And yet here we are. I'm not too concerned that there isn't a universe. Books of fiction don't interest me much either unless they have a very good point to make.

Even if I did read it, it wouldn't change my mind. I've read enough about the basic principles, concepts and purpose of law that any book written about it (if that's what your referring to), would change my mind. It's very logical if you start from the NAP. Any construction of law has to address that, otherwise it's just force legalized for any purpose. That always results in the have's and the have-not's. Viz., those who wield the law as a means to their ends, exercised upon those who are on the receiving end of it.

Your duty in the law-making process is to never write a law that directly or indirectly injures another. The law is to protect against physical injury and physical tresspass, not cause it. How hard could that be? Give people their freedom, and it's amazing what they can do with it (and no, not freedom to maim and injury, that's not freedom, or for that matter, justice).

Been vacationing. Politicking gets tiring after awhile.

Let the free market come up with a solution. You conflate offer with force. The second you use law, you imply consequences related to law. Laws use force. Careful.

We don't need laws that produce millions of monopolies to get things done. If you don't think your idea as applied to a product will produce a profit, don't do it. Monopolizing information/ideas/inventions isn't productive, it's counterproductive.

It was bad enough when just the "royals" did it. Now we have everybody acting like the royals do. It's a smogasbord of information "kingdoms" and "serfdoms" with hundres of thousands of lawyer swimming amongst us like sharks waiting to strike and extract their pound of flesh to return to the robber barons.

More money is wasted in suing, patenting, trademarking, copyrighting, lawyering, manipulation and threatening than actually doing stuff. GO AND DO! Stop whining about not "getting yours" from everybody else.

Humans are not beasts of the field or vice versa. I personally believe we should treat animals with respect, but Law should not be used for that purpose. Laws are for men. Mankind's liberties should not be superceded by the animals that "serve" him.

Conflating human law with animal law foments a confiscatory and manipulatory means to underhandedly destroy human rights. I don't see how it's possible for them to coincide and not destroy property rights. Sorry to disappoint.

Follow the logic to it's conclusion, reductio ad absurdum. Given I own the animal. If I were to torture my animal, and you were to prohibit that action, then you could fine me. If I resist your fines, you attempt to confiscate my property. If I resist your efforts to confiscate, you attempt to arrest me. If you arrest me and I resist, you may kill me.

Is my life of less value than my animal (my property) you're trying to protect from me?

Self-defense and all the contractual consensual behavior that leads up to it, does not produce a dictatorship except and unless you violate the NAP. Amassing all the various protections and weapons that could possibly be invented in the advent of potential threat also does not create a dictatorship.

Your confusing individual or group defensive preparedness with collective conscription.

The guy couldn't string two thoughts together without contradicting himself. He could also barely put his thoughts onto paper and make them readable either. Others have done a better job of enslaving the world in a much "nicer" and "quieter" manner than he did. You should sign up. Your arguments are at least a little more coherent than his.

He was merely a pawn. Join the club.

Wait a sec. You're saying I can't contract with another person? Wow. Weird. I can't dictate what anybody can do with their things -true- and then you tell me I can't do what I want with my things, hence dictate. Who's dictating to whom here? I advocate contract. It promotes consent, then, in almost the same sentence, you try to take that away. I just don't get you sometimes.

Flip, flop, flip, flop.

I disagree. I think my views align with his in nearly the same way. I probably would have made a similar remark if one of my colleagues had attempted to promote slavery using some underhanded "slight-of-hand" strawman subtlety. Sure, if a dog or horse could speak or write, I'd take his petition too. I wish they would, humanity sucks sometimes. Not to far fetched really.

The dictation presumably taken by others, indicated he was making a mockery of several congressmen and representatives from various states with regards to petitions of slaves made to the state in which they were bound.

Don't you get a metaphor when you see one? You're concluding from his remark that he believed in animal rights, when he never said any such thing. If you have the complete transcript to prove otherwise, then supply it. Every other reference to it mentions him mocking his colleagues, not making a case for animal rights.

Nope.

I said I don't advocate torture. I also said there should be no law respecting animals or animal rights.  I haven't backpedaled. If you don't like animal torture, then start a humane society and educate people.

If you want to sell animals that you don't want tortured, then do a vetting of the soon-to-be-owner, or contract with them to specifically treat your animal a specific way prior to sale.

Epic fail again. That was a metaphor. He never implied that dogs or horses had rights. If anything, it was a off-handed remark intended to mock a stupid argument posed by a critic of slavery whose conclusion and logic was patently false. That being, the US government would be overthrown, and the liberty of the American people would be destroyed if slaves could petition the government for redress.

Same kind of crap I've been reading here about making slavery and animal cruelty equivalent. As if.

Congresscritters give me pause. Nothing ever changes, same ol' ignorance then, slightly different flavor now.

Oh, so you're going to put words in my mouth too are you? Nice. Have nothing better to do with your time?

I see you didn't read my post. Here it is again, in case you missed it somehow.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.msg568807#msg568807

Again, I repeat; find me a reference where John Q.A. was referring to animals. I'm not antiquated, just not easily fooled. Nice try.

Your "democratic" form of government doesn't fall too far from that tree either. If you read articles related to and referencing Marx's work, you'll notice that his disciples mention that democracies are just one step in the direction of complete communism.

Blatant and publicly visible communism failed. The neo-commies/socialists use other more nefarious but subtle ways to yoke you. They use business and personal regulations, monopolies on information dissemination, fiat money-credit systems, and discriminatory censorship tactics.

It takes a little longer. But you'll get there eventually. Just you wait and see.

You draw some amazing conclusions. You wouldn't happen to have a crystal ball would you? Do you read palms too? I need some advice about my future.

You're intentionally misquoting and misinterpreting me, hence stupid and idiotic. I know your background. Nothing short of eloquent and educated speech. Don't start down the assinine trolling and chumming-for-a-fight path, it will get you nowhere with me. Assuming you even care.

Slavery != Animal ownership.

Stupid. What did I say about putting words in my mouth?

I don't advocate torture of any living thing ever. How's that for you?

However and notwithstanding the above comment, I would only consider laws which encompass human acts towards humans, never including animals. Animals are property.

Still not backpedaling.

He was talking about humans not animals. Idiot.