11 October 2009

More dumb comments...

You are a slave to governments

How do you figure that one? Is it because I live by society's laws and prefer to work within the system?

Change can come about through peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, not by violence, revolution and terrorism. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. If your argument is that the system is corrupt, perhaps you should be working to change that system.

Have you ever thought about nonviolent ways of dealing with what you perceive as tyranny? Is "resisting tyranny," or the "insurrection theory of the Second Amendment," just something that you parrot as a high-brow political justification for your love of guns, or have you ever given serious thought about what the ramifications of using guns for the purpose of fighting the government would be?

Maybe you haven't given some serious thought to resisting tyranny nonviolently through political action or civil disobedience. Instead you really love and welcome violence and the chance to harm or murder others. You would spend at least five minutes thinking about nonviolent alternatives to a violent insurrection if you took your moral obligations to your fellow man seriously.

My question is whether you are a nihilist or an anarchist?

You should realise that anarchism requires rules, as does any society, or it falls into nihilism. The difference between society at large and anarchism is that in anarchism, everybody knows the rules and agrees to live by them. This requires a great deal of responsibility.

You are a British Subject

Here you show your ignorance of British law.

The old passport says I am a British citizen. And I also have US citizenship by right of birth in the USA. I am hardly a "slave to governments" since I can choose where I live without let or hindrance.

The term British subject has at different times had different meanings. At common law, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the British Crown (and no other) was a British subject. This meant that to be a British subject, one simply had to be born in any territory under the sovereignty of the British Crown. When the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force, every person who was a British subject by virtue of a connection with the United Kingdom or one of her crown colonies (i.e. not the Dominions) became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

From 1949, the status of British subject was also known by the term Commonwealth citizen, and included any person who was:

* a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies;
* a citizen of any other Commonwealth country; or
* one of a limited number of "British subjects without citizenship".

The British Nationality Act 1981, every Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies became either a British Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen or British Overseas Citizen.

Although the term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition in the United Kingdom, and it is incorrect to describe a British citizen as a British subject, the concept of a "subject" is still recognised by the law, and the terms "the Queen's subjects", "Her Majesty's subjects", etc., continue to be used in British legal discourse.