Like
Haha
Sad
Wow
Hmmm
Grrr/Dislike
Send SmileNavigation
How can you stop the flow of disinformation coming from the mainstream media?
Suggestions?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 16, 2020:
If Rule of Law did return to America there would then be no hush money paid to victims of libel, the perpetrators would face the judgment of The People through their representatives in a trial by jury according to the common law.
On the other hand those "settlements" could conceivably break the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
@Timmer123
I will show to you a good start, but like so many good starts there is a general lack of both knowledge about law and therefore the will power to use it.
A good start:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
That is what is called probable cause. The probable cause involves clear and present dangers concerning enemies of American rule of law, freedom, liberty, life, and property at the highest level.
What is missing is the sword part of the rule of Law. Above is the Shield part of the rule of law. What is missing is any number of independent grand jurors taking it upon their own initiative to use their civil and criminal jurisdiction to investigate all matters contributing to that probable cause to identify those enemies domestic. To then officially form grand juries on behalf of the victims of those KNOWN crimes by those un-named criminals, using all legal power that is inclusive in a legal jurisdiction, such as the power of subpoena, and then to write reports, indictments, and presentiments with court dates.
The start is an ongoing, known, crime. From that start are each step made through due process of law, but not the law of, for, and by the government, because that group of people has proven beyond any doubt that they hide under their desks when it comes to policing their own. The Ancient Law affords the people lawful jurisdiction in the form of grand and trial juries.
Again, not many people are even aware of the facts that matter, and that is a problem.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 16, 2020:
If Rule of Law did return to America there would then be no hush money paid to victims of libel, the perpetrators would face the judgment of The People through their representatives in a trial by jury according to the common law.
On the other hand those "settlements" could conceivably break the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
@Timmer123
I will show to you a good start, but like so many good starts there is a general lack of both knowledge about law and therefore the will power to use it.
A good start:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
That is what is called probable cause. The probable cause involves clear and present dangers concerning enemies of American rule of law, freedom, liberty, life, and property at the highest level.
What is missing is the sword part of the rule of Law. Above is the Shield part of the rule of law. What is missing is any number of independent grand jurors taking it upon their own initiative to use their civil and criminal jurisdiction to investigate all matters contributing to that probable cause to identify those enemies domestic. To then officially form grand juries on behalf of the victims of those KNOWN crimes by those un-named criminals, using all legal power that is inclusive in a legal jurisdiction, such as the power of subpoena, and then to write reports, indictments, and presentiments with court dates.
The start is an ongoing, known, crime. From that start are each step made through due process of law, but not the law of, for, and by the government, because that group of people has proven beyond any doubt that they hide under their desks when it comes to policing their own. The Ancient Law affords the people lawful jurisdiction in the form of grand and trial juries.
Again, not many people are even aware of the facts that matter, and that is a problem.
The DNC won't let you elect Bernie Sanders.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
"A vote for Trump is a vote for a future of free democratic elections."
I don't think that the above is true, and I don't think that a case can be made to prove that it is true. In the first place there is no way to prove something that is ambiguous. I'd like to see someone give it a try.
...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
@dawna107
Who are your comments directed at? No one I know is arguing, let alone for so-called "Popular Vote."
The statement that "wins" the argument (an argument that does not exist in my opinion) is already offered, but I will repeat it for those who do not automatically judge negatively before investigating the data required for judgment:
"The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify."
The Federation before 1789 was voluntary, those who wanted it were free to join en masse. Those who joined were free to unjoin en masse.
If there was an argument concerning that statement above that argument was settled in the years after 1789, beginning with The Judiciary Act of 1789, then many encroachments upon the voluntary nature of federation, leading to a peak of "argument" during what people call the Civil War. Now, much fewer people "argue" against the statement of fact: before 1789 the federation was voluntary, not mandatory.
The people being free in a federation means that the National government has no right to the people in the federation. If that is data not worth knowing then don' t know it as you wish, but for people who do not want to know that data to then claim that the "argument" fails is a political tactic.
"There is a very good reason why the framers came up with the Electoral College for voting who runs the country! If we did not have it the 3 biggest states would get to decide who wins and the rest of the country would not get a say!"
Do you speak about the framers of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the original federal constitution, the State constitutions (12), or something more specific?
If you speak about the people who wrote the 1787 Constitution, then you might want to know that many people were against it, people like George Mason who refused to sign it, voted against it, spoke out against it, and was one of the people credited with "framing" ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
"A vote for Trump is a vote for a future of free democratic elections."
I don't think that the above is true, and I don't think that a case can be made to prove that it is true. In the first place there is no way to prove something that is ambiguous. I'd like to see someone give it a try.
...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
@dawna107
Who are your comments directed at? No one I know is arguing, let alone for so-called "Popular Vote."
The statement that "wins" the argument (an argument that does not exist in my opinion) is already offered, but I will repeat it for those who do not automatically judge negatively before investigating the data required for judgment:
"The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify."
The Federation before 1789 was voluntary, those who wanted it were free to join en masse. Those who joined were free to unjoin en masse.
If there was an argument concerning that statement above that argument was settled in the years after 1789, beginning with The Judiciary Act of 1789, then many encroachments upon the voluntary nature of federation, leading to a peak of "argument" during what people call the Civil War. Now, much fewer people "argue" against the statement of fact: before 1789 the federation was voluntary, not mandatory.
The people being free in a federation means that the National government has no right to the people in the federation. If that is data not worth knowing then don' t know it as you wish, but for people who do not want to know that data to then claim that the "argument" fails is a political tactic.
"There is a very good reason why the framers came up with the Electoral College for voting who runs the country! If we did not have it the 3 biggest states would get to decide who wins and the rest of the country would not get a say!"
Do you speak about the framers of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the original federal constitution, the State constitutions (12), or something more specific?
If you speak about the people who wrote the 1787 Constitution, then you might want to know that many people were against it, people like George Mason who refused to sign it, voted against it, spoke out against it, and was one of the people credited with "framing" ...
This says it all.
[babylonbee.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
“At publishing time, Paul had decided he would try democratic stepping on a rake, where his friends wall vote on whether he steps on the rake, and then he steps on it and smacks his face.”
That is called stepping on a rake as a consequence of the results of a vote put to friends. That is not ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
@ScottforKing
"You sound a little unsure of what you are trying to exactly say."
If you heard something specific that led to that conclusion, then tell me please what it is that you heard, please be specific. I do not know what I could have written, or what I could write at all, that could lead you to that conclusion.
"Are you saying that you see that there is a battle between socialism and capitalism?"
There is a quantifiable battle between those who steal and those who produce anything worth stealing, and the quantities of what is stolen by those who steal and the quantities of what is produced and therefore worth stealing are precisely measurable, very specific quantities. If there is a battle between socialism and capitalism it is a battle among the thieves, and they lie, so how do you ever manage to nail down precisely what constitutes that battle?
Is it the number of lies? Does Side A tell more lies than side B?
Which side steals more? Is that the measure of the winners or losers between Side A and Side B?
I am not saying that there is a battle between socialism and capitalism. An ism does not steal.
The battle is between those who produce anything worth stealing and those who steal anything worth stealing. Those who steal lie, and they create isms.
"And those are the only choices we have to make in a democracy?"
I do not see any democracies. The last recorded one that I am aware of is the democracy of Athens Greece.
Example:
The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick T. Long
"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.
"Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
“At publishing time, Paul had decided he would try democratic stepping on a rake, where his friends wall vote on whether he steps on the rake, and then he steps on it and smacks his face.”
That is called stepping on a rake as a consequence of the results of a vote put to friends. That is not ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 26, 2020:
@ScottforKing
"You sound a little unsure of what you are trying to exactly say."
If you heard something specific that led to that conclusion, then tell me please what it is that you heard, please be specific. I do not know what I could have written, or what I could write at all, that could lead you to that conclusion.
"Are you saying that you see that there is a battle between socialism and capitalism?"
There is a quantifiable battle between those who steal and those who produce anything worth stealing, and the quantities of what is stolen by those who steal and the quantities of what is produced and therefore worth stealing are precisely measurable, very specific quantities. If there is a battle between socialism and capitalism it is a battle among the thieves, and they lie, so how do you ever manage to nail down precisely what constitutes that battle?
Is it the number of lies? Does Side A tell more lies than side B?
Which side steals more? Is that the measure of the winners or losers between Side A and Side B?
I am not saying that there is a battle between socialism and capitalism. An ism does not steal.
The battle is between those who produce anything worth stealing and those who steal anything worth stealing. Those who steal lie, and they create isms.
"And those are the only choices we have to make in a democracy?"
I do not see any democracies. The last recorded one that I am aware of is the democracy of Athens Greece.
Example:
The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick T. Long
"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.
"Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards...
The DNC won't let you elect Bernie Sanders.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
"A vote for Trump is a vote for a future of free democratic elections."
I don't think that the above is true, and I don't think that a case can be made to prove that it is true. In the first place there is no way to prove something that is ambiguous. I'd like to see someone give it a try.
...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 25, 2020:
@Facci
"Clearly, elections resulted in the end of the legal African slave trade in 1820, and the end of Slavery by 1865."
That is not clear.
The following 3 viewpoints are demonstrably clear as to cause and effect.
1.
June 17, 1788
George Mason:
"Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union."
Clearly, "elections" were a means to an end, a tool used by people. The tool was used to take out the federation and replace the federation with a Nation-State Corporate Legal Fiction. The result of those people using those elections includes the result that was warned: "bring us to weakness." That means that the people as a whole were brought to weakness, that does not mean that the slave traders who wanted their business subsidized were brought to weakness.
2.
New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism, March 7, 1788
"Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
"A vote for Trump is a vote for a future of free democratic elections."
I don't think that the above is true, and I don't think that a case can be made to prove that it is true. In the first place there is no way to prove something that is ambiguous. I'd like to see someone give it a try.
...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 25, 2020:
@Facci
"Clearly, elections resulted in the end of the legal African slave trade in 1820, and the end of Slavery by 1865."
That is not clear.
The following 3 viewpoints are demonstrably clear as to cause and effect.
1.
June 17, 1788
George Mason:
"Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union."
Clearly, "elections" were a means to an end, a tool used by people. The tool was used to take out the federation and replace the federation with a Nation-State Corporate Legal Fiction. The result of those people using those elections includes the result that was warned: "bring us to weakness." That means that the people as a whole were brought to weakness, that does not mean that the slave traders who wanted their business subsidized were brought to weakness.
2.
New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism, March 7, 1788
"Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many...
There is a very simple solution to striking teachers.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
I think that there is a fundamental problem at work that may not be obvious despite all the evidence that ought to expose this fundamental problem.
Will disobedient people become obedient if they are given yet another order to be obeyed obediently?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 25, 2020:
@jakuboj
Let's.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
I think that there is a fundamental problem at work that may not be obvious despite all the evidence that ought to expose this fundamental problem.
Will disobedient people become obedient if they are given yet another order to be obeyed obediently?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 25, 2020:
@jakuboj
Let's.
The DNC won't let you elect Bernie Sanders.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
"A vote for Trump is a vote for a future of free democratic elections."
I don't think that the above is true, and I don't think that a case can be made to prove that it is true. In the first place there is no way to prove something that is ambiguous. I'd like to see someone give it a try.
...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 25, 2020:
@Facci wrote:
"The most cynical libertarian jibberish..."
Dictates, ad-hominem attacks, and what will be next?
"...the fact that presidential elections in the United States of America have profoundly affected the course of this nation with resoundingly positive ways only dreamed of by the culturally inferior ancient Greek city states."
Ok, that is a creative accounting attempt. The cause for "positive ways" is squarely accounted for and that accountability belongs to "presidential elections."
Those are facts according to this particular accountant.
Here is a competitive viewpoint:
"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.
His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
"A vote for Trump is a vote for a future of free democratic elections."
I don't think that the above is true, and I don't think that a case can be made to prove that it is true. In the first place there is no way to prove something that is ambiguous. I'd like to see someone give it a try.
...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 25, 2020:
@Facci wrote:
"The most cynical libertarian jibberish..."
Dictates, ad-hominem attacks, and what will be next?
"...the fact that presidential elections in the United States of America have profoundly affected the course of this nation with resoundingly positive ways only dreamed of by the culturally inferior ancient Greek city states."
Ok, that is a creative accounting attempt. The cause for "positive ways" is squarely accounted for and that accountability belongs to "presidential elections."
Those are facts according to this particular accountant.
Here is a competitive viewpoint:
"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.
His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher...
There is a very simple solution to striking teachers.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
I think that there is a fundamental problem at work that may not be obvious despite all the evidence that ought to expose this fundamental problem.
Will disobedient people become obedient if they are given yet another order to be obeyed obediently?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 25, 2020:
@jakuboj
My reason for engaging other people is for my own good. I know that my viewpoint is severely limited (a box) and so I need to find other ways to view all those things that help or harm me. Someone down the street may find something valuable or something harmful and so I'd like to get ahead of that stream of information.
If you think you can make people think outside the box, for example, then you have a viewpoint that I've heard already. I've heard that viewpoint a thousand times already, and it is a very familiar tune played inside a very familiar box, as far as I can see.
How does it work for you? How many people have you made so far?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
I think that there is a fundamental problem at work that may not be obvious despite all the evidence that ought to expose this fundamental problem.
Will disobedient people become obedient if they are given yet another order to be obeyed obediently?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 25, 2020:
@jakuboj
My reason for engaging other people is for my own good. I know that my viewpoint is severely limited (a box) and so I need to find other ways to view all those things that help or harm me. Someone down the street may find something valuable or something harmful and so I'd like to get ahead of that stream of information.
If you think you can make people think outside the box, for example, then you have a viewpoint that I've heard already. I've heard that viewpoint a thousand times already, and it is a very familiar tune played inside a very familiar box, as far as I can see.
How does it work for you? How many people have you made so far?
There is a very simple solution to striking teachers.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
I think that there is a fundamental problem at work that may not be obvious despite all the evidence that ought to expose this fundamental problem.
Will disobedient people become obedient if they are given yet another order to be obeyed obediently?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 25, 2020:
@jakuboj
Are your messages offered for a reason, and if so please explain that reasoning.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
I think that there is a fundamental problem at work that may not be obvious despite all the evidence that ought to expose this fundamental problem.
Will disobedient people become obedient if they are given yet another order to be obeyed obediently?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 25, 2020:
@jakuboj
Are your messages offered for a reason, and if so please explain that reasoning.
There is a very simple solution to striking teachers.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
I think that there is a fundamental problem at work that may not be obvious despite all the evidence that ought to expose this fundamental problem.
Will disobedient people become obedient if they are given yet another order to be obeyed obediently?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 25, 2020:
@jakuboj
I am going to back-up my answer with some data. The data I use to back-up my answer is the tip of the iceberg of data available for anyone who wants to judge my answer to your question for validity.
Your question:
"We have Police Services Act that does that to police, so why not all government employees."
People put into positions of arbitrary power - as a rule - make up their own rules. You do not. I do not. No one can do that for them. You propose to make rules for them here and now. That is absurd.
These people are members of arbitrary government, and one rule they have made is that you do not have any power over them, and that is a fact that matters.
You can see it, or you cannot see it.
If you disobey, then there is another rule for that event.
The evidence I will now present is specific to the topic of teachers. You can go on with your stated problem and your stated goal, as you wish, despite the evidence offered, and I wish you well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ij0gW421jw
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 25, 2020:
I think that there is a fundamental problem at work that may not be obvious despite all the evidence that ought to expose this fundamental problem.
Will disobedient people become obedient if they are given yet another order to be obeyed obediently?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 25, 2020:
@jakuboj
I am going to back-up my answer with some data. The data I use to back-up my answer is the tip of the iceberg of data available for anyone who wants to judge my answer to your question for validity.
Your question:
"We have Police Services Act that does that to police, so why not all government employees."
People put into positions of arbitrary power - as a rule - make up their own rules. You do not. I do not. No one can do that for them. You propose to make rules for them here and now. That is absurd.
These people are members of arbitrary government, and one rule they have made is that you do not have any power over them, and that is a fact that matters.
You can see it, or you cannot see it.
If you disobey, then there is another rule for that event.
The evidence I will now present is specific to the topic of teachers. You can go on with your stated problem and your stated goal, as you wish, despite the evidence offered, and I wish you well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ij0gW421jw
WashBeacon: Father confronts Warren about forgiving student loans.
timon_phocas comments on Jan 24, 2020:
Our daughter delivered papers from 12 to 18, worked fast food and supermarkets all through college. She graduated college without debt.
I went back to college for retraining as a nurse. Finished 2 years later without debt.
Our son served in the Army then went to college and graduated using ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 24, 2020:
The money system in place, used by almost everyone, is not in place to serve honest people.
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
timon_phocas comments on Jan 24, 2020:
Our daughter delivered papers from 12 to 18, worked fast food and supermarkets all through college. She graduated college without debt.
I went back to college for retraining as a nurse. Finished 2 years later without debt.
Our son served in the Army then went to college and graduated using ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 24, 2020:
The money system in place, used by almost everyone, is not in place to serve honest people.
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
" I do solemnly swear to uphold and defend, the Constitution of the united States of America, ...
RobBlair comments on Jan 23, 2020:
Reward your representatives that do hold up to their oath and call out those who don't. An oath is only of value when given by someone of honor.
The best remedy for and our responsibility to someone who betrays their oath is to remove them from office.
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 23, 2020:
The best remedy is to remove them from office how?
A. Ballot box
B. Cartridge box
How about the preventative, deterrence option?
A. Jury box (A and B)
B. Ballot box (too late, another psychopath thrown into the pool of psychopaths: oops)
C. Cartridge box (a.k.a. Revolution)
The first American revolution is long forgotten by the Majority that Rules in Ignorance, but even one of the most well known American revolutions (from 1774 to 1789) is misunderstood to the point of being counter to the purpose of defending free people in Liberty.
The first thing to keep in mind (never to forget) is to refuse to give psychopaths the power they desire. If that is done, then there isn't anything to abuse. That was very well known in the past, and so the law of the land was enforced. The law of the land is common law, and there are two legal entities made up of regular people who are expressly not "The Government."
Two sides:
A. The Government (a segment of the population)
B. The People (everyone)
Everyone except those agreeing by promise and by oath, subject to Rule of Law (the law of the land) for failure to honorably hold to the promise and the oath are those who may be chosen for the legal groups known as jurors.
A. The Government (oath takers during the time of service, subject to Rule of Law)
B. The People (legal entities formed into Grand and Trial Juries)
The People are formed into grand and trial juries so as to remove enemies domestic; according to Law.
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger:
"THE GRAND JURY originated in England as the accusing body in the administration of criminal justice. At the Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, Henry II provided that twelve knights or twelve "good and lawful men" of every hundred and four lawful men of every vill disclose under oath the names of those in the community believed guilty of criminal offenses. Members of this inquisitorial body were obliged to present to the judge sworn accusations against all suspected offenders. Unlike petit juries, grand juries were not to pass upon guilt or innocence but were to decide only whether an individual should be brought to trial. At first all accusations originated with the members of the inquest themselves, but gradually the juries came to consider accusations made by outsiders as well. The jurors then heard only witnesses against the accused and, if they were convinced that there were grounds for trial, indicted him. They also passed upon indictments laid before them by crown prosecutors, returning a "true bill" if they found the accusation true or "no bill" if they found it false. However, the juries never lost their power to accuse on their own knowledge. This they did by making a presentment to the court. The...
RobBlair comments on Jan 23, 2020:
Reward your representatives that do hold up to their oath and call out those who don't. An oath is only of value when given by someone of honor.
The best remedy for and our responsibility to someone who betrays their oath is to remove them from office.
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 23, 2020:
The best remedy is to remove them from office how?
A. Ballot box
B. Cartridge box
How about the preventative, deterrence option?
A. Jury box (A and B)
B. Ballot box (too late, another psychopath thrown into the pool of psychopaths: oops)
C. Cartridge box (a.k.a. Revolution)
The first American revolution is long forgotten by the Majority that Rules in Ignorance, but even one of the most well known American revolutions (from 1774 to 1789) is misunderstood to the point of being counter to the purpose of defending free people in Liberty.
The first thing to keep in mind (never to forget) is to refuse to give psychopaths the power they desire. If that is done, then there isn't anything to abuse. That was very well known in the past, and so the law of the land was enforced. The law of the land is common law, and there are two legal entities made up of regular people who are expressly not "The Government."
Two sides:
A. The Government (a segment of the population)
B. The People (everyone)
Everyone except those agreeing by promise and by oath, subject to Rule of Law (the law of the land) for failure to honorably hold to the promise and the oath are those who may be chosen for the legal groups known as jurors.
A. The Government (oath takers during the time of service, subject to Rule of Law)
B. The People (legal entities formed into Grand and Trial Juries)
The People are formed into grand and trial juries so as to remove enemies domestic; according to Law.
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger:
"THE GRAND JURY originated in England as the accusing body in the administration of criminal justice. At the Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, Henry II provided that twelve knights or twelve "good and lawful men" of every hundred and four lawful men of every vill disclose under oath the names of those in the community believed guilty of criminal offenses. Members of this inquisitorial body were obliged to present to the judge sworn accusations against all suspected offenders. Unlike petit juries, grand juries were not to pass upon guilt or innocence but were to decide only whether an individual should be brought to trial. At first all accusations originated with the members of the inquest themselves, but gradually the juries came to consider accusations made by outsiders as well. The jurors then heard only witnesses against the accused and, if they were convinced that there were grounds for trial, indicted him. They also passed upon indictments laid before them by crown prosecutors, returning a "true bill" if they found the accusation true or "no bill" if they found it false. However, the juries never lost their power to accuse on their own knowledge. This they did by making a presentment to the court. The...
I stumbled on this question, today:
What if we made it illegal for politicians to tell lies - ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 20, 2020:
I would work if law returned to America. This is a lawless country, has been since 1789.
All the steps to do exactly as you suggest are within the Ancient Law, the law known as the common law, the law known as the law of the land.
If someone speaks a damaging lie, even a treasonous lie, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 20, 2020:
@Naomi
The United States Corporation was created in 1787 and treasonously enforced in 1789. If it can't keep the criminals out of it, it is not government, it is instead a Criminal Corporate Cartel; a legal fiction.
Previous to 1789 America has a number of governments which could arguably be called republics, and those republics (the people in them) formed a Federation of Republics; or confederation. They were republics because they are formed and run for the people, not for the criminals.
The original Federation was The United States of America, not the United States. The former was a plural case; a number of republics formed into a federation of republics, and those were under the common law. The later is a legal fiction, a singular entity, a corporation, and again there were no provisions in which the criminals would be kept out of it, that is because the first thing the criminals did was to enforce the Judiciary Act of 1789 which placed Summary Justice Courts (courts of plunder all throughout human history) above the common law.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 20, 2020:
I would work if law returned to America. This is a lawless country, has been since 1789.
All the steps to do exactly as you suggest are within the Ancient Law, the law known as the common law, the law known as the law of the land.
If someone speaks a damaging lie, even a treasonous lie, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 20, 2020:
@Naomi
The United States Corporation was created in 1787 and treasonously enforced in 1789. If it can't keep the criminals out of it, it is not government, it is instead a Criminal Corporate Cartel; a legal fiction.
Previous to 1789 America has a number of governments which could arguably be called republics, and those republics (the people in them) formed a Federation of Republics; or confederation. They were republics because they are formed and run for the people, not for the criminals.
The original Federation was The United States of America, not the United States. The former was a plural case; a number of republics formed into a federation of republics, and those were under the common law. The later is a legal fiction, a singular entity, a corporation, and again there were no provisions in which the criminals would be kept out of it, that is because the first thing the criminals did was to enforce the Judiciary Act of 1789 which placed Summary Justice Courts (courts of plunder all throughout human history) above the common law.
This is how it will happen. [youtube.com] the potential horrors the new American red flag law
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 18, 2020:
There is in that message a hidden Trojan Horse.
The infectious (cancerous) lie is the foundation from which the entire fake government foundation is built, and the linchpin which maintains the structure of falsehood.
A law is only a law by natural right and only consented to lawfully by the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 20, 2020:
@DeJake
"And yes, Ancient Greece. A fairly elite democracy built by slavers, from what I understand."
If people kidnap innocent people and then force the victims to produce with labor value that will then be stolen by the kidnappers, those are criminals. Why call them democrats?
If there were other facts involved, such as aggressive warriors (for profit) defeated by people defending themselves against the aggressive warriors, and not all the criminal aggressors were killed in defense against the attack, then what is your suggestion for dealing with criminal aggressors who prove beyond doubt that they are criminals as they attempt to slaughter their victims?
I have not looked into every detail concerning The Golden Age of Greece, but I have found this:
The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick T. Long
The work done and published in that source explains in detail the following reasonable statement:
"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority."
"If it's true that history wasn't as authoritarian as we're taught in mainstream education, that's quite a conspiracy to have all kids taught that history was for the most part dark and oppressive times, medieval Europe in particular."
A very good source for detailed information on precisely that subject there is the work done by John Taylor Gatto:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi5R9WI6_w0
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 18, 2020:
There is in that message a hidden Trojan Horse.
The infectious (cancerous) lie is the foundation from which the entire fake government foundation is built, and the linchpin which maintains the structure of falsehood.
A law is only a law by natural right and only consented to lawfully by the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 20, 2020:
@DeJake
"And yes, Ancient Greece. A fairly elite democracy built by slavers, from what I understand."
If people kidnap innocent people and then force the victims to produce with labor value that will then be stolen by the kidnappers, those are criminals. Why call them democrats?
If there were other facts involved, such as aggressive warriors (for profit) defeated by people defending themselves against the aggressive warriors, and not all the criminal aggressors were killed in defense against the attack, then what is your suggestion for dealing with criminal aggressors who prove beyond doubt that they are criminals as they attempt to slaughter their victims?
I have not looked into every detail concerning The Golden Age of Greece, but I have found this:
The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick T. Long
The work done and published in that source explains in detail the following reasonable statement:
"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority."
"If it's true that history wasn't as authoritarian as we're taught in mainstream education, that's quite a conspiracy to have all kids taught that history was for the most part dark and oppressive times, medieval Europe in particular."
A very good source for detailed information on precisely that subject there is the work done by John Taylor Gatto:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi5R9WI6_w0
I want to talk about the other elephant in the room.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 18, 2020:
I am going to get somewhat off-topic with my response so as to prove a point. The point I wish to prove is the point at which the victims point out by name those who are guilty of the crime that creates the victims. It is a crime to let criminals continue to create more victims when it is in the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 20, 2020:
@Timmer123
Good question. My first suggestion is for every individual to consider their legal, lawful, moral, rightful, power as individuals in a lawful (free from crime) group. That power includes jury duty, but much more it includes the necessity of discovering the truth about jury duty, and in that way each individual set on this path will be less likely to abdicate their own moral conscience, giving up that power to someone else, particularly giving up that power to someone in the gang known as government.
So that is number 1a, and 1b, as I see it. Learn what power exists for each individual and then use that power. Each individual set on this path directly challenges the counterfeit government, and as more people move down this path less innocent people are harmed by criminals in government and more guilty people are accounted for in a lawful way. Less innocent people harmed by fake government, more guilty people prevented from harming more innocent people: the actual job of government.
The second part of the answer requires a lot of digging and deliberation concerning the lawful powers of the grand jury, so as to go on the offensive, rather than being contained into a defensive box.
Example:
"Although historians typically portray early federal grand juries as mere tools of the central government, an examination of actual charges and presentments reveals a different picture. After the Constitution's ratification, grand jurors continued to take initiative in making presentments.
Given that the Federalists wanted to assuage Anti-Federalist fears of a powerful central government, it is not surprising that ratification documents emphasized the grand jury's shield rather than its sword. Early post ratification charges to and writings about the federal grand jury, however, reveal an equal if not greater concern for the sword. Without fail, judges and justices reminded grand jurors of their oaths to make diligent inquiries and true presentments." Indeed, judges mentioned presentments more often than indictments. In his charge to the first grand jury impaneled for the Circuit Court for the district of Delaware, Justice Wilson urged grand jurors: "[Y]ou will be sedulous that criminals be discovered and punished, and you will be equally sedulous that the innocent be guarded and protected. With regard to both, it will be your zealous effort, as it is your unquestionable right, to make diligent enquiries, and to offer true presentments. In a lecture to students at the University of Pennsylvania, the Justice emphasized the grand jury's independence from the prosecutor:”
1994 Reviving Federal Grand Jury Presentments Renée B. Lettow
The shield against harm done to innocent people by the government is very well exemplified in the recent cases ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 18, 2020:
I am going to get somewhat off-topic with my response so as to prove a point. The point I wish to prove is the point at which the victims point out by name those who are guilty of the crime that creates the victims. It is a crime to let criminals continue to create more victims when it is in the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 20, 2020:
@Timmer123
Good question. My first suggestion is for every individual to consider their legal, lawful, moral, rightful, power as individuals in a lawful (free from crime) group. That power includes jury duty, but much more it includes the necessity of discovering the truth about jury duty, and in that way each individual set on this path will be less likely to abdicate their own moral conscience, giving up that power to someone else, particularly giving up that power to someone in the gang known as government.
So that is number 1a, and 1b, as I see it. Learn what power exists for each individual and then use that power. Each individual set on this path directly challenges the counterfeit government, and as more people move down this path less innocent people are harmed by criminals in government and more guilty people are accounted for in a lawful way. Less innocent people harmed by fake government, more guilty people prevented from harming more innocent people: the actual job of government.
The second part of the answer requires a lot of digging and deliberation concerning the lawful powers of the grand jury, so as to go on the offensive, rather than being contained into a defensive box.
Example:
"Although historians typically portray early federal grand juries as mere tools of the central government, an examination of actual charges and presentments reveals a different picture. After the Constitution's ratification, grand jurors continued to take initiative in making presentments.
Given that the Federalists wanted to assuage Anti-Federalist fears of a powerful central government, it is not surprising that ratification documents emphasized the grand jury's shield rather than its sword. Early post ratification charges to and writings about the federal grand jury, however, reveal an equal if not greater concern for the sword. Without fail, judges and justices reminded grand jurors of their oaths to make diligent inquiries and true presentments." Indeed, judges mentioned presentments more often than indictments. In his charge to the first grand jury impaneled for the Circuit Court for the district of Delaware, Justice Wilson urged grand jurors: "[Y]ou will be sedulous that criminals be discovered and punished, and you will be equally sedulous that the innocent be guarded and protected. With regard to both, it will be your zealous effort, as it is your unquestionable right, to make diligent enquiries, and to offer true presentments. In a lecture to students at the University of Pennsylvania, the Justice emphasized the grand jury's independence from the prosecutor:”
1994 Reviving Federal Grand Jury Presentments Renée B. Lettow
The shield against harm done to innocent people by the government is very well exemplified in the recent cases ...
This is how it will happen. [youtube.com] the potential horrors the new American red flag law
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 18, 2020:
There is in that message a hidden Trojan Horse.
The infectious (cancerous) lie is the foundation from which the entire fake government foundation is built, and the linchpin which maintains the structure of falsehood.
A law is only a law by natural right and only consented to lawfully by the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 19, 2020:
Switzerland and Greenland are 2 ready examples of people fighting back effectively against the relentless forces of immorality. Switzerland may have also turned decidedly in the wrong direction, even in lockstep with America.
Greenland just recently held their Central Banking Frauds to account for the facts concerning their immoral crimes against the whole people in Greenland, so there is that fact that matters in answer to your question.
The fact that you ask the question the way you asked it shows the state of your mind under the spell of disinformation.
Then there are those feudal times where the experts of history paint a despotic picture, while those who have looked into it have found, clearly, the opposite. One thing to watch out for is a tactic called guilt by association, also known as a collective responsibility. It was once said that a drop of shit in the ocean does not make the whole ocean a shithole.
One very good example is the story in the experiences of the people of Worgle Austria during the Great Depression (caused by criminals in power), as they financed their own prosperity without the help of the Central Bankers.
As to the so-called feudal times:
"The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community.” Page 37
“The authority of a Saxon monarch was not more considerable. The Saxons submitted not to the arbitrary rule of princes. They administered an oath to their sovereigns, which bound them to acknowledge the laws, and to defend the rights of the church and people; and if they forgot this obligation, they forfeited their office. In both countries, a price was affixed on kings, a fine expiated their murder, as well as that of the meanest citizen; and the smallest violation of ancient usage, or the least step towards tyranny, was always dangerous, and often fatal to them.” Page 38, Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852
From the same source:
“The rules of legal decision, among a rude people, are always very simple; not serving much to guide, far less to control the feelings of natural equity.”
—2Middle Ages,ch. 8, part 2, p. 465.
"It is evident that it was in this way, by the free and concurrent judgments of juries, approving and enforcing certain laws and rules of conduct, corresponding to their notions of right and justice, that the laws and customs, which, for the most part,...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 18, 2020:
There is in that message a hidden Trojan Horse.
The infectious (cancerous) lie is the foundation from which the entire fake government foundation is built, and the linchpin which maintains the structure of falsehood.
A law is only a law by natural right and only consented to lawfully by the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 19, 2020:
Switzerland and Greenland are 2 ready examples of people fighting back effectively against the relentless forces of immorality. Switzerland may have also turned decidedly in the wrong direction, even in lockstep with America.
Greenland just recently held their Central Banking Frauds to account for the facts concerning their immoral crimes against the whole people in Greenland, so there is that fact that matters in answer to your question.
The fact that you ask the question the way you asked it shows the state of your mind under the spell of disinformation.
Then there are those feudal times where the experts of history paint a despotic picture, while those who have looked into it have found, clearly, the opposite. One thing to watch out for is a tactic called guilt by association, also known as a collective responsibility. It was once said that a drop of shit in the ocean does not make the whole ocean a shithole.
One very good example is the story in the experiences of the people of Worgle Austria during the Great Depression (caused by criminals in power), as they financed their own prosperity without the help of the Central Bankers.
As to the so-called feudal times:
"The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community.” Page 37
“The authority of a Saxon monarch was not more considerable. The Saxons submitted not to the arbitrary rule of princes. They administered an oath to their sovereigns, which bound them to acknowledge the laws, and to defend the rights of the church and people; and if they forgot this obligation, they forfeited their office. In both countries, a price was affixed on kings, a fine expiated their murder, as well as that of the meanest citizen; and the smallest violation of ancient usage, or the least step towards tyranny, was always dangerous, and often fatal to them.” Page 38, Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852
From the same source:
“The rules of legal decision, among a rude people, are always very simple; not serving much to guide, far less to control the feelings of natural equity.”
—2Middle Ages,ch. 8, part 2, p. 465.
"It is evident that it was in this way, by the free and concurrent judgments of juries, approving and enforcing certain laws and rules of conduct, corresponding to their notions of right and justice, that the laws and customs, which, for the most part,...
Government contracts for roading are, in my opinion, really just fronts for funnelling our stolen ...
DeJake comments on Jan 18, 2020:
Very true comments. And what they do is still claimed to be right because they're "creating jobs and combating unemployment."
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 18, 2020:
Gone is the excuse that God told them to do it. Gone is the excuse that the State told them to do it, oh, wait, that excuse is back in spades.
DeJake comments on Jan 18, 2020:
Very true comments. And what they do is still claimed to be right because they're "creating jobs and combating unemployment."
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 18, 2020:
Gone is the excuse that God told them to do it. Gone is the excuse that the State told them to do it, oh, wait, that excuse is back in spades.
This is how it will happen. [youtube.com] the potential horrors the new American red flag law
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 18, 2020:
There is in that message a hidden Trojan Horse.
The infectious (cancerous) lie is the foundation from which the entire fake government foundation is built, and the linchpin which maintains the structure of falsehood.
A law is only a law by natural right and only consented to lawfully by the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 18, 2020:
@DeJake
"Should not our goal today then be to figure out how to convince as many as possible the beauty and importance of freedom from violent oppression?"
It is, in fact, the lawful goal, as already pointed out by so many lawful people since ancient times. When the accumulative (collective) power of all the greater and lesser evil people, turned that way by the greatest evil ones, overpower the lawful ones, it is an uphill battle for people with the lawful goal in mind. Those who are members of the evil cult will, of course, deny the fact that in human history the pendulum was decidedly the other way; and the evil people were less powerful than today.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 18, 2020:
There is in that message a hidden Trojan Horse.
The infectious (cancerous) lie is the foundation from which the entire fake government foundation is built, and the linchpin which maintains the structure of falsehood.
A law is only a law by natural right and only consented to lawfully by the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 18, 2020:
@DeJake
"Should not our goal today then be to figure out how to convince as many as possible the beauty and importance of freedom from violent oppression?"
It is, in fact, the lawful goal, as already pointed out by so many lawful people since ancient times. When the accumulative (collective) power of all the greater and lesser evil people, turned that way by the greatest evil ones, overpower the lawful ones, it is an uphill battle for people with the lawful goal in mind. Those who are members of the evil cult will, of course, deny the fact that in human history the pendulum was decidedly the other way; and the evil people were less powerful than today.
I am arguing only against those Randroid freemarketers for whom the market has replaced both god and...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 14, 2020:
"The bad guys can always outspend you in the courts, and failing that, can warp the laws the laws the courts follow."
If you have not heard a coherent answer to your questions, then it may be true that you ought to keep doing what you are obviously doing, which is asking, seeking, and hopefully ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 17, 2020:
@Babou wrote:
"And who have no political answers other than "let the market solve it.""
Is your mind closed?
"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.
"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.
"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 14, 2020:
"The bad guys can always outspend you in the courts, and failing that, can warp the laws the laws the courts follow."
If you have not heard a coherent answer to your questions, then it may be true that you ought to keep doing what you are obviously doing, which is asking, seeking, and hopefully ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 17, 2020:
@Babou wrote:
"And who have no political answers other than "let the market solve it.""
Is your mind closed?
"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.
"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.
"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no ...
Brainstorming:Policies of Goverment
Fair negotiable pay gap act
removes minimum wage, resets ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 14, 2020:
Labor wages are suppressed by the criminal powers claiming to be the government, so appealing to those powers for a fix to a problem created by them is - to coin a phrase - pissing in the wind.
"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 15, 2020:
@TheMadHatter
To me, it can be very frustrating to know obvious problems with obvious solutions to those problems except the obvious problems associated with conveying both problems and solutions to other people, doing so intact.
Example:
Problem: Distorted markets distorted by criminal governments conspiring with criminal banking fraud causing a reduction in the natural supply of employers causing an excess in the natural supply of employees causing a decrease in the exchange value of labor: low wages.
Solution: Undistort markets.
Problem: Distorted markets
Solution:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
It turns out that a return to rule of law actual (not counterfeit) solves a lot of problems, if there is a will, and some basic understandings of the actual law power commanded by the people as a power that governs the government.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 14, 2020:
Labor wages are suppressed by the criminal powers claiming to be the government, so appealing to those powers for a fix to a problem created by them is - to coin a phrase - pissing in the wind.
"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 15, 2020:
@TheMadHatter
To me, it can be very frustrating to know obvious problems with obvious solutions to those problems except the obvious problems associated with conveying both problems and solutions to other people, doing so intact.
Example:
Problem: Distorted markets distorted by criminal governments conspiring with criminal banking fraud causing a reduction in the natural supply of employers causing an excess in the natural supply of employees causing a decrease in the exchange value of labor: low wages.
Solution: Undistort markets.
Problem: Distorted markets
Solution:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
It turns out that a return to rule of law actual (not counterfeit) solves a lot of problems, if there is a will, and some basic understandings of the actual law power commanded by the people as a power that governs the government.
I f folks would get past party fanaticism they could see how republicans, and democrats really are ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 9, 2020:
The term RINO applies to fake republicans like fake news. There ought to be similar terms like DINO for Democrats In Name Only, and GINO for Government In Name Only.
If it lies like a treasonous criminal, and threatens like a treasonous criminal, and routinely resorts to aggressive violence ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 10, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
I just recently started reading Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard and I think it is worth reading for people who are interested in history.
Example:
"The next year, Captain Giles Brent, one of the leading planters of the North Neck, hauled the chief of the Potomac Indians, Wahanganoche, into court on the false charges of high treason and murder. And even though Wahangonoche was acquitted and his false accusers forced to pay him an indemnity for the wrongs suffered, the Assembly arrogantly proceeded to require the Potomac and other norther tribes to furnish as hostages a number of Indian children, to be enslaved and brought up by whites."
A familiar theme is a government created and maintained for the profits of the few at the expense of the many, and it invariably involves monopolization of economic, political, spiritual, and military power.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 9, 2020:
The term RINO applies to fake republicans like fake news. There ought to be similar terms like DINO for Democrats In Name Only, and GINO for Government In Name Only.
If it lies like a treasonous criminal, and threatens like a treasonous criminal, and routinely resorts to aggressive violence ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 10, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
I just recently started reading Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard and I think it is worth reading for people who are interested in history.
Example:
"The next year, Captain Giles Brent, one of the leading planters of the North Neck, hauled the chief of the Potomac Indians, Wahanganoche, into court on the false charges of high treason and murder. And even though Wahangonoche was acquitted and his false accusers forced to pay him an indemnity for the wrongs suffered, the Assembly arrogantly proceeded to require the Potomac and other norther tribes to furnish as hostages a number of Indian children, to be enslaved and brought up by whites."
A familiar theme is a government created and maintained for the profits of the few at the expense of the many, and it invariably involves monopolization of economic, political, spiritual, and military power.
I f folks would get past party fanaticism they could see how republicans, and democrats really are ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 9, 2020:
The term RINO applies to fake republicans like fake news. There ought to be similar terms like DINO for Democrats In Name Only, and GINO for Government In Name Only.
If it lies like a treasonous criminal, and threatens like a treasonous criminal, and routinely resorts to aggressive violence ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 10, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
The name Federalist Party was an original con game perpetrated by warmongers, central banking frauds, aristocrats, tories, and slave consumers, they were FINO (federalist in name only), and as soon as their lies and extortive threats got them into power the actual Federation went under the newly created Nation-State Corporate Legal Fiction, and those treasonous criminals then subsidized African slavery, created and enforced a Central Bank to siphon off every calorie of blood, sweat, and tears that could be stolen from everyone in America. In response to the Fake Federalist Party crimes, which included the Alien and Sedition Acts, a new party was created: The Democratic Republican Party which included Thomas Jefferson and the former Nationalists (fake federalist) James Madison. Those two published the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.
Kentucky Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts
RESOLUTIONS IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Approved December 3rd, 1799.
"That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who adminster the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy:"
Virginia Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts
Agreed to by the Senate, December 24, 1798.
"That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."
Many actual Federalists (not just in name only) were ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 9, 2020:
The term RINO applies to fake republicans like fake news. There ought to be similar terms like DINO for Democrats In Name Only, and GINO for Government In Name Only.
If it lies like a treasonous criminal, and threatens like a treasonous criminal, and routinely resorts to aggressive violence ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 10, 2020:
@BikerPetehall70
The name Federalist Party was an original con game perpetrated by warmongers, central banking frauds, aristocrats, tories, and slave consumers, they were FINO (federalist in name only), and as soon as their lies and extortive threats got them into power the actual Federation went under the newly created Nation-State Corporate Legal Fiction, and those treasonous criminals then subsidized African slavery, created and enforced a Central Bank to siphon off every calorie of blood, sweat, and tears that could be stolen from everyone in America. In response to the Fake Federalist Party crimes, which included the Alien and Sedition Acts, a new party was created: The Democratic Republican Party which included Thomas Jefferson and the former Nationalists (fake federalist) James Madison. Those two published the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.
Kentucky Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts
RESOLUTIONS IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Approved December 3rd, 1799.
"That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who adminster the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy:"
Virginia Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts
Agreed to by the Senate, December 24, 1798.
"That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."
Many actual Federalists (not just in name only) were ...
I f folks would get past party fanaticism they could see how republicans, and democrats really are ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 9, 2020:
The term RINO applies to fake republicans like fake news. There ought to be similar terms like DINO for Democrats In Name Only, and GINO for Government In Name Only.
If it lies like a treasonous criminal, and threatens like a treasonous criminal, and routinely resorts to aggressive violence ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 10, 2020:
@Leroy_Dumonde
If the word Republican was created to mean something specific, such as someone who works to benefit the public as a whole, then that is the original meaning of the word, the actual meaning, the true meaning, the genuine meaning, and not the counterfeit, false, misleading, wolf in sheep's clothing meaning.
If the Majority of wolves in sheep's clothing use the word republican to hide their malevolence behind a benevolent cloak, they may now Rule, as in Majority Rules, the meaning of the original word, turning the original meaning into a new, false, counterfeit meaning.
That does not change the fact that the original meaning was created so as to convey an original meaning, and it is instructive to those who want to know how deception works when the facts are exposed as to why the original meaning was replaced by the counterfeit meaning.
Also, just because the Majority says something, like the Sun is cold, or the moon is made of cheese, does not mean that people have to accept the Majority Rules.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 9, 2020:
The term RINO applies to fake republicans like fake news. There ought to be similar terms like DINO for Democrats In Name Only, and GINO for Government In Name Only.
If it lies like a treasonous criminal, and threatens like a treasonous criminal, and routinely resorts to aggressive violence ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 10, 2020:
@Leroy_Dumonde
If the word Republican was created to mean something specific, such as someone who works to benefit the public as a whole, then that is the original meaning of the word, the actual meaning, the true meaning, the genuine meaning, and not the counterfeit, false, misleading, wolf in sheep's clothing meaning.
If the Majority of wolves in sheep's clothing use the word republican to hide their malevolence behind a benevolent cloak, they may now Rule, as in Majority Rules, the meaning of the original word, turning the original meaning into a new, false, counterfeit meaning.
That does not change the fact that the original meaning was created so as to convey an original meaning, and it is instructive to those who want to know how deception works when the facts are exposed as to why the original meaning was replaced by the counterfeit meaning.
Also, just because the Majority says something, like the Sun is cold, or the moon is made of cheese, does not mean that people have to accept the Majority Rules.
An eye opening video by an American of Iranian descent about what’s really going on in the Middle ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 8, 2020:
"Sorry, this content isn't available right now"
Is there another link?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 8, 2020:
@Gardener
Up now, thanks.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 8, 2020:
"Sorry, this content isn't available right now"
Is there another link?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 8, 2020:
@Gardener
Up now, thanks.
"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is ...
enlightendone comments on Jan 6, 2020:
So true and relevant to the antifa crowd. Thanks for being the first poster on group
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 7, 2020:
You are welcome. I have something I wrote myself, but it is not wise, it is just accurate. I call it Joe's Law:
Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.
enlightendone comments on Jan 6, 2020:
So true and relevant to the antifa crowd. Thanks for being the first poster on group
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 7, 2020:
You are welcome. I have something I wrote myself, but it is not wise, it is just accurate. I call it Joe's Law:
Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.
Alex Jones: Survivor Of White Genocide
[banned.video]
FEWI comments on Jan 5, 2020:
Is the majority just ignoring this issue? Are they afraid to be labeled.... racist?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 6, 2020:
@FEWI
I may be able to offer a caution to anyone moving from a narrow World View (and mostly falsehood) and moving toward expanding that narrow view while weeding out falsehoods in favor of the facts that matter. My caution is first that my experience was traumatic as if having to leave something significantly important (false sense of security) and then suddenly being thrown into the deep end of despair starving for oxygen.
The second part of my caution is to realize, incrementally, that there is hope, not a false sense of hope, but an accurate assessment of the facts that matter in the awareness of true hope: actionable knowledge of just exactly what constitutes the path toward greater security against all enemies foreign and domestic.
In other words; the initial cost is relatively less costly than failing to take the plunge.
FEWI comments on Jan 5, 2020:
Is the majority just ignoring this issue? Are they afraid to be labeled.... racist?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 6, 2020:
@FEWI
I may be able to offer a caution to anyone moving from a narrow World View (and mostly falsehood) and moving toward expanding that narrow view while weeding out falsehoods in favor of the facts that matter. My caution is first that my experience was traumatic as if having to leave something significantly important (false sense of security) and then suddenly being thrown into the deep end of despair starving for oxygen.
The second part of my caution is to realize, incrementally, that there is hope, not a false sense of hope, but an accurate assessment of the facts that matter in the awareness of true hope: actionable knowledge of just exactly what constitutes the path toward greater security against all enemies foreign and domestic.
In other words; the initial cost is relatively less costly than failing to take the plunge.
Alex Jones: Survivor Of White Genocide
[banned.video]
FEWI comments on Jan 5, 2020:
Is the majority just ignoring this issue? Are they afraid to be labeled.... racist?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 5, 2020:
@FEWI
I think you are likely to be correct, but why guess? Why not consider the possibility that the so-called governments are counterfeit because they know, someone must know, they perpetrate the crimes, so they do know in fact. People with that kind of power (power to purchase anything that can be purchased whenever they want) know, or they ought not to be called The Government. If they have that much power, but they can't even figure out who pays people to kill each other MASSIVELY, then they are incompetent to the point of folly. If they are that stupid, that incompetent, then how is it that they can manage to get that much power?
Once you start stripping away the lies that cover up the crimes perpetrated by these criminals who claim to be the government, if you even try a little bit, the truth starts to shine.
Isn't that the claim made by those who run any government: to find the truth, use the truth found, and protect and serve all the people fairly, justly, rightfully, honestly, honorably, as if it were a moral duty?
They can't even keep the criminals out of their own gang, so how is it that people are led to believe that they can keep the gangs off your local streets?
They are the criminal gangs, it is the only reasonable conclusion, and it is not NEWS. It is a very well established fact that matters if the idea is to protect and serve the whole people honorably, honestly, thoughtfully, intelligently, reasonably, morally, fairly, justly, effectively, expediently, economically, and powerfully.
If the idea isn't to protect and serve the people as a whole, then what is it? It is an organization that has one goal: to protect and to serve its exclusive membership, at the expense of its victims.
Here is an example confession of that fact that matters, but be aware of the fact that criminals speak in lies, such as the lie that is inclusive in the word Legalese.
Example of Legalese (a self-evident confession of criminality):
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
So put on your thinking cap, I know you have one, demonstrated by the language you employ effectively, and consider just how wrong that claim above is in fact. How does that claim above jive with the message contained in the Declaration of Independence?
The so-called Law in America, proven in the above example, is an absurd claim of absolute obedience to that documented Extortion Racket, that the victims of this Racket are told that they can't even question it?
Do you believe it?
FEWI comments on Jan 5, 2020:
Is the majority just ignoring this issue? Are they afraid to be labeled.... racist?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 5, 2020:
@FEWI
I think you are likely to be correct, but why guess? Why not consider the possibility that the so-called governments are counterfeit because they know, someone must know, they perpetrate the crimes, so they do know in fact. People with that kind of power (power to purchase anything that can be purchased whenever they want) know, or they ought not to be called The Government. If they have that much power, but they can't even figure out who pays people to kill each other MASSIVELY, then they are incompetent to the point of folly. If they are that stupid, that incompetent, then how is it that they can manage to get that much power?
Once you start stripping away the lies that cover up the crimes perpetrated by these criminals who claim to be the government, if you even try a little bit, the truth starts to shine.
Isn't that the claim made by those who run any government: to find the truth, use the truth found, and protect and serve all the people fairly, justly, rightfully, honestly, honorably, as if it were a moral duty?
They can't even keep the criminals out of their own gang, so how is it that people are led to believe that they can keep the gangs off your local streets?
They are the criminal gangs, it is the only reasonable conclusion, and it is not NEWS. It is a very well established fact that matters if the idea is to protect and serve the whole people honorably, honestly, thoughtfully, intelligently, reasonably, morally, fairly, justly, effectively, expediently, economically, and powerfully.
If the idea isn't to protect and serve the people as a whole, then what is it? It is an organization that has one goal: to protect and to serve its exclusive membership, at the expense of its victims.
Here is an example confession of that fact that matters, but be aware of the fact that criminals speak in lies, such as the lie that is inclusive in the word Legalese.
Example of Legalese (a self-evident confession of criminality):
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
So put on your thinking cap, I know you have one, demonstrated by the language you employ effectively, and consider just how wrong that claim above is in fact. How does that claim above jive with the message contained in the Declaration of Independence?
The so-called Law in America, proven in the above example, is an absurd claim of absolute obedience to that documented Extortion Racket, that the victims of this Racket are told that they can't even question it?
Do you believe it?
Alex Jones: Survivor Of White Genocide
[banned.video]
FEWI comments on Jan 5, 2020:
Is the majority just ignoring this issue? Are they afraid to be labeled.... racist?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 5, 2020:
@FEWI
Who funds the bad guys around the world? Do you understand the tactic known as destabilization? If people won't find out who exactly causes these pogroms, then people won't have the means to defend against it. I can be as stupid and servile as the next guy, but I make an effort to find the truth.
So has the following dude:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTDvLmEBESY
People can be moved out of a natural state of liberty and people can be moved into destabilization, conflict, chaos, turbulence, battle, and war. The tactic is called Divide and Conquer, and it works. The tactic has worked for thousands of years, and call people stupid if you must, but perhaps they are made stupid on purpose.
Do you recall a news item concerning a few billion dollars that went missing, which was a direct transfer of money (the power to purchase) flowing from the Federal Reserve to forces unknown during American involvement in Mid East Wars? How can such transfers of power from one source to a supposed unknown source be insignificant? How can it be insufficiently significant to cause people to find out how such things happen?
Is it likely that those people currently mass-murdering people in South Africa are paid to do so, and paid very well, well enough for them to take the heat for doing so World Wide?
I don't think this a far stretch of reason, but I can be wrong of course.
"How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1
I worked on the math in the above case.
It would take 72 5 Ton Military Dump Trucks to carry those shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, or South Africa, or East Los Angeles. The drivers dump the loaded trucks in the street, and then what do you think happens?
FEWI comments on Jan 5, 2020:
Is the majority just ignoring this issue? Are they afraid to be labeled.... racist?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 5, 2020:
@FEWI
Who funds the bad guys around the world? Do you understand the tactic known as destabilization? If people won't find out who exactly causes these pogroms, then people won't have the means to defend against it. I can be as stupid and servile as the next guy, but I make an effort to find the truth.
So has the following dude:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTDvLmEBESY
People can be moved out of a natural state of liberty and people can be moved into destabilization, conflict, chaos, turbulence, battle, and war. The tactic is called Divide and Conquer, and it works. The tactic has worked for thousands of years, and call people stupid if you must, but perhaps they are made stupid on purpose.
Do you recall a news item concerning a few billion dollars that went missing, which was a direct transfer of money (the power to purchase) flowing from the Federal Reserve to forces unknown during American involvement in Mid East Wars? How can such transfers of power from one source to a supposed unknown source be insignificant? How can it be insufficiently significant to cause people to find out how such things happen?
Is it likely that those people currently mass-murdering people in South Africa are paid to do so, and paid very well, well enough for them to take the heat for doing so World Wide?
I don't think this a far stretch of reason, but I can be wrong of course.
"How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1
I worked on the math in the above case.
It would take 72 5 Ton Military Dump Trucks to carry those shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, or South Africa, or East Los Angeles. The drivers dump the loaded trucks in the street, and then what do you think happens?
Alex Jones: Survivor Of White Genocide
[banned.video]
FEWI comments on Jan 5, 2020:
Is the majority just ignoring this issue? Are they afraid to be labeled.... racist?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 5, 2020:
I have not looked into the situation because I look at causes, not symptoms. If the causes of such violence are the same, and the solutions for such violence are the same, in every case, then moving closer to the solution and further away from the causes works for each individual in each place, and then that polarized movement, if it takes on a "life of its own," grows more powerful as each individual turns away from the cause of such violence, and as each individual turns to the solution of such violence.
My guess is that the resources in South Africa are already owned and controlled by those who now wield sufficient power to fund the violence in South Africa (giving it a life of its own with the lure of huge profits), and they get that power to do that owning (slavery) and controlling (funding violence and thereby owning people and resources) under something called a Legal Fiction. In other words: those who have the power to stop that violence (or deter it) are the ones who cause it, and they get their power by criminal means, specifically, they get their power by deception: making the people they enslave to believe that their only hope is to give up their own power to judge for themselves.
In other words: the cause of the violence in South Africa is the same cause of the violence everywhere else on this planet, it is the universal misdirection of the actions of individual people, by removing their individual power or responsibility, taking that power, and moving that power to a nebulous, fictional, thing called (falsely) Government.
Where does the power to cause all that violence come from - in other words - follow the money and find the culprits.
A start:
https://www.usdebtclock.org/
FEWI comments on Jan 5, 2020:
Is the majority just ignoring this issue? Are they afraid to be labeled.... racist?
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 5, 2020:
I have not looked into the situation because I look at causes, not symptoms. If the causes of such violence are the same, and the solutions for such violence are the same, in every case, then moving closer to the solution and further away from the causes works for each individual in each place, and then that polarized movement, if it takes on a "life of its own," grows more powerful as each individual turns away from the cause of such violence, and as each individual turns to the solution of such violence.
My guess is that the resources in South Africa are already owned and controlled by those who now wield sufficient power to fund the violence in South Africa (giving it a life of its own with the lure of huge profits), and they get that power to do that owning (slavery) and controlling (funding violence and thereby owning people and resources) under something called a Legal Fiction. In other words: those who have the power to stop that violence (or deter it) are the ones who cause it, and they get their power by criminal means, specifically, they get their power by deception: making the people they enslave to believe that their only hope is to give up their own power to judge for themselves.
In other words: the cause of the violence in South Africa is the same cause of the violence everywhere else on this planet, it is the universal misdirection of the actions of individual people, by removing their individual power or responsibility, taking that power, and moving that power to a nebulous, fictional, thing called (falsely) Government.
Where does the power to cause all that violence come from - in other words - follow the money and find the culprits.
A start:
https://www.usdebtclock.org/
Have you ever come across this expression?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 4, 2020:
The often repeated false meaning for democracy is that democracy is Mob Rule. I'd like to address that falsehood before addressing the topic question, because the topic question does not have the same meaning when dealing with the original, organic, meaning for democracy compared to the altered, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 4, 2020:
@RCGibb
Your version of Washington can be compared to the version offered by Rothbard, they do not agree as far as I can tell.
The information I have found agrees with Rothbard. The information I have found does not agree with your stated conclusions.
Then, you do what, exactly?
"All it took was for one soldier to express disapproval and everyone stopped to hear their opinion so it could be thoroughly viewed from all angles and then asked permission if the soldier was satisfied; and if so he gave his assent to continue combat."
I guess that what you are doing (a hazard to guess) is a parody, an attempt at humor, a folly of my viewpoint as you see it.
Perhaps you may also contend with John Boyd concerning military tactics now claimed to be 3rd, 4th, or who knows what generation warfare.
Also, I saw your continued misuse of the term democracy in answer to Naomi below. If it is crime, such as tyranny, then why call it democracy? Is it an effort to keep the victims in the dark, or discredit democracy? I'd like to know, rather than guess.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 4, 2020:
The often repeated false meaning for democracy is that democracy is Mob Rule. I'd like to address that falsehood before addressing the topic question, because the topic question does not have the same meaning when dealing with the original, organic, meaning for democracy compared to the altered, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 4, 2020:
@RCGibb
Your version of Washington can be compared to the version offered by Rothbard, they do not agree as far as I can tell.
The information I have found agrees with Rothbard. The information I have found does not agree with your stated conclusions.
Then, you do what, exactly?
"All it took was for one soldier to express disapproval and everyone stopped to hear their opinion so it could be thoroughly viewed from all angles and then asked permission if the soldier was satisfied; and if so he gave his assent to continue combat."
I guess that what you are doing (a hazard to guess) is a parody, an attempt at humor, a folly of my viewpoint as you see it.
Perhaps you may also contend with John Boyd concerning military tactics now claimed to be 3rd, 4th, or who knows what generation warfare.
Also, I saw your continued misuse of the term democracy in answer to Naomi below. If it is crime, such as tyranny, then why call it democracy? Is it an effort to keep the victims in the dark, or discredit democracy? I'd like to know, rather than guess.
Why is this story significant?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 3, 2020:
It is not government in the context of free people maintaining their freedom: liberty. It is government in the context of what criminals do when they organized under a false flag. This whistle has been blown all throughout the history of America.
Look up the work of Walter Burien Comprehensive ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 4, 2020:
@Phobeus22
Three obvious paths (intellectual or not) are:
A. The Criminal System (arbitrary government) continues toward the inevitable last man standing, the last rat eating the second to last rat on the sinking ship sunk when this criminal system reaches the inevitable conclusion.
B. The Power Struggle between Rule of Law and the Criminal System booms, busts, booms, busts, indefinitely, and humankind moves indefinitely without ever reaching the limits of human prosperity
C. Rule of Law (accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case) overpowers The Criminal System, and humankind moves incrementally closer to the limits of human prosperity.
If that is too dumb, to simplistic, to "utopian," or otherwise too much to convey with words, then I can try other words, but it may help to acknowledge the fact (a fact that matters) that many words can mean anything any moment, and the opposite meaning the next moment, which is - in other words - the power struggle explained in A,B,C, above.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 3, 2020:
It is not government in the context of free people maintaining their freedom: liberty. It is government in the context of what criminals do when they organized under a false flag. This whistle has been blown all throughout the history of America.
Look up the work of Walter Burien Comprehensive ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 4, 2020:
@Phobeus22
Three obvious paths (intellectual or not) are:
A. The Criminal System (arbitrary government) continues toward the inevitable last man standing, the last rat eating the second to last rat on the sinking ship sunk when this criminal system reaches the inevitable conclusion.
B. The Power Struggle between Rule of Law and the Criminal System booms, busts, booms, busts, indefinitely, and humankind moves indefinitely without ever reaching the limits of human prosperity
C. Rule of Law (accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case) overpowers The Criminal System, and humankind moves incrementally closer to the limits of human prosperity.
If that is too dumb, to simplistic, to "utopian," or otherwise too much to convey with words, then I can try other words, but it may help to acknowledge the fact (a fact that matters) that many words can mean anything any moment, and the opposite meaning the next moment, which is - in other words - the power struggle explained in A,B,C, above.
Have you ever come across this expression?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 4, 2020:
The often repeated false meaning for democracy is that democracy is Mob Rule. I'd like to address that falsehood before addressing the topic question, because the topic question does not have the same meaning when dealing with the original, organic, meaning for democracy compared to the altered, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 4, 2020:
@Naomi
If you refer to Electoral Politics or Parliamentary Procedures, but you call it Democracy, then that is an interesting choice.
"What should have happened in you opinion, based on the notion that democracy is not majority rule?"
It is not a notion. Democracy was exemplified as such in Athens during the so-called Golden Age of Greece, it was expressly not Electoral Politics, nor was it Parliamentary Procedures, nor was it whatever is this so-called majority rule.
If group A agrees to abide by a process by which they will obey suggestions determined by group B, and group B determines their suggestion to group A through Parliamentary Procedures, such as our example, then group A can figure out how to deal with a criminal suggestion offered by group A, in case that happens.
What exactly was the suggestion offered through Parliamentary Procedure in the case you offer, this Brexit referendum?
I can look it up. I typed Brexit referendum pdf, and I did not find the actual suggestion offered.
I gather that an agreement was made by people claiming to represent various Nation-States (probably all are Legal Fiction Limited Liability Corporations, not countries, not republics, and certainly not democracies), and it turned out that the agreement was unfavorable to those people claiming to represent their Legal Fictions, so now the vote has to do with "leaving" the agreement. Did they enter the agreement knowing that this Parliamentary Procedure was the agreed-upon way to leave the agreement?
"What should have happened in you opinion, based on the notion that democracy is not majority rule?"
If they agreed to use Parliamentary Procedure involving Electoral Politics, as the method for nullifying the agreement, then who am I to say that they should not do as they had agreed to do? What does that have to do with democracy?
Democracy is rule by the people themselves, every one of the people, and it does not work well when the number of people in a democracy becomes too many.
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 4, 2020:
The often repeated false meaning for democracy is that democracy is Mob Rule. I'd like to address that falsehood before addressing the topic question, because the topic question does not have the same meaning when dealing with the original, organic, meaning for democracy compared to the altered, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 4, 2020:
@Naomi
If you refer to Electoral Politics or Parliamentary Procedures, but you call it Democracy, then that is an interesting choice.
"What should have happened in you opinion, based on the notion that democracy is not majority rule?"
It is not a notion. Democracy was exemplified as such in Athens during the so-called Golden Age of Greece, it was expressly not Electoral Politics, nor was it Parliamentary Procedures, nor was it whatever is this so-called majority rule.
If group A agrees to abide by a process by which they will obey suggestions determined by group B, and group B determines their suggestion to group A through Parliamentary Procedures, such as our example, then group A can figure out how to deal with a criminal suggestion offered by group A, in case that happens.
What exactly was the suggestion offered through Parliamentary Procedure in the case you offer, this Brexit referendum?
I can look it up. I typed Brexit referendum pdf, and I did not find the actual suggestion offered.
I gather that an agreement was made by people claiming to represent various Nation-States (probably all are Legal Fiction Limited Liability Corporations, not countries, not republics, and certainly not democracies), and it turned out that the agreement was unfavorable to those people claiming to represent their Legal Fictions, so now the vote has to do with "leaving" the agreement. Did they enter the agreement knowing that this Parliamentary Procedure was the agreed-upon way to leave the agreement?
"What should have happened in you opinion, based on the notion that democracy is not majority rule?"
If they agreed to use Parliamentary Procedure involving Electoral Politics, as the method for nullifying the agreement, then who am I to say that they should not do as they had agreed to do? What does that have to do with democracy?
Democracy is rule by the people themselves, every one of the people, and it does not work well when the number of people in a democracy becomes too many.
Have you ever come across this expression?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 4, 2020:
The often repeated false meaning for democracy is that democracy is Mob Rule. I'd like to address that falsehood before addressing the topic question, because the topic question does not have the same meaning when dealing with the original, organic, meaning for democracy compared to the altered, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 4, 2020:
RCGibb shot a Parthian Arrow, and it missed the mark.
If he, or anyone else, accept a different definition of Democracy other than the original one, then that is certainly a choice. The original definition defined by the Athenians is the opposite of Mob Rule.
As to Washington, there are 2 worthwhile reports now republished:
Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty
Murray N. Rothbard
1.
"His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused.
In a few short months, Washington had succeeded in extirpating a zealous, happy, individualistic people's army, and transforming it into yet another statist army, filled with bored, resentful, and even ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 4, 2020:
The often repeated false meaning for democracy is that democracy is Mob Rule. I'd like to address that falsehood before addressing the topic question, because the topic question does not have the same meaning when dealing with the original, organic, meaning for democracy compared to the altered, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 4, 2020:
RCGibb shot a Parthian Arrow, and it missed the mark.
If he, or anyone else, accept a different definition of Democracy other than the original one, then that is certainly a choice. The original definition defined by the Athenians is the opposite of Mob Rule.
As to Washington, there are 2 worthwhile reports now republished:
Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty
Murray N. Rothbard
1.
"His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused.
In a few short months, Washington had succeeded in extirpating a zealous, happy, individualistic people's army, and transforming it into yet another statist army, filled with bored, resentful, and even ...
Have you ever come across this expression?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 4, 2020:
The often repeated false meaning for democracy is that democracy is Mob Rule. I'd like to address that falsehood before addressing the topic question, because the topic question does not have the same meaning when dealing with the original, organic, meaning for democracy compared to the altered, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 4, 2020:
@RCGibb
"America may have started out a Republic, but it was not originally intended to have a ruling political class."
The intention of the Nationalists (Warmongers, Central Banking Frauds, Slave Traders/Carriers/Consumers, Aristocrats, and Torries/Loyalists to Monarchy) - their intention - was most certainly to "have a ruling political class." It is their nature, it is their business, it is their treasonous criminality: treason to free people in perishable liberty.
"The development of that has impugned the Republic. And because of the corrupt precedent this has set, even term limitations mat not be a solution."
Actual rule of law is a solution, so is a violent defense against violent aggression, which solution is less costly to everyone? The cost of ignorance concerning the actual law is a contributing cause of corruption and a contributing cause of the turn from a republic (in fact) to organized crime under the false flag of legality: despotism, tyranny, etc.
"As for democracy, a majority deciding can ignore the minority concerns in their governance, so there is no guarantee of fairness. "
If you speak of fake democracy (so-called majority rule), then I will point that out. Democracy is not majority rule, and I don't know why people make this claim, it cannot be reasoned out, but you are welcome to try to explain how Democracy is Majority Rule: it makes no sense. Claiming that Democracy is Majority Rule is like claiming that the person choking you to death is saving the environment. The act of choking you to death is a crime, and if someone is saving the environment then they are saving the environment, not covering up their attempted murder.
"To assign altruism wholeheartedly to many unworthy of the name will not change their spots."
Like calling George Washington a founding father? He was a psychopath, his nature was to inflict injury upon anyone who dared get in his way, a true Aristocrat in mind and spirit. Those are his spots, calling him altruistic won't change that fact. The same applies to Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.
"Men are their worst enemies in terms of acquiring and wielding power in all its forms."
I think not, and what I think is that you are referring to arbitrary power, which is criminal power. An example is provided above, if you give someone the power to choke you to death, they may honor your wish. If a criminal just takes the power to choke you to death, then the criminal has arbitrary power over you. The criminal with arbitrary power can do what the criminal pleases to anyone and there are no undesirable consequences as far as the criminal can see: Arbitrary Power. If you defend yourself, then the criminal no longer has arbitrary power. The attempted murderer may insist upon being justly killed, as in the...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 4, 2020:
The often repeated false meaning for democracy is that democracy is Mob Rule. I'd like to address that falsehood before addressing the topic question, because the topic question does not have the same meaning when dealing with the original, organic, meaning for democracy compared to the altered, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 4, 2020:
@RCGibb
"America may have started out a Republic, but it was not originally intended to have a ruling political class."
The intention of the Nationalists (Warmongers, Central Banking Frauds, Slave Traders/Carriers/Consumers, Aristocrats, and Torries/Loyalists to Monarchy) - their intention - was most certainly to "have a ruling political class." It is their nature, it is their business, it is their treasonous criminality: treason to free people in perishable liberty.
"The development of that has impugned the Republic. And because of the corrupt precedent this has set, even term limitations mat not be a solution."
Actual rule of law is a solution, so is a violent defense against violent aggression, which solution is less costly to everyone? The cost of ignorance concerning the actual law is a contributing cause of corruption and a contributing cause of the turn from a republic (in fact) to organized crime under the false flag of legality: despotism, tyranny, etc.
"As for democracy, a majority deciding can ignore the minority concerns in their governance, so there is no guarantee of fairness. "
If you speak of fake democracy (so-called majority rule), then I will point that out. Democracy is not majority rule, and I don't know why people make this claim, it cannot be reasoned out, but you are welcome to try to explain how Democracy is Majority Rule: it makes no sense. Claiming that Democracy is Majority Rule is like claiming that the person choking you to death is saving the environment. The act of choking you to death is a crime, and if someone is saving the environment then they are saving the environment, not covering up their attempted murder.
"To assign altruism wholeheartedly to many unworthy of the name will not change their spots."
Like calling George Washington a founding father? He was a psychopath, his nature was to inflict injury upon anyone who dared get in his way, a true Aristocrat in mind and spirit. Those are his spots, calling him altruistic won't change that fact. The same applies to Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.
"Men are their worst enemies in terms of acquiring and wielding power in all its forms."
I think not, and what I think is that you are referring to arbitrary power, which is criminal power. An example is provided above, if you give someone the power to choke you to death, they may honor your wish. If a criminal just takes the power to choke you to death, then the criminal has arbitrary power over you. The criminal with arbitrary power can do what the criminal pleases to anyone and there are no undesirable consequences as far as the criminal can see: Arbitrary Power. If you defend yourself, then the criminal no longer has arbitrary power. The attempted murderer may insist upon being justly killed, as in the...
Why is this story significant?
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 3, 2020:
It is not government in the context of free people maintaining their freedom: liberty. It is government in the context of what criminals do when they organized under a false flag. This whistle has been blown all throughout the history of America.
Look up the work of Walter Burien Comprehensive ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 3, 2020:
@Phobeus22
What this forum could do, or any gathering of people who volunteer to work efficiently for our mutual defense, which is the stated purpose of government (the sales pitch; the facade, the cheese in the mousetrap), is - what we the people can do - is already in the law, and it is simple, not complicated.
The complications (mountains of lies) confess that what is called the law is not the law.
Almost everyone is aware of the go-to process when dealing with, say, a lone-gunman shooting up a church. Call 911, and wait for the government to arrive like the Cavalry. Then there is the actual law, such as the example recently provided by the guy who shot the lone-gunman in the church.
One lie may suffice to prove the point. The lie often told, retold, and parroted by so many "true believers" in counterfeit government is: "He took the law into his own hands."
Now read this:
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Jan 3, 2020:
It is not government in the context of free people maintaining their freedom: liberty. It is government in the context of what criminals do when they organized under a false flag. This whistle has been blown all throughout the history of America.
Look up the work of Walter Burien Comprehensive ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 3, 2020:
@Phobeus22
What this forum could do, or any gathering of people who volunteer to work efficiently for our mutual defense, which is the stated purpose of government (the sales pitch; the facade, the cheese in the mousetrap), is - what we the people can do - is already in the law, and it is simple, not complicated.
The complications (mountains of lies) confess that what is called the law is not the law.
Almost everyone is aware of the go-to process when dealing with, say, a lone-gunman shooting up a church. Call 911, and wait for the government to arrive like the Cavalry. Then there is the actual law, such as the example recently provided by the guy who shot the lone-gunman in the church.
One lie may suffice to prove the point. The lie often told, retold, and parroted by so many "true believers" in counterfeit government is: "He took the law into his own hands."
Now read this:
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court ...
In the previous effort to convey the facts that matter in the case against counterfeit governments a...
DeJake comments on Jan 2, 2020:
The law can be very good for the criminal. Gun restrictions give criminals a safe work environment. The law creates haters of the government and of order that would otherwise be peaceful citizens
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 3, 2020:
@DeJake
I want to get into that phenomenon in greater detail as I work to communicate the obvious. If it is not obvious to the Majority of people, then the Majority of people are in the dark, so to speak. So to speak, the Majority of people are covered so deep in the stinking pile of falsehood that they cannot see a simple fact that matters.
"It's not often you encounter someone that refers to the law as organized crime..."
I do no such thing. If it is, as you said, then it is organized crime. It is not a single individual who is "good for criminals" and it is not a single individual who give OTHER criminals "a safe work environment," it is a criminal enterprise involving more that one criminal: therefore it is organized.
"It's not often you encounter someone that refers to the law as organized crime..."
You have encountered someone who refers to organized crime as organized crime.
You have encountered someone who does not refer to the law as organized crime.
You and the Majority of people refer to organized crime as the law. I do not.
See the difference? Why would that be at all difficult to see? It is easy to unsee in practice. One has to start seeing, as you have obviously chosen to do.
DeJake comments on Jan 2, 2020:
The law can be very good for the criminal. Gun restrictions give criminals a safe work environment. The law creates haters of the government and of order that would otherwise be peaceful citizens
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 3, 2020:
@DeJake
I want to get into that phenomenon in greater detail as I work to communicate the obvious. If it is not obvious to the Majority of people, then the Majority of people are in the dark, so to speak. So to speak, the Majority of people are covered so deep in the stinking pile of falsehood that they cannot see a simple fact that matters.
"It's not often you encounter someone that refers to the law as organized crime..."
I do no such thing. If it is, as you said, then it is organized crime. It is not a single individual who is "good for criminals" and it is not a single individual who give OTHER criminals "a safe work environment," it is a criminal enterprise involving more that one criminal: therefore it is organized.
"It's not often you encounter someone that refers to the law as organized crime..."
You have encountered someone who refers to organized crime as organized crime.
You have encountered someone who does not refer to the law as organized crime.
You and the Majority of people refer to organized crime as the law. I do not.
See the difference? Why would that be at all difficult to see? It is easy to unsee in practice. One has to start seeing, as you have obviously chosen to do.
In the previous effort to convey the facts that matter in the case against counterfeit governments a...
DeJake comments on Jan 2, 2020:
The law can be very good for the criminal. Gun restrictions give criminals a safe work environment. The law creates haters of the government and of order that would otherwise be peaceful citizens
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 2, 2020:
@DeJake
You were referring to organized crime when you chose the word law instead. I don't know precisely why this is unclear, but you may be able to clear it up. When you wrote about organized crime, why did you use the word law to label it?
Here is where you wrote about organized crime:
"The law can be very good for the criminal."
If it is good for the criminal (in the eyes of the criminal), then it is not the law.
So why call it the law if it is not the law?
You also wrote:
"Gun restrictions give criminals a safe work environment."
If someone aids and abets a criminal, by disarming potential victims of crime, then that is a crime, it is not the law.
Also:
"The law creates haters of the government and of order that would otherwise be peaceful citizens"
There is the reference to "government" in conjunction with your misuse of the word Law. If it is crime, not law, then it is enforced by criminals, not the government.
If you can't see it, then I can try to make it clear for you.
Government = voluntary association for mutual defense
Crime = guilty people causing injury to innocent people
If you think the opposite, then that explains your word choices. As such:
Government = subsidized slavery enforced by guilty criminals upon innocent victims including disarming innocent victims
Law = guilty people causing injury to innocent people
I hope that that helps as well as the messages recorded in history on this subject matter. It was not me who recorded history, I just find it in the piles of falsehoods that stink, and I reprint it.
DeJake comments on Jan 2, 2020:
The law can be very good for the criminal. Gun restrictions give criminals a safe work environment. The law creates haters of the government and of order that would otherwise be peaceful citizens
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 2, 2020:
@DeJake
You were referring to organized crime when you chose the word law instead. I don't know precisely why this is unclear, but you may be able to clear it up. When you wrote about organized crime, why did you use the word law to label it?
Here is where you wrote about organized crime:
"The law can be very good for the criminal."
If it is good for the criminal (in the eyes of the criminal), then it is not the law.
So why call it the law if it is not the law?
You also wrote:
"Gun restrictions give criminals a safe work environment."
If someone aids and abets a criminal, by disarming potential victims of crime, then that is a crime, it is not the law.
Also:
"The law creates haters of the government and of order that would otherwise be peaceful citizens"
There is the reference to "government" in conjunction with your misuse of the word Law. If it is crime, not law, then it is enforced by criminals, not the government.
If you can't see it, then I can try to make it clear for you.
Government = voluntary association for mutual defense
Crime = guilty people causing injury to innocent people
If you think the opposite, then that explains your word choices. As such:
Government = subsidized slavery enforced by guilty criminals upon innocent victims including disarming innocent victims
Law = guilty people causing injury to innocent people
I hope that that helps as well as the messages recorded in history on this subject matter. It was not me who recorded history, I just find it in the piles of falsehoods that stink, and I reprint it.
In the previous effort to convey the facts that matter in the case against counterfeit governments a...
DeJake comments on Jan 2, 2020:
The law can be very good for the criminal. Gun restrictions give criminals a safe work environment. The law creates haters of the government and of order that would otherwise be peaceful citizens
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 2, 2020:
If I may point out (if you acknowledge) that the original law is not as you say, it is not "very good" for criminals because "it" disarms the victims, aiding and abetting them, giving them "a safe work environment."
The original law is very good for everyone who volunteers to enforce the original law, but it does not do anything for people born or nurtured into hating life, hating people, hating themselves. The original law if very good for people who would turn down the road of hatred, which is the road of crime, expressed in the phrase malice aforethought, because the original law ensured potential haters, potential criminals, that enough volunteers would hold each criminal to account for each crime, which means that the original law made sure that crimes do not pay, certainly not a routine payment from everyone to the criminals running counterfeit governments in the form of extortion fees hidden behind the word tax.
I just picked up a useful book on this subject and in it I already found many corroborative statements based upon a demonstrable effort to study deeply into the matter.
Example:
"But how was the ownership of this great new land mass to be allocated? Basically, new and previously unowned land can come into ownership in two different ways: either the settler – the pioneer who, in the later phrase of John Locke, “mixes his labor with the soil” and brings the previously unused and fallow natural resources into productive use – is conceded ownership of the land he has in this way “created”; or his is not.
Footnote: “If it be objected that the pioneer has not really created the land, it is also true that no producer “creates” matter. The builder of a factory has not in the ultimate sense “created” the matter in the factory; he has rather transformed by the use of his labor the previously nature-given matter. He has shifted this original matter into other forms more useful to himself and to his fellow men: this shifting is the meaning of “production.” And this is precisely what the pioneer has done in transforming the land. Page 37
“The crucial question then becomes: Will the land pass after a time into the hands of the settlers, or will it remain permanently in the hands of privileged overlords dominating the settlers?”
Page 38
Footnote: “Defenders of presettler land speculation have claimed that speculators (such as the first charger companies) spurred settlement in the hope of profit. This is true, but it does not offset the net restrictions on settlement by virtue of the land grants and the consequent raising of the price of otherwise free land to the settlers. In a free market the same companies could simply have loaned settlement money to the colonists, and this productive credit could then ...
DeJake comments on Jan 2, 2020:
The law can be very good for the criminal. Gun restrictions give criminals a safe work environment. The law creates haters of the government and of order that would otherwise be peaceful citizens
Josf-Kelley replies on Jan 2, 2020:
If I may point out (if you acknowledge) that the original law is not as you say, it is not "very good" for criminals because "it" disarms the victims, aiding and abetting them, giving them "a safe work environment."
The original law is very good for everyone who volunteers to enforce the original law, but it does not do anything for people born or nurtured into hating life, hating people, hating themselves. The original law if very good for people who would turn down the road of hatred, which is the road of crime, expressed in the phrase malice aforethought, because the original law ensured potential haters, potential criminals, that enough volunteers would hold each criminal to account for each crime, which means that the original law made sure that crimes do not pay, certainly not a routine payment from everyone to the criminals running counterfeit governments in the form of extortion fees hidden behind the word tax.
I just picked up a useful book on this subject and in it I already found many corroborative statements based upon a demonstrable effort to study deeply into the matter.
Example:
"But how was the ownership of this great new land mass to be allocated? Basically, new and previously unowned land can come into ownership in two different ways: either the settler – the pioneer who, in the later phrase of John Locke, “mixes his labor with the soil” and brings the previously unused and fallow natural resources into productive use – is conceded ownership of the land he has in this way “created”; or his is not.
Footnote: “If it be objected that the pioneer has not really created the land, it is also true that no producer “creates” matter. The builder of a factory has not in the ultimate sense “created” the matter in the factory; he has rather transformed by the use of his labor the previously nature-given matter. He has shifted this original matter into other forms more useful to himself and to his fellow men: this shifting is the meaning of “production.” And this is precisely what the pioneer has done in transforming the land. Page 37
“The crucial question then becomes: Will the land pass after a time into the hands of the settlers, or will it remain permanently in the hands of privileged overlords dominating the settlers?”
Page 38
Footnote: “Defenders of presettler land speculation have claimed that speculators (such as the first charger companies) spurred settlement in the hope of profit. This is true, but it does not offset the net restrictions on settlement by virtue of the land grants and the consequent raising of the price of otherwise free land to the settlers. In a free market the same companies could simply have loaned settlement money to the colonists, and this productive credit could then ...
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"
As the saying goes, a democracy is two wolves and a ...
SpikeTalon comments on Dec 28, 2019:
I'll take our constitutional republic any day over a democracy.
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 30, 2019:
@SpikeTalon
"The politicians are elected and take an oath to serve the public, hence the will of the people."
You can't claim one thing and the opposite thing as both being true.
You claim the above as if the will of the people is the goal, and before doing that you claim that you have offered only one definition of a Constitutional Republic, when in fact you offered 4. Then you claim that I can't change the definitions of words, which is then proven wrong by you because you have 4 definitions, not one, and none of those definitions agree with the basic translation from the original Latin.
One of your (the second link you posted) definitions of a Constitutional Republic (trademark?):
"They did not design a democratic government, if democratic government is viewed as a government that carries out the will of its citizens."
Who are they? They were parties interested in subsidizing slavery with a national tax which also creates the demand for a National Central Bank, and they had only their home turf to perpetrate these crimes, and they had a very serious problem when their slaves ran to places where safety could be earned: a sanctuary. Slaves in Massachusetts ran to Vermont. Slaves in many states south of the north pole ran to Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and other places on earth to find and earn sanctuary from their tormentors. They, those who "framed" the confession of crime at the Con Con in 1789 were psychopaths as proven by their actions. "They did not design a democratic government, if democratic government is viewed as a government that carries out the will of its citizens."
That was your offer of your ONE and ONLY definition of a Constitutional Republic.
"They did not design a democratic government, if democratic government is viewed as a government that carries out the will of its citizens."
A Constitutional Republic, according to that quote, is NOT as you then claim it is:
"The politicians are elected and take an oath to serve the public, hence the will of the people."
You claim that I (alone as the lone gunman with the deceiver assault rifle?) cannot change a word. What happened to the words that follow:
Liberal
Democrat
Republican
Federalist
Law
Each word above has original (grass-roots, organic) causes for becoming a word, and then those original meanings turned into opposite meanings as a matter of fact demonstrated factually.
Yet, despite clear evidence, your fabricated story-line continues unabated.
"They were not falsely called the Federalist Party by the way, they were called federalists as they favored a strong central government as opposed to the Democratic-Republicans who favored state rights more. Nationalism had nothing to do with that."
Your fabricated story-line wears very thin in the light of truth. ...
SpikeTalon comments on Dec 28, 2019:
I'll take our constitutional republic any day over a democracy.
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 30, 2019:
@SpikeTalon
"The politicians are elected and take an oath to serve the public, hence the will of the people."
You can't claim one thing and the opposite thing as both being true.
You claim the above as if the will of the people is the goal, and before doing that you claim that you have offered only one definition of a Constitutional Republic, when in fact you offered 4. Then you claim that I can't change the definitions of words, which is then proven wrong by you because you have 4 definitions, not one, and none of those definitions agree with the basic translation from the original Latin.
One of your (the second link you posted) definitions of a Constitutional Republic (trademark?):
"They did not design a democratic government, if democratic government is viewed as a government that carries out the will of its citizens."
Who are they? They were parties interested in subsidizing slavery with a national tax which also creates the demand for a National Central Bank, and they had only their home turf to perpetrate these crimes, and they had a very serious problem when their slaves ran to places where safety could be earned: a sanctuary. Slaves in Massachusetts ran to Vermont. Slaves in many states south of the north pole ran to Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and other places on earth to find and earn sanctuary from their tormentors. They, those who "framed" the confession of crime at the Con Con in 1789 were psychopaths as proven by their actions. "They did not design a democratic government, if democratic government is viewed as a government that carries out the will of its citizens."
That was your offer of your ONE and ONLY definition of a Constitutional Republic.
"They did not design a democratic government, if democratic government is viewed as a government that carries out the will of its citizens."
A Constitutional Republic, according to that quote, is NOT as you then claim it is:
"The politicians are elected and take an oath to serve the public, hence the will of the people."
You claim that I (alone as the lone gunman with the deceiver assault rifle?) cannot change a word. What happened to the words that follow:
Liberal
Democrat
Republican
Federalist
Law
Each word above has original (grass-roots, organic) causes for becoming a word, and then those original meanings turned into opposite meanings as a matter of fact demonstrated factually.
Yet, despite clear evidence, your fabricated story-line continues unabated.
"They were not falsely called the Federalist Party by the way, they were called federalists as they favored a strong central government as opposed to the Democratic-Republicans who favored state rights more. Nationalism had nothing to do with that."
Your fabricated story-line wears very thin in the light of truth. ...
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"
As the saying goes, a democracy is two wolves and a ...
SpikeTalon comments on Dec 28, 2019:
I'll take our constitutional republic any day over a democracy.
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 29, 2019:
@SpikeTalon
1.
"A form of government in which officials are elected by citizens to lead them as directed by their country’s constitution."
That is legalese. That can mean anything. "...citizens to lead them..." as in sheep electing a wolf to lead them. I have no idea why Thomas Paine or the citizens of Athens Greece at the (recorded) start of democracy is unworthy of your time and effort to understand, but I'll take note that it is not worthy of your time and effort.
2.
"They did not design a democratic government, if democratic government is viewed as a government that carries out the will of its citizens."
If it is not the will of its citizens then it is not the will of its citizens. What is it? Is it a faction? Is it a majority? Is it a minority?
This is not complicated.
Example SOURCE (one of many already sited) Trial by Jury (an Essay) by Lysander Spooner:
"The question, then, between trial by jury, as thus described, and trial by the government, is simply a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves - the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise."
So your source claims that a republic is not the will of its citizens, it is instead something other than the will of ITS citizens. What is it? What is it according to you?
3.
"A Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens."
The constitution (Articles of Confederation) did not give arbitrary power to a faction (Nationists) to alter the federation (constitution) and replace it with a corporation. So that is already demonstrated (by the perpetrators not me) as false. Then there is:
Unconstitutional:
The Judiciary Act, 1789
Naturalization Act. 1790
First Bank of the United, States February 08, 1791
Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation, Online claimed Source: Claypoole's Daily Advertiser, August 11, 1794
Allien and Sedition Acts, 1798
That is a shortlist. None of those could have been enforced (unlawfully) had ...
SpikeTalon comments on Dec 28, 2019:
I'll take our constitutional republic any day over a democracy.
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 29, 2019:
@SpikeTalon
1.
"A form of government in which officials are elected by citizens to lead them as directed by their country’s constitution."
That is legalese. That can mean anything. "...citizens to lead them..." as in sheep electing a wolf to lead them. I have no idea why Thomas Paine or the citizens of Athens Greece at the (recorded) start of democracy is unworthy of your time and effort to understand, but I'll take note that it is not worthy of your time and effort.
2.
"They did not design a democratic government, if democratic government is viewed as a government that carries out the will of its citizens."
If it is not the will of its citizens then it is not the will of its citizens. What is it? Is it a faction? Is it a majority? Is it a minority?
This is not complicated.
Example SOURCE (one of many already sited) Trial by Jury (an Essay) by Lysander Spooner:
"The question, then, between trial by jury, as thus described, and trial by the government, is simply a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves - the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise."
So your source claims that a republic is not the will of its citizens, it is instead something other than the will of ITS citizens. What is it? What is it according to you?
3.
"A Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens."
The constitution (Articles of Confederation) did not give arbitrary power to a faction (Nationists) to alter the federation (constitution) and replace it with a corporation. So that is already demonstrated (by the perpetrators not me) as false. Then there is:
Unconstitutional:
The Judiciary Act, 1789
Naturalization Act. 1790
First Bank of the United, States February 08, 1791
Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation, Online claimed Source: Claypoole's Daily Advertiser, August 11, 1794
Allien and Sedition Acts, 1798
That is a shortlist. None of those could have been enforced (unlawfully) had ...
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"
As the saying goes, a democracy is two wolves and a ...
SpikeTalon comments on Dec 28, 2019:
I'll take our constitutional republic any day over a democracy.
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 29, 2019:
@SpikeTalon
What you say is, to me, a baseless claim, and that is from an informed perspective. I would like to know how someone arrives at your viewpoint. I never had that viewpoint, as it was always my understanding that people lie to gain an advantage, and especially people whose job it is to lie. So I checked these claims out, and what I found, and find over, and over, and over, again, and again, in many sources, is the opposite of what you claim, and I have yet to find any information that confirms what you claim.
Who told you (and please be specific) that "The US is supposed to be a constitutional republic,...," and perhaps it is important to establish a common understanding of the meaning of the word republic.
I can offer:
"What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object."
AND:
"Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively."
I will attempt to be as clear as possible. The people who organically created republics in the form of states, and the people who organically created a federation of states (also republican in nature), created constitutional republics (12 in number) and one republic having only human memory (and human conscience) as their "constitution" which totals 13 constitutional republics in the form of states, and under the Articles of Confederation, there was an organic Constitutional Federation which was Republican: of, by, and for the people.
So you claim:
"The US is supposed to be a constitutional republic, whether it turned out that way or not is another story..."
US = United States
United States is a corporation that was in place in 1789 and enforced ever since by criminals.
United States (singular) is a Limited Liability Corporation, and criminals enforce limited liability.
The United States of America is an organic agreement among representatives of constitutional republics (a trust) to voluntarily work toward mutual defense and therefore mutual prosperity.
The trust was revoked in 1789 as told by those who revoked it, on the official record.
So...
"...whether it turned out that way or not is another story..."
I found ...
SpikeTalon comments on Dec 28, 2019:
I'll take our constitutional republic any day over a democracy.
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 29, 2019:
@SpikeTalon
What you say is, to me, a baseless claim, and that is from an informed perspective. I would like to know how someone arrives at your viewpoint. I never had that viewpoint, as it was always my understanding that people lie to gain an advantage, and especially people whose job it is to lie. So I checked these claims out, and what I found, and find over, and over, and over, again, and again, in many sources, is the opposite of what you claim, and I have yet to find any information that confirms what you claim.
Who told you (and please be specific) that "The US is supposed to be a constitutional republic,...," and perhaps it is important to establish a common understanding of the meaning of the word republic.
I can offer:
"What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object."
AND:
"Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively."
I will attempt to be as clear as possible. The people who organically created republics in the form of states, and the people who organically created a federation of states (also republican in nature), created constitutional republics (12 in number) and one republic having only human memory (and human conscience) as their "constitution" which totals 13 constitutional republics in the form of states, and under the Articles of Confederation, there was an organic Constitutional Federation which was Republican: of, by, and for the people.
So you claim:
"The US is supposed to be a constitutional republic, whether it turned out that way or not is another story..."
US = United States
United States is a corporation that was in place in 1789 and enforced ever since by criminals.
United States (singular) is a Limited Liability Corporation, and criminals enforce limited liability.
The United States of America is an organic agreement among representatives of constitutional republics (a trust) to voluntarily work toward mutual defense and therefore mutual prosperity.
The trust was revoked in 1789 as told by those who revoked it, on the official record.
So...
"...whether it turned out that way or not is another story..."
I found ...
Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"
As the saying goes, a democracy is two wolves and a ...
SpikeTalon comments on Dec 28, 2019:
I'll take our constitutional republic any day over a democracy.
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 29, 2019:
The United States (a corporation formed in 1789) is not a constitutional republic. Those in power since George Washington have not restrained their actions according to the 1789 document, not the document before the Bill of Rights Amendments, and certainly not the document after those Amendments were published for public consumption only.
Unless the word republic means anything those in power say it means, then the United States (a corporation) is not one of many Public Things. The United States Corporation is for those who invest in it and receive benefits, at the expense of those who are made to pay for it without benefits.
As to democracy, the modern version of the meaning of the word is in direct opposition to the actual meaning of the word: deception defined.
SpikeTalon comments on Dec 28, 2019:
I'll take our constitutional republic any day over a democracy.
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 29, 2019:
The United States (a corporation formed in 1789) is not a constitutional republic. Those in power since George Washington have not restrained their actions according to the 1789 document, not the document before the Bill of Rights Amendments, and certainly not the document after those Amendments were published for public consumption only.
Unless the word republic means anything those in power say it means, then the United States (a corporation) is not one of many Public Things. The United States Corporation is for those who invest in it and receive benefits, at the expense of those who are made to pay for it without benefits.
As to democracy, the modern version of the meaning of the word is in direct opposition to the actual meaning of the word: deception defined.
Fight back! Support state level organizations-
[ammoland.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 28, 2019:
I'm calling bullshit here.
If there was law in America, which there is not, then those who perpetrate treason would do so knowing that they would face almost certain death by the laws enforced by this country, the people, employing their common laws.
The author of this bullshit writes:
...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 29, 2019:
@SpikeTalon
If "The Government" (trade-mark?) can't keep criminals out of government, then it is GINO, run by RINOS, and DINOS.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 28, 2019:
I'm calling bullshit here.
If there was law in America, which there is not, then those who perpetrate treason would do so knowing that they would face almost certain death by the laws enforced by this country, the people, employing their common laws.
The author of this bullshit writes:
...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 29, 2019:
@SpikeTalon
If "The Government" (trade-mark?) can't keep criminals out of government, then it is GINO, run by RINOS, and DINOS.
Fight back! Support state level organizations-
[ammoland.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 28, 2019:
I'm calling bullshit here.
If there was law in America, which there is not, then those who perpetrate treason would do so knowing that they would face almost certain death by the laws enforced by this country, the people, employing their common laws.
The author of this bullshit writes:
...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 28, 2019:
@SpikeTalon
Yes, spot-on, and according to the original Nationalists, you had to subsidize slavery: everyone in the new Nation-State.
You wrote:
"According to Murdock v. Pennsylvania, you cannot directly tax a right."
So when did the criminals gain dictatorial power over what is or is not is?
If people are going to do as you say "Fight back! Support..."
Why not support actual rule of law instead of the counterfeit version? Why aid and abet the criminals posing as the government? I'm curious.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 28, 2019:
I'm calling bullshit here.
If there was law in America, which there is not, then those who perpetrate treason would do so knowing that they would face almost certain death by the laws enforced by this country, the people, employing their common laws.
The author of this bullshit writes:
...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 28, 2019:
@SpikeTalon
Yes, spot-on, and according to the original Nationalists, you had to subsidize slavery: everyone in the new Nation-State.
You wrote:
"According to Murdock v. Pennsylvania, you cannot directly tax a right."
So when did the criminals gain dictatorial power over what is or is not is?
If people are going to do as you say "Fight back! Support..."
Why not support actual rule of law instead of the counterfeit version? Why aid and abet the criminals posing as the government? I'm curious.
I don’t spend much time on this page and I’ve been trying to figure out why it doesn’t appeal ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 22, 2019:
The wool does not fall easily from the eyes of so-called conservatives as they refuse to see that they have been lied to for their entire lives, on the subject of the Nation-State.
As far as I can tell (assuming of course) the general consensus among so-called conservatives is that the criminal ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 23, 2019:
@wolfhnd
I read your response, and I do not doubt that you can back-up what you are reporting. I would like to point out that any measure of the current political economy is a measure of organized crime (claimed to be "the government") creating serious, overwhelming, malinvestment. The measure of these transfers being a malinvestment comes from a benchmark based on a view of human life proceeding according to natural law, as in the phrase free-market commerce. If we can effectively end crime, then we won't be digging our own graves. Of course, those who invest in organized crime claimed to be "the government," get their pound of flesh, so it is not malinvestment to them. To those who invest in organized crime hiding behind a false front of the government, their profitable monopoly pays well, or they would invest elsewhere.
Every cent (could be measured more accurately as calories) stolen by the criminals running the fake government could be a cent invested poorly, or invested profitably by all those who would not pay the extortion fee euphemistically called a "tax," and the force of direct consequence for malinvestment and the force of direct consequence for profitable investment would apply directly to the individual investor, which is then direct force inspiring either improvement (better investment) or failure to improve, at the individual level, which then causes more investment power to those who improve, and less investment power to those who fail to improve their capacity to invest wisely.
The further from direct consequence for success and failure is the further from accurate accountability investors go, leading to a reduction in responsibility: investors don't have to invest wisely if the plebs can always be made to pay the bills.
No "to big to fail," and no "bailouts," for criminals claiming to be Central Bankers. No capital flight in the billions and trillions of UNITS OF PURCHASING POWER flowing from producers who produce anything worth stealing, as that Central Bank Fraud hidden behind government legitimacy receives that capital flight that way. That way, by the way, is meticulously documented and therefore a fact that matters in this case.
If it is assumed that humans naturally invest in crime hidden under a false claim of lawful authority, then I get your points. If I prefer not to make that assumption myself, then I see human beings in free markets doing much better overall, were we to realize the full cost of allowing such crimes to continue, and then we do something lawful, peaceful, truthful, about it individually, and then a sum total of individual efforts (collective power) moves us back to investors being responsible individually.
Tucker (an ignorant egalitarian slob):
"First in the importance of its evil ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 22, 2019:
The wool does not fall easily from the eyes of so-called conservatives as they refuse to see that they have been lied to for their entire lives, on the subject of the Nation-State.
As far as I can tell (assuming of course) the general consensus among so-called conservatives is that the criminal ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 23, 2019:
@wolfhnd
I read your response, and I do not doubt that you can back-up what you are reporting. I would like to point out that any measure of the current political economy is a measure of organized crime (claimed to be "the government") creating serious, overwhelming, malinvestment. The measure of these transfers being a malinvestment comes from a benchmark based on a view of human life proceeding according to natural law, as in the phrase free-market commerce. If we can effectively end crime, then we won't be digging our own graves. Of course, those who invest in organized crime claimed to be "the government," get their pound of flesh, so it is not malinvestment to them. To those who invest in organized crime hiding behind a false front of the government, their profitable monopoly pays well, or they would invest elsewhere.
Every cent (could be measured more accurately as calories) stolen by the criminals running the fake government could be a cent invested poorly, or invested profitably by all those who would not pay the extortion fee euphemistically called a "tax," and the force of direct consequence for malinvestment and the force of direct consequence for profitable investment would apply directly to the individual investor, which is then direct force inspiring either improvement (better investment) or failure to improve, at the individual level, which then causes more investment power to those who improve, and less investment power to those who fail to improve their capacity to invest wisely.
The further from direct consequence for success and failure is the further from accurate accountability investors go, leading to a reduction in responsibility: investors don't have to invest wisely if the plebs can always be made to pay the bills.
No "to big to fail," and no "bailouts," for criminals claiming to be Central Bankers. No capital flight in the billions and trillions of UNITS OF PURCHASING POWER flowing from producers who produce anything worth stealing, as that Central Bank Fraud hidden behind government legitimacy receives that capital flight that way. That way, by the way, is meticulously documented and therefore a fact that matters in this case.
If it is assumed that humans naturally invest in crime hidden under a false claim of lawful authority, then I get your points. If I prefer not to make that assumption myself, then I see human beings in free markets doing much better overall, were we to realize the full cost of allowing such crimes to continue, and then we do something lawful, peaceful, truthful, about it individually, and then a sum total of individual efforts (collective power) moves us back to investors being responsible individually.
Tucker (an ignorant egalitarian slob):
"First in the importance of its evil ...
So I recently read that a member feels that this forum is an echo chamber of conservative thinking.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 23, 2019:
I dispute both. The modern left is a mirror image of the modern right as far as the base ideology that is contained within the deceptive words Might Makes Right. As soon as someone challenges that base deception the right and the left are either silent or they go into attack mode, shooting the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 23, 2019:
@MaskedRiderChris
"I think it's the extremists that make it difficult for the good discussions to happen, really."
I don't understand the thinking there, perhaps you can explain the thinking in such a way as to afford me the ability to understand.
People discussing their Might Makes Right ideology are doing so, and to them, they may be having good discussions, sharing notes, improving their ability to wield arbitrary power. People discussing competitive options to the Might Makes Right Rule, in any form it takes, such as false democracy, or false republicanism, or even false federalism, are people who can do so in private, in groups, in written form, and now on-line.
People can now form discussion groups that reach all over the world. So what exactly prevents you or me from having a good discussion on a topic that you consider to be worthy of the effort?
How about, for example, the concept of democracy? What prevents us from discussing that topic? I could offer information that proves that democracy is not majority rule as people are led to believe today, led by those in the Might Makes Right Cult.
Another example would be a reasonable, good, discussion on the meaning of the word republic. What exactly prevents such a discussion from happening? The word republic means the public thing, as in for the people, by the people, and of the people, and specifically not for special interest groups composed of a minority, a majority, or any division of the whole. A republic is for the people as a whole, or it is not a republic in fact. What prevents these types of discussions?
How about Federalism actual, not false federalism? Federalism is a concept by which groups of like-minded people join other groups of other like-minded people into voluntary mutual defense associations. False versions of the federal concept turn it up-side-down, such as is common in Nation-States which are despotic, arbitrary, Might Makes Right, organized crime cabals.
The extremists create parties of like-minded extremists having a ball as they extract power from their weaker victims. Their dialogues are extensive as they exchange viewpoints on just how to fleece the unsuspecting public thing. They are well-practiced at sharing the art of deception, extortion, and other more violent means to their criminal ends, all under the guise of "good" government, facilitated with "good" discussions.
What prevents the plebs from cooperating through good discussion on defensive topics? Are you saying that the extremists are simply overpowering their lesser-powered victims, preventing the victims from soldiering up an effective defense of the public from extremists? The extremists are powerful enough to censor discussion among their powerless victims?
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 23, 2019:
I dispute both. The modern left is a mirror image of the modern right as far as the base ideology that is contained within the deceptive words Might Makes Right. As soon as someone challenges that base deception the right and the left are either silent or they go into attack mode, shooting the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 23, 2019:
@MaskedRiderChris
"I think it's the extremists that make it difficult for the good discussions to happen, really."
I don't understand the thinking there, perhaps you can explain the thinking in such a way as to afford me the ability to understand.
People discussing their Might Makes Right ideology are doing so, and to them, they may be having good discussions, sharing notes, improving their ability to wield arbitrary power. People discussing competitive options to the Might Makes Right Rule, in any form it takes, such as false democracy, or false republicanism, or even false federalism, are people who can do so in private, in groups, in written form, and now on-line.
People can now form discussion groups that reach all over the world. So what exactly prevents you or me from having a good discussion on a topic that you consider to be worthy of the effort?
How about, for example, the concept of democracy? What prevents us from discussing that topic? I could offer information that proves that democracy is not majority rule as people are led to believe today, led by those in the Might Makes Right Cult.
Another example would be a reasonable, good, discussion on the meaning of the word republic. What exactly prevents such a discussion from happening? The word republic means the public thing, as in for the people, by the people, and of the people, and specifically not for special interest groups composed of a minority, a majority, or any division of the whole. A republic is for the people as a whole, or it is not a republic in fact. What prevents these types of discussions?
How about Federalism actual, not false federalism? Federalism is a concept by which groups of like-minded people join other groups of other like-minded people into voluntary mutual defense associations. False versions of the federal concept turn it up-side-down, such as is common in Nation-States which are despotic, arbitrary, Might Makes Right, organized crime cabals.
The extremists create parties of like-minded extremists having a ball as they extract power from their weaker victims. Their dialogues are extensive as they exchange viewpoints on just how to fleece the unsuspecting public thing. They are well-practiced at sharing the art of deception, extortion, and other more violent means to their criminal ends, all under the guise of "good" government, facilitated with "good" discussions.
What prevents the plebs from cooperating through good discussion on defensive topics? Are you saying that the extremists are simply overpowering their lesser-powered victims, preventing the victims from soldiering up an effective defense of the public from extremists? The extremists are powerful enough to censor discussion among their powerless victims?
I don’t spend much time on this page and I’ve been trying to figure out why it doesn’t appeal ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 22, 2019:
The wool does not fall easily from the eyes of so-called conservatives as they refuse to see that they have been lied to for their entire lives, on the subject of the Nation-State.
As far as I can tell (assuming of course) the general consensus among so-called conservatives is that the criminal ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 22, 2019:
@wolfhnd
Ok, let's go into that word: egalitarian.
One writer I respect is Murray Rothbard, except when that author deals with another author who I respect even more: Lysander Spooner.
Rothbard wrote a book, which I purchased and read:
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Murray Rothbard, 1974
Example:
"Actually, in contrast to collectivist anarchists and to many other types of radicals, Spooner and Tucker tried to use economics rather than scorn it as excessively rational. Some of their fallacies (for example, the “law of cost,” the labor theory of value) were embedded in much of classical economics; and it was their adoption of the labor theory of value that convinced them that rent, interest, and profit were payments exploitatively extracted from the worker. In contrast to the Marxists, however, Spooner and Tucker, understanding many of the virtues of the free market, did not wish to abolish that noble institution; instead, they believed that full freedom would lead, by the workings of economic law, to the peaceful disappearance of these three categories of income. The mechanism for this peaceful abolition Spooner and Tucker found—and here they unfortunately ignored the teachings of classical economics and substituted instead their own fallacies—in the sphere of money."
"The two basic interrelated fallacies of Spoonerite theory (and the theory of all schools of writers who have unkindly been labelled by economists as “money-cranks”,) are a failure to understand the nature of money and the nature of interest."
I think it is worse than that when those words are taken in context with the whole Libertarian Philosophy.
Spooner wrote a competitive money solution in direct contrast with the whole Central Bank Fraud, which would place Spooner on the same side as Rothbard; one might expect.
Gary North, on the other hand, points out the divergence.
I can find that quote and post it, but I also want to point out that Tucker exposed the principles involved quite well on his own. I can get that quote. Tucker is on Rothbard's "egalitarian" hit list.
There, in those facts, is the data constituting the problems with the word "egalitarian."
Here:
"People claiming to be egalitarian may only do so to gain personal advantage."
Curious to me is the fact that Rothbard ignores (as if sending down the memory hole) both Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews in his hit piece on those ignorant slobs: egalitarians.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 22, 2019:
The wool does not fall easily from the eyes of so-called conservatives as they refuse to see that they have been lied to for their entire lives, on the subject of the Nation-State.
As far as I can tell (assuming of course) the general consensus among so-called conservatives is that the criminal ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 22, 2019:
@wolfhnd
Ok, let's go into that word: egalitarian.
One writer I respect is Murray Rothbard, except when that author deals with another author who I respect even more: Lysander Spooner.
Rothbard wrote a book, which I purchased and read:
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Murray Rothbard, 1974
Example:
"Actually, in contrast to collectivist anarchists and to many other types of radicals, Spooner and Tucker tried to use economics rather than scorn it as excessively rational. Some of their fallacies (for example, the “law of cost,” the labor theory of value) were embedded in much of classical economics; and it was their adoption of the labor theory of value that convinced them that rent, interest, and profit were payments exploitatively extracted from the worker. In contrast to the Marxists, however, Spooner and Tucker, understanding many of the virtues of the free market, did not wish to abolish that noble institution; instead, they believed that full freedom would lead, by the workings of economic law, to the peaceful disappearance of these three categories of income. The mechanism for this peaceful abolition Spooner and Tucker found—and here they unfortunately ignored the teachings of classical economics and substituted instead their own fallacies—in the sphere of money."
"The two basic interrelated fallacies of Spoonerite theory (and the theory of all schools of writers who have unkindly been labelled by economists as “money-cranks”,) are a failure to understand the nature of money and the nature of interest."
I think it is worse than that when those words are taken in context with the whole Libertarian Philosophy.
Spooner wrote a competitive money solution in direct contrast with the whole Central Bank Fraud, which would place Spooner on the same side as Rothbard; one might expect.
Gary North, on the other hand, points out the divergence.
I can find that quote and post it, but I also want to point out that Tucker exposed the principles involved quite well on his own. I can get that quote. Tucker is on Rothbard's "egalitarian" hit list.
There, in those facts, is the data constituting the problems with the word "egalitarian."
Here:
"People claiming to be egalitarian may only do so to gain personal advantage."
Curious to me is the fact that Rothbard ignores (as if sending down the memory hole) both Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews in his hit piece on those ignorant slobs: egalitarians.
I don’t spend much time on this page and I’ve been trying to figure out why it doesn’t appeal ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 22, 2019:
The wool does not fall easily from the eyes of so-called conservatives as they refuse to see that they have been lied to for their entire lives, on the subject of the Nation-State.
As far as I can tell (assuming of course) the general consensus among so-called conservatives is that the criminal ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 22, 2019:
@wolfhnd
Whenever someone makes the effort to clarify the precise meaning intended with a word, to me, that is a useful device. When, on the other hand, there is an effort to obfuscate, again to me, there is no shortage of words that can mean many things, and in so doing the intention of falsification is reached by that means.
Example:
Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
1788 Elliot 3:89, 430--36, 439--42
[6 June]
George Mason:
"Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?"
George Mason was a liberal-conservative, or not, depending entirely upon which meaning is either intended or unintended.
Conserve the profitable monopoly by eliminating all competition, could be the intention of a conservative.
"Conservative simply means you recognize that most mutations are not beneficial."
I could take that as meaning the human mutation known as a psychopath (or clinical narcissist born with an abnormal brain) is not beneficial for victims of psychopaths, especially when criminal psychopaths create and maintain counterfeit governments. But, even so, a fellow psychopath, or a learned sociopath, may find such mutations to be beneficial in very precise measurements.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 22, 2019:
The wool does not fall easily from the eyes of so-called conservatives as they refuse to see that they have been lied to for their entire lives, on the subject of the Nation-State.
As far as I can tell (assuming of course) the general consensus among so-called conservatives is that the criminal ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 22, 2019:
@wolfhnd
Whenever someone makes the effort to clarify the precise meaning intended with a word, to me, that is a useful device. When, on the other hand, there is an effort to obfuscate, again to me, there is no shortage of words that can mean many things, and in so doing the intention of falsification is reached by that means.
Example:
Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
1788 Elliot 3:89, 430--36, 439--42
[6 June]
George Mason:
"Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?"
George Mason was a liberal-conservative, or not, depending entirely upon which meaning is either intended or unintended.
Conserve the profitable monopoly by eliminating all competition, could be the intention of a conservative.
"Conservative simply means you recognize that most mutations are not beneficial."
I could take that as meaning the human mutation known as a psychopath (or clinical narcissist born with an abnormal brain) is not beneficial for victims of psychopaths, especially when criminal psychopaths create and maintain counterfeit governments. But, even so, a fellow psychopath, or a learned sociopath, may find such mutations to be beneficial in very precise measurements.
I don’t spend much time on this page and I’ve been trying to figure out why it doesn’t appeal ...
JesseBraaten comments on Dec 21, 2019:
Reading the comments here I am seeing many relevant, and correct, push back to my opinion. You all are correct to point out that leftists in general do not want to talk to the other side and don’t care it we’re decent people, they’ll smear us as garbage regardless just to further their own ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 21, 2019:
"...only disgusting wretched filth would consider putting fruit on a pizza..."
Can't argue with that, but...
The modern Left and Right are two sides of the same authoritarian (criminal) coin, they want absolute power and they will deceive, threaten bodily harm on the innocent or less innocent, and demonstrate that their threats are real in fact, in time, and in place, regularly, as a matter of fact.
The original socialists were contained within the social sphere, having no business in crime; deception (fraud), threats (extortion), and aggressive violence, as the means to their socialist goals.
The original conservatives, on the other hand, were exemplified by those enforcing the Inquisition, which as we are taught in school are those people extracting confessions from their victims based upon false claims of witchcraft.
I have yet to find but a handful of people willing to spend the time to discuss any topic at length, and the few people who have offered their part in dialogue (for mutual benefit) fade away after a few exchanges.
Perhaps you are an exception to the rule. We will see.
Do you, for example, consider yourself a member of the choir that knows, as a matter of fact, that law actual (not counterfeit) is a voluntary mutual defense association, and those who claim otherwise are confessing their malignancy?
JesseBraaten comments on Dec 21, 2019:
Reading the comments here I am seeing many relevant, and correct, push back to my opinion. You all are correct to point out that leftists in general do not want to talk to the other side and don’t care it we’re decent people, they’ll smear us as garbage regardless just to further their own ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 21, 2019:
"...only disgusting wretched filth would consider putting fruit on a pizza..."
Can't argue with that, but...
The modern Left and Right are two sides of the same authoritarian (criminal) coin, they want absolute power and they will deceive, threaten bodily harm on the innocent or less innocent, and demonstrate that their threats are real in fact, in time, and in place, regularly, as a matter of fact.
The original socialists were contained within the social sphere, having no business in crime; deception (fraud), threats (extortion), and aggressive violence, as the means to their socialist goals.
The original conservatives, on the other hand, were exemplified by those enforcing the Inquisition, which as we are taught in school are those people extracting confessions from their victims based upon false claims of witchcraft.
I have yet to find but a handful of people willing to spend the time to discuss any topic at length, and the few people who have offered their part in dialogue (for mutual benefit) fade away after a few exchanges.
Perhaps you are an exception to the rule. We will see.
Do you, for example, consider yourself a member of the choir that knows, as a matter of fact, that law actual (not counterfeit) is a voluntary mutual defense association, and those who claim otherwise are confessing their malignancy?
[fee.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 17, 2019:
"The role of government as [America’s founders] saw it, was to protect the rights of individuals, and the biggest threat to individual liberty was the government itself. So they designed a government with constitutionally limited powers, constrained to carry out only those activities specifically ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@FrankZeleniuk
"What could you have learned about prediction from The Black Swan since it is about people not being able to predict?"
I have yet to finish the book, and so far all along the way I've made notations where the author offers data that fits very well into my efforts to make sense of the world. For me to communicate everything in the book I would just hand the book to someone, for me to explain in general terms what is in the book, in my own words, is hardly comprehensive.
Here is one example:
“It has been more profitable for us to bind together in the wrong direction than to be alone in the right one. Those who have followed the assertive idiot rather than the introspective wise person have passed us some of their genes. This is apparent from a social pathology: psychopaths rally followers.”
The book offers additional support to the genuine employment of the scientific method, as opposed to counterfeit science.
"Things that should be obvious but no one sees coming, such as the 2008 MBS crash."
The man is not perfect, and since there is extensive evidence (including a movie) indicating that the crash was not a Black Swan, it was a goal. Boom and bust is a routine goal, as explained very well by Murray Rothbard and others from the Misses Institute and the Austrian Economic School of thought. I don't agree with everything they claim either, in particular, the work of Carl Menger.
Example:
"Here human self-interest finds an incentive to make itself felt, and where the available quantity does not suffice for all, every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others." Carl Menger, Principles of Economics, 1871
I have not read anything from Mises (Ludwig Van) that was obviously wrong, but my reading of his work was decades ago. I have found similar examples of divisions among the Austrians.
Example:
"In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.
One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?
There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 17, 2019:
"The role of government as [America’s founders] saw it, was to protect the rights of individuals, and the biggest threat to individual liberty was the government itself. So they designed a government with constitutionally limited powers, constrained to carry out only those activities specifically ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@FrankZeleniuk
"What could you have learned about prediction from The Black Swan since it is about people not being able to predict?"
I have yet to finish the book, and so far all along the way I've made notations where the author offers data that fits very well into my efforts to make sense of the world. For me to communicate everything in the book I would just hand the book to someone, for me to explain in general terms what is in the book, in my own words, is hardly comprehensive.
Here is one example:
“It has been more profitable for us to bind together in the wrong direction than to be alone in the right one. Those who have followed the assertive idiot rather than the introspective wise person have passed us some of their genes. This is apparent from a social pathology: psychopaths rally followers.”
The book offers additional support to the genuine employment of the scientific method, as opposed to counterfeit science.
"Things that should be obvious but no one sees coming, such as the 2008 MBS crash."
The man is not perfect, and since there is extensive evidence (including a movie) indicating that the crash was not a Black Swan, it was a goal. Boom and bust is a routine goal, as explained very well by Murray Rothbard and others from the Misses Institute and the Austrian Economic School of thought. I don't agree with everything they claim either, in particular, the work of Carl Menger.
Example:
"Here human self-interest finds an incentive to make itself felt, and where the available quantity does not suffice for all, every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others." Carl Menger, Principles of Economics, 1871
I have not read anything from Mises (Ludwig Van) that was obviously wrong, but my reading of his work was decades ago. I have found similar examples of divisions among the Austrians.
Example:
"In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.
One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.
Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?
There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers...
[fee.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 17, 2019:
"The role of government as [America’s founders] saw it, was to protect the rights of individuals, and the biggest threat to individual liberty was the government itself. So they designed a government with constitutionally limited powers, constrained to carry out only those activities specifically ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@FrankZeleniuk
"I see, so what do you see happening in the future in the US?"
If you insist upon moving to subjective opinion and away from established facts that matter in this case of American government, then before I reply I will inform you that I have learned a lot about this prediction business in a book titled The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
The basic idea offered by Taleb is that those who claim to be able to predict are proven to be worse at prediction than those who don't make that specious claim, and that is because of the fact that there are factors that cannot be known in advance, factors that remove the human capacity to "see into the future."
So, it seems to me as if I am being set up into the trap where my character is no longer me as I exist, my character instead of me as I exist will be a Man of Straw that is easily torn apart by the creator of the counterfeit me.
I will offer a best-case prediction, a worst-case prediction, and a wild ass guess that somewhere in between will be what happens.
1. Best-case
More and more people see more and more cases such as the case where a jury stops the counterfeit federal government agents from consuming people like the Hammond and the Bundy families, and we as a people in America incrementally move back to Rule of Law, which is accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case, and were the people as a whole (respubica) determine what is or is not fact in any case, what is or is not law in any case, and what is or is not a just remedy in any case. This prediction, because it is the best case prediction, includes a prediction that people will learn the true constitution of an independent grand jury as a means by which the whole country, through their representatives, determine which cases are valid at law, and which cases are frivolous and a waste of everyone's (collective) time.
2. Worst-case
We are already irreversibly headed into self-destruction as a species, as many possible extinctions events have either already happened, or are already unstoppable. Some of the data along those lines include Mutually Assured Destruction, and what I call Fuckushima light and heavy. The level at which radioactive (killer) materials have been created by criminals, employed by criminals to kill people, and washed the surface of the earth is one of those accounts that ought to be accounted for accurately. I'll give you an example, and you can check it out.
Before criminal mankind (only criminals will do this, it is not "by accident," or "I was just following orders.") polluted the earth with radioactive waste the metal (steel for example) produced was as it was before the washing of the earth with radioactive waste. What is the price of that "virgin" steel compared to steel ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 17, 2019:
"The role of government as [America’s founders] saw it, was to protect the rights of individuals, and the biggest threat to individual liberty was the government itself. So they designed a government with constitutionally limited powers, constrained to carry out only those activities specifically ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@FrankZeleniuk
"I see, so what do you see happening in the future in the US?"
If you insist upon moving to subjective opinion and away from established facts that matter in this case of American government, then before I reply I will inform you that I have learned a lot about this prediction business in a book titled The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
The basic idea offered by Taleb is that those who claim to be able to predict are proven to be worse at prediction than those who don't make that specious claim, and that is because of the fact that there are factors that cannot be known in advance, factors that remove the human capacity to "see into the future."
So, it seems to me as if I am being set up into the trap where my character is no longer me as I exist, my character instead of me as I exist will be a Man of Straw that is easily torn apart by the creator of the counterfeit me.
I will offer a best-case prediction, a worst-case prediction, and a wild ass guess that somewhere in between will be what happens.
1. Best-case
More and more people see more and more cases such as the case where a jury stops the counterfeit federal government agents from consuming people like the Hammond and the Bundy families, and we as a people in America incrementally move back to Rule of Law, which is accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case, and were the people as a whole (respubica) determine what is or is not fact in any case, what is or is not law in any case, and what is or is not a just remedy in any case. This prediction, because it is the best case prediction, includes a prediction that people will learn the true constitution of an independent grand jury as a means by which the whole country, through their representatives, determine which cases are valid at law, and which cases are frivolous and a waste of everyone's (collective) time.
2. Worst-case
We are already irreversibly headed into self-destruction as a species, as many possible extinctions events have either already happened, or are already unstoppable. Some of the data along those lines include Mutually Assured Destruction, and what I call Fuckushima light and heavy. The level at which radioactive (killer) materials have been created by criminals, employed by criminals to kill people, and washed the surface of the earth is one of those accounts that ought to be accounted for accurately. I'll give you an example, and you can check it out.
Before criminal mankind (only criminals will do this, it is not "by accident," or "I was just following orders.") polluted the earth with radioactive waste the metal (steel for example) produced was as it was before the washing of the earth with radioactive waste. What is the price of that "virgin" steel compared to steel ...
[fee.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 17, 2019:
"The role of government as [America’s founders] saw it, was to protect the rights of individuals, and the biggest threat to individual liberty was the government itself. So they designed a government with constitutionally limited powers, constrained to carry out only those activities specifically ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@FrankZeleniuk
"Do you believe that had the Articles of Confederation remained the charter of the Union would the US today be entirely comprised of the original 13 States?"
I wish to move as far away from my subjective opinion as is humanly possible. If someone of authority were to say that the Articles of Confederation were better able to aid people seeking liberty, then that authoritative, subjective, opinion moves in the direction I prefer: away from me personally.
As to the specific question, there is data suggesting that the answer is a definitive no.
The case in point is the addition of Vermont, and the possible addition of Canada, into the Federation. Then there is the example known as The Lost State of Franklin. Also, there is data suggesting the real possibility that Indian Nations, such as the 6 Nations, could have been acceding, adjoining, and potentially adding to the 13 existing Nations confederated into The United States of America (plural, not singular). I found a very good source of those possibilities in a book I borrowed having to do with the so-called French and Indian Wars.
Data:
Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781
Article XI.
"Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States."
This could be continued, but for now, I have to fix a toilet across town. It is an important subject that matters, in my opinion, because it has to do with what I call stewardship of the land, or so-called land ownership, as in The Law of the Land actual; not counterfeit.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 17, 2019:
"The role of government as [America’s founders] saw it, was to protect the rights of individuals, and the biggest threat to individual liberty was the government itself. So they designed a government with constitutionally limited powers, constrained to carry out only those activities specifically ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@FrankZeleniuk
"Do you believe that had the Articles of Confederation remained the charter of the Union would the US today be entirely comprised of the original 13 States?"
I wish to move as far away from my subjective opinion as is humanly possible. If someone of authority were to say that the Articles of Confederation were better able to aid people seeking liberty, then that authoritative, subjective, opinion moves in the direction I prefer: away from me personally.
As to the specific question, there is data suggesting that the answer is a definitive no.
The case in point is the addition of Vermont, and the possible addition of Canada, into the Federation. Then there is the example known as The Lost State of Franklin. Also, there is data suggesting the real possibility that Indian Nations, such as the 6 Nations, could have been acceding, adjoining, and potentially adding to the 13 existing Nations confederated into The United States of America (plural, not singular). I found a very good source of those possibilities in a book I borrowed having to do with the so-called French and Indian Wars.
Data:
Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781
Article XI.
"Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States."
This could be continued, but for now, I have to fix a toilet across town. It is an important subject that matters, in my opinion, because it has to do with what I call stewardship of the land, or so-called land ownership, as in The Law of the Land actual; not counterfeit.
[fee.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 17, 2019:
"The role of government as [America’s founders] saw it, was to protect the rights of individuals, and the biggest threat to individual liberty was the government itself. So they designed a government with constitutionally limited powers, constrained to carry out only those activities specifically ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@FrankZeleniuk
Good sources for this usurpation by criminals posing as representatives of The People (they represented their faction as is done today by Rinos and Dinos), are the notes taken during the Con Con.
Example 1:
Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787
Page 13 Luther Martin
"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."
Example 2:
Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."
That above is (if words mean anything common to those sharing the common interest known as liberty) the confession on the official record during the usurpation.
As to:
"George Mason? In my view, he was assigning responsibilities to congress as opposed to one man, such as a President, a division of power, a power that could not be given to one man lest he make himself King."
You may want to look here:
https://mises.org/library/generalissimo-washington-how-he-crushed-spirit-liberty
And here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkwZDRB3tZo
As to an explanation of why a federation (voluntary association for mutual defense, in fact) is an adaptive, free market, form of government (in Paine's words: "government in a state of constant maturity") see the following example:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 17, 2019:
"The role of government as [America’s founders] saw it, was to protect the rights of individuals, and the biggest threat to individual liberty was the government itself. So they designed a government with constitutionally limited powers, constrained to carry out only those activities specifically ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@FrankZeleniuk
Good sources for this usurpation by criminals posing as representatives of The People (they represented their faction as is done today by Rinos and Dinos), are the notes taken during the Con Con.
Example 1:
Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787
Page 13 Luther Martin
"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."
Example 2:
Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."
That above is (if words mean anything common to those sharing the common interest known as liberty) the confession on the official record during the usurpation.
As to:
"George Mason? In my view, he was assigning responsibilities to congress as opposed to one man, such as a President, a division of power, a power that could not be given to one man lest he make himself King."
You may want to look here:
https://mises.org/library/generalissimo-washington-how-he-crushed-spirit-liberty
And here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkwZDRB3tZo
As to an explanation of why a federation (voluntary association for mutual defense, in fact) is an adaptive, free market, form of government (in Paine's words: "government in a state of constant maturity") see the following example:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if ...
[fee.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 17, 2019:
"The role of government as [America’s founders] saw it, was to protect the rights of individuals, and the biggest threat to individual liberty was the government itself. So they designed a government with constitutionally limited powers, constrained to carry out only those activities specifically ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@FrankZeleniuk
I did not attack you. I did not turn the subject matter into a personal attack, diverting from the subject matter.
"a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something."
"I get from your diatribe here that you are of the opinion the Federal government of the United States of America is illegitimate."
I did not turn the subject matter into your personal opinion.
As to the meaning of words such as "democracy":
Thomas Paine Rights of Man
Chapter III
Page 176
"Mr. Burke is so little acquainted with constituent principles of government, that he confounds democracy and representation together. Representation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies. In those the mass of the people met and enacted laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person. Simple democracy was no other than the common hall of the ancients. It signifies the form, as well as the public principle of the government. As those democracies increased in population, and the territory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and impracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the consequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies, or became absorbed into such as then existed. Had the system of representation been then understood, as it now is, there is no reason to believe that those forms of government, now called monarchical or aristocratical, would ever have taken place. It was the want of some method to consolidate the parts of society, after it became too populous, and too extensive for the simple democratical form, and also the lax and solitary condition of shepherds and herdsmen in other parts of the world, that afforded opportunities to those unnatural modes of government to begin.
"As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I will proceed to remark on some others.
"It has always been the political craft of courtiers and courtgovernments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. let us examine a little into this case.
"The only forms of government are the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.
"What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 17, 2019:
"The role of government as [America’s founders] saw it, was to protect the rights of individuals, and the biggest threat to individual liberty was the government itself. So they designed a government with constitutionally limited powers, constrained to carry out only those activities specifically ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@FrankZeleniuk
I did not attack you. I did not turn the subject matter into a personal attack, diverting from the subject matter.
"a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something."
"I get from your diatribe here that you are of the opinion the Federal government of the United States of America is illegitimate."
I did not turn the subject matter into your personal opinion.
As to the meaning of words such as "democracy":
Thomas Paine Rights of Man
Chapter III
Page 176
"Mr. Burke is so little acquainted with constituent principles of government, that he confounds democracy and representation together. Representation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies. In those the mass of the people met and enacted laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person. Simple democracy was no other than the common hall of the ancients. It signifies the form, as well as the public principle of the government. As those democracies increased in population, and the territory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and impracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the consequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies, or became absorbed into such as then existed. Had the system of representation been then understood, as it now is, there is no reason to believe that those forms of government, now called monarchical or aristocratical, would ever have taken place. It was the want of some method to consolidate the parts of society, after it became too populous, and too extensive for the simple democratical form, and also the lax and solitary condition of shepherds and herdsmen in other parts of the world, that afforded opportunities to those unnatural modes of government to begin.
"As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I will proceed to remark on some others.
"It has always been the political craft of courtiers and courtgovernments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. let us examine a little into this case.
"The only forms of government are the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.
"What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original...
Our Republic Is In Crisis: Reap the Wild Wind
by Justin O Smith
The United States Republic has ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 16, 2019:
This sounds like more partisan cherry picking. Factions fighting over control of a dictatorship is not new, and it is not a republic, not since 1789.
"if this nation is to continue as a true Republic…"
These States (Nations) were republican, democratic, and lawful between 1774 and 1789, and...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 16, 2019:
@JustinOSmith offers:
"This sounds like fallacy..."
What is "this"?
"...a great number of over-generalized and overly broad poorly characterized assertions..."
That is called:
"Ad Hominem Fallacy: (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of seeking to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."
He, meaning me, is prone to fallacies, over-generalization, and poorly characterized assertions, of course.
If it is not an Ad Hominem Fallacy then the target of it would be afforded a means of defending against it.
What is, in your opinion, "this" fallacy?
What is, in your opinion "over-generalized and overly broad poorly characterized assertions..."?
"Too much error here to address in a thousand words or less, so I say fine."
That is called a Parthian Arrow or Parthian Shot:
"an arrow discharged at an enemy when retreating from him, as was the custom of the ancient Parthians; hence, a parting shot."
Insult with vague accusations vaguely asserted, using a common fallacy, and the accuser demonstrates precisely what is falsely claimed to be the faults of the accused. That sounds very familiar to me, as routinely done by members of Faction labeled The Democratic Party.
Example: The Clinton Criminal Cabal is on the record tampering with U.S.A. (corporate) Electoral Politics, while current members of The Democratic Party "officially" accuse Donald Trump of that very thing, a so-called crime.
"My takeaway from this is Your heart is in the right spot, and You believe in the greatest liberty for the most people through free will and choice under the smallest and most limited form of government possible, as do I. And, we both see it as a thing that is hard to maintain, given human nature to manipulate any system to their benefit."
Note the narrative in the above message. The information offered in the message I sent is turned into a belief of an individual: me. I "believe" something. A Conspiracy Theorists harbors "beliefs!"
Either what I wrote is factually, demonstrably, true or it is not true, no matter who offers the worded description of the event. To wish away the event, turning the event into a belief, is a tactic.
Government is voluntary, a matter of fact, and a fact that matters. Criminals counterfeit government, which is an event that is routinely perpetrated by criminals, another fact that matters.
"You contend the United States hasn't been a Republic since 1789, and however one chooses to argue this point, one may also note that the Civil War further eroded any semblance of a true republic, while events emanation from 1913 legislation placed its final demise on warp speed, through the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 16, 2019:
This sounds like more partisan cherry picking. Factions fighting over control of a dictatorship is not new, and it is not a republic, not since 1789.
"if this nation is to continue as a true Republic…"
These States (Nations) were republican, democratic, and lawful between 1774 and 1789, and...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 16, 2019:
@JustinOSmith offers:
"This sounds like fallacy..."
What is "this"?
"...a great number of over-generalized and overly broad poorly characterized assertions..."
That is called:
"Ad Hominem Fallacy: (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of seeking to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."
He, meaning me, is prone to fallacies, over-generalization, and poorly characterized assertions, of course.
If it is not an Ad Hominem Fallacy then the target of it would be afforded a means of defending against it.
What is, in your opinion, "this" fallacy?
What is, in your opinion "over-generalized and overly broad poorly characterized assertions..."?
"Too much error here to address in a thousand words or less, so I say fine."
That is called a Parthian Arrow or Parthian Shot:
"an arrow discharged at an enemy when retreating from him, as was the custom of the ancient Parthians; hence, a parting shot."
Insult with vague accusations vaguely asserted, using a common fallacy, and the accuser demonstrates precisely what is falsely claimed to be the faults of the accused. That sounds very familiar to me, as routinely done by members of Faction labeled The Democratic Party.
Example: The Clinton Criminal Cabal is on the record tampering with U.S.A. (corporate) Electoral Politics, while current members of The Democratic Party "officially" accuse Donald Trump of that very thing, a so-called crime.
"My takeaway from this is Your heart is in the right spot, and You believe in the greatest liberty for the most people through free will and choice under the smallest and most limited form of government possible, as do I. And, we both see it as a thing that is hard to maintain, given human nature to manipulate any system to their benefit."
Note the narrative in the above message. The information offered in the message I sent is turned into a belief of an individual: me. I "believe" something. A Conspiracy Theorists harbors "beliefs!"
Either what I wrote is factually, demonstrably, true or it is not true, no matter who offers the worded description of the event. To wish away the event, turning the event into a belief, is a tactic.
Government is voluntary, a matter of fact, and a fact that matters. Criminals counterfeit government, which is an event that is routinely perpetrated by criminals, another fact that matters.
"You contend the United States hasn't been a Republic since 1789, and however one chooses to argue this point, one may also note that the Civil War further eroded any semblance of a true republic, while events emanation from 1913 legislation placed its final demise on warp speed, through the ...
All government grows and gets worse over time.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 9, 2019:
"All government grows and gets worse over time."
If I can, open mind's willing, point out an obvious con game here, there is a form of government that does the opposite of the claim above, as a matter of fact. The obvious problem with authority over facts is central to this battle over power ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 14, 2019:
@dmatic
"What do you suggest we do?"
Here are the basics:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
My guess is that you are familiar with the message above: The Law.
What then is counter to (counterfeiting) The Law?
"10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors."
If it is true that the common law was, is, and will continue to be mankind following those rules above, then I don't know why there is a lack of ability to communicate that fact that matters.
Finding anyone willing to discuss this topic is like finding the truth (a needle) in a haystack (a mountain of lies).
I will quote one more suggestion, along these lines, and at the end of it is an additional fundamental natural fact that matters, which can be added to the ones quoted above.
Englishman’s Right: A Dialogue between a Barrister at Law and a Juryman, John Hawles, 1763
Barrister.
My old Client! a - good morning to you: whither so fast? you seem intent upon some important affair.
Jurym.
Worthy Sir! I am glad to see you thus opportunely, there being scace any person that I could at this time rather have wished to meet with.
Barr.
I shall esteem myself happy, if in any thing I can serve you. - The business, I pray?
Jurym.
I am summoned to appear upon a Jury, and was just going to try if I could get off. Now I doubt not but you can put me into the best way to obtain that favour.
Barr.
It is probable I could: but first let me know the reasons why you desire to decline that service.
Jurym.
You know, Sir, there is something of trouble and loss of time in it; and men's lives, liberties, and estates (which depend upon a jury's Guilty, or Not Guilty, for the plaintiff, or for the defendant) are weighty things. I would not wrong my conscience for a world, nor be accessary to any man's ruin. There are others better skilled in such matters. I have ever so loved peace, that I have forborne going to law, (as you well know many times) though it hath been much to my loss.
Barr.
I ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 9, 2019:
"All government grows and gets worse over time."
If I can, open mind's willing, point out an obvious con game here, there is a form of government that does the opposite of the claim above, as a matter of fact. The obvious problem with authority over facts is central to this battle over power ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 14, 2019:
@dmatic
"What do you suggest we do?"
Here are the basics:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
My guess is that you are familiar with the message above: The Law.
What then is counter to (counterfeiting) The Law?
"10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors."
If it is true that the common law was, is, and will continue to be mankind following those rules above, then I don't know why there is a lack of ability to communicate that fact that matters.
Finding anyone willing to discuss this topic is like finding the truth (a needle) in a haystack (a mountain of lies).
I will quote one more suggestion, along these lines, and at the end of it is an additional fundamental natural fact that matters, which can be added to the ones quoted above.
Englishman’s Right: A Dialogue between a Barrister at Law and a Juryman, John Hawles, 1763
Barrister.
My old Client! a - good morning to you: whither so fast? you seem intent upon some important affair.
Jurym.
Worthy Sir! I am glad to see you thus opportunely, there being scace any person that I could at this time rather have wished to meet with.
Barr.
I shall esteem myself happy, if in any thing I can serve you. - The business, I pray?
Jurym.
I am summoned to appear upon a Jury, and was just going to try if I could get off. Now I doubt not but you can put me into the best way to obtain that favour.
Barr.
It is probable I could: but first let me know the reasons why you desire to decline that service.
Jurym.
You know, Sir, there is something of trouble and loss of time in it; and men's lives, liberties, and estates (which depend upon a jury's Guilty, or Not Guilty, for the plaintiff, or for the defendant) are weighty things. I would not wrong my conscience for a world, nor be accessary to any man's ruin. There are others better skilled in such matters. I have ever so loved peace, that I have forborne going to law, (as you well know many times) though it hath been much to my loss.
Barr.
I ...
All government grows and gets worse over time.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 9, 2019:
"All government grows and gets worse over time."
If I can, open mind's willing, point out an obvious con game here, there is a form of government that does the opposite of the claim above, as a matter of fact. The obvious problem with authority over facts is central to this battle over power ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 14, 2019:
@dmatic
Give it a go. I mean answer the questions. What do you stand to lose?
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 9, 2019:
"All government grows and gets worse over time."
If I can, open mind's willing, point out an obvious con game here, there is a form of government that does the opposite of the claim above, as a matter of fact. The obvious problem with authority over facts is central to this battle over power ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 14, 2019:
@dmatic
Give it a go. I mean answer the questions. What do you stand to lose?
All government grows and gets worse over time.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 9, 2019:
"All government grows and gets worse over time."
If I can, open mind's willing, point out an obvious con game here, there is a form of government that does the opposite of the claim above, as a matter of fact. The obvious problem with authority over facts is central to this battle over power ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 13, 2019:
@DeJake
“The absence of taxes was not intended to be a misleading claim. Of course there will be many voluntary payments to be made to replace the services that the government provides.”
You employ what can be called “monopoly” language in the above message, perhaps that is not your intention. You claim “...the services that the government provides.” Where is this provider that you imagine? To me, this provider does not exist, other than in your imagination, and "it" exists in the collective sum total of all the people who are also imagining this “government,” that you now claim to be a provider.
It does not exist in fact, it exists fictionally. If you want to speak about something other than a device known as a legal fiction, and if you want to discuss a real process due to everyone, for our defense against all enemies of free people in liberty, then please consider the fact that you are not alone in that desire. I want to account for actual reality, actual government power, and actual government power that works as a process by which people think and act individually in their own defense, and there is an accumulative, sum total, of all those thoughts, and all those actions that constitute Voluntary Mutual Defense. I also think that it is important to point out the uncontroversial evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Voluntary Mutual Defense is democracy, republicanism, federalism, and the law of the land. The law of the land is the common law. There is no need to reinvent this wheel, and there is no need to place yet another label on this process: such as Anarchism, or such as Anarcho-capitalism, or Anarcho-socialism for that matter.
“The main difference is that that private organizations are consensual, and therefore more moral in my opinion, and competitive.”
Consensual private organizations are not private, if the word private means anything having to do with one individual alone, separated from, and not connected to other individuals, where contact between individuals are made, and exchanges between individuals (currency if you will) occurs. If you are employing the word “private” to mean a term in context with the word “public,” then I have some news for you; perhaps useful to you.
Here:
Page 42
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 9, 2019:
"All government grows and gets worse over time."
If I can, open mind's willing, point out an obvious con game here, there is a form of government that does the opposite of the claim above, as a matter of fact. The obvious problem with authority over facts is central to this battle over power ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 13, 2019:
@DeJake
“The absence of taxes was not intended to be a misleading claim. Of course there will be many voluntary payments to be made to replace the services that the government provides.”
You employ what can be called “monopoly” language in the above message, perhaps that is not your intention. You claim “...the services that the government provides.” Where is this provider that you imagine? To me, this provider does not exist, other than in your imagination, and "it" exists in the collective sum total of all the people who are also imagining this “government,” that you now claim to be a provider.
It does not exist in fact, it exists fictionally. If you want to speak about something other than a device known as a legal fiction, and if you want to discuss a real process due to everyone, for our defense against all enemies of free people in liberty, then please consider the fact that you are not alone in that desire. I want to account for actual reality, actual government power, and actual government power that works as a process by which people think and act individually in their own defense, and there is an accumulative, sum total, of all those thoughts, and all those actions that constitute Voluntary Mutual Defense. I also think that it is important to point out the uncontroversial evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Voluntary Mutual Defense is democracy, republicanism, federalism, and the law of the land. The law of the land is the common law. There is no need to reinvent this wheel, and there is no need to place yet another label on this process: such as Anarchism, or such as Anarcho-capitalism, or Anarcho-socialism for that matter.
“The main difference is that that private organizations are consensual, and therefore more moral in my opinion, and competitive.”
Consensual private organizations are not private, if the word private means anything having to do with one individual alone, separated from, and not connected to other individuals, where contact between individuals are made, and exchanges between individuals (currency if you will) occurs. If you are employing the word “private” to mean a term in context with the word “public,” then I have some news for you; perhaps useful to you.
Here:
Page 42
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] ...
All government grows and gets worse over time.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 9, 2019:
"All government grows and gets worse over time."
If I can, open mind's willing, point out an obvious con game here, there is a form of government that does the opposite of the claim above, as a matter of fact. The obvious problem with authority over facts is central to this battle over power ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 13, 2019:
@dmatic
Ok, good.
The BAR was kept by the people themselves, against the Profitable Monopoly (criminal gang counterfeiting government), and Thomas Jefferson does not spell it out well. A Grand Jury (volunteers, not government agents, or rather not State employees) keeps the gate, and it is not a BAR. That device (Grand Jury, democratic, republican, federal, device, not National, State, Corporation, Legal Fiction counterfeit device) known as a Grand Jury has a rich history, and it was developed naturally out of past versions of laws (very few) common to regular people: the common law, not the Common Law Trade Mark Counterfeit.
Here:
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 9, 2019:
"All government grows and gets worse over time."
If I can, open mind's willing, point out an obvious con game here, there is a form of government that does the opposite of the claim above, as a matter of fact. The obvious problem with authority over facts is central to this battle over power ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 13, 2019:
@dmatic
Ok, good.
The BAR was kept by the people themselves, against the Profitable Monopoly (criminal gang counterfeiting government), and Thomas Jefferson does not spell it out well. A Grand Jury (volunteers, not government agents, or rather not State employees) keeps the gate, and it is not a BAR. That device (Grand Jury, democratic, republican, federal, device, not National, State, Corporation, Legal Fiction counterfeit device) known as a Grand Jury has a rich history, and it was developed naturally out of past versions of laws (very few) common to regular people: the common law, not the Common Law Trade Mark Counterfeit.
Here:
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is ...
All government grows and gets worse over time.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 9, 2019:
"All government grows and gets worse over time."
If I can, open mind's willing, point out an obvious con game here, there is a form of government that does the opposite of the claim above, as a matter of fact. The obvious problem with authority over facts is central to this battle over power ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 13, 2019:
@dmatic
I am very concerned (sorry?) about anyone connected to the damage done by "our" government, in the Bundy case in particular. Unlike an accident (or as some people blame human nature), these injuries done to people by people are preventable. I would like to address that in detail, but first a cut and paste of the quote, and you can link yourself to the Facebook page of the author. I could not find a way to link the individual Facebook post where the message was posted individually. I could only link Facebook home pages, so you (or anyone) would then have to scroll down to find the words in the message relevant to this current discussion.
Taken from a Facebook Post 12-12-2019
Kenneth W Medenbach
December 6 at 10:07 PM
"During our trial from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation, l kept thinking of ways to get information to the jurors, that they had the inherent ability to judge the law as well as the facts of our case. In my research l found that in the first 100 years of our country, the jury instructions included the inherent ability of the jurors to judge the law as well as the facts. Then in 1895, the decision in Sparf v United States the United States Supreme Court did not require judges to instruct jurors of this inherent ability.
I had already worn a shirt on the day our trial started inplicating the jurors inherent ability to judge the law and the facts, but l felt that the shirt wasn't enough. After a prayer by our group in the lobby of the court, l asked Shawna Cox if she would answer, yes, quickly to a question l was going to ask her during her testimony coming up that day. I was in a hybrid council with my attorney, Matt Schindler, so l was able to ask questions of anyone's testimony on the stand. Matt Schindler didn't know what l was going to ask. But l knew Judge Brown was going to flip out after l asked this question and l wanted Shawna to answer quickly, so the jurors could understand what we were trying to tell them.
This is how it went, by the grace of God.
Mr. Schindler: "Your Honer, Mr. Medenbach would like to ask Mrs. Cox a couple of questions."
Judge Brown: "You may take a seat sir, and ask the questions."
Medenbach: Q, "Mrs. Cox, are you aware the jury has the inherent power to judge both the law and the facts of this case?"
Mrs. Cox: A, "Yes."
Judge Brown: "STOP!, Jurors, disregard that answer. Do not ask that question again, and do not ask another question like it, Mr. Medenbach, Mr. Schindler, will you review the question, please, as an officer of the court? He can make his record outside the juries presence."
Medenbach: (continuing) Q, "But in Sparf v United States the Supreme Court held that federal judges were not required..."
Mr. Schindler: "Ken, you can't get into that."
Judge Brown: "Mr. ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 9, 2019:
"All government grows and gets worse over time."
If I can, open mind's willing, point out an obvious con game here, there is a form of government that does the opposite of the claim above, as a matter of fact. The obvious problem with authority over facts is central to this battle over power ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 13, 2019:
@dmatic
I am very concerned (sorry?) about anyone connected to the damage done by "our" government, in the Bundy case in particular. Unlike an accident (or as some people blame human nature), these injuries done to people by people are preventable. I would like to address that in detail, but first a cut and paste of the quote, and you can link yourself to the Facebook page of the author. I could not find a way to link the individual Facebook post where the message was posted individually. I could only link Facebook home pages, so you (or anyone) would then have to scroll down to find the words in the message relevant to this current discussion.
Taken from a Facebook Post 12-12-2019
Kenneth W Medenbach
December 6 at 10:07 PM
"During our trial from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation, l kept thinking of ways to get information to the jurors, that they had the inherent ability to judge the law as well as the facts of our case. In my research l found that in the first 100 years of our country, the jury instructions included the inherent ability of the jurors to judge the law as well as the facts. Then in 1895, the decision in Sparf v United States the United States Supreme Court did not require judges to instruct jurors of this inherent ability.
I had already worn a shirt on the day our trial started inplicating the jurors inherent ability to judge the law and the facts, but l felt that the shirt wasn't enough. After a prayer by our group in the lobby of the court, l asked Shawna Cox if she would answer, yes, quickly to a question l was going to ask her during her testimony coming up that day. I was in a hybrid council with my attorney, Matt Schindler, so l was able to ask questions of anyone's testimony on the stand. Matt Schindler didn't know what l was going to ask. But l knew Judge Brown was going to flip out after l asked this question and l wanted Shawna to answer quickly, so the jurors could understand what we were trying to tell them.
This is how it went, by the grace of God.
Mr. Schindler: "Your Honer, Mr. Medenbach would like to ask Mrs. Cox a couple of questions."
Judge Brown: "You may take a seat sir, and ask the questions."
Medenbach: Q, "Mrs. Cox, are you aware the jury has the inherent power to judge both the law and the facts of this case?"
Mrs. Cox: A, "Yes."
Judge Brown: "STOP!, Jurors, disregard that answer. Do not ask that question again, and do not ask another question like it, Mr. Medenbach, Mr. Schindler, will you review the question, please, as an officer of the court? He can make his record outside the juries presence."
Medenbach: (continuing) Q, "But in Sparf v United States the Supreme Court held that federal judges were not required..."
Mr. Schindler: "Ken, you can't get into that."
Judge Brown: "Mr. ...
All government grows and gets worse over time.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 9, 2019:
"All government grows and gets worse over time."
If I can, open mind's willing, point out an obvious con game here, there is a form of government that does the opposite of the claim above, as a matter of fact. The obvious problem with authority over facts is central to this battle over power ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 12, 2019:
@dmatic
"Who is: "Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled"?"
A source is Bill Stanley and The Forgotten Founders.
http://theforgottenfounders.com/the-forgotten-fathers/
Richard Henry Lee (VA)
6th President of the United States
in Congress Assembled
November 30, 1784 to June 3, 1785
"In 1757 he was appointed justice of the peace for Westmoreland County. In 1761 he was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses, of which he remained a delegate until 1788. Extreme shyness prevented his taking any part in the debates for some time. His first speech was on a motion:
“to lay so heavy a duty on the importation of slaves as effectually to put an end to that iniquitous and disgraceful traffic within the colony of Virginia.”"
"Obviously, you have a given a lot of thought to these things, Josf. What is your answer to what form of government allows for liberty? Self-government?"
Since all law is voluntary then the answer is self-government as individuals, and a collective sum total of individual self-government as individuals pool resources for their Voluntary Mutual Defense.
That is inarguable unless someone resorts to deception or people are fooled by deception and they believe they are arguing against natural, self-evident, facts that matter in this case, yet the fact is they are simply parroting demonstrable lies. This is simple once the lies are stripped away, such as one of the fundamental lies which is that criminals will obey rules if you write them down and declare that a written statute (suggestion) is an enforceable law. That lie is a lie told by a faction that is, in essence, a criminal one.
I was sent on a mission since your last post in this thread to find a relevant quote in the extensive writing of President Lee, having to do with a serious problem with the Federal (voluntary) Articles of Confederation, which is a problem that was ignored, and a problem that became worse when the Articles of Confederation were replaced (criminally) by the National (involuntary) Constitution in 1789.
In so many words that I hope to recover from President Lee, he claims that corruption crept into the Federal government during his time in the Federal government, and little was done to prevent it, and that was one major failure in need of fixing (amending) in the Federal government.
Look here please:
Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781
IV.
"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace."
In those days, for ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 9, 2019:
"All government grows and gets worse over time."
If I can, open mind's willing, point out an obvious con game here, there is a form of government that does the opposite of the claim above, as a matter of fact. The obvious problem with authority over facts is central to this battle over power ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 12, 2019:
@dmatic
"Who is: "Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled"?"
A source is Bill Stanley and The Forgotten Founders.
http://theforgottenfounders.com/the-forgotten-fathers/
Richard Henry Lee (VA)
6th President of the United States
in Congress Assembled
November 30, 1784 to June 3, 1785
"In 1757 he was appointed justice of the peace for Westmoreland County. In 1761 he was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses, of which he remained a delegate until 1788. Extreme shyness prevented his taking any part in the debates for some time. His first speech was on a motion:
“to lay so heavy a duty on the importation of slaves as effectually to put an end to that iniquitous and disgraceful traffic within the colony of Virginia.”"
"Obviously, you have a given a lot of thought to these things, Josf. What is your answer to what form of government allows for liberty? Self-government?"
Since all law is voluntary then the answer is self-government as individuals, and a collective sum total of individual self-government as individuals pool resources for their Voluntary Mutual Defense.
That is inarguable unless someone resorts to deception or people are fooled by deception and they believe they are arguing against natural, self-evident, facts that matter in this case, yet the fact is they are simply parroting demonstrable lies. This is simple once the lies are stripped away, such as one of the fundamental lies which is that criminals will obey rules if you write them down and declare that a written statute (suggestion) is an enforceable law. That lie is a lie told by a faction that is, in essence, a criminal one.
I was sent on a mission since your last post in this thread to find a relevant quote in the extensive writing of President Lee, having to do with a serious problem with the Federal (voluntary) Articles of Confederation, which is a problem that was ignored, and a problem that became worse when the Articles of Confederation were replaced (criminally) by the National (involuntary) Constitution in 1789.
In so many words that I hope to recover from President Lee, he claims that corruption crept into the Federal government during his time in the Federal government, and little was done to prevent it, and that was one major failure in need of fixing (amending) in the Federal government.
Look here please:
Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781
IV.
"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace."
In those days, for ...
All government grows and gets worse over time.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 9, 2019:
"All government grows and gets worse over time."
If I can, open mind's willing, point out an obvious con game here, there is a form of government that does the opposite of the claim above, as a matter of fact. The obvious problem with authority over facts is central to this battle over power ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 10, 2019:
@DeJake
"People in an anarchist society will not be as vulnerable to criminal groups taking over as many like to think. With the absence of taxes,..."
Claiming such a claim as you do above is problematic.
1.
In Anarchistic (so-called) society
Taxes are absent. However, people are free to contribute to their preferred social organization for any reason. “Taxes,” a word replaces “Voluntary Investments.”
2.
In a non-Anarchistic (so-called) society
Taxes are not absent. How many people consider it a voluntary investment?
The problem appears to be a word game. If you or the next one can convince society that government is bad, and taxes are bad, then this anarchist society will not be “as” vulnerable to criminal groups taking over. The end result, however, is either a cooperative effort to reach goal A (voluntary association), or cooperative effort to reach goal B (involuntary association), and as it turns out every lie used to convince people to go either way removes the believers in the lie from their own voluntary choice, sending them toward goal B unbeknownst.
An example of a lie that fits this description is the lie that convinces people that criminals will obey written orders (that the criminals call laws), and if the targeted victims believe this lie, then the victims will give up on defending themselves, and the targeted victims will instead pay willingly for the criminals protection against lesser criminals, again unbeknownst.
How do you stop the power of that lie? How do you convince other people that they too ought to invest in (pay for, as in taxes that tax mind, body, and spirit) their own defense their own way, voluntarily?
Example:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States." Lysander Spooner
How do you stop the power that incrementally moves free people in liberty to subsidized slavery of everyone, including the so-called masters of the slaves, for the power they steal corrupts them, turning an otherwise good life into a monstrous horrible one?
How do you convince people that criminals - as a rule - do not obey suggestions (statutes) to do the right thing, because it is the right thing, or because ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 9, 2019:
"All government grows and gets worse over time."
If I can, open mind's willing, point out an obvious con game here, there is a form of government that does the opposite of the claim above, as a matter of fact. The obvious problem with authority over facts is central to this battle over power ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 10, 2019:
@DeJake
"People in an anarchist society will not be as vulnerable to criminal groups taking over as many like to think. With the absence of taxes,..."
Claiming such a claim as you do above is problematic.
1.
In Anarchistic (so-called) society
Taxes are absent. However, people are free to contribute to their preferred social organization for any reason. “Taxes,” a word replaces “Voluntary Investments.”
2.
In a non-Anarchistic (so-called) society
Taxes are not absent. How many people consider it a voluntary investment?
The problem appears to be a word game. If you or the next one can convince society that government is bad, and taxes are bad, then this anarchist society will not be “as” vulnerable to criminal groups taking over. The end result, however, is either a cooperative effort to reach goal A (voluntary association), or cooperative effort to reach goal B (involuntary association), and as it turns out every lie used to convince people to go either way removes the believers in the lie from their own voluntary choice, sending them toward goal B unbeknownst.
An example of a lie that fits this description is the lie that convinces people that criminals will obey written orders (that the criminals call laws), and if the targeted victims believe this lie, then the victims will give up on defending themselves, and the targeted victims will instead pay willingly for the criminals protection against lesser criminals, again unbeknownst.
How do you stop the power of that lie? How do you convince other people that they too ought to invest in (pay for, as in taxes that tax mind, body, and spirit) their own defense their own way, voluntarily?
Example:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States." Lysander Spooner
How do you stop the power that incrementally moves free people in liberty to subsidized slavery of everyone, including the so-called masters of the slaves, for the power they steal corrupts them, turning an otherwise good life into a monstrous horrible one?
How do you convince people that criminals - as a rule - do not obey suggestions (statutes) to do the right thing, because it is the right thing, or because ...
What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 2, 2019:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
If civilization is advancement measurable as steady increase in the standard of living while there is a corresponding steady decrease in the cost of living, then the cause of civilization turning in the opposite direction (decrease in standard ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 9, 2019:
@Edify
"You seem desperate for conversation but I am done here,..."
You were not done, you had to publish libel.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 2, 2019:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
If civilization is advancement measurable as steady increase in the standard of living while there is a corresponding steady decrease in the cost of living, then the cause of civilization turning in the opposite direction (decrease in standard ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 9, 2019:
@Edify
"You seem desperate for conversation but I am done here,..."
You were not done, you had to publish libel.
“Through giving up on the exercise of reason in conversations focused on the governance of the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 9, 2019:
@rway
You laughed out loud:
"lol... what is the meaning of the word "meaning?""
Dictate (my first attempt to define one word officially)
"lay down authoritatively; prescribe."
Source: Google Search to Web-Dictionary
Is the following examples of someone laying down authoritatively, or prescribing?
""Dictating" is when the speaker expects compliance."
Which is the authoritative definition?
"I also have little time for word games, sorry."
Then why are you playing word games such as the one where you make an effort to discredit me with guilt by association with one of the killer Clintons and his infamous claim that it depends upon what the word is, is? It sounds to me like you are intellectually dishonest. A common trait of the intellectually dishonest is to perpetrate an aggressive character assassination attack (with a word game), and then claim innocence.
"If you think you have accurately characterized a real problem, then I suggest you move on to a real solution; and I wish you luck."
Here is another tactic of the intellectually dishonest, rather than acknowledging the fact that I have communicated many forms of solutions to the one problem, the effort here is to repeat a false narrative in which your Man of Straw (that you can tear apart easily) has no solutions at all, ever, a Utopian dreamer, a conspiracy theorist, etc.
1. I agreed with the fact that education is the key and adding to that solution it is imperative that the facts, not the lies, constitute the body that makes up education. An example of fiction constituting the body of "education," is the claim that the law is a statute. The law is not a statute as told by many authorities on the subject, even told by the criminals posing as authorities. By logic and reason, the law cannot be a piece of paper, for there are millions of conflicts among individuals, in millions of individual times, and millions of individual places, where those few (or now many) words written in the "law books," can't cover each one in time. The law is real-time answers (defense) to real time problems (criminal acts), the law is not an effort to clean up messes after the fact.
2. By example, join a group of active people sharing your concerns about just how wrong the so-called government is now, and do not settle for dictatorial edicts demanded by people in those groups, such as: John Birch Society, Fully Informed Jury Association, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Libertarian Party, Republican Party, Independent Party, run for office, go to jury duty, open your mind, stop closing your mind, stop being duped by frauds writing confusing words on papers, such as the case where a whole people (millions of them) were enslaved because these criminals counterfeited the government in 1789.
...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 9, 2019:
@rway
You laughed out loud:
"lol... what is the meaning of the word "meaning?""
Dictate (my first attempt to define one word officially)
"lay down authoritatively; prescribe."
Source: Google Search to Web-Dictionary
Is the following examples of someone laying down authoritatively, or prescribing?
""Dictating" is when the speaker expects compliance."
Which is the authoritative definition?
"I also have little time for word games, sorry."
Then why are you playing word games such as the one where you make an effort to discredit me with guilt by association with one of the killer Clintons and his infamous claim that it depends upon what the word is, is? It sounds to me like you are intellectually dishonest. A common trait of the intellectually dishonest is to perpetrate an aggressive character assassination attack (with a word game), and then claim innocence.
"If you think you have accurately characterized a real problem, then I suggest you move on to a real solution; and I wish you luck."
Here is another tactic of the intellectually dishonest, rather than acknowledging the fact that I have communicated many forms of solutions to the one problem, the effort here is to repeat a false narrative in which your Man of Straw (that you can tear apart easily) has no solutions at all, ever, a Utopian dreamer, a conspiracy theorist, etc.
1. I agreed with the fact that education is the key and adding to that solution it is imperative that the facts, not the lies, constitute the body that makes up education. An example of fiction constituting the body of "education," is the claim that the law is a statute. The law is not a statute as told by many authorities on the subject, even told by the criminals posing as authorities. By logic and reason, the law cannot be a piece of paper, for there are millions of conflicts among individuals, in millions of individual times, and millions of individual places, where those few (or now many) words written in the "law books," can't cover each one in time. The law is real-time answers (defense) to real time problems (criminal acts), the law is not an effort to clean up messes after the fact.
2. By example, join a group of active people sharing your concerns about just how wrong the so-called government is now, and do not settle for dictatorial edicts demanded by people in those groups, such as: John Birch Society, Fully Informed Jury Association, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Libertarian Party, Republican Party, Independent Party, run for office, go to jury duty, open your mind, stop closing your mind, stop being duped by frauds writing confusing words on papers, such as the case where a whole people (millions of them) were enslaved because these criminals counterfeited the government in 1789.
...
“Through giving up on the exercise of reason in conversations focused on the governance of the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 8, 2019:
@rway
"Me: Making an observation is not dictatorial."
What is the meaning of the word dictate? Of course, you are not assembling a conscripted army from all corners of the newly formed Organized Crime Arbitrary Government that counterfeits the law, to then collect an extortion fee so as to create a demand for counterfeit money, and it just so happens that the "tax-evaders," in question are using whiskey as money in direct competition with the Central Bank counterfeit money scam. You are not the worst dictator in the dictatorship, but it still is a dictatorship. Your words dictate a lie to me. It (dictatorship) is not the law.
"You like to talk about what historical figures "really meant," and to dictate how things "should have turned out.""
That is a false narrative. I can correct it. Historical figures, such as George Mason and Luther Martin for examples, were at the Con-Con of 1787 when the doors were closed and the gag orders enforced. What I like to talk about are good people doing good things, but there are these evil people running amok in the playground, so I explain, with accurate accounts, what the evil people do to gain power. That information is then applicable to what people can do to peacefully defend against the damaging work done by evil people.
I think that you are correct when you pointed out that education is the key, but you are "educating" people to aid and abet the evil people, not pull the power plug on them. Not only do you (apparently) buy into their lies, their false narrative, but also you work (pro bono?) to create new false narratives when I correct the false narratives.
Statutes are statutes, laws require the consent of the people through their juries, which includes independent grand juries.
Who says so? That is where deliberation is key, to weed out the false narratives (deception as a criminal rule), and to acknowledge the facts that matter in the case if facts can be unanimously agreed upon. If facts cannot be agreed upon then the law power (the dogs of war) cannot be unleased upon anyone, anywhere, anytime: legally.
"Do you really believe in the unicorn of an "independent" grand jury?"
There you go again, with the false narrative. Case in point:
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
Page 3
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.
"But appreciation of ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 8, 2019:
@rway
"Me: Making an observation is not dictatorial."
What is the meaning of the word dictate? Of course, you are not assembling a conscripted army from all corners of the newly formed Organized Crime Arbitrary Government that counterfeits the law, to then collect an extortion fee so as to create a demand for counterfeit money, and it just so happens that the "tax-evaders," in question are using whiskey as money in direct competition with the Central Bank counterfeit money scam. You are not the worst dictator in the dictatorship, but it still is a dictatorship. Your words dictate a lie to me. It (dictatorship) is not the law.
"You like to talk about what historical figures "really meant," and to dictate how things "should have turned out.""
That is a false narrative. I can correct it. Historical figures, such as George Mason and Luther Martin for examples, were at the Con-Con of 1787 when the doors were closed and the gag orders enforced. What I like to talk about are good people doing good things, but there are these evil people running amok in the playground, so I explain, with accurate accounts, what the evil people do to gain power. That information is then applicable to what people can do to peacefully defend against the damaging work done by evil people.
I think that you are correct when you pointed out that education is the key, but you are "educating" people to aid and abet the evil people, not pull the power plug on them. Not only do you (apparently) buy into their lies, their false narrative, but also you work (pro bono?) to create new false narratives when I correct the false narratives.
Statutes are statutes, laws require the consent of the people through their juries, which includes independent grand juries.
Who says so? That is where deliberation is key, to weed out the false narratives (deception as a criminal rule), and to acknowledge the facts that matter in the case if facts can be unanimously agreed upon. If facts cannot be agreed upon then the law power (the dogs of war) cannot be unleased upon anyone, anywhere, anytime: legally.
"Do you really believe in the unicorn of an "independent" grand jury?"
There you go again, with the false narrative. Case in point:
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
Page 3
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.
"But appreciation of ...
“Through giving up on the exercise of reason in conversations focused on the governance of the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 7, 2019:
@dd54
Very good on-topic information, thanks. It was, however, not (in my opinion) Washington's group. Washington was what is known as The Strong Man, a useful tool if the tool can be controlled on high tensile strings. Washington was in the group I call warmongers or mercenaries, certainly a bonified warrior, if not an intelligent or learned one.
The Central Banker Fraud group included Robert Morris (refusing to pay the "lower class" Revolutionary War veterans their minimum wages: at a discount, below cost to the veterans), and soon to be National Central Bank Treasurer Alexander Hamilton, who was later shot dead in a duel by someone who he dishonored (talking shit to the wrong people): Aaron Burr.
Then there were the Slave Traders, Slave Consumers, Carriers, etc., as confessed by Thomas Jefferson on the official record:
In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10:
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."
That was in reference to the editing job (censorship of Thomas Jefferson's free speech) done to the original Declaration of Independence. I won't quote the edited part now, just note the culprits who were dealing in human lives. How much damage did they do?
A rough estimate offered:
"The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.
"Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 7, 2019:
@dd54
Very good on-topic information, thanks. It was, however, not (in my opinion) Washington's group. Washington was what is known as The Strong Man, a useful tool if the tool can be controlled on high tensile strings. Washington was in the group I call warmongers or mercenaries, certainly a bonified warrior, if not an intelligent or learned one.
The Central Banker Fraud group included Robert Morris (refusing to pay the "lower class" Revolutionary War veterans their minimum wages: at a discount, below cost to the veterans), and soon to be National Central Bank Treasurer Alexander Hamilton, who was later shot dead in a duel by someone who he dishonored (talking shit to the wrong people): Aaron Burr.
Then there were the Slave Traders, Slave Consumers, Carriers, etc., as confessed by Thomas Jefferson on the official record:
In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10:
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."
That was in reference to the editing job (censorship of Thomas Jefferson's free speech) done to the original Declaration of Independence. I won't quote the edited part now, just note the culprits who were dealing in human lives. How much damage did they do?
A rough estimate offered:
"The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.
"Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and...
“Through giving up on the exercise of reason in conversations focused on the governance of the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 7, 2019:
@rway
Again you claim dictatorial power to dictate to me what the law is, according to you and your faction. I see otherwise.
You claim:
"the Law in the U.S. is the Constitution, and those laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution and not in violation of it, by the people through their representatives."
The Constitution of 1787 (written in 1787) confesses the crime of treason, among other crimes; as a matter of fact. If the law were in Ameria, there could have been a trial, and there can still be a trial, to prove that fact that matters in that case.
Even if the Constitution was legitimate and not criminal, it would be a statute which would them be subject to consent by the people through the actual law process which is the common law with independent trial juries, and independent grand juries who actually represent the people as a whole, and who do not represent factions criminal or otherwise.
"All of them; not 12 of them on a jury, and not 9 of them on the Supreme Court."
Are you actually claiming now that Electoral Politics (so-called Majority Rule) is a method by which all the people in America consent to whatever is done by people claiming (falsely I might add) to be the legitimate government? That is an absurd claim considering so many sources of accurate data proving otherwise, not the least of which is the data already shown where the original democrats knew that Electoral Politics leads to Aristocracy, and as everyone ought to know that is Arbitrary Government, not anything close to the law.
Claims of how the people can "vote them out," are uncontroversially refuted claims, there is no argument on that point, so do you actually mean, with those words you just published, that Electoral Politics is in any way a representation of the will of the people as one unanimous group?
"You have a Supreme Court. It doesn't matter whether you acknowledge them."
All dictators have something in common: they dictate. Your words are meaningless or simply wrong. I do not have, own, possess, control, accept, agree with, consent to, or have any contact with those people other than me as their victim, and they as the treasonous criminals they are in fact. If you, or anyone else, aids and abets them, then you, and everyone else in that aiding and abetting group, are accessories to their crimes. I am not.
"Case Law, or "precedent", is also not the Law. Neither is anyone's opinion from an imaginary secret meeting."
I agree that precedent is not the law, the law is voluntary association for mutual defense in such forms as common law trial by jury and whatever is in place to maintain that power the people as a whole maintain for their own defense against all enemies foreign and domestic, including usurpers who manage to usurp the actual law: ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 7, 2019:
@rway
Again you claim dictatorial power to dictate to me what the law is, according to you and your faction. I see otherwise.
You claim:
"the Law in the U.S. is the Constitution, and those laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution and not in violation of it, by the people through their representatives."
The Constitution of 1787 (written in 1787) confesses the crime of treason, among other crimes; as a matter of fact. If the law were in Ameria, there could have been a trial, and there can still be a trial, to prove that fact that matters in that case.
Even if the Constitution was legitimate and not criminal, it would be a statute which would them be subject to consent by the people through the actual law process which is the common law with independent trial juries, and independent grand juries who actually represent the people as a whole, and who do not represent factions criminal or otherwise.
"All of them; not 12 of them on a jury, and not 9 of them on the Supreme Court."
Are you actually claiming now that Electoral Politics (so-called Majority Rule) is a method by which all the people in America consent to whatever is done by people claiming (falsely I might add) to be the legitimate government? That is an absurd claim considering so many sources of accurate data proving otherwise, not the least of which is the data already shown where the original democrats knew that Electoral Politics leads to Aristocracy, and as everyone ought to know that is Arbitrary Government, not anything close to the law.
Claims of how the people can "vote them out," are uncontroversially refuted claims, there is no argument on that point, so do you actually mean, with those words you just published, that Electoral Politics is in any way a representation of the will of the people as one unanimous group?
"You have a Supreme Court. It doesn't matter whether you acknowledge them."
All dictators have something in common: they dictate. Your words are meaningless or simply wrong. I do not have, own, possess, control, accept, agree with, consent to, or have any contact with those people other than me as their victim, and they as the treasonous criminals they are in fact. If you, or anyone else, aids and abets them, then you, and everyone else in that aiding and abetting group, are accessories to their crimes. I am not.
"Case Law, or "precedent", is also not the Law. Neither is anyone's opinion from an imaginary secret meeting."
I agree that precedent is not the law, the law is voluntary association for mutual defense in such forms as common law trial by jury and whatever is in place to maintain that power the people as a whole maintain for their own defense against all enemies foreign and domestic, including usurpers who manage to usurp the actual law: ...
What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 2, 2019:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
If civilization is advancement measurable as steady increase in the standard of living while there is a corresponding steady decrease in the cost of living, then the cause of civilization turning in the opposite direction (decrease in standard ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 7, 2019:
@Edify
"The question is answered."
The question was begged, and you then provided your answer.
"I have no idea what you read or heard if you really listened to the video, but your question drives home my point the discussion is a waste of time."
I spelled out in quotes exactly what was said in the video, and I then responded: to deaf ears.
"The search ultimately led me to Christ who says we are to be brothers and sisters not lord and servant and you accuse me of subscribing to a might makes right philosophy."
I wrote the word "if," as in "If you are a paying member of..." You heard accusations.
I also pointed out what appears to be a dictatorial mindset, which you may also ignore, or twist; a dictatorial mindset example.
As to Christian Scripture:
"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."
That is reinforced here:
"I commend your tenderness and modesty; yet must tell you, these are but general and weak excuses.
As for your time and trouble, it is not much; and however, can it be better spent than in doing justice, and serving your country? to withdraw yourself in such cases, is a kind of Sacrilege, a robbing of the public of those duties which you justly owe it; the more peaceable man you have been, the more fit you are. For the office of a Juryman is, conscientiously to judge his neighbour; and needs no more law than is easily learnt to direct him therein. I look upon you therefore as a man well qualified with estate, discretion, & integrity; and if all such as you should use private means to avoid it, how would the king and country be honestly served? At that rate we should have none but fools or knaves entrusted in this grand concern, on which (as you well observe) the lives, liberties, and estates of all England depend.
Your tenderness not to be accessary to any man's being wronged or ruined, is (as I said) much to be commended. But may you not ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 2, 2019:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
If civilization is advancement measurable as steady increase in the standard of living while there is a corresponding steady decrease in the cost of living, then the cause of civilization turning in the opposite direction (decrease in standard ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 7, 2019:
@Edify
"The question is answered."
The question was begged, and you then provided your answer.
"I have no idea what you read or heard if you really listened to the video, but your question drives home my point the discussion is a waste of time."
I spelled out in quotes exactly what was said in the video, and I then responded: to deaf ears.
"The search ultimately led me to Christ who says we are to be brothers and sisters not lord and servant and you accuse me of subscribing to a might makes right philosophy."
I wrote the word "if," as in "If you are a paying member of..." You heard accusations.
I also pointed out what appears to be a dictatorial mindset, which you may also ignore, or twist; a dictatorial mindset example.
As to Christian Scripture:
"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."
That is reinforced here:
"I commend your tenderness and modesty; yet must tell you, these are but general and weak excuses.
As for your time and trouble, it is not much; and however, can it be better spent than in doing justice, and serving your country? to withdraw yourself in such cases, is a kind of Sacrilege, a robbing of the public of those duties which you justly owe it; the more peaceable man you have been, the more fit you are. For the office of a Juryman is, conscientiously to judge his neighbour; and needs no more law than is easily learnt to direct him therein. I look upon you therefore as a man well qualified with estate, discretion, & integrity; and if all such as you should use private means to avoid it, how would the king and country be honestly served? At that rate we should have none but fools or knaves entrusted in this grand concern, on which (as you well observe) the lives, liberties, and estates of all England depend.
Your tenderness not to be accessary to any man's being wronged or ruined, is (as I said) much to be commended. But may you not ...
Alex Jones was right...
TheRealAlyZ comments on Dec 7, 2019:
He was unfortunately right about a lot of things from Chinese organ harvesting, to the Clinton corruption, to the poisoning of our water and food.
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 7, 2019:
Power corrupts and Alex Jones is not immune, but he has been on a roll with holding people to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter, at least since Waco.
TheRealAlyZ comments on Dec 7, 2019:
He was unfortunately right about a lot of things from Chinese organ harvesting, to the Clinton corruption, to the poisoning of our water and food.
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 7, 2019:
Power corrupts and Alex Jones is not immune, but he has been on a roll with holding people to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter, at least since Waco.
“Through giving up on the exercise of reason in conversations focused on the governance of the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 7, 2019:
@rway
Last first:
"First, we'll need to take back the institution of Education. Until we do that, America is never going to happen."
Who decides any fact concerning what is or is not Education?
Actual rule of law:
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236, 1788
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
M'Kean, Chief Justice.
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
The people, through their elected (random selection, by lot) representatives, representing the whole people as one (democratic), determine a fact in issue. That is confessed, or announced, or recorded officially, by an individual in a working republic (res-publica means The Public Thing: democratic), which was a working Republic joined voluntarily into a Federation of Republics: 1788. It was a common-law court.
Is that true? Who decides if it is true?
"Those votes are often unconstitutional, and rarely challenged successfully; especially when we have collectivists on the Supreme Court."
We do not have a Supreme Court. You and your kind have a Supreme Court. A court that empowers a faction, or representatives of a faction, with arbitrary power to judge whatever they please, is an idea you may share with your faction. I don't.
I agree with the following:
George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention
June 04, 1788
"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."
Also explained here:
"The judiciary of the United States is so...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 7, 2019:
@rway
Last first:
"First, we'll need to take back the institution of Education. Until we do that, America is never going to happen."
Who decides any fact concerning what is or is not Education?
Actual rule of law:
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236, 1788
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
M'Kean, Chief Justice.
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
The people, through their elected (random selection, by lot) representatives, representing the whole people as one (democratic), determine a fact in issue. That is confessed, or announced, or recorded officially, by an individual in a working republic (res-publica means The Public Thing: democratic), which was a working Republic joined voluntarily into a Federation of Republics: 1788. It was a common-law court.
Is that true? Who decides if it is true?
"Those votes are often unconstitutional, and rarely challenged successfully; especially when we have collectivists on the Supreme Court."
We do not have a Supreme Court. You and your kind have a Supreme Court. A court that empowers a faction, or representatives of a faction, with arbitrary power to judge whatever they please, is an idea you may share with your faction. I don't.
I agree with the following:
George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention
June 04, 1788
"Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former."
Also explained here:
"The judiciary of the United States is so...
“Through giving up on the exercise of reason in conversations focused on the governance of the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 7, 2019:
@rway
I am going to attempt to refute what I call dogma from The Cult of Might Makes Right.
Here is an example of such dogma:
"...the government has one job: to protect your rights from other people."
Those who repeat or even dream-up dogma for The Cult of Might Makes Right want their fellow Cult Members (criminals each one) to maintain the lie that their form of "government" is the only form, and there is no other form of government. The members of The Cult of Might Makes Right have two sets of rules:
1. The rules enforced by Criminals upon Victims.
2. The rules that temporarily afford Criminals the benefits of Economic Cooperation, affording Criminals the internal peace required to form a gang, known also as an Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Elite, whatnot.
Those who repeat the dogman for The Cult of Might Makes Right often dream up at least two opposing scripts to hand out to the victims so that the victims are fearful, hateful, and up-in-arms against their fictitious opponents and the Aristocratic Olgarchal Elite are in place to help each side destroy the other. If two opposing sides are not sufficient then an additional fictional opposition is dreamed-up, fabricated, propagated, and as that power of deception works through the targeted victim groups the fiction gains legs to stand on; like buildings built on sand.
See George Orwell in the book 1984 for an explanation of how a 3 sided fictional conflict plays out.
Enter State Left:
"The alternative to the left is Tyranny, in which you have no rights."
"The alternative to the right is Anarchy, in which you also have no rights."
That is all false, a complete fabrication. The actual left has been, from the start a natural bond between people who just want to live and let live, and those natural leftists created - for one example - democracy, as exemplified in Athens Greece.
The false left is exemplified with the legal fictions known as Bolshevism and Communism, propagated by actual people, such as Carl Marx, Frederick Engles, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Joseph Stalin. The fictional dream follows through to actual reality in fact: dead bodies.
The actual right has been, from the start a natural bond between people who just want to live and let live, and those natural rightists created - for one example - a Federation of Independent States in America, a Voluntary Mutual Defense Association able to defend itself against the largest Aggressive Criminal Empire then running amok in the playground called Earth. That defense, however, lasted only until 1789, from that point the criminals retook America turning America back down the road to absolute despotism, utilizing the legal fiction dogma.
"You buy into it by accepting those protections and participating to whatever extent you choose."
...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 7, 2019:
@rway
I am going to attempt to refute what I call dogma from The Cult of Might Makes Right.
Here is an example of such dogma:
"...the government has one job: to protect your rights from other people."
Those who repeat or even dream-up dogma for The Cult of Might Makes Right want their fellow Cult Members (criminals each one) to maintain the lie that their form of "government" is the only form, and there is no other form of government. The members of The Cult of Might Makes Right have two sets of rules:
1. The rules enforced by Criminals upon Victims.
2. The rules that temporarily afford Criminals the benefits of Economic Cooperation, affording Criminals the internal peace required to form a gang, known also as an Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Elite, whatnot.
Those who repeat the dogman for The Cult of Might Makes Right often dream up at least two opposing scripts to hand out to the victims so that the victims are fearful, hateful, and up-in-arms against their fictitious opponents and the Aristocratic Olgarchal Elite are in place to help each side destroy the other. If two opposing sides are not sufficient then an additional fictional opposition is dreamed-up, fabricated, propagated, and as that power of deception works through the targeted victim groups the fiction gains legs to stand on; like buildings built on sand.
See George Orwell in the book 1984 for an explanation of how a 3 sided fictional conflict plays out.
Enter State Left:
"The alternative to the left is Tyranny, in which you have no rights."
"The alternative to the right is Anarchy, in which you also have no rights."
That is all false, a complete fabrication. The actual left has been, from the start a natural bond between people who just want to live and let live, and those natural leftists created - for one example - democracy, as exemplified in Athens Greece.
The false left is exemplified with the legal fictions known as Bolshevism and Communism, propagated by actual people, such as Carl Marx, Frederick Engles, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Joseph Stalin. The fictional dream follows through to actual reality in fact: dead bodies.
The actual right has been, from the start a natural bond between people who just want to live and let live, and those natural rightists created - for one example - a Federation of Independent States in America, a Voluntary Mutual Defense Association able to defend itself against the largest Aggressive Criminal Empire then running amok in the playground called Earth. That defense, however, lasted only until 1789, from that point the criminals retook America turning America back down the road to absolute despotism, utilizing the legal fiction dogma.
"You buy into it by accepting those protections and participating to whatever extent you choose."
...
What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 2, 2019:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
If civilization is advancement measurable as steady increase in the standard of living while there is a corresponding steady decrease in the cost of living, then the cause of civilization turning in the opposite direction (decrease in standard ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 6, 2019:
@Edify
"You have your opinion, and no doubt you have an agenda that to some degree conflicts with my own."
"Words are the principal means of our intellectual intercourse, and they form the basis of all our institutions; but here again this subtle Individuality sets at nought the profoundest thoughts and the most careful phraseology. There is no certainty of any written laws, or rules, or institutions, or verbal precepts being understood in the same manner by any number of persons. This Individuality is unconquerable, and therefore RISES ABOVE ALL INSTITUTIONS. To require conformity in the appreciation of sentiments, or in the interpretation of language, or uniformity of thought, feeling, or action where there is no natural coincidence, is a fundamental error in human legislation—a madness that would be only equalled by requiring all to possess the same countenance or the same stature.
Individuality thus rising above all prescriptions, all authority, every one, by the very necessities of nature, IS RAISED ABOVE, instead of being under institutions based on language. Institutions thus become subordinate to our judgment and subject to our convenience; and the hitherto inverted pyramid of human affairs thus assumes its true position! Are you alarmed at this sudden plunge into an unknown, an uncultivated region? You are alarmed at your own redemption! After many years of patient watchfulness of the world’s movements and of laborious experiments, we see in this Individuality the germ of a future so magnificent, so bright and dazzling, that the eye can scarcely look upon it. We see that, as it is both inexpedient and impossible to overcome this Individuality, we must conform our institutions TO IT! Man-made laws thus become suggestive—not tyrannical masters, but useful co-operators. Institutions will be “made for man, not man for institutions!” Their introduction will be peaceful, and their progress proportioned to the benefits they confer! We see by it the violence of all disputes and controversies, whether religious, political, or domestic, or pecuniary, suddenly neutralised by a power as soft and genial as the gentle breath of a beneficent spirit! We see a remedy for the antagonisms of Individuals and of Nations!—a conservative against the decay of Empires!—a check to desolating ambition, and the whole field of human enterprise opened for beneficence! We discover a reasonable explanation of the antagonisms between ruled and rulers, between despotism and liberty! and we have found the deep seated, unseen causes of the political, religious, and pecuniary confusion and sufferings of the race, and of the disastrous defeats of Revolutions and reformatory movements."
"We behold in INDIVIDUALITY the long-sought principle of order, harmony, ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 2, 2019:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
If civilization is advancement measurable as steady increase in the standard of living while there is a corresponding steady decrease in the cost of living, then the cause of civilization turning in the opposite direction (decrease in standard ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 6, 2019:
@Edify
"You have your opinion, and no doubt you have an agenda that to some degree conflicts with my own."
"Words are the principal means of our intellectual intercourse, and they form the basis of all our institutions; but here again this subtle Individuality sets at nought the profoundest thoughts and the most careful phraseology. There is no certainty of any written laws, or rules, or institutions, or verbal precepts being understood in the same manner by any number of persons. This Individuality is unconquerable, and therefore RISES ABOVE ALL INSTITUTIONS. To require conformity in the appreciation of sentiments, or in the interpretation of language, or uniformity of thought, feeling, or action where there is no natural coincidence, is a fundamental error in human legislation—a madness that would be only equalled by requiring all to possess the same countenance or the same stature.
Individuality thus rising above all prescriptions, all authority, every one, by the very necessities of nature, IS RAISED ABOVE, instead of being under institutions based on language. Institutions thus become subordinate to our judgment and subject to our convenience; and the hitherto inverted pyramid of human affairs thus assumes its true position! Are you alarmed at this sudden plunge into an unknown, an uncultivated region? You are alarmed at your own redemption! After many years of patient watchfulness of the world’s movements and of laborious experiments, we see in this Individuality the germ of a future so magnificent, so bright and dazzling, that the eye can scarcely look upon it. We see that, as it is both inexpedient and impossible to overcome this Individuality, we must conform our institutions TO IT! Man-made laws thus become suggestive—not tyrannical masters, but useful co-operators. Institutions will be “made for man, not man for institutions!” Their introduction will be peaceful, and their progress proportioned to the benefits they confer! We see by it the violence of all disputes and controversies, whether religious, political, or domestic, or pecuniary, suddenly neutralised by a power as soft and genial as the gentle breath of a beneficent spirit! We see a remedy for the antagonisms of Individuals and of Nations!—a conservative against the decay of Empires!—a check to desolating ambition, and the whole field of human enterprise opened for beneficence! We discover a reasonable explanation of the antagonisms between ruled and rulers, between despotism and liberty! and we have found the deep seated, unseen causes of the political, religious, and pecuniary confusion and sufferings of the race, and of the disastrous defeats of Revolutions and reformatory movements."
"We behold in INDIVIDUALITY the long-sought principle of order, harmony, ...
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
"We also know that, by Magna Carta, amercements, or fines, could not be imposed to the ruin of the criminal; that, in the case of a freeman, his contenement, or means of subsisting in the condition of a freeman, must be saved to him; that, in the case of a merchant, his merchandise must be spared; ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 6, 2019:
@AlbertaPatriot
I was also thankful for discovering that connection between the criminal counterfeiters and the labor markets.
Here are more interesting facts that may help:
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy
by William Watkins
Take that to the bank, perhaps not a Profitable Monopoly Bank (Central Bank Counterfeiting Criminal Gang), and add the following additional information concerning the Free Market of Government Competition, added to the Free Market of Capital Lenders:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins:
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
"We also know that, by Magna Carta, amercements, or fines, could not be imposed to the ruin of the criminal; that, in the case of a freeman, his contenement, or means of subsisting in the condition of a freeman, must be saved to him; that, in the case of a merchant, his merchandise must be spared; ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 6, 2019:
@AlbertaPatriot
I was also thankful for discovering that connection between the criminal counterfeiters and the labor markets.
Here are more interesting facts that may help:
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy
by William Watkins
Take that to the bank, perhaps not a Profitable Monopoly Bank (Central Bank Counterfeiting Criminal Gang), and add the following additional information concerning the Free Market of Government Competition, added to the Free Market of Capital Lenders:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins:
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if ...
“Through giving up on the exercise of reason in conversations focused on the governance of the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 6, 2019:
@dd54
Do you know what a federation is?
Example:
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
"That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
"That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
Congress, 1775
Have you read the notes taken at the Secret Meeting in Philadelphia?
Example:
Below is a quote from Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787.
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation.""
Note: "...it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different..."
Federation was spelled out in the original congress as a voluntary association for mutual defense, not an all-powerful Nation-State Profitable Monopoly Dictatorship as exemplified by The British Empire example.
Those assembled at the Con-Con in 1787 knew this, as attested to in so many words, as they decided to hide the distinction, so as to perpetrate the usurpation.
Do you know what a republic is?
Example:
"But what do we mean by a federal republic and what by a consolidated government? To erect a federal republic, we must first make a number of states on republican principles; each state with a government organized for the internal management of its affairs: The states, as such, must unite under a federal head, and delegate to it powers to make and execute laws in certain enumerated cases, under certain restrictions; this head...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 6, 2019:
@dd54
Do you know what a federation is?
Example:
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
"That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
"That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
Congress, 1775
Have you read the notes taken at the Secret Meeting in Philadelphia?
Example:
Below is a quote from Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787.
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation.""
Note: "...it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different..."
Federation was spelled out in the original congress as a voluntary association for mutual defense, not an all-powerful Nation-State Profitable Monopoly Dictatorship as exemplified by The British Empire example.
Those assembled at the Con-Con in 1787 knew this, as attested to in so many words, as they decided to hide the distinction, so as to perpetrate the usurpation.
Do you know what a republic is?
Example:
"But what do we mean by a federal republic and what by a consolidated government? To erect a federal republic, we must first make a number of states on republican principles; each state with a government organized for the internal management of its affairs: The states, as such, must unite under a federal head, and delegate to it powers to make and execute laws in certain enumerated cases, under certain restrictions; this head...
If they wanted to modify the Constitution I would support an amendment that would force government ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
If anyone in power had a conscience, or some other reason to remain lawful, then they might use your idea, or they might use a better idea, or they might just decide to enforce the actual law.
They don't. So your idea, or any employment of human conscience, or any competitive application of ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 6, 2019:
@KCSantiago
You got me, thanks. While you were being facetious I was being general, not personal. I use the word if, when I can remember to do so, so as to turn away from personal attack.
Example: "If you do not know the difference between a law and a statute, then..."
If the shoe fits, then the shoe fits, if the one in question is just being facetious, then the facetious shoe fits.
"Most the laws that exist should be stricken, they certainly don't need to be making more."
Like the following?
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States."
or from the same source:
"There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.
These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people.
If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States - that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights - it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852
How about this:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
If anyone in power had a conscience, or some other reason to remain lawful, then they might use your idea, or they might use a better idea, or they might just decide to enforce the actual law.
They don't. So your idea, or any employment of human conscience, or any competitive application of ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 6, 2019:
@KCSantiago
You got me, thanks. While you were being facetious I was being general, not personal. I use the word if, when I can remember to do so, so as to turn away from personal attack.
Example: "If you do not know the difference between a law and a statute, then..."
If the shoe fits, then the shoe fits, if the one in question is just being facetious, then the facetious shoe fits.
"Most the laws that exist should be stricken, they certainly don't need to be making more."
Like the following?
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States."
or from the same source:
"There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.
These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people.
If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States - that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights - it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852
How about this:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only ...
“Through giving up on the exercise of reason in conversations focused on the governance of the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 6, 2019:
@Tdonald
I am new to this software (web page), therefore I do not know that there is an Essay that I should read, in order to earn a reasonable comment. I read the words in the initial post, these words:
“Through giving up on the exercise of reason in conversations focused on the governance of the nation, we the people have traded real politics for an episode of a soap opera.” - from We The People - Fake Politics and Grassroots Reform by Max Maxwell & Melete
That message is all twisted up. I would like to untwist it.
"You didn’t read the essay, did you?
That’s OK.
Exactly what would you like to discuss?"
"Governance of the nation..."
When did "We The People" buy into the lie that the "nation" needs governance? Are "We The People," stupid and servile? What happened to freedom in liberty?
Do you buy into the all-powerful legal fiction Nation-State con game too?
I don't, and I think it is worth commenting on. If those who wrote the Essay can't even get one sentence untwisted, why would I be inspired to read any more messages from those authors? You tell me, please.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
We the people started out as 13 INDEPENDENT Nations. There were also Indian Nations which may have been more than willing to join a Federation of INDEPENDENT Nations, so long as the connection remained voluntary.
The Nations were Federated up until 1789 when criminals took over and created (and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 6, 2019:
@Tdonald
I am new to this software (web page), therefore I do not know that there is an Essay that I should read, in order to earn a reasonable comment. I read the words in the initial post, these words:
“Through giving up on the exercise of reason in conversations focused on the governance of the nation, we the people have traded real politics for an episode of a soap opera.” - from We The People - Fake Politics and Grassroots Reform by Max Maxwell & Melete
That message is all twisted up. I would like to untwist it.
"You didn’t read the essay, did you?
That’s OK.
Exactly what would you like to discuss?"
"Governance of the nation..."
When did "We The People" buy into the lie that the "nation" needs governance? Are "We The People," stupid and servile? What happened to freedom in liberty?
Do you buy into the all-powerful legal fiction Nation-State con game too?
I don't, and I think it is worth commenting on. If those who wrote the Essay can't even get one sentence untwisted, why would I be inspired to read any more messages from those authors? You tell me, please.
Does this make sense to you?
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 3, 2019:
In the first place the author would have to explain what he means by "nation," as in "...the end of any nation."
Take America for example. America started out as a place where people ran (many runaway slaves running away from Religious, Economic, and other forms of slavery) to this place. Here ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 6, 2019:
@Organicplum
I have a feeling that facts are efforts to know better from worse from my limited capacity to perceive the truth. The idea is that the truth, or a fact, is what it is even if people can't perceive the fact, or the truth, entirely, or in part.
The idea with human conflict arises when one individual believes something contrary to what is believed by another individual, and that works exponentially greater when one group of people believe something contrary to what is believed by another group of people sharing a contrary belief.
Conflict then leads to beliefs that prescribe that it is worth the effort (the cost) to remedy conflict: to maintain peace.
One belief is to use power to make the opposing group change their belief by any means including deception, threats of aggressive violence, and torturous, terrifying, murderous, aggressive violence: see for example The Inquisition.
Another belief is to combine forces to work competitively (not antagonistically competitive but cooperatively competitive: seeking higher quality and lower cost) to qualify and quantify beliefs that are not yet based upon efforts to qualify and quantify beliefs: to seek the truth. This belief is qualified - at times - as a diligent effort to weed out false beliefs and discover true beliefs, and if the quantity of false beliefs outnumbers the quantity of true beliefs, those sharing this belief do not abandon the belief that the truth is better than falsehood.
Case in point: Is it a good idea (a true belief) that paying the extortion fee will satisfy the extortionist, and therefore it is an investment for a better future for all?
Is that true?
Is it a better idea to look for methods to overpower the extortionists before giving them even more power, giving them some of the same power supply you had when you met the extortionist the first time?
Case 2 (more simplified):
Is it a good idea to look directly at the sun because everyone in your group (all blind) believes that looking into the sun is the only way to go to heaven and be with god.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 3, 2019:
In the first place the author would have to explain what he means by "nation," as in "...the end of any nation."
Take America for example. America started out as a place where people ran (many runaway slaves running away from Religious, Economic, and other forms of slavery) to this place. Here ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 6, 2019:
@Organicplum
I have a feeling that facts are efforts to know better from worse from my limited capacity to perceive the truth. The idea is that the truth, or a fact, is what it is even if people can't perceive the fact, or the truth, entirely, or in part.
The idea with human conflict arises when one individual believes something contrary to what is believed by another individual, and that works exponentially greater when one group of people believe something contrary to what is believed by another group of people sharing a contrary belief.
Conflict then leads to beliefs that prescribe that it is worth the effort (the cost) to remedy conflict: to maintain peace.
One belief is to use power to make the opposing group change their belief by any means including deception, threats of aggressive violence, and torturous, terrifying, murderous, aggressive violence: see for example The Inquisition.
Another belief is to combine forces to work competitively (not antagonistically competitive but cooperatively competitive: seeking higher quality and lower cost) to qualify and quantify beliefs that are not yet based upon efforts to qualify and quantify beliefs: to seek the truth. This belief is qualified - at times - as a diligent effort to weed out false beliefs and discover true beliefs, and if the quantity of false beliefs outnumbers the quantity of true beliefs, those sharing this belief do not abandon the belief that the truth is better than falsehood.
Case in point: Is it a good idea (a true belief) that paying the extortion fee will satisfy the extortionist, and therefore it is an investment for a better future for all?
Is that true?
Is it a better idea to look for methods to overpower the extortionists before giving them even more power, giving them some of the same power supply you had when you met the extortionist the first time?
Case 2 (more simplified):
Is it a good idea to look directly at the sun because everyone in your group (all blind) believes that looking into the sun is the only way to go to heaven and be with god.
Hillary and Bill Clinton were Jeffrey Epstein’s closest ‘celebrity mates’ and frequent guests ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
There is a contradiction that can be explained factually or by assumption. The contradiction is that these people are supposed to be protecting people, particularly people who are defenseless, such as children, orphans in particular. These people are not protecting people when the worst criminals ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 5, 2019:
@Serg97
"...can you state your position in three sentences or less?"
Justice is factual, and a test to determine justice is offered in Mathew 7:12 the Golden Rule. If people do unto others what they themselves will fight tooth and nail to avoid having the same done to themselves, then that is demonstrably not justice.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
There is a contradiction that can be explained factually or by assumption. The contradiction is that these people are supposed to be protecting people, particularly people who are defenseless, such as children, orphans in particular. These people are not protecting people when the worst criminals ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 5, 2019:
@Serg97
"...can you state your position in three sentences or less?"
Justice is factual, and a test to determine justice is offered in Mathew 7:12 the Golden Rule. If people do unto others what they themselves will fight tooth and nail to avoid having the same done to themselves, then that is demonstrably not justice.
It’s not a white people problem, it’s a RICH PEOPLE PROBLEM.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
"Government is too lucrative a business, to allow anyone to kills the golden goose."
Fake (counterfeit) government is organized crime with a false flag, and if it is this Golden Goose, then it consumes itself. The actual golden goose is freedom in liberty, the capacity for people to interact in ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 5, 2019:
@David42
From a time before democracy became so-called Majority Rule:
The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick T. Long
"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.
"Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.
"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
"Government is too lucrative a business, to allow anyone to kills the golden goose."
Fake (counterfeit) government is organized crime with a false flag, and if it is this Golden Goose, then it consumes itself. The actual golden goose is freedom in liberty, the capacity for people to interact in ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 5, 2019:
@David42
From a time before democracy became so-called Majority Rule:
The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick T. Long
"The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.
"Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats.
"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those ...
Hillary and Bill Clinton were Jeffrey Epstein’s closest ‘celebrity mates’ and frequent guests ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
There is a contradiction that can be explained factually or by assumption. The contradiction is that these people are supposed to be protecting people, particularly people who are defenseless, such as children, orphans in particular. These people are not protecting people when the worst criminals ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 5, 2019:
@Serg97
If you can only imagine the current government to be the only government possible, then you may not fully appreciate the example of actual government that you describe.
If someone volunteers to defend innocent people, and does so effectively, who is to say that the case was not a perfect example of the law power, justified, in fact?
One of the frauds that work to convince the dupes that they must pay the protection fee demanded by despots running counterfeit governments is this claim that the law can only be employed by anointed, exclusive, members of the despotic gang.
Phrases like "he took the law into his own hands," is an example of this fraud at work.
See for an explanation of real government the following messages:
Page 42
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
There is a contradiction that can be explained factually or by assumption. The contradiction is that these people are supposed to be protecting people, particularly people who are defenseless, such as children, orphans in particular. These people are not protecting people when the worst criminals ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 5, 2019:
@Serg97
If you can only imagine the current government to be the only government possible, then you may not fully appreciate the example of actual government that you describe.
If someone volunteers to defend innocent people, and does so effectively, who is to say that the case was not a perfect example of the law power, justified, in fact?
One of the frauds that work to convince the dupes that they must pay the protection fee demanded by despots running counterfeit governments is this claim that the law can only be employed by anointed, exclusive, members of the despotic gang.
Phrases like "he took the law into his own hands," is an example of this fraud at work.
See for an explanation of real government the following messages:
Page 42
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the ...
"A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
"We also know that, by Magna Carta, amercements, or fines, could not be imposed to the ruin of the criminal; that, in the case of a freeman, his contenement, or means of subsisting in the condition of a freeman, must be saved to him; that, in the case of a merchant, his merchandise must be spared; ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 5, 2019:
@AlbertaPatriot
The power to cause a currency collapse may have reduced significantly since the introduction of Crypto-Currencies on what remains of the free market of Purchasing Power Providers (a.k.a. Banks).
You may like the following:
"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency.
"It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount.
"If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks.
"This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 5, 2019:
"We also know that, by Magna Carta, amercements, or fines, could not be imposed to the ruin of the criminal; that, in the case of a freeman, his contenement, or means of subsisting in the condition of a freeman, must be saved to him; that, in the case of a merchant, his merchandise must be spared; ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 5, 2019:
@AlbertaPatriot
The power to cause a currency collapse may have reduced significantly since the introduction of Crypto-Currencies on what remains of the free market of Purchasing Power Providers (a.k.a. Banks).
You may like the following:
"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency.
"It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount.
"If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks.
"This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, ...
What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 2, 2019:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
If civilization is advancement measurable as steady increase in the standard of living while there is a corresponding steady decrease in the cost of living, then the cause of civilization turning in the opposite direction (decrease in standard ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 5, 2019:
@Edify
"You seem determined to discredit my views, let me inform you, this is not possible."
Why would someone willfully ignore the facts that matter in any case?
If you ask a question on a public forum, such as:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
Then when you are given an answer, you ignore the answer, and instead of dealing with the information offered in the answer, you accuse the one volunteering to answer your question with failing to know the answer to the question you asked.
"We need a comprehensive response to freeloading. Piecemeal solutions do not work. Ethiton is the only source of comprehensive solutions to freeloading and other social problems because only Ethiton understands why the problem of freeloading exists and what to do about it."
So...your bait is to act as if you are asking a question (begging the question) when in reality you only want to propagate the "only" solution that is your "only" solution.
If you do not want to entertain competitive answers to the question you ask, then perhaps you ought to simply state why you are engaged on a public forum; soliciting.
Your bait is to ask "What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?" and other more detailed questions when your absolutely correct "only" answer was already waiting in the wings.
Freeloading is the only correct answer to your question, all other answers are to be discredited by you, and you will blame other people for trying to discredit your views?
If I were as confused about "What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?" as you are, then I would ask for help. I would ask questions seeking accurate answers.
Example:
"...nobody likes freeloading..."
That is clearly wrong. Why would someone have such a clearly wrong view? If someone is claiming that the only cause in the context of the question asked is "freeloading," and that same someone claims that the only solution to this only cause concerning the question asked is an as-yet-to-be explained solution, then perhaps that someone ought not defend a clearly wrong view, such as the view stated as "...nobody liked freeloading...", when clearly there are plenty of people who not only like receiving freeloading benefits, there are also those who like giving free stuff to freeloaders depending of course on what exactly is the measure of value according to those who like freeloading enough to be giving to freeloaders.
Then the view that (if it were my view) I would prefer to have someone correct this wrong view is the one where the claim is made that the (so-called) government isn't accountable.
"...there's no accountability to the people that it lives off of..."
That is clearly false.
"You seem determined to discredit my views, let me...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 2, 2019:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
If civilization is advancement measurable as steady increase in the standard of living while there is a corresponding steady decrease in the cost of living, then the cause of civilization turning in the opposite direction (decrease in standard ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 5, 2019:
@Edify
"You seem determined to discredit my views, let me inform you, this is not possible."
Why would someone willfully ignore the facts that matter in any case?
If you ask a question on a public forum, such as:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
Then when you are given an answer, you ignore the answer, and instead of dealing with the information offered in the answer, you accuse the one volunteering to answer your question with failing to know the answer to the question you asked.
"We need a comprehensive response to freeloading. Piecemeal solutions do not work. Ethiton is the only source of comprehensive solutions to freeloading and other social problems because only Ethiton understands why the problem of freeloading exists and what to do about it."
So...your bait is to act as if you are asking a question (begging the question) when in reality you only want to propagate the "only" solution that is your "only" solution.
If you do not want to entertain competitive answers to the question you ask, then perhaps you ought to simply state why you are engaged on a public forum; soliciting.
Your bait is to ask "What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?" and other more detailed questions when your absolutely correct "only" answer was already waiting in the wings.
Freeloading is the only correct answer to your question, all other answers are to be discredited by you, and you will blame other people for trying to discredit your views?
If I were as confused about "What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?" as you are, then I would ask for help. I would ask questions seeking accurate answers.
Example:
"...nobody likes freeloading..."
That is clearly wrong. Why would someone have such a clearly wrong view? If someone is claiming that the only cause in the context of the question asked is "freeloading," and that same someone claims that the only solution to this only cause concerning the question asked is an as-yet-to-be explained solution, then perhaps that someone ought not defend a clearly wrong view, such as the view stated as "...nobody liked freeloading...", when clearly there are plenty of people who not only like receiving freeloading benefits, there are also those who like giving free stuff to freeloaders depending of course on what exactly is the measure of value according to those who like freeloading enough to be giving to freeloaders.
Then the view that (if it were my view) I would prefer to have someone correct this wrong view is the one where the claim is made that the (so-called) government isn't accountable.
"...there's no accountability to the people that it lives off of..."
That is clearly false.
"You seem determined to discredit my views, let me...
What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 2, 2019:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
If civilization is advancement measurable as steady increase in the standard of living while there is a corresponding steady decrease in the cost of living, then the cause of civilization turning in the opposite direction (decrease in standard ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 4, 2019:
@Edify
As to the Video Presentation:
1.
"Nobody like freeloading..."
Everyone who likes freeloading - as a rule - likes freeloading. Are people being forced into receiving the stolen property, or do they invest in the mechanism that moves the loot to them?
2.
"Nobody knows exactly how to get rid of it."
Josiah Warren in a book titled Equitable Commerce offers information that may prove that statement wrong. In my opinion, the actual law - when it is used - is another way to get rid of it. So there are now 2 examples that work to prove the statement as false.
3.
"Freeloading comes in many different forms..."
Rather than a pet peeve, how about an accurate measure of one of, if not the worst, major transfers of power (wealth measured in units of purchasing power) from those who produce anything worth stealing to those who freeload off the backs of all those producers? Then how about adding to the list so as to find the worst, then the next down on the list from the worst, and then work down to the bottom step where the least freeloading is accurately measured?
https://www.usdebtclock.org/
That is the worst case of freeloading I know, and it is very well documented as anyone can see if they care to look.
4.
"The government itself is a freeloader..."
If that is true then the "government" is organized crime, and then it might be worth the effort to find government forms that are not forms of organized crime: freeloading (subsidized slavery).
5.
"...there's no accountability to the people that it lives off of..."
The so-called government (organized crime) keeps very detailed records on precisely how much can be stolen from everyone who dares to produce anything worth stealing, and that is accountability, and it is published for all to see. If people want to control the government, on the other hand, there are peaceful ways to do so, but most people don't want to know those ways. Most people prefer to ignore tried and true solutions to factual situations whereby criminals (freeloaders) take-over the government.
6.
"...for what it is costing them..."
https://apps.irs.gov/app/tax-withholding-estimator
7.
"...we have no control over it, or the costs that it is creating..."
What you describe is organized crime, the proof is confessed by you, and as a rule, the victims of organized crime have no control over it, and no control over the costs that it is creating.
Actual government, on the other hand, is tried and true, and the people either pay for it or they do not pay for it.
8.
"....freeloading...is capitalism..."
If you have a working definition of capitalism then your working definition of capitalism means - according to you - a form of freeloading. I think what you actually...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 2, 2019:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
If civilization is advancement measurable as steady increase in the standard of living while there is a corresponding steady decrease in the cost of living, then the cause of civilization turning in the opposite direction (decrease in standard ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 4, 2019:
@Edify
As to the Video Presentation:
1.
"Nobody like freeloading..."
Everyone who likes freeloading - as a rule - likes freeloading. Are people being forced into receiving the stolen property, or do they invest in the mechanism that moves the loot to them?
2.
"Nobody knows exactly how to get rid of it."
Josiah Warren in a book titled Equitable Commerce offers information that may prove that statement wrong. In my opinion, the actual law - when it is used - is another way to get rid of it. So there are now 2 examples that work to prove the statement as false.
3.
"Freeloading comes in many different forms..."
Rather than a pet peeve, how about an accurate measure of one of, if not the worst, major transfers of power (wealth measured in units of purchasing power) from those who produce anything worth stealing to those who freeload off the backs of all those producers? Then how about adding to the list so as to find the worst, then the next down on the list from the worst, and then work down to the bottom step where the least freeloading is accurately measured?
https://www.usdebtclock.org/
That is the worst case of freeloading I know, and it is very well documented as anyone can see if they care to look.
4.
"The government itself is a freeloader..."
If that is true then the "government" is organized crime, and then it might be worth the effort to find government forms that are not forms of organized crime: freeloading (subsidized slavery).
5.
"...there's no accountability to the people that it lives off of..."
The so-called government (organized crime) keeps very detailed records on precisely how much can be stolen from everyone who dares to produce anything worth stealing, and that is accountability, and it is published for all to see. If people want to control the government, on the other hand, there are peaceful ways to do so, but most people don't want to know those ways. Most people prefer to ignore tried and true solutions to factual situations whereby criminals (freeloaders) take-over the government.
6.
"...for what it is costing them..."
https://apps.irs.gov/app/tax-withholding-estimator
7.
"...we have no control over it, or the costs that it is creating..."
What you describe is organized crime, the proof is confessed by you, and as a rule, the victims of organized crime have no control over it, and no control over the costs that it is creating.
Actual government, on the other hand, is tried and true, and the people either pay for it or they do not pay for it.
8.
"....freeloading...is capitalism..."
If you have a working definition of capitalism then your working definition of capitalism means - according to you - a form of freeloading. I think what you actually...
What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 2, 2019:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
If civilization is advancement measurable as steady increase in the standard of living while there is a corresponding steady decrease in the cost of living, then the cause of civilization turning in the opposite direction (decrease in standard ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 3, 2019:
@Edify
"Are you saying you listened to the video?"
I can comment on the video if you care to know what I have learned, if not then not.
"If so you have gone off on a tangent."
I thought my words were clear - clear to me at least - I did not comment on the video, I commented on your words. After I commented on your words I then listened to the video, and then I edited my comment with a comment about the video (which I viewed after commenting on your words).
"What the video is about and what I am talking about is ending freeloading... the issue of entitlements is strongly immersed in the information on freeloading, in other words if you wish to reimburse someone for a cost you created or feel you are responsible for."
Here you have a serious problem explaining how I went on a tangent because the reason why "freeloading" is much more of a problem today is factually traced back to "freeloading" being subsidized in 1789. If you do not want to know this, then you can admit it. If you think I am wrong then you can explain how I am wrong, because I am not wrong, and you will then learn something worth knowing about "freeloading."
"I have no problems with that, but my video and my concern is with freeloading and eliminating it."
If you have no clue as to what causes it (what subsidizes it), then you are ignorant, and refusing to see what causes it is a choice you make, so that problem is your own.
If you have no clue as to what causes "freeloading," then how are you supposed to eliminate it? Do you depend upon blind luck?
"ie any perception of some perceived historic wrong is a personal issue and not something I wish to comment on. "
The so-called "perceived historic wrong," is current and more powerfully wrong than it was when it was "historically" started as a wrong: Subsidizing "Freeloading."
What do you think happens when the "freeloaders" are paid to "freeload," on the backs of those who produce anything worth stealling?
I will give you a clue but at this point my confidence in your ability to see the facts that matter is waning rapidly.
Clue:
"The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.
"Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 2, 2019:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
If civilization is advancement measurable as steady increase in the standard of living while there is a corresponding steady decrease in the cost of living, then the cause of civilization turning in the opposite direction (decrease in standard ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 3, 2019:
@Edify
"Are you saying you listened to the video?"
I can comment on the video if you care to know what I have learned, if not then not.
"If so you have gone off on a tangent."
I thought my words were clear - clear to me at least - I did not comment on the video, I commented on your words. After I commented on your words I then listened to the video, and then I edited my comment with a comment about the video (which I viewed after commenting on your words).
"What the video is about and what I am talking about is ending freeloading... the issue of entitlements is strongly immersed in the information on freeloading, in other words if you wish to reimburse someone for a cost you created or feel you are responsible for."
Here you have a serious problem explaining how I went on a tangent because the reason why "freeloading" is much more of a problem today is factually traced back to "freeloading" being subsidized in 1789. If you do not want to know this, then you can admit it. If you think I am wrong then you can explain how I am wrong, because I am not wrong, and you will then learn something worth knowing about "freeloading."
"I have no problems with that, but my video and my concern is with freeloading and eliminating it."
If you have no clue as to what causes it (what subsidizes it), then you are ignorant, and refusing to see what causes it is a choice you make, so that problem is your own.
If you have no clue as to what causes "freeloading," then how are you supposed to eliminate it? Do you depend upon blind luck?
"ie any perception of some perceived historic wrong is a personal issue and not something I wish to comment on. "
The so-called "perceived historic wrong," is current and more powerfully wrong than it was when it was "historically" started as a wrong: Subsidizing "Freeloading."
What do you think happens when the "freeloaders" are paid to "freeload," on the backs of those who produce anything worth stealling?
I will give you a clue but at this point my confidence in your ability to see the facts that matter is waning rapidly.
Clue:
"The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.
"Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the ...
Does this make sense to you?
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 3, 2019:
In the first place the author would have to explain what he means by "nation," as in "...the end of any nation."
Take America for example. America started out as a place where people ran (many runaway slaves running away from Religious, Economic, and other forms of slavery) to this place. Here ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 3, 2019:
@Naomi
It makes sense. Stealing is a transfer of power from the victim to the thief. What the thief does after the crime is another subject.
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 3, 2019:
In the first place the author would have to explain what he means by "nation," as in "...the end of any nation."
Take America for example. America started out as a place where people ran (many runaway slaves running away from Religious, Economic, and other forms of slavery) to this place. Here ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 3, 2019:
@Naomi
It makes sense. Stealing is a transfer of power from the victim to the thief. What the thief does after the crime is another subject.
What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 2, 2019:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
If civilization is advancement measurable as steady increase in the standard of living while there is a corresponding steady decrease in the cost of living, then the cause of civilization turning in the opposite direction (decrease in standard ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 3, 2019:
@Edify
"We need a comprehensive response to freeloading."
I can look at the link by Ethiton (soon), but the idea here is conversation, or perhaps debate, or sharing words that intend to share perspectives, and I hope that the idea is to increase the quality of perception: to know better from worse. So what do you know?
At the time America turned decidedly toward "feeloading," the major "freeloaders" of the day were Warmongers, Central Bankers, and Slave Traders.
Take Slave Traders for an example of freeloading.
Those who loaded up people on ships in Africa made a killing on selling those people to people who made a killing on working those people in America: freeloading on the backs of people from Africa.
When America turned decidedly toward freeloading and decidedly away from freedom in liberty, the Warmongers, Central Bankers, and Slave Traders effectively enforced their freeloading turf by making everyone in America - other than those in their faction - slaves. Central banking was subsidized Nationally, making the slaves pay for the freeloading known as Central Banking. Warmongering (endless wars for endless profits) was subsidized Nationally, making slaves pay for the freeloading known as Aggressive Wars for Profit (which works very well when financed by Central Bankers), and finally, the example offered: Slave Trading.
When Slave Trading was almost driven out of America, at roughly the same time the British criminal army was driven out of America, the place called America turned decidedly in the other direction soon after the people regained freedom in liberty in America: 1787.
The criminal document known as The Constitution of 1789 was written by Central Bankers, Warmongers, and Slave Traders, and deviously written into the criminal document is the National enslavement of all Americans to pay for the maintenance of the Slave Trade for a number of years.
Talk about freeloading.
What are the solutions? I propose that keeping the record straight (the actual law power) is a good start.
(I listened to the link and I can comment on that link extensively, does that belong in another thread?)
Josf-Kelley comments on Dec 2, 2019:
"What Happened To Us (on the road to civilization)?"
If civilization is advancement measurable as steady increase in the standard of living while there is a corresponding steady decrease in the cost of living, then the cause of civilization turning in the opposite direction (decrease in standard ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Dec 3, 2019:
@Edify
"We need a comprehensive response to freeloading."
I can look at the link by Ethiton (soon), but the idea here is conversation, or perhaps debate, or sharing words that intend to share perspectives, and I hope that the idea is to increase the quality of perception: to know better from worse. So what do you know?
At the time America turned decidedly toward "feeloading," the major "freeloaders" of the day were Warmongers, Central Bankers, and Slave Traders.
Take Slave Traders for an example of freeloading.
Those who loaded up people on ships in Africa made a killing on selling those people to people who made a killing on working those people in America: freeloading on the backs of people from Africa.
When America turned decidedly toward freeloading and decidedly away from freedom in liberty, the Warmongers, Central Bankers, and Slave Traders effectively enforced their freeloading turf by making everyone in America - other than those in their faction - slaves. Central banking was subsidized Nationally, making the slaves pay for the freeloading known as Central Banking. Warmongering (endless wars for endless profits) was subsidized Nationally, making slaves pay for the freeloading known as Aggressive Wars for Profit (which works very well when financed by Central Bankers), and finally, the example offered: Slave Trading.
When Slave Trading was almost driven out of America, at roughly the same time the British criminal army was driven out of America, the place called America turned decidedly in the other direction soon after the people regained freedom in liberty in America: 1787.
The criminal document known as The Constitution of 1789 was written by Central Bankers, Warmongers, and Slave Traders, and deviously written into the criminal document is the National enslavement of all Americans to pay for the maintenance of the Slave Trade for a number of years.
Talk about freeloading.
What are the solutions? I propose that keeping the record straight (the actual law power) is a good start.
(I listened to the link and I can comment on that link extensively, does that belong in another thread?)
Why did America, the great land of liberty, cede so much power to the police force?
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 28, 2019:
The power struggle in America has been between those who voluntary associate (the law) and those who use deception, threat of aggression violence, and aggressive violence to bind slaves into slavery. That was the battle that became known as The Revolutionary War.
The power struggle swung ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 29, 2019:
@JackHammel
Rather than resort to the aggressive assassination of my character, the concept of the law is to deter such behavior with accurate accountability, so the police are in place to ensure that means to that end, and if the police turn instead to aggressive Assassinations they - by their choice - become the criminals.
"Why did America, the great land of liberty, cede so much power to the police force?"
That question shows that there is a faction within the group of people known collectively as America.
A very good source for documenting when a faction in America gains arbitrary power over everyone else is a book written by Roger Roots titled The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of American's Criminal Courts.
Example:
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
Plea-bargaining is voluntary when no other people are threatened by the offender, but involuntary when the potential ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 28, 2019:
The power struggle in America has been between those who voluntary associate (the law) and those who use deception, threat of aggression violence, and aggressive violence to bind slaves into slavery. That was the battle that became known as The Revolutionary War.
The power struggle swung ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 29, 2019:
@JackHammel
Rather than resort to the aggressive assassination of my character, the concept of the law is to deter such behavior with accurate accountability, so the police are in place to ensure that means to that end, and if the police turn instead to aggressive Assassinations they - by their choice - become the criminals.
"Why did America, the great land of liberty, cede so much power to the police force?"
That question shows that there is a faction within the group of people known collectively as America.
A very good source for documenting when a faction in America gains arbitrary power over everyone else is a book written by Roger Roots titled The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of American's Criminal Courts.
Example:
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
Plea-bargaining is voluntary when no other people are threatened by the offender, but involuntary when the potential ...
Why did America, the great land of liberty, cede so much power to the police force?
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 28, 2019:
The power struggle in America has been between those who voluntary associate (the law) and those who use deception, threat of aggression violence, and aggressive violence to bind slaves into slavery. That was the battle that became known as The Revolutionary War.
The power struggle swung ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 28, 2019:
@dmatic
First what was being defended as told by those defending it:
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
A Federation = Voluntary Association
Those words in quotes above are taken from the Congressional Record during the period of actual Federalism between 1775 and 1789. The Federation was called The United States of America, and the Federal Government was Congress Assembled in a discussion to decide to publish a Declaration of Independence. There in those words are uncontroversial meanings worthy of note.
Then the Nationalists began the campaign to Nationalize (alter) the Federation and opponents published extensively against that usurpation.
Examples:
No. 15 – Rhode Island Is Right!
This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman's Journal; (Or, The North-American Intelligencer?)
"The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.
"They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a...
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 28, 2019:
The power struggle in America has been between those who voluntary associate (the law) and those who use deception, threat of aggression violence, and aggressive violence to bind slaves into slavery. That was the battle that became known as The Revolutionary War.
The power struggle swung ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 28, 2019:
@dmatic
First what was being defended as told by those defending it:
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
A Federation = Voluntary Association
Those words in quotes above are taken from the Congressional Record during the period of actual Federalism between 1775 and 1789. The Federation was called The United States of America, and the Federal Government was Congress Assembled in a discussion to decide to publish a Declaration of Independence. There in those words are uncontroversial meanings worthy of note.
Then the Nationalists began the campaign to Nationalize (alter) the Federation and opponents published extensively against that usurpation.
Examples:
No. 15 – Rhode Island Is Right!
This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman's Journal; (Or, The North-American Intelligencer?)
"The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.
"They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a...
My favorite thing about IDW.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 26, 2019:
What is meant by the word leftist?
Do you mean someone who dictates a false account and enforces belief in that false account?
The original meaning of many words are now commonly forgotten, and the opposite meaning of the original meaning – the counterfeit meaning – is commonly accepted....
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 27, 2019:
@Facci
The problem with all con games is the time and place where the victims pay the price, and the criminals get the loot.
The false legal fiction con can also be explained as a false grouping together of both criminals and victims. That is an exponentially growing power transfer from victims to criminals as criminals are generally seen as less costly, less dangerous, and less of a threat to past, current, and future [victims], so the victims are less powerful in defense as victims are led to "collectivize" all people into one group: criminals and victims as if those two groups were one.
Also: the victims are dirtied, soiled, demoted, made "collectively" guilty, and that too is powerless for defense, and as time passes the shift of power accelerates while this con works generally.
In the Sutton documentation, there are specifics, rather than grouping everyone into America the beautiful, Wall Street the Economic Wizards of Oz with a few bad apples, and those bad guys who call themselves Nazis, Communists, Marxists, whatnot, except of course for the hundred million of them that didn't, those sent to the Gulags, and those sent to early graves.
Here is a tell tale:
"A majority of Americans supported..."
I edited the full message to point out the Might Makes Right claim that arrives from stage Left in the form known as Majority Rules.
The rule that works is Golden, as a matter of routinely demonstrated fact.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 26, 2019:
What is meant by the word leftist?
Do you mean someone who dictates a false account and enforces belief in that false account?
The original meaning of many words are now commonly forgotten, and the opposite meaning of the original meaning – the counterfeit meaning – is commonly accepted....
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 27, 2019:
@Facci
The problem with all con games is the time and place where the victims pay the price, and the criminals get the loot.
The false legal fiction con can also be explained as a false grouping together of both criminals and victims. That is an exponentially growing power transfer from victims to criminals as criminals are generally seen as less costly, less dangerous, and less of a threat to past, current, and future [victims], so the victims are less powerful in defense as victims are led to "collectivize" all people into one group: criminals and victims as if those two groups were one.
Also: the victims are dirtied, soiled, demoted, made "collectively" guilty, and that too is powerless for defense, and as time passes the shift of power accelerates while this con works generally.
In the Sutton documentation, there are specifics, rather than grouping everyone into America the beautiful, Wall Street the Economic Wizards of Oz with a few bad apples, and those bad guys who call themselves Nazis, Communists, Marxists, whatnot, except of course for the hundred million of them that didn't, those sent to the Gulags, and those sent to early graves.
Here is a tell tale:
"A majority of Americans supported..."
I edited the full message to point out the Might Makes Right claim that arrives from stage Left in the form known as Majority Rules.
The rule that works is Golden, as a matter of routinely demonstrated fact.
My favorite thing about IDW.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 26, 2019:
What is meant by the word leftist?
Do you mean someone who dictates a false account and enforces belief in that false account?
The original meaning of many words are now commonly forgotten, and the opposite meaning of the original meaning – the counterfeit meaning – is commonly accepted....
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 27, 2019:
@Facci
Thanks for pointing out the error, and I hope that my editing of that error is sufficient.
"America loves fair play, civil rights, liberty and private property. Americans who support abolition, civil rights and private property and all of the blessings bestowed on our nation for defeating fascism, Marxism and tyranny around the world wish to conserve the standard of living to which we've become accustomed. Ideally, this doesn't have to be exclusive to either one party, however in the U.S. what is left of this sentiment is exclusive to a majority of voters and Republican voters. However, this is not exclusive to all Republicans or Republican voters. It is common with very few Democrat voters who have lingered when Obama and Andrew Cuomo ordered us to leave their party."
A legal fiction is a common device used and abused by specific people, some use it and abuse it knowingly, others may not be aware of its use or abuse while they communicate it.
Example:
"America loves..."
That can be interpreted with at least two meanings:
1. The people living in a place called America generally share a love of specific things.
2. The thing called America is capable of thought and action, and therefore the thing called America is responsible and accountable for those thoughts and actions.
The first meaning exemplifies what may be called a legal fiction because the word America serves as a fictional being (legal being or otherwise) in place of all the people in the place where all the people reside, are domiciled, exist, own land, invest, raise children, work, etc. Rather than name all the people in America, one after the other, it is convenient to use the word America to "collectivize" all those people into one, when speaking about general things common to all those people.
The second meaning exemplifies the abuse of the common device that is knowable as a legal fiction. That abuse is used to leverage weaker groups with the power of more numerous groups, and there are other abuses added to that specific abuse of a legal fiction. It is said that America - for example - is either loved or left: "Love it or leave it."
Marxism is a way of thinking and a way of acting according to those who share specific thoughts and actions. What can be accurately measured when measuring the actions of known Marxists?
How about 2 examples of Marxists measured by the same accurate measure?
How about Marxists doing what Marxists do in Russia and China? I should ask if those places belong in the Marxist group places, or areas, where Marxists do what they do so well, but assuming that I am correct I can then measure the actions of Marxists with body counts of people living in those regimes who were then no longer living.
Here is my ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 26, 2019:
What is meant by the word leftist?
Do you mean someone who dictates a false account and enforces belief in that false account?
The original meaning of many words are now commonly forgotten, and the opposite meaning of the original meaning – the counterfeit meaning – is commonly accepted....
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 27, 2019:
@Facci
Thanks for pointing out the error, and I hope that my editing of that error is sufficient.
"America loves fair play, civil rights, liberty and private property. Americans who support abolition, civil rights and private property and all of the blessings bestowed on our nation for defeating fascism, Marxism and tyranny around the world wish to conserve the standard of living to which we've become accustomed. Ideally, this doesn't have to be exclusive to either one party, however in the U.S. what is left of this sentiment is exclusive to a majority of voters and Republican voters. However, this is not exclusive to all Republicans or Republican voters. It is common with very few Democrat voters who have lingered when Obama and Andrew Cuomo ordered us to leave their party."
A legal fiction is a common device used and abused by specific people, some use it and abuse it knowingly, others may not be aware of its use or abuse while they communicate it.
Example:
"America loves..."
That can be interpreted with at least two meanings:
1. The people living in a place called America generally share a love of specific things.
2. The thing called America is capable of thought and action, and therefore the thing called America is responsible and accountable for those thoughts and actions.
The first meaning exemplifies what may be called a legal fiction because the word America serves as a fictional being (legal being or otherwise) in place of all the people in the place where all the people reside, are domiciled, exist, own land, invest, raise children, work, etc. Rather than name all the people in America, one after the other, it is convenient to use the word America to "collectivize" all those people into one, when speaking about general things common to all those people.
The second meaning exemplifies the abuse of the common device that is knowable as a legal fiction. That abuse is used to leverage weaker groups with the power of more numerous groups, and there are other abuses added to that specific abuse of a legal fiction. It is said that America - for example - is either loved or left: "Love it or leave it."
Marxism is a way of thinking and a way of acting according to those who share specific thoughts and actions. What can be accurately measured when measuring the actions of known Marxists?
How about 2 examples of Marxists measured by the same accurate measure?
How about Marxists doing what Marxists do in Russia and China? I should ask if those places belong in the Marxist group places, or areas, where Marxists do what they do so well, but assuming that I am correct I can then measure the actions of Marxists with body counts of people living in those regimes who were then no longer living.
Here is my ...
Jordan Peterson in Amsterdam.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 27, 2019:
@wolfhnd
"the little people"
The people as a whole are not divided into "the little people" and the "Elite," and much has been written by the so-called "Elite," that serve to set the record straight as to their false narrative where they hoist themselves above "the little people."
Example 1:
"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."
Introduction in my copy of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
Example 2:
"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of norther France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering", the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.
Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and salvages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settle and quiet government." In performing this valuable and godly service, the English colonists were replicating what their Roman ancestors had once done for the ancient Britons. The American settlers, argued William Strachey in 1612, were like Roman generals in that they, too, had "reduced the conquered parts of or barbarous ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 27, 2019:
@wolfhnd
"the little people"
The people as a whole are not divided into "the little people" and the "Elite," and much has been written by the so-called "Elite," that serve to set the record straight as to their false narrative where they hoist themselves above "the little people."
Example 1:
"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."
Introduction in my copy of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
Example 2:
"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of norther France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering", the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.
Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and salvages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settle and quiet government." In performing this valuable and godly service, the English colonists were replicating what their Roman ancestors had once done for the ancient Britons. The American settlers, argued William Strachey in 1612, were like Roman generals in that they, too, had "reduced the conquered parts of or barbarous ...
Jordan Peterson in Amsterdam.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 27, 2019:
@wolfhnd
"What you are advocating is your preferred morality in which voluntary association is the key principle."
I think not. I think that my messages are not "advocating" and certainly not merely my "preferred morality." I can back up the facts that I report to a candid world. What you are doing - in my opinion - is fictionalizing the facts that matter. Rather than admitting the facts that matter you turn those facts into my subjective opinion.
Why do you do that?
Case in point:
"For your ideas to be adopted you have to force people through persuasion that they should reconsider their existing paradigm."
The fact that voluntary association for mutual defense has existed is a fact that matters. I report that fact. I report something that is not merely my opinion. Rather than me advocating a fictional utopia - as apparently, you claim - my messages are reports concerning facts.
Fact:
Voluntary association for mutual defense has existed throughout the history of mankind and in each case, it works to hold criminals to account which is an effective deterrent.
That is not my opinion, it is a fact. It is a fact that is backed up with irrefutable evidence, evidence recorded in what can be known as trial transcripts transcribed in courts of record, and other forms of documentation or memory.
Here are 3 examples:
1.
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236, 1788
2.
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
3.
THE COURT: Let me...
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 27, 2019:
@wolfhnd
"What you are advocating is your preferred morality in which voluntary association is the key principle."
I think not. I think that my messages are not "advocating" and certainly not merely my "preferred morality." I can back up the facts that I report to a candid world. What you are doing - in my opinion - is fictionalizing the facts that matter. Rather than admitting the facts that matter you turn those facts into my subjective opinion.
Why do you do that?
Case in point:
"For your ideas to be adopted you have to force people through persuasion that they should reconsider their existing paradigm."
The fact that voluntary association for mutual defense has existed is a fact that matters. I report that fact. I report something that is not merely my opinion. Rather than me advocating a fictional utopia - as apparently, you claim - my messages are reports concerning facts.
Fact:
Voluntary association for mutual defense has existed throughout the history of mankind and in each case, it works to hold criminals to account which is an effective deterrent.
That is not my opinion, it is a fact. It is a fact that is backed up with irrefutable evidence, evidence recorded in what can be known as trial transcripts transcribed in courts of record, and other forms of documentation or memory.
Here are 3 examples:
1.
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236, 1788
2.
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968
3.
THE COURT: Let me...
My favorite thing about IDW.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 26, 2019:
What is meant by the word leftist?
Do you mean someone who dictates a false account and enforces belief in that false account?
The original meaning of many words are now commonly forgotten, and the opposite meaning of the original meaning – the counterfeit meaning – is commonly accepted....
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 27, 2019:
@Facci wrote:
"Republicanism was radical up and until the 1920's after the victories of the Civil War, Women's Suffrage, and the Right of African-Americans to vote."
If the association is involuntary, then victories you point out are internal power struggles commonly known as turf battles. If the victory was instead a successful defense against criminal aggression (involuntary association), then the original meaning of Republicanism would stand true; no perversion.
The idea that peace, harmony, freedom, liberty, equity, honesty, accurate accountability, and other benefits of voluntary association are "radical" is a perversion; a view from a criminal mind, or from a mind perverted by criminals.
The members of the current dominant criminal organization are generally of the mind to look at Republicanism, Democracy, Federalism, and other words that originally mean voluntary association, as Radical departures from the false narrative, or the false account propagated by the members of the dominant criminal organizations. Examples are the documented reactions of those members of those currently dominant criminal organizations when they reacted to communications from the Democrats, Republicans, and true (not counterfeit) Federalists. How did "King" John and Pope "Innocent" III react to Magna Carta? How did the slave traders, warmongers, and central banking criminals react to the Declaration of Independence? The top boss of the criminal British Empire first refused to sign the common law document which acknowledged basic human rights, such as equal protection under the law, and the Pope annulled those rights, officially reclaiming ownership of all people by a religious cult leader.
The criminals in America edited the Declaration of Independence as explained by Thomas Jefferson, and those criminals went on to annul the Federation, turning the Federation into a Nation-State in 1789, ensuring a so-called Civil War. This is well documented by actual Federalists (not Nationalists hiding behind a false flag), Democrats (before the word became the opposite meaning), and Republicans.
"When Republicans began to stand against Democrat Party progressivism, the became conservatives, then in 1964 they attempted to distance themselves from that brand."
The word Progressive was tied to the word Democrat (at least by Stephen Pearl Andrews) in the struggle against Empires run by Religious Cults such as the already mentioned British Empire run by the Catholic Papacy. Progress made by progressive democrats was exemplified in that Protestant movement which refuted the Divine Right of Kings. So when did the Democrat Party become a faction within the criminal organization, doing anything without moral limit, to gain absolute power over the criminal organization? When ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 26, 2019:
What is meant by the word leftist?
Do you mean someone who dictates a false account and enforces belief in that false account?
The original meaning of many words are now commonly forgotten, and the opposite meaning of the original meaning – the counterfeit meaning – is commonly accepted....
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 27, 2019:
@Facci wrote:
"Republicanism was radical up and until the 1920's after the victories of the Civil War, Women's Suffrage, and the Right of African-Americans to vote."
If the association is involuntary, then victories you point out are internal power struggles commonly known as turf battles. If the victory was instead a successful defense against criminal aggression (involuntary association), then the original meaning of Republicanism would stand true; no perversion.
The idea that peace, harmony, freedom, liberty, equity, honesty, accurate accountability, and other benefits of voluntary association are "radical" is a perversion; a view from a criminal mind, or from a mind perverted by criminals.
The members of the current dominant criminal organization are generally of the mind to look at Republicanism, Democracy, Federalism, and other words that originally mean voluntary association, as Radical departures from the false narrative, or the false account propagated by the members of the dominant criminal organizations. Examples are the documented reactions of those members of those currently dominant criminal organizations when they reacted to communications from the Democrats, Republicans, and true (not counterfeit) Federalists. How did "King" John and Pope "Innocent" III react to Magna Carta? How did the slave traders, warmongers, and central banking criminals react to the Declaration of Independence? The top boss of the criminal British Empire first refused to sign the common law document which acknowledged basic human rights, such as equal protection under the law, and the Pope annulled those rights, officially reclaiming ownership of all people by a religious cult leader.
The criminals in America edited the Declaration of Independence as explained by Thomas Jefferson, and those criminals went on to annul the Federation, turning the Federation into a Nation-State in 1789, ensuring a so-called Civil War. This is well documented by actual Federalists (not Nationalists hiding behind a false flag), Democrats (before the word became the opposite meaning), and Republicans.
"When Republicans began to stand against Democrat Party progressivism, the became conservatives, then in 1964 they attempted to distance themselves from that brand."
The word Progressive was tied to the word Democrat (at least by Stephen Pearl Andrews) in the struggle against Empires run by Religious Cults such as the already mentioned British Empire run by the Catholic Papacy. Progress made by progressive democrats was exemplified in that Protestant movement which refuted the Divine Right of Kings. So when did the Democrat Party become a faction within the criminal organization, doing anything without moral limit, to gain absolute power over the criminal organization? When ...
My favorite thing about IDW.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 26, 2019:
What is meant by the word leftist?
Do you mean someone who dictates a false account and enforces belief in that false account?
The original meaning of many words are now commonly forgotten, and the opposite meaning of the original meaning – the counterfeit meaning – is commonly accepted....
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 26, 2019:
@Facci
Modern versions of the meanings of words are problematic due to confusion in the effort to understand what is meant when words have original meanings that are opposite modern meanings. I think you describe the consequence of such confusion.
If someone on the left is someone who accepts the original meaning of that which is left, then someone on the right may confuse that individual with a modern Marxist criminal. Perhaps I should leave no doubt as to what I mean by a Marxist criminal.
A Marxist is as described earlier: someone who is driven to empower a false account, and that drive includes every sort of crime imaginable (the means) to that end.
The same problem occurs in reverse as the original meaning of a conservative - as far as I know - was someone enforcing dictatorial Catholicism, which is exemplified with such pogroms as The Inquisition. The original conservatives were - in fact - conserving their power to enforce a false account.
Someone on the left (either original or modern counterfeit of the original left) may assume that someone on the modern right is not on the modern right. The one on the original (not counterfeit) left may assume that the one in the right is someone working hard to enforce a false account.
Instead of effective communication designed and worked-at (through discussion) to reach the goal of improving (making more accurate) the accounting process (finding the truth that matters through deliberate - honest - discussion), there is instead an assumption that each individual can only trust that each other individual will lie, cheat, steal, or do whatever they will do to maintain the false account.
I think it may be worthy of discussion, for those few individuals who are not captured into this divide and conquer false accounting work, to share notes on how, and why, original meanings of words such as democracy, federation, law, liberal, and conservative became the opposite meaning.
Two examples may suffice to prove the point. The original meaning of the word democracy, as reported by people who have studied the Athenian Constitution, show that democracy was rule by the people as a whole, not rule by a majority, minority, or any division of the whole.
The original meaning of federation was once a way that one person might label a voluntary association for mutual defense, but today the meaning of the word federation is synonymous with the term Nation-State, which is the opposite of a voluntary association.
Where does one individual think they fit in these groups? Why are people inspired to join a faction? Is it because people are led to believe that there is only one way to live, and that way is summed up in the words Might Makes Right? People are led to believe that the only way ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 26, 2019:
What is meant by the word leftist?
Do you mean someone who dictates a false account and enforces belief in that false account?
The original meaning of many words are now commonly forgotten, and the opposite meaning of the original meaning – the counterfeit meaning – is commonly accepted....
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 26, 2019:
@Facci
Modern versions of the meanings of words are problematic due to confusion in the effort to understand what is meant when words have original meanings that are opposite modern meanings. I think you describe the consequence of such confusion.
If someone on the left is someone who accepts the original meaning of that which is left, then someone on the right may confuse that individual with a modern Marxist criminal. Perhaps I should leave no doubt as to what I mean by a Marxist criminal.
A Marxist is as described earlier: someone who is driven to empower a false account, and that drive includes every sort of crime imaginable (the means) to that end.
The same problem occurs in reverse as the original meaning of a conservative - as far as I know - was someone enforcing dictatorial Catholicism, which is exemplified with such pogroms as The Inquisition. The original conservatives were - in fact - conserving their power to enforce a false account.
Someone on the left (either original or modern counterfeit of the original left) may assume that someone on the modern right is not on the modern right. The one on the original (not counterfeit) left may assume that the one in the right is someone working hard to enforce a false account.
Instead of effective communication designed and worked-at (through discussion) to reach the goal of improving (making more accurate) the accounting process (finding the truth that matters through deliberate - honest - discussion), there is instead an assumption that each individual can only trust that each other individual will lie, cheat, steal, or do whatever they will do to maintain the false account.
I think it may be worthy of discussion, for those few individuals who are not captured into this divide and conquer false accounting work, to share notes on how, and why, original meanings of words such as democracy, federation, law, liberal, and conservative became the opposite meaning.
Two examples may suffice to prove the point. The original meaning of the word democracy, as reported by people who have studied the Athenian Constitution, show that democracy was rule by the people as a whole, not rule by a majority, minority, or any division of the whole.
The original meaning of federation was once a way that one person might label a voluntary association for mutual defense, but today the meaning of the word federation is synonymous with the term Nation-State, which is the opposite of a voluntary association.
Where does one individual think they fit in these groups? Why are people inspired to join a faction? Is it because people are led to believe that there is only one way to live, and that way is summed up in the words Might Makes Right? People are led to believe that the only way ...
Jordan Peterson in Amsterdam.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 26, 2019:
@wolfhnd
"All I'm saying is that our instincts are incompatible with philosophical objectivism."
That may be saying something true, and an example may explain why that is true, but it appears to be claimed as absolute truth when choosing the word "incompatible." Which instincts (or is it all instincts), for which individual members of the group known as "our" apply to your statement; or every single individual is - without exception - as you say? What is an example of philosophical objectivism whereby that applies to your statement, and are every single example of philosophical objectivism incompatible with every single example of instinct from every single individual of ours?
"That civilization itself is "unnatural" whether that be anarco-capitalism or a police state."
As far as I know, anarco-capitalism is confessed as anti-government by every single anarco-capitalist who joins that group with that name. I hope to be wrong about that measure of mine as I measure that group out of ignorance. If that is true then how does that fit into your statement? More to the point, however, is any working definition of "civilization" worked out by any individual or any group of individuals of any species of complex life anywhere. On one end are examples of what can be agreed upon as civilization (so-called) and on the other end are opposite examples of "Civilization" (counterfeit ones) once the actual meaning of the word civilization is nailed down factually. Which (or is it all) examples of civilization move from nature and moves into anti-nature?
"You can't just wish away millions of years of evolution."
My understanding of how complex life forms (is naturally constituted) is a natural progression from low quality high cost to high quality low cost - an adaptive, competitive, process - which is expressed with the same principles that work in human government, when human government is exemplified with voluntary associations as described in the example offered by Lysander Spooner, the example of natural, civilized, voluntary, government in the form of Trial by Jury, also known as The Law of the Land, also known commonly as the common law. On the other hand, counterfeit forms of government are not civilized and those who dream-up, and execute counterfeit forms of government measurably go against nature, causing such things as unnatural death massively, and these forms of fake government become such in accurately measurable unnatural ways: they lower standards of living and they raise costs of living as a rule. Those people running unnatural, fake, counterfeit, false, governments wish away millions of years of evolution, if they are allowed to do so.
"Where we agree is that the key is freedom. I'm not sure what you mean by freedom of ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 26, 2019:
@wolfhnd
"All I'm saying is that our instincts are incompatible with philosophical objectivism."
That may be saying something true, and an example may explain why that is true, but it appears to be claimed as absolute truth when choosing the word "incompatible." Which instincts (or is it all instincts), for which individual members of the group known as "our" apply to your statement; or every single individual is - without exception - as you say? What is an example of philosophical objectivism whereby that applies to your statement, and are every single example of philosophical objectivism incompatible with every single example of instinct from every single individual of ours?
"That civilization itself is "unnatural" whether that be anarco-capitalism or a police state."
As far as I know, anarco-capitalism is confessed as anti-government by every single anarco-capitalist who joins that group with that name. I hope to be wrong about that measure of mine as I measure that group out of ignorance. If that is true then how does that fit into your statement? More to the point, however, is any working definition of "civilization" worked out by any individual or any group of individuals of any species of complex life anywhere. On one end are examples of what can be agreed upon as civilization (so-called) and on the other end are opposite examples of "Civilization" (counterfeit ones) once the actual meaning of the word civilization is nailed down factually. Which (or is it all) examples of civilization move from nature and moves into anti-nature?
"You can't just wish away millions of years of evolution."
My understanding of how complex life forms (is naturally constituted) is a natural progression from low quality high cost to high quality low cost - an adaptive, competitive, process - which is expressed with the same principles that work in human government, when human government is exemplified with voluntary associations as described in the example offered by Lysander Spooner, the example of natural, civilized, voluntary, government in the form of Trial by Jury, also known as The Law of the Land, also known commonly as the common law. On the other hand, counterfeit forms of government are not civilized and those who dream-up, and execute counterfeit forms of government measurably go against nature, causing such things as unnatural death massively, and these forms of fake government become such in accurately measurable unnatural ways: they lower standards of living and they raise costs of living as a rule. Those people running unnatural, fake, counterfeit, false, governments wish away millions of years of evolution, if they are allowed to do so.
"Where we agree is that the key is freedom. I'm not sure what you mean by freedom of ...
What is trust?
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 25, 2019:
Trust is a word, and each individual may trust that each other individual agrees with their individual interpretation of the word trust. Is that trustworthy?
"Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 25, 2019:
@Facci
That is a very good question, thanks.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 25, 2019:
Trust is a word, and each individual may trust that each other individual agrees with their individual interpretation of the word trust. Is that trustworthy?
"Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 25, 2019:
@Facci
That is a very good question, thanks.
Jordan Peterson in Amsterdam.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 25, 2019:
@wolfhnd
What I'm saying is that it is not viscous and it is not circular logic, and it is not fallacy to discover, understand, choose, and employ voluntary association for mutual defense; a defensive, natural, peaceful, equitable, moral, effective, high quality, low cost, economical alternative to the vicious, deceitful, criminal, counterfeit law accurately known as involuntary association of, by, and for criminals.
To blame crimes perpetrated by criminals on nature, or hierarchy, or legal fiction is to choose - in my opinion - ignorance, and falsehood as a way of life.
Accurate accountability of the facts that matter in each and every case of controversy - the law - works as intended. If the intention is instead to subsidize slavery, then that works too, but only by deception, the threat of aggressive violence, and vicious violence perpetrated by a faction (a division of the whole people) upon another (victim) faction.
Those best at discovering and employing the truth, in any case, would naturally rise to the top in a voluntary hierarchy, and what is unnatural about it, what is dehumanizing about it, what is vicious about it? Nothing is unnatural about it, as it is merely the natural choice to find, accept, employ, prefer, better over worse; a built-in hierarchy that ensures the survival of life.
"To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,) from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government.
This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.
It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of "the country" at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor - that is, with the government.
It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 25, 2019:
@wolfhnd
What I'm saying is that it is not viscous and it is not circular logic, and it is not fallacy to discover, understand, choose, and employ voluntary association for mutual defense; a defensive, natural, peaceful, equitable, moral, effective, high quality, low cost, economical alternative to the vicious, deceitful, criminal, counterfeit law accurately known as involuntary association of, by, and for criminals.
To blame crimes perpetrated by criminals on nature, or hierarchy, or legal fiction is to choose - in my opinion - ignorance, and falsehood as a way of life.
Accurate accountability of the facts that matter in each and every case of controversy - the law - works as intended. If the intention is instead to subsidize slavery, then that works too, but only by deception, the threat of aggressive violence, and vicious violence perpetrated by a faction (a division of the whole people) upon another (victim) faction.
Those best at discovering and employing the truth, in any case, would naturally rise to the top in a voluntary hierarchy, and what is unnatural about it, what is dehumanizing about it, what is vicious about it? Nothing is unnatural about it, as it is merely the natural choice to find, accept, employ, prefer, better over worse; a built-in hierarchy that ensures the survival of life.
"To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,) from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government.
This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.
It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of "the country" at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor - that is, with the government.
It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as ...
Jordan Peterson in Amsterdam.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 24, 2019:
@wolfhnd
"How those game pieces are redistributed so the game can iterate is the devilish detail."
My point is that voluntary association distributes the game pieces naturally, equitably, fairly, morally, agreeably, productively, and if anyone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they are devils, then they turn the voluntary association into the unnatural, inequitable, unfair, immoral, disagreeable, destructive, association.
My point has to do with what you say here:
"There must however be enforcement of the rules because there will always be cheaters."
There will never be a voluntary association for cheaters, they - as a rule - decide to cheat (create involuntary association) or failing to do so, they also maintain a voluntary association. Cheaters don't obey natural order, they cheat, rob, rape, steal, torture, murder, and mass murder, they do that in order to get into that club.
So if there must be, however, enforcement of voluntary rules, then do you suggest that said enforcement must be designed to put into force an involuntary association?
I'd like to know, unequivocally.
Every single despot (or every single criminal) decides that other people have to obey the rules enforced by every single despot, every time, the same goes for every single criminal.
Voluntary association for anything, including mutual defense, categorically denies - in the meaning of the words employed - aggressive use of force in order to do as you say: "...enforcement of the rules."
One rule that "we" determine to be worthy of enforcement has already been put on the table: slavery. Slavers (now known by a less obvious term: human traffickers) enslave, that is what they do, they do that in order to become slavers, and they do so despite so-called rules.
Nature made them do it in 1789? Nature made them collect National Taxes from everyone in order to pay some of the costs to enforce Slavery? Do you suggest that only after "we" decided that slavery was worthy of enforcing was it then no longer excusable to enforce involuntary taxes upon everyone so as to then subsidize that particular business venture?
Slavery was always against true law, it is an involuntary association enforced by those who make criminals rules.
Some people got it right, so there is precedence:
"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 24, 2019:
@wolfhnd
"How those game pieces are redistributed so the game can iterate is the devilish detail."
My point is that voluntary association distributes the game pieces naturally, equitably, fairly, morally, agreeably, productively, and if anyone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they are devils, then they turn the voluntary association into the unnatural, inequitable, unfair, immoral, disagreeable, destructive, association.
My point has to do with what you say here:
"There must however be enforcement of the rules because there will always be cheaters."
There will never be a voluntary association for cheaters, they - as a rule - decide to cheat (create involuntary association) or failing to do so, they also maintain a voluntary association. Cheaters don't obey natural order, they cheat, rob, rape, steal, torture, murder, and mass murder, they do that in order to get into that club.
So if there must be, however, enforcement of voluntary rules, then do you suggest that said enforcement must be designed to put into force an involuntary association?
I'd like to know, unequivocally.
Every single despot (or every single criminal) decides that other people have to obey the rules enforced by every single despot, every time, the same goes for every single criminal.
Voluntary association for anything, including mutual defense, categorically denies - in the meaning of the words employed - aggressive use of force in order to do as you say: "...enforcement of the rules."
One rule that "we" determine to be worthy of enforcement has already been put on the table: slavery. Slavers (now known by a less obvious term: human traffickers) enslave, that is what they do, they do that in order to become slavers, and they do so despite so-called rules.
Nature made them do it in 1789? Nature made them collect National Taxes from everyone in order to pay some of the costs to enforce Slavery? Do you suggest that only after "we" decided that slavery was worthy of enforcing was it then no longer excusable to enforce involuntary taxes upon everyone so as to then subsidize that particular business venture?
Slavery was always against true law, it is an involuntary association enforced by those who make criminals rules.
Some people got it right, so there is precedence:
"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the ...
Jordan Peterson in Amsterdam.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 24, 2019:
@wolfhnd
Unstable can mean "dehumanizing?" Unstable can mean incompatible with nature? Unstable chimpanzee groups can be compared to stable ones?
Enslaved groups (masters, so-called, are dependent - enslaved - by their slaves) are unstable compared to people in groups bound voluntarily in free markets?
How about comparing the U.S.A. (LLC) funded (enslaved) Cambodian Regime under the Puppet Pol Pot, as an example of an unstable group, to Switzerland or any of the groups with something resembling a free market (federal) system?
In enslaved systems (despotic, tyrannical, obey or suffer) the productive capacity (stability) is contained (downwardly mobile compared to uncontained) and against the nature of man. Rather than better and cheaper, those "conspirators" ensure worse and more expensive. Rather than multi-planet species man, man eats man. One bond type (system) leads inevitably to the last man standing, the last rat on the sinking ship, and the other bond type leads to higher quality and lower cost ships, that go to other planets or just move around in space.
"I would not however attribute this to a "conspiracy" of the rich against workers so much as the natural evolution of traditions that were centuries old."
How about 3 of those Southern Aristocrats, to compare to those who "conspired" to subsidize African Slavery: to profit on the backs of fellow human beings, falsely claimed to be inferior like claiming that they were savage, animals, or cattle to be consumed at the pleasure of their superiors?
June 17, 1788
George Mason:
"Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union."
In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 24, 2019:
@wolfhnd
Unstable can mean "dehumanizing?" Unstable can mean incompatible with nature? Unstable chimpanzee groups can be compared to stable ones?
Enslaved groups (masters, so-called, are dependent - enslaved - by their slaves) are unstable compared to people in groups bound voluntarily in free markets?
How about comparing the U.S.A. (LLC) funded (enslaved) Cambodian Regime under the Puppet Pol Pot, as an example of an unstable group, to Switzerland or any of the groups with something resembling a free market (federal) system?
In enslaved systems (despotic, tyrannical, obey or suffer) the productive capacity (stability) is contained (downwardly mobile compared to uncontained) and against the nature of man. Rather than better and cheaper, those "conspirators" ensure worse and more expensive. Rather than multi-planet species man, man eats man. One bond type (system) leads inevitably to the last man standing, the last rat on the sinking ship, and the other bond type leads to higher quality and lower cost ships, that go to other planets or just move around in space.
"I would not however attribute this to a "conspiracy" of the rich against workers so much as the natural evolution of traditions that were centuries old."
How about 3 of those Southern Aristocrats, to compare to those who "conspired" to subsidize African Slavery: to profit on the backs of fellow human beings, falsely claimed to be inferior like claiming that they were savage, animals, or cattle to be consumed at the pleasure of their superiors?
June 17, 1788
George Mason:
"Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union."
In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the ...
Jordan Peterson in Amsterdam.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 23, 2019:
@wolfhnd
I do not agree, as stated earlier. If the cause for "dehumanization" or complex civilizations incompatibility with nature is as you say, then I am wrong, as a matter of fact.
I don't think that there is anything dehumanizing about hierarchy, nor do I think that hierarchy causes complex civilizations to be incompatible with nature; if that is what you are suggesting. A complex system built in part due to abstract reasoning (imagination?) can be voluntary and hierarchical. When turning from a voluntary association to an involuntary one those cracking the whip cause downward mobility as they please.
If that process of power shifting to the criminals (nature at work?), which is power shifting from the non-criminals (who use their time and energy to produce, not stealing that which has been produced, and not to steal those who produce: slaves) - if that power shift - did not happen, if that power shift is prevented, then the "downward mobility" is prevented, as criminals are inspired to produce instead of stealing. From a criminal perspective, it would be "downward mobility" for those who - at the moment - lord over well-documented slave counts, hundreds, thousands, millions, or more, as those "Elite" criminals are perhaps applying for a job at McDonald's.
An example of a complex system (organic, grass-roots, natural like spontaneous combustion) is the Revolutionary Militia Defenders during the Revolutionary War: voluntary association for mutual defense. An example of a despotic, tyrannical, downwardly mobile, unnatural, complex system (perhaps much less complex than the natural, organic, one) is the British Military System of Obey or Suffer.
Example:
"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.
His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay...
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 23, 2019:
@wolfhnd
I do not agree, as stated earlier. If the cause for "dehumanization" or complex civilizations incompatibility with nature is as you say, then I am wrong, as a matter of fact.
I don't think that there is anything dehumanizing about hierarchy, nor do I think that hierarchy causes complex civilizations to be incompatible with nature; if that is what you are suggesting. A complex system built in part due to abstract reasoning (imagination?) can be voluntary and hierarchical. When turning from a voluntary association to an involuntary one those cracking the whip cause downward mobility as they please.
If that process of power shifting to the criminals (nature at work?), which is power shifting from the non-criminals (who use their time and energy to produce, not stealing that which has been produced, and not to steal those who produce: slaves) - if that power shift - did not happen, if that power shift is prevented, then the "downward mobility" is prevented, as criminals are inspired to produce instead of stealing. From a criminal perspective, it would be "downward mobility" for those who - at the moment - lord over well-documented slave counts, hundreds, thousands, millions, or more, as those "Elite" criminals are perhaps applying for a job at McDonald's.
An example of a complex system (organic, grass-roots, natural like spontaneous combustion) is the Revolutionary Militia Defenders during the Revolutionary War: voluntary association for mutual defense. An example of a despotic, tyrannical, downwardly mobile, unnatural, complex system (perhaps much less complex than the natural, organic, one) is the British Military System of Obey or Suffer.
Example:
"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.
His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay...
Jordan Peterson in Amsterdam.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 22, 2019:
@wolfhnd wrote:
"You could argue that all forms of militarization are dehumanizing."
If so-called (modern) socialism is defined as "Collective ownership of the means of production," then those are just fancy words covering-up organized crime and the Emperor's Clothes (the cover-up) is known as "Color of Law." Using the same modern definition (assuming that it is agreed upon) of socialism then what is a Military that is funded by involuntary taxation? I suggest that such a Military is as good an example of socialism as any other example: again if the modern definition is agreed upon.
If a modern example of socialism is funded by criminal means (involuntary association), then what is likely to be the ends that are decided upon by those in charge of that Military means? The means to gain the power to make the Military were criminal, the ends (a criminal made Military) were criminal, what then according to the "Leaders," who do whatever they please with impunity? Protect their cash cow, expand it, increase the number of slaves?
If I can elaborate with a specific definition as to the meaning of the word "dehumanizing," then someone might find agreement in that offer of a definition. Dehumanizing - the word that describes specific actions - could mean parasitic actions perpetrated by people who consume other people, and they do so with forensic accounting methods. Each life to be consumed (dehumanized) is actually consumed well before they are born into these modern examples of socialism whereby the slogan (the cover) is - for one example - The Collective Ownership of The Means of Production. That consuming of life - dehumanizing - well before life begins has been facilitated through something called Central Banking and National Debt.
To blame it on nature, if that is an idea someone has, without employing the very same forensic accounting methods employed by those in charge of these systems of dehumanization, is perhaps a less than accurate accounting of the facts that matter in these cases. The State made me do it, the gun made me do it, and add Nature made me do it.
Can anyone see how the fix is fixed into place? Rather than having the victims of systems of dehumanization looking for systems that hold the most destructive people to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter first, said victims are sent willy nilly looking for the bogeyman with the name Legal Fiction. All cooperative effort, which can also be a competitive effort that is not antagonistic, is misdirected by a Script written by those who employ the very methods that could end these systems of dehumanization. Failure to read from the Script is a "Capital Crime."
Most cooperative efforts are productive, which ought to lend some credit to cooperative efforts of ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 19, 2019:
Socialism has a longer history compared to Communism (tm). In the Communist Manifesto there are references to specific people advocating socialism, and those who wrote the Communist Manifesto rejected Socialism. I can find and quote:
"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 22, 2019:
@wolfhnd wrote:
"You could argue that all forms of militarization are dehumanizing."
If so-called (modern) socialism is defined as "Collective ownership of the means of production," then those are just fancy words covering-up organized crime and the Emperor's Clothes (the cover-up) is known as "Color of Law." Using the same modern definition (assuming that it is agreed upon) of socialism then what is a Military that is funded by involuntary taxation? I suggest that such a Military is as good an example of socialism as any other example: again if the modern definition is agreed upon.
If a modern example of socialism is funded by criminal means (involuntary association), then what is likely to be the ends that are decided upon by those in charge of that Military means? The means to gain the power to make the Military were criminal, the ends (a criminal made Military) were criminal, what then according to the "Leaders," who do whatever they please with impunity? Protect their cash cow, expand it, increase the number of slaves?
If I can elaborate with a specific definition as to the meaning of the word "dehumanizing," then someone might find agreement in that offer of a definition. Dehumanizing - the word that describes specific actions - could mean parasitic actions perpetrated by people who consume other people, and they do so with forensic accounting methods. Each life to be consumed (dehumanized) is actually consumed well before they are born into these modern examples of socialism whereby the slogan (the cover) is - for one example - The Collective Ownership of The Means of Production. That consuming of life - dehumanizing - well before life begins has been facilitated through something called Central Banking and National Debt.
To blame it on nature, if that is an idea someone has, without employing the very same forensic accounting methods employed by those in charge of these systems of dehumanization, is perhaps a less than accurate accounting of the facts that matter in these cases. The State made me do it, the gun made me do it, and add Nature made me do it.
Can anyone see how the fix is fixed into place? Rather than having the victims of systems of dehumanization looking for systems that hold the most destructive people to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter first, said victims are sent willy nilly looking for the bogeyman with the name Legal Fiction. All cooperative effort, which can also be a competitive effort that is not antagonistic, is misdirected by a Script written by those who employ the very methods that could end these systems of dehumanization. Failure to read from the Script is a "Capital Crime."
Most cooperative efforts are productive, which ought to lend some credit to cooperative efforts of ...
Details
- BirthdayJuly 5
- Education2-Year
- Top tags#government #USA #rights #video #truth #crime #money #world #reason #laws #evidence #freedom #justice #evil #god #children #death #federal #society #media
- Level8 (85,725pts)
- Followers 17
- Fans 0
- Following 1
- Referrals11
- Joined Oct 29th, 2019
- Last Visit 6+ months ago
Josf-Kelley's Groups
Q is for question
460 members, Host
Voluntary Mutual Defence
37 members, Host
End Game (formerly Ryan Faulk Fans)
14 members, Host
Controversial Charts
48191 members
Jordan Peterson Group
25436 members
Ben Shapiro Group
22987 members
Joe Rogan Group
16345 members
Just Jokes and Memes
14497 members
Tucker Carlson Fans
13549 members
Dinesh D'Souza Fans
10234 members
IDW Topic-of-the-Day
9848 members
News From All Views
7280 members
DaisyCousens
5902 members
Tim Pool Group
5879 members
Sydney Watson Fanspace
5511 members
Classical Liberalism
4844 members
Canadian Politics
4021 members
Arielle Scarcella FanSpace!
2802 members
IDW Political Party
2798 members
Politically Incorrect folks
2479 members
Anti-Socialism
2267 members
Learning from Christ
2237 members
President Donald J. Trump... Latest
2065 members
Saving Western Civilisation
2056 members
RamZPaul
1889 members
John Paul Watson Group
1610 members
Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder
1568 members
Alex Jones Fans
1301 members
Conspiracy Truth : Wolves And Sheeple
1227 members
Stefan Molyneux Fans
1049 members
Anti Communists
1022 members
Emergency Preparedness and Survival
949 members
Libertarian Freethinkers
898 members
COVID-19
764 members
The Great Reset
707 members
The Second Amendment Sanctuary
650 members
True Crime Discussion Group
597 members
Conspiracy Research
575 members
Words of Wisdom
480 members
Feminism = cancer
474 members
International News
396 members
Comedy, Laughs and Humor.
326 members
Vaccine Education & Discussion Group
307 members
Ideas of God
291 members
The Case Against Corona Panic
250 members
Dr. Steve Turley Group
185 members
Joe Biden Is Not My President
178 members
United We Stand
153 members
The History Corner
150 members
Brain soup
128 members
IDW.Community Senate
124 members
ORIGINAL MEMES ( GREGORY ALAN ELLIOTT )
118 members
Liz Wheeler Fans Page.
116 members
Red Pilled Hotties (Yes you can still flirt & remain politically engaged)
107 members
Propaganda Clearing House
95 members
MGTOW: Exodus From The Plantation
63 members
Anarcho-Capitalism / Voluntaryism
55 members
IDW Liberty Alliance Culture War Room
49 members
Now You Are Talking With
48 members
Rednecks Anonymous
44 members
Current Events
28 members
50 Policies
23 members
Anthony Brian Logan Fans
21 members
Freemerica
19 members
Children's Health Defense
16 members
UnCommon Sense 42020 PodCast
9 members