Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: America's form of government is:
A constitutionally limited indirect democracy 13 23.64%
A republic 34 61.82%
A republican form 4 7.27%
A confederation 1 1.82%
A federal union 0 0%
A socialist democracy 1 1.82%
A theocracy 2 3.64%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-19-2018, 10:31 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,894 posts, read 14,083,916 times
Reputation: 16600

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phma View Post
Yes, it was required in the 1960's to sign consent to get a drivers license in the state of Colorado.

Don't sign, no license.
" Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
- - - II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
Personal liberty is basically the natural right to freely travel upon the public roads and waterways, and not be subject to interference, as long as he does not interfere another’s right to travel.

Check your state's legislative histories to determine when universal licensing was implemented.
You may find that it occurred on or after 1933.

Senate Report 93-549
https://archive.org/stream/senate-re...3-549_djvu.txt
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...

Constitutional U.S.A. (1789 - 1933) R.I.P.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2018, 11:16 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,857 posts, read 17,275,575 times
Reputation: 14459
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1 View Post
How so? They have de facto identical social philosophies of radical individualism, social policy being the core of politics and thus the primary identifier of political categories.
Politics: the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.


There is no social policy, no politics, and no political categories under anarchy because anarchy means "without rulers".

I'm apolitical. All AnCaps are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1 View Post
Also, are you going to keep people from cooperating by force?
Nope. That's statism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1 View Post
If the people who you don't keep by force from cooperating then conspire to use force on you, how will you stop it?
Self-defense is moral and logical under anarchy unlike statism where you must rely on the State for protection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1 View Post
You cannot without group cooperation, aka a "State".
When I use the word "State" it is capitalized which indicates involuntary inclusion. Voluntary group cooperation is perfectly fine under anarchy. Personally I would use contract law as well as agreed-upon dispute resolution councils to navigate such matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1 View Post
Ancap isn't about individualistic freedom from coercion because coercion can never be stopped without group force.
There is no group force in anarchy because you are only held to tenets of contracts you agreed to. And unlike statism where consent occurs after exiting the birthing canal in the real world of anarchy consent can only occur when two cognitively-able individuals who are free from duress agree to certain tenets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1 View Post
Its pretty story is vastly different from realistic sociopolitical human behavior and systems. It can't change that.
Slavery, husbands raping wives, different racial groups forbidden to enter into contracts...sociopolitical human behavior under statism has produced some pretty vile and archaic things. Whether it "works" or not isn't even the point. It just is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1 View Post
Instead, its about convincing one group to de-nationalize (individualize) for the benefit of other powerful nationalist group(s) who would then rule them. The same primary aim as communism.
There is no involuntary mandate to socialize under anarchy. Have no idea what you are even getting at here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1 View Post
Your philosophy is at least seventeen years too dated to be politically compelling and not conversational noise (reflecting the relative popular political naivete before 9/11, when it was more widely popular, and the increase in popular interest in effective politics after). Which is why your constant nonsense in regard to it is a bit suspicious.
I have no idea what this means either. Once I came to the conclusion that no human being has a right to involuntarily rule over another that pretty much convinced me to dump statism. We don't lose too many members. In other words, very few people go from believing in contract law back to the magical social contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1 View Post
It has no defense, especially when rudimentary real world political behaviors are recognized. There will ever be a world without States, as they are necessary for protection against murder and slavery from other groups. Period. Which is why early communists, as Ancaps do, promised the end of the State. After which they promptly employed a horrific junta who murdered he masses by tens of millions and kept the Russians in a de facto slave state for seventy years.
Well, if you believe the best way to protect yourself from bad people who may do bad things to you is to give a certain group of people the power to do bad things against others on your behalf then things will constantly be in a state of upheaval as aggression runs rampant.

I don't, nor do AnCaps "promise an end to the State". I can't use force on anyone. I can't kill anyone like communists did (Mao, Lenin, Stalin).

Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1 View Post
Telling individuals that using "force" (aka: effective politics) is immoral, without giving them a means to defend themselves politically or physically (which by definition would include employment of an army and a unified political front), is equivalent to telling someone they can't effectively defend themselves against an inevitable attacker. It's your recommendations and propaganda that are immoral and unrealistic.
Aggression is immoral. Aggression is unrealistic if you want to be free or if anyone around you wants to be free. There is nothing immoral about complete non-aggression. It's the pinnacle of morality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1 View Post
Its time to drop the fantasies and embrace something more realistic. Failing that, its time to stop gumming up he conversations here with absolute nonsense.
And if I don't stop "gumming up the conversations" will you use force to stop me? I'm sure you will. Despite that, I don't answer to you.

And here's a reality check for you:

Me: Consent is when two individuals free from duress with the cognitive ability to do so enter into an agreement.

You: Consent is when you exit a woman's vagina.

Keep running with that. It does wonders for your reality outlook.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2018, 11:19 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,857 posts, read 17,275,575 times
Reputation: 14459
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
If your location is truly in Leningrad, Russia, I understand.
Well, when did I "consent" to be governed? I'm intrigued.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2018, 12:12 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,445,085 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post

Do you know how and when you consented?

I'd have to say at the point one fills out a voter registration form, or files for a SS#

Some would say the day you take your first breath in the USA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2018, 02:11 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,894 posts, read 14,083,916 times
Reputation: 16600
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Well, when did I "consent" to be governed? I'm intrigued.
The typical ways that consent is granted :
_ _ assert citizenship
_ _ sign up with FICA
_ _ open a personal bank account.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2018, 02:26 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,894 posts, read 14,083,916 times
Reputation: 16600
A Republic Isn't Synonymous with the Republican Form

It's a common mistake to assume "republic" = "republican form".

Why? Because sovereigns are not subjects. Citizens are subjects.
REPUBLIC - A commonwealth; That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independent of its form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 1302
A republic is not synonymous with a republican form of government (aka “republicanism”).
The People's Republic of China is a republic but not a republican form.
Voting and holding public office is a privilege granted to subject citizens, not exercised by sovereign people.
- - -

REPUBLICAN FORM
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695

". . . at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . ."
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z
DEMOCRATIC FORM
DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
The key distinguishing feature between a republican and democratic form is sovereignty.

In the republican form, the PEOPLE individually are sovereign and directly exercise that power. Their individual endowments are secured by government instituted to secure those rights. They have no subjects.

In the democratic form, the "whole body of citizens" are subjects of the sovereign government, whose elected officials rule them, and they have no individual sovereignty. Democratic majorities override the minority's "sovereignty" or the individual, so no individual's rights are secure. And citizens are obligated to perform civic duties, so they are subjects - not sovereigns. But they can aspire to high office and rule / govern others.

Another way of looking at it -
In American law, there are two statuses recognized:
• Sovereign Americans, who retain all Creator endowed rights, liberties, powers and immunities.
• Subject Americans, who have civil and political liberties (i.e., "civil rights"), but due to mandatory civic duties, have surrendered their endowment.
Much of the controversy in American politics stem from the fact that most Americans are unaware of how and when they consented to be governed, and therefore object to the civic duties and impositions placed upon them.

An important key to understanding America's government is found by contrasting the beginning of the Declaration of Independence with the end.

In the beginning, we learn of the republican form, where people have Creator endowed rights, that government was instituted to secure.

In the ending, we learn of the prerequisites of the servant government's members, consenting citizens, who, like the Founders, mutually pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor - in other words, they surrendered their endowment - to secure and defend the American people against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

This fact is reiterated in George Washington's letter:
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

And yet if one has not consented to be a subject citizen - - -
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln

As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, described by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).

And if you do not believe that the DoI is enshrined in law, consider that every STATE constitution repeats the same points.

Pennsylvania Constitution,
Article 1, Section 1. Inherent Rights of Mankind

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.
Article I Declaration of Rights [Section 1 - Sec. 32]
( Article 1 adopted 1879. )
Section 1.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
BUT if one has mandatory civic duties (ex: militia duty), one has no endowed right to life nor liberty.
This has been part of the law since day one. But few Americans are aware of it, which is a stunning victory for the world's greatest propaganda ministry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2018, 02:30 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,894 posts, read 14,083,916 times
Reputation: 16600
Constitutional Note:
There are two mutually exclusive classes mentioned in the USCON -
• People - who have rights and powers (endowments)
• Citizens - who have privileges and immunities (government granted)

Likewise, there are two separate classes mentioned in the ARTICLES -
• Free inhabitants - people domiciled upon private property
• Free citizens - subjects of the government, residents of the forum
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2018, 05:11 AM
 
Location: Itinerant
8,278 posts, read 6,249,521 times
Reputation: 6681
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Constitutional Note:
There are two mutually exclusive classes mentioned in the USCON -
• People - who have rights and powers (endowments)
• Citizens - who have privileges and immunities (government granted)

Likewise, there are two separate classes mentioned in the ARTICLES -
• Free inhabitants - people domiciled upon private property
• Free citizens - subjects of the government, residents of the forum
You know, once I was flirting with the idea of sovereign citizenship. Then I woke up and determined it requires that people abide by an agreement they never agreed to. Making sovereign citizenship (the people as you refer to it) as much a sham as citizenship.

Without consent (by free volition and without coercion) all agreements are invalid, it doesn't matter what semantics you use.
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The RulesInfractions & DeletionsWho's the moderator? • FAQ • What is a "Personal Attack" • What is "Trolling" • Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2018, 06:03 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,421 posts, read 20,233,866 times
Reputation: 8958
Re. your poll: We're actually a Constitutional Republic.

I wonder if you understand that it was the States that created the Federal Government? Also, the States have more power than the Federal Government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2018, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,894 posts, read 14,083,916 times
Reputation: 16600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
You know, once I was flirting with the idea of sovereign citizenship. [NO SUCH THING EXISTS] Then I woke up and determined it requires that people abide by an agreement they never agreed to. Making sovereign citizenship (the people as you refer to it) as much a sham as citizenship.

Without consent (by free volition and without coercion) all agreements are invalid, it doesn't matter what semantics you use.
A citizen is a subject of a sovereign.
A sovereign is not a citizen.
There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen [oxymoron].

However, there ARE American sovereigns.
It's been part of the law since day one.
.................................................. ...............
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
.................................................. ...............
(available from gutenberg.org)
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]

GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government) - One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly ...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
Do not assume that citizens are sovereign. They have mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top