[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27445#msg27445 date=1264652649]
[quote author=ttie link=topic=2347.msg27445#msg27445 date=1264652649]
On what basis does it constitute consent? The government does not own the land, nor does the "majority", and neither did those who wrote the constitution. They have no right to force their arbitrary will on everyone who lives here.
[/quote]
It was brought into the U.S. code from the US immigration act of 1950something.
[/quote]
A bunch of politicians writing something down on paper does not magically give them ownership of land, any more than I can write "the ttie act of 2010" and make myself own the country. They'd have to actually work, and trade the fruit of their labor for it.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27445#msg27445 date=1264652649]
[quote author=ttie link=topic=2347.msg27445#msg27445 date=1264652649]
The people in government make the laws. If I'm being forced to obey the law, then I'm being forced to obey the people who make the law.
Not that either is acceptable anyway.
[/quote]
You allow it to stand and don’t follow the rules to engage the law at its own terms to change it…if you do though, even to “free” others you are bound to negatively effect someone by changing it or eliminating it, so that would also mean you are ruling them by negating the law. Equally immoral if not more. The concept of inaction vs. action as what is more or less moral.
[/quote]
This makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can clarify.
I'll make myself clear: Neither I, nor anyone else, has a right to forcibly take the property of another person, nor do I, or anyone else, have the right to threaten violence against peaceful people, in order to get them to live in ways I approve of. I do not have the right to force them to ask my permission to buy a home, expand a home, open a business, or sell a business, force them to buy alcohol only from me, or force them to pay a fee to me when they buy or sell other goods.
It would be immoral if I were to personally do this to people – I think we can all recognize that. What we need to realize is that it does not magically become moral because I get a bunch of my friends together, and we hire thugs called cops to go do it for us.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27445#msg27445 date=1264652649]
[quote author=ttie link=topic=2347.msg27445#msg27445 date=1264652649]
What on earth do you mean by "usurp injustice"? What is this action you refer to by the minority?
[/quote]
Overcome/prevent/destroy/not allow/fight against/do what you can to do all of that
[/quote]
Cool, we agree, we should be working against these injustices – I do support a nonviolent approach.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27445#msg27445 date=1264652649]
[quote author=ttie link=topic=2347.msg27445#msg27445 date=1264652649]
In any case, those who commit injustice are acting immorally, period. That seems pretty obvious to me.
[/quote]
Agreed, its also a matter of perspective.
[/quote]
Sure, but, we must each stand for what we believe to be right. I'm not going to tolerate what I see as clear injustice, simply because some other people don't (yet) see it the way I do.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27445#msg27445 date=1264652649]
[quote author=ttie link=topic=2347.msg27445#msg27445 date=1264652649]
They've gotten worse and worse. The government has gotten larger and larger, to the point where it's hardly recognizable as what was originally proposed in the constitution. You can hardly sneeze anymore without asking permission of a bureaucrat. I'd rather have King George back than what we have now.
[/quote]
You can, just move to the UK. Are you angelican (religion) because that’s the countries official religion. Oh, living in London? Be prepared to be monitored all the time. Maybe sweeden is better? Engineer right? Say you get paid 200k and your speeding in your nice car…on the wrong side of the road. Well then, your ticket is not a fixed amount, it’s based on a percentage of your wealth! Which the government there has 100percent access to. Yikes!
[/quote]
Oh, the UK is way worse now than the U.S. is. I'm not going to argue with you on that. Sweeden's probably worse too - they're certainly more socialist, but I'm not sure how bad they are on the police state side of things.
I meant I'd rather have an ineffectual tyrant on the other side of what was then a big ocean, levying a few percentage points tax on stamps and tea, than what we have now. I'm afraid moving to the 1700s might prove difficult, however.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27445#msg27445 date=1264652649]
[quote author=ttie link=topic=2347.msg27445#msg27445 date=1264652649]
Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. My first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and propose that our constitution will permit us to steal from our neighbor. The motion passes by two thirds majority (or, more likely, it's unanimous, if the neighbor didn't show up), which of course is binding. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.
[/quote]
Ive actually answered this before. The motion cant pass by 2/3 majority because no rules during the constitutional convention were defined to create a country in which the 3rd was automatically included.
[/quote]
What do you mean "automatically included"?
This is exactly what happened for the U.S. constitution, except that it was way less than 2/3 support. About 12,000 people voted for constitutional representation (non-whites, women, non-landholders, etc, were excluded), and at the time, there were about 3 million people living in the colonies. That's 1.2%, and we're supposed to believe that because 1.2% wrote some words down on paper, they have a right to hire goons to steal money from the other 98.8%?
It's pure silliness.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27445#msg27445 date=1264652649]
Also, if that did happen and it is the same as our government, fundamentally, they couldn’t do anything. The 3rd has the right to press charges in case of assult.
[/quote]
Assault? What assault? They were simply enforcing the law when they stole his stuff.
Suppose you don't pay taxes, you are eventually evicted, and the police came to forcibly remove you. Do you think you could file assault charges against them? Do you think they would stand up in a government court for a NY minute?
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27445#msg27445 date=1264652649]
Has the right to press charges, take it to a court based on specific rules that were previously and fairly determined. Or if they take this person to court, When those rules are followed the case will be thrown out. Why? The 1 or 2 person is judge, the 2 or 1 person is jury (assuming these are the only 3 on earth). By the fair rules (the ones we are familiar with today), the 3rd has the right to an impartial jury….1 or 2 is not impartial thus do not fit the rules and case is thrown out. Judge is person 1 or 2 so a judge cannot try a case they are presenting…case thrown out.
[/quote]
The judges today are not impartial – they receive my stolen money too, just like the men in the scenario. Do you think any judge would recuse himself in a case involving a tax protester, because he himself receives tax money? Dream on.
Who's going to throw the case out? Neither of the thieves in my scenario. None of them in the modern scenario. No, he will be "convicted" of "tax avoidance" and "resisting arrest". He will be thrown in jail, and his property taken by the thieves anyway. "Justice" served.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=2347.msg27471#msg27471 date=1264671701]
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27431#msg27431 date=1264649871]
[
So … drumroll … majority rule.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27431#msg27431 date=1264649871]
Really? the electorial college is the majority? a small group of people charged with selecting the next president seperate from the popular vote…is the majority? 538 people out of 300,000,000. electors are not required by federal law to honor a pledge of vote to a certain candidate. They can vote for whomever is elegable to be elected for president. However most of the time they do go along with the popular vote.
Yes, it all depends on what the meaning of the word is, is. I'm so glad we have such educated members of the judiciary. Otherwise I'd have no idea that "congress shall make no law restricting" really means, "congress shall make lots of laws restricting", that "shall not be infringed" really means, "shall not be infringed unless the judges think it's a reasonable infringement", that "The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects … shall not be violated", really means "The government can search anyone at any time, without a warrant, as long as their chasing those nasty terrorists or they have another good reason", that "nor shall any person be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" really means, "hold those journalists Japanese alleged terrorists as long as you want, Mr. President. Habeus corpus? What's that crazy latin your speakin'". I'd have no idea that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." meant, "Go ahead, steal private property and give it to private developers!" I was amazed to learn that in secret ink, underneath the sixth amendment, they must have scrawled "this was written on opposite day".
Especially surprising is the courts' apparent belief that the founders, after writing "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", all suffered major coronaries and died on the spot. They had really intended to continue, "but then, all powers are delegated to the United States by the Constitution anyway, because we think you should interpret "general welfare" to mean "go ahead and do whatever the hell you want to do". See, we would never know this if we did not have such well educated people on the bench.
point made. In an obvious sense, it is loud and clear what the words mean in the constitution. Your an engineer. how easy is it to see algebrea and calculus equations? fairly simple becausse you can see them right there in front of you…how easy is it to apply them? pretty tough for those who havent studied it.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27431#msg27431 date=1264649871]
(the reason why I seperate the distinction is because you DONT need a law degree or experience to be appointed to supreme court) You really believe the members of the judicial system are accountable to no one (supreme court specifically)? They are subject to the citizens of the country. We, you and i, can overrule decisions they make. No, its not easy, but its not easy getting to the supreme court either. I "admit" all this because who will say what the origional intent of parts of the constitution meant in a specific context (case). You?
[/quote]
Well, what do you think Mr. Jefferson? Is the constitution intended to be a document totally unreadable by the average man, and should we just rely on whatever a judge says it means, or should we interpret it for ourselves?
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
Letter to Abigail Adams (1804).
"You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Letter to William Charles Jarvis (1820).
If the constitution is not written in plain english, to be understood by all, and used to hold the government accountable, but instead can only be interpreted by a few select lawyers, it is useless. It makes these lawyers into despots. They can make the document say whatever they want it to say, and we must all submit to their will. Even without twisting the language, the original constitution was written with such vague and general language that it can be used to justify whatever the government wants to do anyway.
Apply the constitution to abortion, interpret it and take into account opposing view points. It is simple to understand, becasue the words are spelled out…right ther in plain english. they apply decisions based on their interpretation of it. We as citizens with knowledge and power to overrule those decisions by changing the law if need be (again not easy to do but doable) are the check/balence to those 9
[quote]A bunch of politicians writing something down on paper does not magically give them ownership of land, any more than I can write "the ttie act of 2010" and make myself own the country. They'd have to actually work, and trade the fruit of their labor for it.
[/quote]
the magic of a bunch of politicians writing something down on paper, is the public that allows that written word to stand. Injustices tend to be sufferable when people are distracted by brittney spears and american idol. That also proves that the republic (much better than that of any other countries system) is ours only if we deserve it. you can take that in the positive or negative sense if you want.
[quote]I think people will hire protection agencies, which will fulfill many of the roles police do now. If there is a dispute between people – one accuses another of theft, for example, the protection agency of the alleged perpetrator, and that of the victim, would use a court of arbitration designated for disputes between them, with alternate courts to be used for appeal. Representation could be provided by the protection agency, and additional representation hired by the individuals involved.
[/quote]
its the same system, just percieved differently. your using a private protection agency (police) to assert the accusation of whatever to the other and taken to a court of arbitration (and see who, judge wopner? a court of peers?) if alternate courts would be used for appeal would there be a point at which appeals stop…a "Supreme Court"? Representation (lawyers, attorneys…or one appointed to you if you cant afford a protection agency by a non profit group that collects donations (taxes but not forced) (if they dont have enough money, do you still get a defense?)) could be provided by the protection agency (the state). Your proposing basically that each person be a country (island) unto him/her self and their families. Subject to their own self defense for their own property and the hireing of a personal army. What if they want to use their personal protection agency to "take" from others. Is there minarchist government that overrulles and applies laws to such agencies? Isnt that just another government ruling over your individual one?
You propose the elmination of theft for another kind of theft in the future. A human characteristic is that people test and find ways to their own intersts and some people…that means through immoral acts. Are you that rich that you can afford a protection agency to do all that for you? Is your neighbor? do they have the right to one if they cant afford one?
Given modern technology, tolls aren't arduous. You can pay them at 70 mph. Alternately, you could pay a flat subscription rate. Or, you could contribute to a charity which would buy up roads and allow anyone to use them, free and clear.
Extorting money and land from neighbors to pay for roads is not an acceptable alternative. Your neighbor has the right to choose what roads he will pay for, and use, if any.
[quote]if they are tolls they are the same thing as a tax! your taxes go to the roads, education…all that! you need to travel to work and travel so you would literally be forced to pay them…or go to court and if you refuse to go to court, then what?? I dont hold myself to an illusion that i dont pay for the roads and education that I and others use, why would I hold myself to the illusion that i dont have to use these services if they are privatly owned?[/quote]
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
everywhere and looking at advertising everywhere
[/quote]
For me, it would depend on how much advertising there was. I think on a large freeway I might prefer advertising, but on smaller roads, I'd certainly just want to pay a flat subscription fee, and enjoy the scenery.
[quote]But it wouldnt be up to you…it would be up to the person or "busines" that owns it…at least now you get a say it what goes where.[/quote]
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
…HOA's…a corporation buys a bunch of land and builds houses on it…with a lake and a playground…nice and pretty.
[/quote]
Well, for one thing, corporations are a construction of the state. I for one oppose corporate person hood – owners should be liable for damages they cause. Let's just say it's a business ;).
[quote]lol ok, businesses…but it happens now…they buy up big tracts of land and build homes on it…yes there are many many independent homes…one of my two points were that, thats how it is now, indirectly paying dues becasue you decidd to live in a state that has property taxes (dues) you can choose to live in a state that dosnt have prop taxes or help NH get rid of the tax. ultimatly it would be paid by sales tax or some other way though.[/quote]
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
EVERY home buying situation would be now like this.
[/quote]
That's not true. There are lots of independent homebuilders. People construct individual houses on country roads all the time. I don't think that would change. All of the options currently available to you would continue, and there would be more.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
I buy a home and am forced to pay dues…dues…taxes…whatever.
[/quote]
If you buy the land and home free and clear, you wouldn't forced to pay anything – unless you intentionally signed a contract with your neighbors to pay for certain services.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
If i dont pay dues, i am under contract and if i am in violation for a time…They get their private police to boot me…if i resist…hmm…there is a similarity here isnt there!
[/quote]
If you signed a contract, but refuse to pay what you agreed on, the reasonable result would be that you lose the service you were paying for. For example, if you refuse to contribute to the maintainance of a local park, you'd lose the right to use the park. Any good contract has an exit clause, so in general, that is what would apply.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
A free market would be no better in some situations, better in others and worse in others as you can see…
[/quote]
I don't agree with your vision of what a free market would look like. I think there would be a lot of people who wouldn't want to join the kind of structured community you describe, and so there would be abundant alternatives.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
I brough up pot cuz its a sore subject with a lot of people…i dont either but i dont agree with why it was origionally banned and why it still is today…racism (mexicans) and international treaty
[/quote]
I'm with you there. Do you also agree that enforcement of pot laws is immoral? For starters, do you think arresting someone for smoking pot in their own home is an immoral act?
[/quote]
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27431#msg27431 date=1264649871]I "admit" all this because who will say what the origional intent of parts of the constitution meant in a specific context (case). You?[/quote]
I was merely pointing out your contradictory claims that (1) we [sic] are ruled by the laws, not the government; and (2) the meanings of those rules are subject to men and women in government. The Constitution is just words used (fraudulently) by individuals seeking power over others… my thoughts on its original intent are of no practical utility.
[quote]
You really believe the members of the judicial system are accountable to no one (supreme court specifically)? They are subject to the citizens of the country. We, you and i, can overrule decisions they make.
[/quote]
Now you're speaking my language. I hereby overrule all decisions of all agents of monopoly government, including in particular those calling theirselves "courts", insofar as the decisions are purported to affect me. Or is that not what you were talking about?
[quote author=gibson042 link=topic=2347.msg27497#msg27497 date=1264696685]
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27431#msg27431 date=1264649871]I "admit" all this because who will say what the origional intent of parts of the constitution meant in a specific context (case). You?[/quote]
I was merely pointing out your contradictory claims that (1) we [sic] are ruled by the laws, not the government; and (2) the meanings of those rules are subject to men and women in government. The Constitution is just words used (fraudulently) by individuals seeking power over others… my thoughts on its original intent are of no practical utility.
The meanings of those rules are subject to those whom allow them to stand. Judicary interprets them, house initiates them, senate and pres pass/veto them, cidizens either allow them to stand or take the rules to court with the accusation of not being constitutional. when ruled not to be or allowed the decision stands, until enough citizens create a special interest group that lobbies others to get legislature to change laws to not alow the rule to stand.
[quote]
You really believe the members of the judicial system are accountable to no one (supreme court specifically)? They are subject to the citizens of the country. We, you and i, can overrule decisions they make.
[/quote]
Now you're speaking my language. I hereby overrule all decisions of all agents of monopoly government, including in particular those calling theirselves "courts", insofar as the decisions are purported to affect me. Or is that not what you were talking about?
[/quote]
Yes that is exactly what i am takling about. From there, you have some choices. 1. Create or become a part of a group of citizens (freestateproject) to try and change or eliminate existing laws into ones that you deem "freeer". Which in that case you are exerting unintended violence to others, forcing them to be your definition of "free". 2. Go to an american embassy in canada or another close country. Renounce your citizenship, then move back to the United states…to keene and live there, without citizenship of any country. What can they do? deport you? to where? you are then a country unto your self. You protect yourself. You dont have to pay any taxes. You can defend your own property if they try and take it, saying tha tyou dont pay taxes.
# 2 is a bit extream…but thats the kind of thing it will take on a semi mass scale for your renunciation of government to work. when you renounce your citizenship, you are legally succeding from the nations laws. However, you cannot succede from societies laws and from there the "group think" laws or "mob rule laws will apply from there. If you cannot defend youself from that point…you can hire others to do it for you and let the free market decide how much you pay and if your even able to get a job or start a business.
I dont believe that any ideas here are invalid. I think that many are very plausable and will bring the country to another level. However, most of the ideas seem like their taking the current countries structure and replacing it with the terms "non-violent, voluntaryism approach". You still have all the same things you do now, they are just hidden under a mask of non-violence and voluntaryism. Without regulation, people or business force your hand into doing things, or paying prices for products/services you dont "need" to pay for, or are already paid for by taxes.
There is a lot of speak about theft in relation to taxes. Where to the taxes go? To the government? nope. As we have discussed, there really is no government, there is only the concept of a government, therefor nothing can be given to a concept. Taxes are either deducted (volunarily) from your paycheck (voluntary because you chose to work in the united states as a citizen defined by a person being born within the geographical bounds of the laws of the people who live in those bounds.) You can decide to do under the table work and not pay those taxes, especially easy is your an illegal. which you can go through the process 2 in my previous post to become one. You can start a business, at which time you do not have to register or even pay taxes, if you dont and are not a citizen (an illegal) can they even cage you? At that point, as i said, you are an island unto yourself and as free as you wish, (within normal societies bounds of non-violence). Mexicans do this every day!
Anyway, the taxes that are paid (sorry abou tthe tangent) go to local structures. Education, roads, security etc and employment of the people hired to do their respective jobs (including the state gov and sen.) as well as the contractors to maintain roads, etc. you use these roads, education, security services. Federal taxes (dues) go to the protection of othe people who live witin the borders explained above. Unfortunatly, much of this money goes to social programs. I agree witth some in one form or another becasue many can be changed to be more efficient. and disagree with most. Being an accountant, I can definitly relate to breakeven points/variable cost and cost averaging as well as the benefit of voluntary investment in a government with interest paid. Because taxes are TAKEN or STOLEN by the government, then given back to about 50% of payers, with no interst, could thisbe why many believe it to be theft? A 2% return on those dollars would make it an investment, wouldnt it? The tax system is also sort of funny like that…becasue its deemed to be completelyvoluntary! Its based on the assumption that because you made money within the borders described above, that you must pay taxes for services you have used during that time of work. If your vacationing here, or moved here and dont do anything and/or homeless, you pay no taxes. Hence the laws constantly state that it is voluntary. lol but try not paying…even when you get it allback at the end of the year., there are many difinitions of voluntary.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27506#msg27506 date=1264701095]
Anyway, the taxes that are paid (sorry abou tthe tangent) go to local structures. Education, roads, security etc and employment of the people hired to do their respective jobs (including the state gov and sen.) as well as the contractors to maintain roads, etc. you use these roads, education, security services. Federal taxes (dues) go to the protection of othe people who live witin the borders explained above. Unfortunatly, much of this money goes to social programs. I agree witth some in one form or another becasue many can be changed to be more efficient. and disagree with most. Being an accountant, I can definitly relate to breakeven points/variable cost and cost averaging as well as the benefit of voluntary investment in a government with interest paid. Because taxes are TAKEN or STOLEN by the government, then given back to about 50% of payers, with no interst, could thisbe why many believe it to be theft? A 2% return on those dollars would make it an investment, wouldnt it? The tax system is also sort of funny like that…becasue its deemed to be completelyvoluntary! Its based on the assumption that because you made money within the borders described above, that you must pay taxes for services you have used during that time of work. If your vacationing here, or moved here and dont do anything and/or homeless, you pay no taxes. Hence the laws constantly state that it is voluntary. lol but try not paying…even when you get it allback at the end of the year., there are many difinitions of voluntary.
[/quote]
Taxes go overwhelmingly to the people who call theirselves government—whether elected, appointed, or hired—and to their friends/supporters. And in order to believe that the tax system is voluntary, one must first believe that the government owns all property.
Taxes go overwhelmingly to the people who call theirselves government—whether elected, appointed, or hired—and to their friends/supporters. And in order to believe that the tax system is voluntary, one must first believe that the government owns all property.
[/quote]
I think you might be under the delusion that the government is an actual entity. It does not exist in reality, its a concept. In "reality" a government is a group of physical people. Those people are paid wages by the citizens through taxes…thats ALL the people that fall within the concept of government get. Money out of our pockets through taxes, goes through the concept we know as government, and is "dispersed" through purchase of goods used to defend the country, education, police, fire departments, contracted workers like road/building crews, social organizations, grants, loans to banks. all the concept of government is, is a funnel…if you mean it goes to the people who call themselves government…thats an issue of transparency, because it does happen that connected people (lobbiests) get more than individuals. Complete transparency in the lobbying process will dissolve that fact. lol its not voluntary, but thats what they try and make you believe, if you ask them directly they will say, yes it is voluntary.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27516#msg27516 date=1264714433]
In "reality" a government is a group of physical people. Those people are paid wages by the citizens through taxes…thats ALL the people that fall within the concept of government get.
[/quote]
And "all" they get is inordinately more than people who do business voluntarily, and with essentially no oversight. Like I said, taxes go overwhelmingly to the people who call theirselves government and their friends/supporters. The "dispersal" you speak of happens only after the parasites take their cut. It is inherent to the system, and cannot be fixed as long as people accept monopoly government.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27487#msg27487 date=1264694490]
Apply the constitution to abortion, interpret it and take into account opposing view points. It is simple to understand, becasue the words are spelled out…right ther in plain english. they apply decisions based on their interpretation of it. We as citizens with knowledge and power to overrule those decisions by changing the law if need be (again not easy to do but doable) are the check/balence to those 9
[/quote]
The constitution doesn't say anything about abortion. I see the word "abortion" nowhere in the constitution, nor the word "fetus" or "pregnancy". As usually, they just made the constitution magically match their personal opinions. The history of the SC is littered with self-serving interpretations, which seem absurd in retrospect.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27489#msg27489 date=1264694795]
[quote]A bunch of politicians writing something down on paper does not magically give them ownership of land, any more than I can write "the ttie act of 2010" and make myself own the country. They'd have to actually work, and trade the fruit of their labor for it.
[/quote]
the magic of a bunch of politicians writing something down on paper, is the public that allows that written word to stand. Injustices tend to be sufferable when people are distracted by brittney spears and american idol. That also proves that the republic (much better than that of any other countries system) is ours only if we deserve it. you can take that in the positive or negative sense if you want.
[/quote]
I don't think anyone deserves to have their property stolen from them. I agree we should stop being distracted, and take a stand, but what you say here seems like blaming the victim. Did the Russians who were killed by Stalin deserve it? How about those killed by Mao? Hitler? Pol Pot? Chemical Ali? Did the blacks deserve to be enslaved for all those years, because they did not throw off their oppressors? Of course not.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27491#msg27491 date=1264695435]
[quote]I think people will hire protection agencies, which will fulfill many of the roles police do now. If there is a dispute between people – one accuses another of theft, for example, the protection agency of the alleged perpetrator, and that of the victim, would use a court of arbitration designated for disputes between them, with alternate courts to be used for appeal. Representation could be provided by the protection agency, and additional representation hired by the individuals involved.
[/quote]
its the same system, just percieved differently. your using a private protection agency (police) to assert the accusation of whatever to the other and taken to a court of arbitration (and see who, judge wopner? a court of peers?)
[/quote]
Whatever court(s) of arbitration the two protection agencies designated to settle disputes between them. Some might use single judges, others, panels of judges, and still others might use randomly selected juries. Contracts would designate an arbiter as well. This opens up the legal profession to competition, which it sorely needs. If a judge is unjust, self-serving, overpaid, etc, you can refuse to use them to settle your affairs, and designate a wiser, more effective arbiter instead.
Without competition, there is no motivation to improve efficiency or effectiveness – because your "customers" are forced to pay you no matter what. The judicial system we have now is the equivalent of five pound cell phones.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27491#msg27491 date=1264695435]
if alternate courts would be used for appeal would there be a point at which appeals stop…a "Supreme Court"?
[/quote]
That would depend on the arrangement made by the parties in the contract, or the protection agencies in question. Probably there would be.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27491#msg27491 date=1264695435]
Representation (lawyers, attorneys…or one appointed to you if you cant afford a protection agency by a non profit group that collects donations (taxes but not forced) (if they dont have enough money, do you still get a defense?))
[/quote]
I am sure there are different arrangements that might be made to deal with the truly poor, and I'm sure charity would play a significant role. For-profit businesses, too, might act under reduced fees, or pro-bono, in order to maintain a good reputation in the community.
In any case, the solution is not for me to pay for someone's lawyer with money stolen from my neighbors. Charity means reaching into my own wallet, not mugging my neighbor for his.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27491#msg27491 date=1264695435]
could be provided by the protection agency (the state).
[/quote]
A protection agency, as I describe, is not a state. Here are the most important differences:
- A protection agency obtains money by willing subscription, not violent extortion.
- A protection agency allows competition
- A protection agency does not prosecute victimless crimes – how could they, as they only open a case when one of their customers is the victim? I think they would also likely seek restitution for the victim, rather than prison. Prison should be reserved for highly violent individuals who continue to be a threat to others (and even they should still work in prison to make restitution).
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27491#msg27491 date=1264695435]
Your proposing basically that each person be a country (island) unto him/her self and their families. Subject to their own self defense for their own property and the hireing of a personal army.
[/quote]
I'm sure they would pay for protection agencies, as I describe, who would operate much like police do now. They'd be cheaper and more effective too, since they would not be sidetracked by victimless crime enforcement, and bureaucratic code enforcement, that police are today. Most importantly, they'd be open to competition. If you find a service unsatisfactory, you're free to switch. Coercive monopolies never provide a good service at a good cost.
Regarding the "army", aka regional or national defense, I think militias, which is a lot closer to the constitutional approach, would be far better. If you want to get together with others to pay for a central standing army, however, you'd be welcome to do so.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27491#msg27491 date=1264695435]
What if they want to use their personal protection agency to "take" from others. Is there minarchist government that overrulles and applies laws to such agencies? Isnt that just another government ruling over your individual one? [/quote]
Here's the question: Is the society we're talking about mostly made up of people who are happy to use such aggressive violence to serve their own ends, or mostly made up of decent people, who will stand against such violence?
If the society is made up of people who are happy to use aggressive violence, who do you think will make up the government? Would not the most power hungry seek such office, and the most effective manipulators obtain it? Would not the "minarchy" you speak of just become the biggest, worst gang around?
If society is mostly made up of decent people, who will stand against such violence, these people will have the bulk of the economic power. The most powerful protection agencies, with the largest subscriber base, will therefore take strong stands against such violence. Wannabe thugs will quickly be stopped.
In short, if society is good enough to demand that government stop thugs, it is good enough to demand that of their protection agencies – and the people are in a far better position to hold protection agencies accountable. If a protection agency begins to go rogue, the people can immediately withdraw funding, and turn to one of a dozen or more readily available alternative protection agencies. If a government goes rogue, there are no competitors to turn to, and funding is compulsive. The power structure and precedent to take the property of the people by force already exists, for a government.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27491#msg27491 date=1264695435]
You propose the elmination of theft for another kind of theft in the future. A human characteristic is that people test and find ways to their own intersts and some people…that means through immoral acts.
[/quote]
I think most of the people who vote for socialism would never dream of personally breaking into their neighbor's house and pawning their TV. Government enables immorality, it does not discourage it. Governments are, and always have been, more evil, and more corrupt, than the populace out of which they arise – again, it's quite obvious to see why, if you just ask yourself, "what sort of man seeks and obtains office?" Is it the man who does not desire power, and who only wants to live his life in peace, respecting the rights of others and being respected in turn? Or is it the man who wants to rule over his fellows? The scum rises to the top, as we see time and time again.
If our goal is to protect man from those who would use aggressive violence against him, why would we create an organization for the express purpose of exercising a monopoly on aggressive violence? It's like Christmas day for every power hungry sociopath in the land.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27491#msg27491 date=1264695435]
Are you that rich that you can afford a protection agency to do all that for you? Is your neighbor? do they have the right to one if they cant afford one?
[/quote]
They would be far cheaper, and far more effective, than the "justice" system we have today. Competition, and freedom, always foster improved efficiency, and innovation. I would be happy to help pay for protection for the truly poor, and I think any respectable agency would extend help to those truly in need.
The people of the U.S. gave 300 billion dollars to charity last year, and that's in a crummy economy. Create a truly free economy as I describe, and remove the humungous burden of modern governmental bureaucracies, and the economy would explode – so would charity.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27494#msg27494 date=1264696018]
if they are tolls they are the same thing as a tax!
[/quote]
No, to tax is to take money that is not yours by force. It is not based on any voluntary agreement or business arrangement. A toll as I describe is a fee for using someone else's property. If you don't want to pay it, you can use another road, not travel, or buy your own.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27494#msg27494 date=1264696018]
your taxes go to the roads, education…all that! you need to travel to work and travel so you would literally be forced to pay them…or go to court and if you refuse to go to court, then what?? I dont hold myself to an illusion that i dont pay for the roads and education that I and others use, why would I hold myself to the illusion that i dont have to use these services if they are privatly owned?[/quote]
Of course we can't expect to receive services for free. The point is not to get through life without paying anyone for anything, the point is that you have the right to make these choices for yourself – whether you will trade with others, and if so, who you will trade with. Voluntary trade, not extortion, is the correct way to obtain funds.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
But it wouldnt be up to you…it would be up to the person or "busines" that owns it…at least now you get a say it what goes where.[/quote]
I think you've got it completely backwards here. It's in a free society that I have real choice – if I don't like how someone runs a highway, I can use another one. If enough people do what I do, they go bankrupt, and someone with better business practices takes over.
Even, however, if the majority likes that highway, I can still withdraw my funding and my patronage from it. Not so under a government – I will be forced to fund and to use the form of roads desired by the majority.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27435#msg27435 date=1264651255]
lol ok, businesses…but it happens now…they buy up big tracts of land and build homes on it…yes there are many many independent homes…one of my two points were that, thats how it is now, indirectly paying dues becasue you decidd to live in a state that has property taxes (dues) you can choose to live in a state that dosnt have prop taxes or help NH get rid of the tax. ultimatly it would be paid by sales tax or some other way though.[/quote]
I take a stand against all taxes. I think it's wrong to take someone else's property by force. If I want someone else's money, I should provide a service or product they want, and trade with them willingly.
And I like NH very much :). Best state in the country, IMO.
And "all" they get is inordinately more than people who do business voluntarily, and with essentially no oversight. Like I said, taxes go overwhelmingly to the people who call theirselves government and their friends/supporters. The "dispersal" you speak of happens only after the parasites take their cut. It is inherent to the system, and cannot be fixed as long as people accept monopoly government.
[/quote]
and the "fault" for that lies with whom? you, for not realizing your value as an employee and negotiating a higher wage (along with many otheres earning 40k in the privet sector) or GW fof doing so on their behalf?
Oh, just one more thing (said in the fameous Columbo style), Do you know WHY, the average private sector worker only makes 40k? Its because of the high population of people under the age of 25 that were counted in the study! Also how many people are in government? lets just say a BIG number 30,000,000 which is roughly 10% of the population. Percentages of 90% are GOING to be less than Percentages of 10% unless the pay for the 10% truly sucks.
If your going by the USA today or any other thing reported, check the study and see who is counted. You can do this through a community college or subscription to an online service that collects studys for review by the public. Fact is, you can get ANY data you wish through ANY study,beause you can use ANY controlls you wish. 
The constitution doesn't say anything about abortion. I see the word "abortion" nowhere in the constitution, nor the word "fetus" or "pregnancy". As usually, they just made the constitution magically match their personal opinions. The history of the SC is littered with self-serving interpretations, which seem absurd in retrospect.
[/quote]
Exactly my point. And thats the kind of cases these judges if it makes it to them have to deal with! 43 USC Sec. 1841 statute 2 says "2) "citizen of the United States" means any person who is a
United States citizen by law, birth, or naturalization, any
State, any agency of a State, or a group of States, or any
corporation, partnership, or association organized under the laws
of any State which has as its president or other chief executive
officer and as its chairman of the board of directors, or holder
of a similar office, a person who is a United States citizen by
law, birth, or naturalization, and which has at least 75 per
centum of the interest of (!1) therein owned by citizens of the
United States. Seventy-five per centum of the interest in the
corporation shall not be deemed to be owned by citizens of the
United States -
This definition came about by the immigration act of1950something, which was allowed to stand by the people through rowe vs. wade being the key word "birth". So you are not a citizen if you are in your mothers womb because you havent been birthed, but when your out, then you are. Though it is not IN the constitution, things like this come up that werent addressed there and must be applied to the rules laid out there, then added to it through, ammendment, passed bills which are acts of congress, whom are representitives of the people in their geographical bounds within the U.S.
This all can be proven by the partial birth abortion act of 2003. Go to the U.S. code area of thomas.loc.gov and do a search if your interested.
I don't think anyone deserves to have their property stolen from them. I agree we should stop being distracted, and take a stand, but what you say here seems like blaming the victim. Did the Russians who were killed by Stalin deserve it? How about those killed by Mao? Hitler? Pol Pot? Chemical Ali? Did the blacks deserve to be enslaved for all those years, because they did not throw off their oppressors? Of course not.
[/quote]
Ok, this is where my opinion seems heartless, but it is definitly not, I believe in defending ones self, no matter what, in any situation. Those killed by stalin, mao, hitler, pol pot, chemical ali, and those blacks inslaved for all those years were allowing those things to be done. MINUS those who defended themselves to the death. MLK, was not one of those yet was still killed. If someone forces themselves on to you, personally and tries to kill you, your natural reaction would be to defend yourself and sometimes its just to much, i completely understand that and add it into context here. But if there is a known oppresser who is using spoken and written word to harm people or enslave them. The group of people who are being harmed/enslaved can rise
up and throw off their oppressors…at any time. They need a spark (usually) like the civil war and WW2 along with help of others. Im not blaming victims here, or being heartless, im just saying that at any time in these mass violence situations, people ALWAYS have the DUTY to throw off their oppressor, or live with the concequences of not. Thats my take on the morality of the inaction side of in action vs. action. Thats what I mean when I say freedom is yours if you deserve it. Do you really believe that it is a basic human "right", without that "right" being agreed on by your "majority"? Without that agreed right, it becomes what I "can" and "cant" do. I "can" try and kill you and take your stuff, you "can" try and defend yourself against me. Which one of us succedes provs what the other "cant" do in that situation…in a lawless and immoral society.
Its also very easy to have that society because it exists, today, all around the world. Haiti, many parts of Africa, parts of Mexico, Colombia, and the 20 year span of the wild west in america.
[quote author=zholzapfel link=topic=2347.msg27603#msg27603 date=1264773860]
And "all" they get is inordinately more than people who do business voluntarily, and with essentially no oversight. Like I said, taxes go overwhelmingly to the people who call theirselves government and their friends/supporters. The "dispersal" you speak of happens only after the parasites take their cut. It is inherent to the system, and cannot be fixed as long as people accept monopoly government.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Please learn how to quote. There's a nice Preview button to help you.
[quote]
and the "fault" for that lies with whom? you, for not realizing your value as an employee and negotiating a higher wage (along with many otheres earning 40k in the privet sector) or GW fof doing so on their behalf?
[/quote]
That's right, the reason a criminal enterprise pays so well is quality "negotiation".
[quote]
Oh, just one more thing (said in the fameous Columbo style), Do you know WHY, the average private sector worker only makes 40k? Its because of the high population of people under the age of 25 that were counted in the study! Also how many people are in government? lets just say a BIG number 30,000,000 which is roughly 10% of the population. Percentages of 90% are GOING to be less than Percentages of 10% unless the pay for the 10% truly sucks.
[/quote]
I suppose no one under 25 works in government, right? But even if hundreds of thousands of young people weren't catching bullets, the gap trend would still be significant. Either you're functionally illiterate, or you didn't bother to read the article (and apparently missed the first-hand account entirely). Let me point out some key facts:
[]Across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008, 3.9% in January 2009, and 2% pay raises in January 2010. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes—called steps—that average 1.5% per year.
[]When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.
In case it wasn't clear, the pay divide is increasing. So, does government work attract super-productive Übermenschen deserving these increases, or those who just want a cut of the extorted wealth?
And most importantly of all, by what rationale is it acceptable to do business through force and deception?