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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-19-2009, 11:25 PM
 
Location: toronto, Canada
773 posts, read 1,215,434 times
Reputation: 283

Advertisements

Gotta love the circular reasoning behind the constitution. The Federalists told people that the Constitution would guarantee their rights, yet by design, from the beginning the government had the authority to decide what the document 'really' meant. That means that at best, it's superfluous: the government will behave in accordance with the dictates of standard English and common decency because it suits it to do so. At worst...well...it'll also do as it damned well pleases.

I will know quote a respected fellow anarcho-libertarian whose insight has never ceased to delight on historical impart.

There are three essential questions:

1: Has the Constitution slowed the march of statism? I do not see how you can make that claim, considering that it was routinely ignored by its very writers; that on top of that, it had loopholes big enough to drive the 18th century equivalent of metaphorical tanks through; and that worst of all, within two generations, a police state had been established - not just under it, but ostensibly for its defense! (By that last, I mean - and meant earlier - Lincoln's suppression of domestic dissent during the Civil War, not the war itself, as bad as it was.) Where's the slowdown? By comparison, unconstitutional monarchy in Europe - the tripod of king, nobility, and church - did not go any farther in a thousand years.

2: Has the Constitution limited the particular kinds of nastiness that can be done by government? I do not see how you can make that claim, either. Our government does not burn people at the stake for heresy, but it does sentence people to be sodomized in prison for having a few grams of weed, and has gunned down without trial - something even the Inquisitors would not have dared - thousands in the space of a couple of decades. In proportion to population and prosecutions over time, we make the Inquisition look like the amateurs they were. In terms of tortures, who's to say we're far behind them? It's disingenuous to say that we do not extract confessions by legal tortures, too: that's what plea bargaining is. (Confess and spend less time in the jail showers, or go to a slightly nicer prison.) And now, of course, all that is rendered moot by the War On Terror: now we torture people and extract (usually false) confessions with 'scientific' methods the Inquisitors could not have imagined. I'm drawing a blank here: exactly what has the Constitution limited, compared to the monarchies of old?

If the answer to both questions is 'no', then the Constitution is, at best, superfluous.

3: Does the Constitution provide any practical checks against abuses of power, much less any that, practically speaking, were an improvement on the scheme that emerged in the Middle Ages? I do not see how you can make this claim. Constitutional checks and balances are a sick joke, for reasons already explained - reasons that can be summed up, simply, by 'follow the money'. Yet on the old unconstitutional scheme, Robert Nisbet once wrote, correctly: "A king may have ruled at times with a degree of irresponsibility that few modern governmental officials can enjoy, but it is doubtful whether, in terms of effective powers and services, any king of even the seventeenth-century 'absolute monarchies' wielded the kind of authority that now inheres in the office of many high-ranking officials in the democracies. There were then too many social barriers between the claimed power of the monarch and the effective execution of this power over indivuduals. The very prestige and functional importance of church, family, guild, and local community as allegiances limited the absoluteness of the State's power."

If the answer to this question is 'no', then the Constitution goes from being at best superfluous to at best a big step in the wrong direction. And if that step was deliberate - any book on the Constitutional Convention, approving or disapproving, will show that it is - then it's downright evil and belongs wrapped around some smouldering tobacco.

You see, perhaps the biggest problem with the Constitution is that it makes explicit and indisputable powers which would otherwise be open to dispute. Take taxes, for example. Kings and nobles levied taxes, but it was terribly uncommon to find anyone who thought taxes were owed to someone whose position was an accident of birth. Now? Look around you. A country built on tax evasion now despises people who 'don't pay their fair share'. Practically nobody disputes the legitimacy of taxation anymore. The actual power of government - to say nothing of actual tax rates - have grown far beyond anything ever seen in the days before constitutions, and this is among the reasons why. Formal divisions and delineations of power erase genuine checks and balances by removing the various powers from contention. Once it's settled that A has this power and B has that, they no longer need to fight each other and can get on with using their respective powers against everyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2009, 11:46 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,468,904 times
Reputation: 4799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North View Post
Wow, lots of words.

Fortunately to see the reality, only a few are required in rebuttal:

1. The New Deal saved capitalism. Not a question, but a fact, which is held by the majority. The minority having been proven wrong (again) by the failure of the TARP plan to stop the current depression cold, as the late Miltie said it would.
BS. An increase in money supply, distancing from the gold standard and WWII saved American capitalism. The rest were programs setup for a reelection camping. Why do you folks continue to repeat this nonsense even when your fearless leaders economic advisers disagree with this fallacy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2009, 11:50 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
19,029 posts, read 14,209,414 times
Reputation: 16747
Default Long winded, but necessary to clarify things...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcmastersteve View Post
Gotta love the circular reasoning behind the constitution. The Federalists told people that the Constitution would guarantee their rights, yet by design, from the beginning the government had the authority to decide what the document 'really' meant. That means that at best, it's superfluous: the government will behave in accordance with the dictates of standard English and common decency because it suits it to do so. At worst...well...it'll also do as it damned well pleases.
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it....."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia
Restating, the constitution is an agreement between the States united and the United States, in Congress assembled. It has nothing to do with the private people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mcmastersteve View Post
I will know quote a respected fellow anarcho-libertarian whose insight has never ceased to delight on historical impart.

There are three essential questions:

1: Has the Constitution slowed the march of statism? I do not see how you can make that claim, considering that it was routinely ignored by its very writers; that on top of that, it had loopholes big enough to drive the 18th century equivalent of metaphorical tanks through; and that worst of all, within two generations, a police state had been established - not just under it, but ostensibly for its defense! (By that last, I mean - and meant earlier - Lincoln's suppression of domestic dissent during the Civil War, not the war itself, as bad as it was.) Where's the slowdown? By comparison, unconstitutional monarchy in Europe - the tripod of king, nobility, and church - did not go any farther in a thousand years.
The socialist revolution was accomplished by FICA / Social Security Act of 1935. Though it is 100% voluntary, over 3 generations of Americans believe that the law requires them to enroll before working in their own country.

Socialism, by definition, abolishes private property.
The U.S. constitution specifically protects private property (see: 5th amendment).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcmastersteve View Post
2: Has the Constitution limited the particular kinds of nastiness that can be done by government? I do not see how you can make that claim, either. Our government does not burn people at the stake for heresy, but it does sentence people to be sodomized in prison for having a few grams of weed, and has gunned down without trial - something even the Inquisitors would not have dared - thousands in the space of a couple of decades. In proportion to population and prosecutions over time, we make the Inquisition look like the amateurs they were. In terms of tortures, who's to say we're far behind them? It's disingenuous to say that we do not extract confessions by legal tortures, too: that's what plea bargaining is. (Confess and spend less time in the jail showers, or go to a slightly nicer prison.) And now, of course, all that is rendered moot by the War On Terror: now we torture people and extract (usually false) confessions with 'scientific' methods the Inquisitors could not have imagined. I'm drawing a blank here: exactly what has the Constitution limited, compared to the monarchies of old?
You may be unaware of the difference in legal status between a sovereign and a subject.

In America, the people are sovereign. But sovereign people can volunteer to step down in status, and become subject citizens.

Or, as the Declaration of Independence reminds us: job #1 is to secure rights, and job #2 is to govern those who CONSENT.

The usual way to determine if a law is only applicable to a subject / citizen is the use of "any person". If a law is widely applicable, it will use "whoever".

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcmastersteve View Post
3: Does the Constitution provide any practical checks against abuses of power, much less any that, practically speaking, were an improvement on the scheme that emerged in the Middle Ages? I do not see how you can make this claim. Constitutional checks and balances are a sick joke, for reasons already explained - reasons that can be summed up, simply, by 'follow the money'. Yet on the old unconstitutional scheme, Robert Nisbet once wrote, correctly: "A king may have ruled at times with a degree of irresponsibility that few modern governmental officials can enjoy, but it is doubtful whether, in terms of effective powers and services, any king of even the seventeenth-century 'absolute monarchies' wielded the kind of authority that now inheres in the office of many high-ranking officials in the democracies. There were then too many social barriers between the claimed power of the monarch and the effective execution of this power over indivuduals. The very prestige and functional importance of church, family, guild, and local community as allegiances limited the absoluteness of the State's power."

If the answer to this question is 'no', then the Constitution goes from being at best superfluous to at best a big step in the wrong direction. And if that step was deliberate - any book on the Constitutional Convention, approving or disapproving, will show that it is - then it's downright evil and belongs wrapped around some smouldering tobacco.
If one is unaware of status at law, and erroneously identifies himself as a volunteer consenting to be governed, restricted and regulated, that is tragic. But it's not the government's fault... everything is in print, available in any county courthouse law library.

Ignorance and apathy is not bliss.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mcmastersteve View Post
You see, perhaps the biggest problem with the Constitution is that it makes explicit and indisputable powers which would otherwise be open to dispute. Take taxes, for example. Kings and nobles levied taxes, but it was terribly uncommon to find anyone who thought taxes were owed to someone whose position was an accident of birth. Now? Look around you. A country built on tax evasion now despises people who 'don't pay their fair share'. Practically nobody disputes the legitimacy of taxation anymore. The actual power of government - to say nothing of actual tax rates - have grown far beyond anything ever seen in the days before constitutions, and this is among the reasons why. Formal divisions and delineations of power erase genuine checks and balances by removing the various powers from contention. Once it's settled that A has this power and B has that, they no longer need to fight each other and can get on with using their respective powers against everyone else.
It is understandable that one would be confused by the difference between constitutional taxes: excises, imposts, and duties, and the voluntary levies created by participation in national socialism (individual income tax, social security wage tax).

---------------------

Before entering into verbal combat, let us hone our tools of discernment and vocabulary.

Can we agree that we do not wish to be robbed nor killed?
Good.

We share the concept that our right to life, the fruits of our labor and that which we acquire are ours, and not subject to anyone else. Our individual rights are not at the mercy of any one or group of people.

Do we agree that cooperation in support and defense of our rights is a good thing?
Good.

So a government formed in mutual defense of our rights to life, liberty and property is acceptable.

According to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to (a) secure rights, and (b) govern by consent of the governed.

Is that acceptable to all?

If you haven't given consent to be governed, all government is authorized to do is use its awesome power in support of your right to life, liberty, private property and other sundry rights, not explicitly mentioned.

And as part of your right to life, do you have the inalienable right to engage in any harmless activity that supports that right to life?
Yes.

Now we're getting close to the "good stuff".

If you haven't given consent to be governed, and not submitted yourself (and your property) to the government, then the government is your servant.
Is that acceptable?
"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power."
City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1

Excellent! The government agrees with us, so far.

But what is a sovereign and what is sovereignty?
SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.

SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.
Who or what is the sovereign power, if the government is not sovereignty?
"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

"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
and they are truly the
Do you agree that the AMERICAN PEOPLE are sovereign?
Good.

Let's figure out what the government is.
"...In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people."
Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)
What compact?
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it....."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia
The U.S. Constitution is a compact between the States united and the United States, in Congress assembled.

Wait, aren't "we, the people" part of that compact?

Not if you're a private person, and one of the sovereign people.

Why?
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
- - - Black's Law Dictionary,Sixth Ed. p.244
"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
Wait a minute - the government said it wasn't the sovereign, and that people were sovereign.

Who is a subject / citizen?
He who has established or submitted himself to the dominion of government is a citizen. He has given consent to be governed, in exchange for political liberties (voting and holding office).
Wait - there's an exception with respect to a "republican form of government"!
Good observation.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
[United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]

REPUBLICAN (form of) GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, ... directly,....
In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219;
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary
In a republican form of government, the people are sovereign. The servant government, and its subject citizens, are delegated certain powers to secure the rights of the sovereign people.

Is that clear?
In America, the people are sovereign. But by consent, a private person can change his status, and submit himself to government, as a citizen.

Did you think you were born a "U.S. citizen"?
Who told you that?
It's not in the law.
"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)

"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"All PERSONS born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." [14th Amendment, Section 1.]
Uh oh... Sovereign Americans are not persons subject to nor object of the governing power of the servant government.

What proof exists that there are people who are NOT citizens?
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states,..., shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
Did you think "everybody" born in the U.S.A. was a U.S. citizen residing at a residence?

What's an inhabitant (as in free inhabitant)?
"INHABITANT - One who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.782

"DOMICILE - A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.484

"RESIDENCE - Place where one actually lives ... Residence implies something more than physical presence and something less than domicile. The terms 'resident' and 'residence' have no precise legal meaning... [One can have many residences
but only one domicile]
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1308, 1309
U.S. citizens who reside at residences do not have legal, permanent homes. Coincidentally, no state issues "resident" licenses (permissions) to non-resident inhabitants domiciled in their state. In fact, inhabitants don't need permission, because they're not transients and trespassers. They have the RIGHT to be in the state and use the public roads and waterways, marry, own a dog, build a house, enter occupations, and run a business without permission of their servant government.

Check your own state's constitution and laws for mention of the inhabitant and his superior status.
" No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or property ... on account of religious opinions..."
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.1, Paragraph 4
If your religious opinions forbid you to enroll into national socialism, accept numbering, or engage in usury, you cannot be molested for your choice... in Georgia. And if you think they were not aware of the difference between inhabitants and residents, read this:
"Citizens, protection of.
All citizens of the United States, resident in this state, are hereby declared citizens of this state; and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the full enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and immunities due to such citizenship."
- - - Georgia Constitution, Art 1, Sec.1, Paragraph 7
Recapping, the government is not sovereign, but servant to the sovereign people. However, citizens are subjects of the sovereign government. Since involuntary servitude is unconstitutional (except after conviction), the compulsory civic duties associated with citizenship are empowered by consent of the governed. You DID give consent, knowingly, willingly and intentionally, didn't you? You did sign many government documents where you claimed to be a citizen and a resident, didn't you?

If you were a victim of fraud or constructive fraud, you have the right to object, and change your status at law. But once you leave, don't ever submit again, for then it would be a permanent and irrevocable election, and no objection will hold up.

PART TWO - Disinformation Eradication
America's republican form of government, in which the people are sovereign is in harmony with capitalism. But let us be clear on what capitalism really means.
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - Webster's Dictionary
A farmer who owns his farm enjoys capitalism. A farmer who does not is a tenant.
A laborer who owns the fruits of his labor enjoys capitalism. A laborer who does not is a slave.
PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by individuals and operated for their individual profit.
Anything else is NOT capitalism, including usury (which likes to call its nefarious scheme "capitalizing") and limited liability artificial persons (stock corporations).

In American law, we know that the constitutional government has promised to secure private property rights.

Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
- - - Webster's Dictionary.

SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary
So let us be crystal clear - left wing socialist / communist pirates seek to rob property owners, via taxation and confiscation. And usurers, who also wish to rob property owners, via their scheme, are not part of capitalism. In fact, they are in alliance with these scurrilous scoundrels.

These thieves are opposed to any law that secures property rights, and government that espouses the ideal of securing property rights from attack.

HOW YOU WERE SWINDLED

Form SS-5, application for an account and number with Social Security is explicitly limited to U.S. citizens and U.S. residents. American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled within the boundaries of the United States of America are ineligible to participate - and would not wish to.

Every participant in national socialism has surrendered his birthright to absolutely own private property, including himself. Each socialist has accepted the burden to be equally liable for the impossible public debt (See the definition for "contribution" in any legal dictionary) via the Federal Insurance CONTRIBUTION Act / Social Security Act of 1935. He has consented to be a "human resource" pledged as collateral on the debt. As one who is eligible for entitlements (charity) from the public treasury, each "volunteer" is a pauper, and thus a status criminal. Failure to pay his "fair share" of socialist taxes, will result in confiscation of his property (no longer protected from being taken for public use), and no just compensation will be given. Socialist Americans are incapable of owning private property.

In case you were unaware, Federal Reserve Notes (aka "dollar bills") are not dollars. They are authorized under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as codified in Title 12, USC sec. 411.
TITLE 12,UNITED STATES CODE, CHAPTER 3,SUBCHAPTER XII,sec. 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
" Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be OBLIGATIONS of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in LAWFUL MONEY on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
FRNs are obligations of the U.S. government to pay lawful money on demand.
LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States..."
Title 12 United States Code, Sec. 152.
Federal Reserve Notes are issued under the authority of Art 1 Sec 8 power to borrow on the credit of the United States.
Article 1, Section 8. U.S. Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power
...To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
But the notes were repudiated in House Joint Resolution 192, (June 1933). Congress will no longer guarantee the 'exchange rate' of the dollar (for each FRN). But the law still defines the national debt (in excess of 10 trillion dollars) in terms of gold. That computes to a sum of 500 billion ounces gold. Which is 100 times as much gold as is estimated to exist, above ground, in the world (5.5 billion ounces). Fort Knox depository has only 147.3 million ounces.

And Congress cannot question the public debt because of the 14th amendment, even when it is insane.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, ..., shall not be questioned.
Amendment 14, Section 4.
Now if you've followed this so far, you're aware that somehow, Americans were all persuaded that they needed to "join up" with national socialism before they were allowed to work in their own country. And that government "gave away" entitlements to all enumerated Americans. And that all we need to do is just elect the RIGHT group of public servants and everything will be fine.

Hopefully, you now will be better able to discount the propaganda and disinformation that has been fed to you from your birth.

The servant government is incapable of resolving the problems that are propelling the USA into collapse. Partly because of the constitutional limitations, and partly due to their contracts with usurers.

Partisan fighting and "wing" alliances will not resolve the problem. Since 1933, the U.S. Congress has been bankrupt. Since 1935, the USA has been marching to the tune of national socialism, slowly eroding the memory of absolute ownership and inalienable rights from the minds of each successive generation.

We are at a threshold of collapse. And after we pass that portal, I fear that too many people are so ignorant of their American birthright, that the enemies of the sovereign people will be victorious. Do not be deceived, government has acted helpless to make the problems worse, not better. It was all part of the plan to destroy the compacts that created the United States of America and substitute a new and improved "Socialist" compact.

Either you are FOR private property rights, or you are a pirate (socialist / communist), seeking to TAKE private property rights. No matter what label, flag or doctrine is raised as the goal - either you are a harmless producer or you are a harmful predator. Choose carefully.

The REAL law protects property rights. And EVIL hates that law, and seeks to replace it with policy that is built upon fraudulent consent.

Sovereign people do not care who is the servant as long as he complies with his oath of office, and restrains himself within the limitations of the explicit delegation of power.
But if you're one of the subject peoples, be aware that your subjugation was entirely YOUR FAULT - according to the public record. Fighting about the inequities, tyranny, and unpleasant conditions of your servitude is futile. He who consents cannot complain. The government is absolved of all blame - because they have the written proof - in the public record.

The only nation on this planet with a republican form of government is the United States of America. And America is the only nation where the people are sovereign, and not subjects of servant government. If the people do not educate themselves to their lost heritage, this solitary experiment in true self government will pass into history, and be forgotten.

Go read the law, yourself.
It's available in every county courthouse law library.

I don't know about you, but there is no sum of money nor title of nobility that would ever persuade me to bend a knee or bow in subjugation to another monarch or sovereign, now that I know what my true birthright is. Americans were born to be Kings and Queens, monarchs of our lives and destinies.

Our enemies have perverted generations, and polluted our language so that we may not recognize our tormentors. But I hope that someday, enough Americans awaken to their lost heritage. For when that day arrives, the heavens will rock with their exultation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2009, 12:22 AM
 
Location: toronto, Canada
773 posts, read 1,215,434 times
Reputation: 283
Jetgraphics, I would rep you, but I'm supposed to share the love. Another brilliant post which I have come to expect as always.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2009, 12:10 PM
 
Location: toronto, Canada
773 posts, read 1,215,434 times
Reputation: 283
Jetgraphics, as always I appreciate your threads as they inspire myself toward researching the topic at hand. For everyone following the thread I offer these as food for thought.

"Government rules affect transportation (ports, airports, rail traffic, road ownership, road building, automobiles, gasoline), location (property taxes, zoning, industrial subsidies, homebuilding subsidies, building codes), education (school location, taxation), energy supply (nuclear licensing, regulation, electricity regulation, plus much, much more), energy use, banking and insurance, only to name a few items that impact on where people settle, where their work is located relative to their dwellings, where their schools are located, what sorts of cars they buy, and how much they decide to travel and by what means. All of these many state-made restrictions distort economic activity, producing problems of resource misuse". What Is Environmentalism? by Michael S. Rozeff

A libertarian case for electric transportation.
"One of the best examples of this is the postal service, who's runs average 25 miles, and where the vehicles stop frequently to load and unload the mail. Electric postal trucks are quickly becoming a popular option. Unless they become an option for other sectors of the economy, the economy undergo a terrible shock when peak oil occurs, and the most profitable businesses will be the ones that invested in this technology early on."
The case for electric transportation

Robyn Blummer weighs her two cents on the usury, the babylonian evil.
The Columbus Dispatch : Robyn Blumner: Legalized usury, plain and simple, got us here

Personally I'm torn on the issue of usury, while I agree with jetgraphics in that I see usury as a negative for many of the reasons he expounds, and many practising Muslims in history have proven the exclusion of usury can be a workable system. I reveal my capitalist side of my ancap beliefs by finding Rothbard makes an equally convincing case in the anatomy of the state. To paraphrase ladyattis,

"The problem with the natural money system is that it attacks debt, when it is not the real culprit of the monetary crisises that have occurred or are occuring. Debt is simply the acknowledgment that there's not an infinite amount or quantity. Equally credit is a similar acknowledgment that even though things are finite, wealth itself can still grow (still finite, but never explicitly excluded from persistent or sustained expansion). Thus, debt and credit act more as natural complements in the economy. Debt limits unnecessary consumption of wealth, credit ensures viable ventures are explored for further wealth generation. Each are necessary for an economy, and each cannot be 'regulated' outside of market forces which signal which consumptions should cease and which ventures should begin. The attempt to model the economy to some other 'desirable' behaviors will always lead to distortions, simply put, and these distortions may be worse than the accepted fact that some people will default on their debts, and that some people will never loan out wealth as credit".

The anarchist side in me however feel equally in favor of Proudhon, to wit.

Attack the System » Blog Archive » Sufic Notes on Proudhon, Rothbard and Anarchism


In summery, like Emerson has noted, 'consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds'; part of me feels that the state has no place in restricting the rights of people to do stupid things such as participating in private usury, even when there is compelling evidence that it is akin to shooting yourself in the foot, to stop a itch.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:32 AM.

© 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