Debate Is Time Travel illegal?

AlexTheTT

New Member
Messages
3
I am doing and speech for class about why time travel should be legal but with regulations. (Don't mind that last bit. That's just for the speech.) I was looking online and I couldn't find any good conversations about this subject. So, I made and account to ask this question directly. Also, just for the sake of perhaps extra conversations, Should it be illegal?


Thanks for reading
-AlexTheTT
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
5,367
I am doing and speech for class about why time travel should be legal but with regulations. (Don't mind that last bit. That's just for the speech.) I was looking online and I couldn't find any good conversations about this subject. So, I made and account to ask this question directly. Also, just for the sake of perhaps extra conversations, Should it be illegal?


Thanks for reading
-AlexTheTT

Time travel has never been acknowledged by any government as being real. So there are no laws concerning time travel at all.
 

Opmmur

Time Travel Professor
Messages
5,049
Yes, Einstein is 100% right. A very good question.
 

Last edited:

PaulaJedi

Survivor
Zenith
Messages
8,711
I am doing and speech for class about why time travel should be legal but with regulations. (Don't mind that last bit. That's just for the speech.) I was looking online and I couldn't find any good conversations about this subject. So, I made and account to ask this question directly. Also, just for the sake of perhaps extra conversations, Should it be illegal?


Thanks for reading
-AlexTheTT

It depends. See, according to multiple world line theory, you cannot change your current time line. When you travel, you create another timeline or parallel universe. So, there is no danger to your current time. Making it illegal would not prevent anything in your timeline. The problem is, when you do travel, you disappear from your current time line and you better find a way to come back. Some laws are created for public safety. For example, using seatbelts. So, perhaps laws would be created to keep people safe.

Another issue is that many of us here on this board don't trust the government, so we feel that allowing the government to take control of time travel (if it hasn't already) by passing laws, would only benefit them, not us. Passing these laws right now would also lead to disclosure -- it would be admitting to the public that time travel exists.

It's tricky. Do you really want every common person to hop around time? Should we just let them suffer their own consequences?

Being able to change your current timeline would be an entirely different story. You wouldn't want the wrong people to make changes, so yes, laws would be required -- BUT KEEP IN MIND -- A criminal does not CARE if a law exists. Making things illegal doesn't necessarily stop people. Example: Bombs are illegal but sickos out there still build them. Creating heavy laws creates more crime as well. Time travel crime. A black market would develop and a whole white collar conspiracy would probably be created.

IMHO.
 

TimeFlipper

Senior Member
Messages
13,705
I am doing and speech for class about why time travel should be legal but with regulations. (Don't mind that last bit. That's just for the speech.) I was looking online and I couldn't find any good conversations about this subject. So, I made and account to ask this question directly. Also, just for the sake of perhaps extra conversations, Should it be illegal?


Thanks for reading
-AlexTheTT
Your hypothesis is interesting...I think for your speech you must first make up why time-travel was considered to be legal..and who and why was the situation brought up by to even make a case if time-travel should be made legal or illegal ?(with regulations) have you also specified what these regulations might be?(we need to know these)..i think you need to add more to your story so that we can have a firm basis to work from :)..And of course welcome to Paranormalis Alex..We hope you will enjoy your time with us :)
 

Japrim

Active Member
Messages
611
No. It should not be "legal" or "illegal". To call it as such implies that government has a rightful say, that it is permissible.

Government has no rightful say in anything, ever. Government only has coercive force based on a fictitious concept called "authority", that's it.

We don't need government's permission.
 

Tron1

Senior Member
Messages
1,474
They do have a right and it's in the bill of right's no man should change his path or course or direction. Remember that? The gov't has been testing us to see who comes out and acts upon the gov't then they always win because they put fear into us. Time Travel is illegal age restriction is 18. I even told my nephew that's alive he can't do it yet. He has what I have. Good looks and abilities to be what ever we want. When I was his age i was playing hockey at a very high skilled level and so isn't he. I think there is something going on there with that. He can't be my son. Using time travel for experimentation is fine but to do it to rob a bank or something other demonic thing will keep you in that era until you get caught. The machine that you make or bought won't function right. You will be seized. The time machine will be compromised. This is the truth not a hypothesis. The strange thing about my nephew he's a lefty in hockey his father is a righty and i'm a lefty shooter. Every category i like he like's but it's not the stages.
 

Opmmur

Time Travel Professor
Messages
5,049
I think you should find a new subject, this one could give problems in the further in the
I am doing and speech for class about why time travel should be legal but with regulations. (Don't mind that last bit. That's just for the speech.) I was looking online and I couldn't find any good conversations about this subject. So, I made and account to ask this question directly. Also, just for the sake of perhaps extra conversations, Should it be illegal?


Thanks for reading
-AlexTheTT

I think you should find a new subject, this subject will give you real problems over time !!
 

Japrim

Active Member
Messages
611
They do have a right and it's in the bill of right's no man should change his path or course or direction.

Government has no right to anything, EVER. There is no such thing as government rights.

Rights are inalienable and are reserved for or to natural beings. They are a product of your existence as a natural creature of god's greater universe. They do not come from government or paper. They cannot be given nor taken, only respected violated or protected. They are yours simply because you exist.

You are a product of nature. Your DNA defines you as a human being. You have a natural inalienable right to be human, to live, to do what humans do, to indulge in the human experience and do whatever it is that makes you happy, up to the point in which it violates, encroaches upon, or prevents others from indulging in their human experience and pursuit of happiness.

Freedom is unbridled, unlimited. That is to say that you have free will to do whatever you want, including violating others. Liberty is freedom governed by valuing and respect for rights. It is as I stated above. It is exercising your rights and freedoms up to the point in which it encroaches upon or violates another.

This is the basic idealism of what has been dubbed Life, Liberty and the Pursuit Of Happiness.

That being said, Government is completely counter-intuitive and antithetical to liberty and respect for inalienable rights, as it's core principle function is to use coercion to enFORCE edicts of law. Understand that everything government does, it does with the threat of up to and including deadly force, even against nonviolent natural victimless behavior.

Government is systematic evil by definition, a violation of rights. It is nothing but a big overgrown criminal gang. It is a bunch of people getting together to decide on a person to say magic special words and have religious ceremonies as to write and sign papers telling you what to or not do, who to be and how to do it, ..that gets passed down a long chain of command, eventually to an army of people in funny clothes with weapons to force you to do what the paper says or be punished with up to and including deadly force.

On a basic level, it operates on the same principles as gang rape. It is just a bunch of people getting together to force their will onto everyone else.

NO ONE has a right to violate.

Now, to address The Bill Of Rights.

The CONstipation is just another framework for coercive government. The Bill of Rights has very little or nothing to do with protecting rights. It is simply a means for government to manage your rights as is convenient for the state.

The Bill of 'Rights' either omits rights, allows legal provisions for violating them, or is about something altogether different. Define rights, then compare them to the CONstipation Bill of 'Rights'. It is clear that it is not about protecting rights.

I will use a couple of examples to demonstrate.

You have a right to defense of yourself and property, your family and tribe or community by any and all means available or necessary. Your right to defense is only limited by the extent of your responsibility. Nowhere in the CONstipation will you see a legal protection thereof.

The 2nd amendment is about facilitating a militia to protect the state by granting the exercising of limited property rights such as arms. It is specifying limitation of property rights. It has very little to do with self defense. Self defense is simply subsequent of having firearms.

If it were about protecting the right to defense, it would not be limited to firearms, or be framed in the context of a militia, or have anything to do with protecting the state as states do not have rights. People do. It would be stated something like I stated above, citing that you ave an inalienable instinct of preservation and right to defense by any and all means necessary or available.

If it were about property rights, it would not be limited to guns, or have anything to do with a militia or the state. It would recognize that you have a right to whatever property that was earned or gifted, whatever is rightfully yours. And the fourth amendment would not exist.

The fourth amendment is another favorite example. It is double-speak that actually allows a legal provision for the violation of property rights. It first recognizes that you have a right to property and privacy, that you have a right to be secure in your effects and your person. Then it goes on to cite an exception. It says that government can violate property rights if it has a reason and a man who says magic words describes it well on paper.

There are no exceptions to rights. They are absolute. Either it protects them or it doesn't. And since it allows for an exception, it obviously doesn't. It's fuking bullshit.

The whole thing is like that. I can sit here and pick it apart with ease.

Do you have a right to self determination, to decide what to do with your time and how to manage your health, ...or do you have a right to be forcefully denied the use of drugs and alcohol?

Were you born with a president attached? What does the 25th amendment have to do with rights?

Do you have a right to decide who is a guest in your home or not? Does it matter if it is a time of war? No. You have a right to tell soldiers or anyone to get the fuk out, to get their own place to sleep and eat, whether it is a time of war or not. They don't have a right to your property. <--period. The third is like the fourth in that it is allowing a provision to violate.

The whole thing is statist bullshit.
 

TnWatchdog

Senior Member
Messages
7,099
I am doing and speech for class about why time travel should be legal but with regulations. (Don't mind that last bit. That's just for the speech.) I was looking online and I couldn't find any good conversations about this subject. So, I made and account to ask this question directly. Also, just for the sake of perhaps extra conversations, Should it be illegal?


Thanks for reading
-AlexTheTT
Make sure you let us know how your speech turned out and good luck with it.
 

Top