More thoughts on "duty" to protect - Printable Version
+- MarcStevens.net Forum (http://marcstevens.net/board)
+-- Forum: No STATE Projects (/forum-15.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (/forum-21.html)
+--- Thread: More thoughts on "duty" to protect (/thread-836.html)
More thoughts on "duty" to protect - WorBlux - 09-04-2010 12:10 AM
I know Marc like to use the insurance example to refute the "Well they just have a general duty of protection, and not to any specific individual or situation.
Well, I'd just be happy if they only required a general allegiance, and not obedience to any specific law or command
Re: More thoughts on "duty" to protect - indio - 09-04-2010 07:47 AM
Even that general duty is self-imposed and selective.
I prefer to acknowledge there just flat out is no duty of allegiance to a legal fiction construct at all.
Allegiance is a remnant of feudalism and is close linked to the master slave and guardian ward relationship. Those relations involve PEOPLE and are engaged in mano et mano. What there is now is you have a purported sovereign on one side ( that in fact is just a stack of paper) and a man on the other.
There is no custom or usage that supports that view but the foundation is being laid for it being a custom or usage as we speak.
If you want to know everything about allegiance see Calvin's Case wherein Coke describes 4 types of legiance. This legal fiction type of allegiance is specifically repudiated.
If we don't nip this stuff in the bub we will be enslaved by abstractions written on paper.