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.
I never signed the Constitution, my parents never signed the Constitution, I don't know of any person I've ever met or interacted with who gave explicit informed consent to be governed by any level of government within the borders that define the landmass known as the United States.
Do you?
If not then you did not give consent.
See that in bold? Declaration of Independence clearly states the consent of the governed is a founding principle. Now you can say it's not law (as it predates the establishment of the US), but you cannot deny that a foundational basis of the US was that the colonists fought a war to regain a government they consented to.
You never consented, No_Recess never consented, no one posting here actually gave their explicit consent to governance. We were never even asked. So how is the US Government any more legitimate than the UK government (Who were the previous governors) or No_Recess?
Try as you might, the law of the land does not require your approval. It has my approval, and the approval of the majority, whether you personally like it or not. That is the consent they are referring to, not each individual person.
If what you are suggesting were actually true, shouldn't they have gotten everyone elses signature before declaring a war that killed thousands of Americans who never signed anything themselves?
Sorry if you don't like it, but that's how it is, and will always be, and it isn't wrong
Which wouldn't be a problem if the U.S. government didn't require tribute and that tribute be made in its monopolized currency.
Here I shall cite once again the story of my off-grid friends living in the mountains of Vermont. They use no State services or infrastructure yet they must make two tributes a year (what the statists call property taxes) to the State.
Quite the conundrum for a family that doesn't use U.S. currency in its daily life. How do they pay? The wife babysits under the table and receives U.S. currency for the sole use of paying the tribute. She would not do it otherwise but if the tribute isn't paid and paid using the mandatory currency they will face a caging.
Isn't it ironic that in order live peacefully on your own you still must be a slave to the State and at the same time become a "criminal" under its laws (she isn't filing W2s)?
Ah so it's tribute now.
Folks, I hope you realize that living off grid in the mountains of Vermont is not physically possible for all 320 million people in this country. There is a great diversity of lifestyles and locations, and it is all enabled by mutual government.
You think they use no services? Really? Who recognizes their property rights in the first place? What makes it their land and not mine? If Canada decides to take it from them, will their stockpile of guns and ammo be enough to hold the line?
Do they use metal? How about electricity? Did they fabricate the solar panels themselves from materials they mined out of the earth with their own hands and knowledge derived by their own scientific studies?
The benefits of society are much further reaching than obvious things like roads and schools.
While we're on the subject, the entire concept of property requires a government of some sort to recognize. Otherwise it's just a single planet shared by billions.
Folks, I hope you realize that living off grid in the mountains of Vermont is not physically possible for all 320 million people in this country. There is a great diversity of lifestyles and locations, and it is all enabled by mutual government.
You think they use no services? Really? Who recognizes their property rights in the first place? What makes it their land and not mine? If Canada decides to take it from them, will their stockpile of guns and ammo be enough to hold the line?
Do they use metal? How about electricity? Did they fabricate the solar panels themselves from materials they mined out of the earth with their own hands and knowledge derived by their own scientific studies?
The benefits of society are much further reaching than obvious things like roads and schools.
While we're on the subject, the entire concept of property requires a government of some sort to recognize. Otherwise it's just a single planet shared by billions.
Did government exist before people or did people invent government?
Did government exist before people or did people invent government?
Government has always existed. First it was the tribal elders deciding where to hunt. Then nomadic tribes learned to farm and formed the first settlements. This led to the specialization of labor and invention of currency for trade between people of different specialties and giving rise to more complex political structures.
Seriously it is crazy that this even needs to be discussed. You are typing on the internet through a computer. It doesn't matter how much land you own or whether you are "off grid" or not, clearly you are a huge beneficiary of living in society. It's a shame you don't realize it.
Government has always existed. First it was the tribal elders deciding where to hunt. Then nomadic tribes learned to farm and formed the first settlements. This led to the specialization of labor and invention of currency for trade between people of different specialties and giving rise to more complex political structures.
Seriously it is crazy that this even needs to be discussed. You are typing on the internet through a computer. It doesn't matter how much land you own or whether you are "off grid" or not, clearly you are a huge beneficiary of living in society. It's a shame you don't realize it.
Are you equating the government with society itself?
Are you people like willfully ignoring the fundamental purpose of government in society? I mean it's laid out pretty clearly in the opening sentences of the Constitution, not to mention the founding documents of just about every other country.
This idea that if you don't personally benefit and approve, then it is unjust, is incredibly shortsighted. Civilization as we know it would not exist if that were how a majority of people behaved.
All we’re really doing is applying the same societal rules to government as are applied to everyone else. Defensive force is the only justified use of force. Don’t initiate force or violate property rights, or you’ve just become the criminal.
As I said earlier, taxes are either redundant because people already want to pay for X by choice, or they’re tyrannical because people are being forced to pay for things they don’t want.
Government has always existed. First it was the tribal elders deciding where to hunt. Then nomadic tribes learned to farm and formed the first settlements. This led to the specialization of labor and invention of currency for trade between people of different specialties and giving rise to more complex political structures.
Seriously it is crazy that this even needs to be discussed. You are typing on the internet through a computer. It doesn't matter how much land you own or whether you are "off grid" or not, clearly you are a huge beneficiary of living in society. It's a shame you don't realize it.
it's actually not a simple question at all. The nature of money, what it is, its role in society as a method of exchange of work and storage of wealth, and its future in a society rapidly moving towards automation and obsolescence of labor, are very complex topics.
Then of course you have the more philosophical study of the individual versus society, and the evolution of our societal obligations as population grows, technology improves, and resources are depleted.
But yeah, let's just pretend it's a simple question for a poll
Wow man, that's like really killer acid dude. Gimme a hit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Apparently, you are unaware of the REPUBLICAN form of government, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, wherein the American people are "sovereigns without subjects," and the president is merely the highest ranking public SERVANT, one step down in status from the lowest American sovereign.
But it is to be expected, since most Americans are victims of the world's greatest propaganda ministry, and are loathe to read their own laws and history.
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)
"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)
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).
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
In this excerpt we see that sacred rights encompass natural rights, personal liberty, and the right to private property (i.e., absolutely owned by an individual).
NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
Short review of the foundation of American law - - -
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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..."
--- Declaration of Independence, 1776
CONTRAST THAT WITH THIS:
“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... ]
IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (taxes, etc).
However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the American people (noncitizens) who did not consent to be governed.
BUT if you consented, shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
WHY?
BECAUSE Citizens are NOT sovereigns
"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
"... 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)
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
So which one are you?
[] One of the Sovereign People who directly exercise sovereignty over their person, liberty and property, whose endowed rights are secured by government?
[] Or one of the subject citizens who indirectly exercise sovereignty via delegation to representatives, and have surrendered endowed rights in exchange for civil and political liberties (i.e."rights") by consent to be governed?
Just so you smelly hippies understand here, money will not buy you happiness.
But that being said, why are smellie hippies so eager to spend my money?
I worked for State Government. The money I earned was my money, but I had to pay taxes just like everyone else. Seems pretty simple. Is there more to it then that?
Yes, liberals want more of your money to pay for the people who are too lazy to work. It's pretty simple.
Who are these people? Well, take a nice drive down any low income neighborhood and you'll see the folks weighing 300 pounds who can barely get out of bed, these are the people who liberals feel deserve more of your money to "fix inequality."
Yes, liberals want more of your money to pay for the people who are too lazy to work. It's pretty simple.
Who are these people? Well, take a nice drive down any low income neighborhood and you'll see the folks weighing 300 pounds who can barely get out of bed, these are the people who liberals feel deserve more of your money to "fix inequality."
No, it is more like the liberals wants the burger flipper to have nearly the same quality of life as the electrical engineer.
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.
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.
