Subject: Re: Simplex: Up for another iteration?
From: Mueller <mueller4@sonic.net>
Date: Saturday, September 12, 1998 22:46:31

At 09:27 PM 9/12/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Tom, I ask of you this: I will present a step by step explicit logic
>structure which shows that I was within my right with my decree. I don't
>want any speech and debate tricks, I want simple, straight out answers and
>explinations as to why any one step isn't legal. If you can't find a
>striaghtforward reason why, then it would suggest that I am not wrong. My
>interpretation is as legal as yours. But, as I say later, is one man's
>legal interpretation, backed up by logic, any better than the next man's
>logical interpretation?
>
>
>*****
>
>(1) By law 115, since I may do ANYTHING, not "prohibited or regulated by
>LAW" (not actions, law!!), I may declare my free will as I had done
>earlier, and that no one can ever trample on it in any way (to put it in
>normal words as opposed to legalese). If you don't agree with me here,
>point out the law which explicitly, or implicitly states otherwise. I
>want a law, not an action. If you can't do this, go to step 2.

It is the interpretation of this law which is our major difference. To make
sure that we are at least closer to resolution I will not explain myself,
but instead try to find out what you think about the first step in my
explanation.

Imagine two cases, in case 1 law 115 reads thusly:
"Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a law is permitted and
unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the laws, which is
permitted only when a law or set of laws explicitly or
implicitly permits it."

and in case 2 the law reads:
"Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a law is permitted and
unregulated, EXCEPT DOING ANYTHING WHICH LIMITS THE RANGE OF ANOTHER
CITIZEN, OR changing the laws which is permitted only when a law or set of
laws explicitly or implicitly permits it."

What is the difference between case 1 and case 2?

Tom