rules according to Objectivist ideals. I have no problem whatsoever with that. But until that dream is actualized, we have only the framework which exists - take it or leave it.

The United States was born under fire, defending itself from oppression. It called on every patriot at the time to take up arms in defense of freedom and liberty. And once that was won, that obligation was never rescinded. The cost of freedom in America is the willingness to defend it when called upon. When you become a citizen of another nation, you can choose to live by another set of rules. Until that happens, you choose to remain in America and live by those rules - like them or not. So either petition to change them, deal with them, or leave. But wanting to get something for nothing violates Objectivism itself.

That's correct. The President doesn't have the authority to make changes.

In the background of the opposition, it is imperative to decide what is meant by rights. Yesterday I had to endure 10 hrs of walls and windows thumping with a concert in a very small townhouse development a block away. The village board had issued them a permit (here there is a permit for most everything that used to be freely done) so there was no relief by the local noise ordinance. They considered that they were acting by right and that if I did not like it, I should sell my property and move. That way of accepting rights seems to be the norm, at least in all the places that I have lived. Sometimes a right is assumed as long as one tells others ahead of time that they are going to butt into their lives. There is no asking whether you want to put up with them. There are very few actual individual rights left, including any of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, since they are not to be considered real rights since government has its hand in them with the necessity of requiring some degree of permission for acting.
In the case of the concert there seems to have been a presumed collective association implied with the "like it or lump it" attitude which my step mother would give when I would ask her to take her cigarette out of my room. Sorry for the rant, I am still pissed that a new source of noise has begun to join the weekly one from the Abbey resort two blocks away that also is permitted to force everyone in a five block radius to put up with the drumming. I have yet to find anyone who finds anything wrong with another persons music pollution.

Ah, yes, the typical statist "if you don't like it, leave, if you stay you consent to being a slave to the state".

http://acidrayn.com/wp-content/upload...

Remind me again why you're a member of this site?

I made my previous comment a few days ago. But I regard the part about "perform[ing] work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law" as being even worse than the military draft. It is, (as Ayn Rand remarked once about substituting that for the draft in some cases)"explicit serfdom". And I noticed nothing
in that article about taking that part out.
Besides which, I did not know that the Pres-
ident had any authority to unilaterally, and on his
own, change or revise the oath of citizenship. I
thought that was determined by Congress. Ig-
norance on my part, or on someone's.

"You're presuming that I consider "representative government" legitimate. I never agreed to forsake my personal authority and self to others."

You are welcome to denounce that legitimacy, but recognize that the second you do you also renounce all of the protections it offers you. That is one of the primary problems I have with this decision by the President. Part of being a citizen means that you may call on your nation to come to your aid in self-defense. But that exchange to be an equal exchange of value must go both ways, or it is no different than looting.

"I can't have that obligation thrust on me because my ancestors agreed to such representation."

It seems there is a choice to be made, then. You can stay and continue to live here in the United States under a representative government and enjoy the privileges of mutual defense which come with it - and the obligations - or you can renounce it all. But to be consistent, one can not do both.

You're presuming that I consider "representative government" legitimate. I never agreed to forsake my personal authority and self to others.

Representative government is anathema to Objectivism excepting in situations where individuals have, themselves, specifically agreed to be bound by those decisions.

In other words, I can certainly willingly agree to be bound by representatives, but I can't have that obligation thrust on me because my ancestors agreed to such representation.

Its interesting that the opposition to Maduro in Venezuela is also a "chavista", and their argument is that the collapse of the country is not the fault of "democratic socialism", but just how it was done. What BS

One can only stretch a rubber band so far and then it just breaks. I have tried to replace the break with a knot, but when the whole band is dry-rotted, there is just another break around the corner....

Yes...Most all the "nations" are sitting in the same boat. Overloaded boats sink.

That would truly be a sight to behold. Great idea!

I think the statists playbook will be Venezuela. As their policies' failures damage the economy, they will take over more and more just like in Venezuela

LOL. That's how you weed out the idiots...

So they are coming to America to go through the motions but remain dedicated to the country they left. The founders understood that if you want to come here to become a US Citizen, then you must assimilate into America. Don't come here and try to make it like the country you left. If so, then why come here in the first place???

So I'm a fascist because I believe if you want to be an American, act like one???

No, not there yet, but unavoidable. Nobody can predict just "when", but I see no "IF" about it. I also see nobody to "vote" for who can stop the Great Global Collapse; The good thing about it all is that governments around this planet will go out of business. Then, surely there will be a bunch of wanna-be "elites" trying to convince the survivors that we need to repeat the mistake of playing government yet again.

You sure have an idea of association as something more like something with a contract or agreement on behavior where responsibilities of membership are spelled out. The right of association in the Constitution recognizes all associations, though it has been watered down over the years to try to criminalize associations where an innocent individual has associated with a criminal where no contract or agreement is involved and the individual did not participate in a crime, only living with or other common type of association like giving directions.
In most associations the number one obligation is not to harm or defraud one another, especially not to kill your associate unless he pulls a weapon on you.

I dont think we are quite there yet. I do think this is the LAST election where there is some hope of avoiding total collapse as in Venezuela.

When all of us are on the brink of unavoidable collapse, no "vote" can make a difference.