Comments on: Political Puzzle

By: Cherlin

Cherlin — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 01:42:12 +0000

Thanks alot – your asnwer solved all my problems after several days struggling

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:01:40 +0000

‘Guilt tripping’ are we? I’m uncertain as to where you extracted ‘meh, nothing really matters’ from my comments. If I seem to have alluded to being blithe then allow me to remedy your miscomprehension. Since you seem to have an aversion to short comments of which I merely mean to jar your core beliefs in hopes you may endeavor to prove me false and in doing so do the latter, I shall indulge you in what I hope to be a concise short essay.
It is supposed that ‘free government’ is premised on the ideal of a limited government with people deriving rights or privileges from a fundamental and mutual agreement between State and Citizen, i.e. a contract. The Citizen is to give patronage to the State in return for ‘protection’ from physical harm in his person and property, and otherwise liberty in all aspects of his life, limited by those rights of his peers. This is your very ‘Declaration of Independence.’ It is to be freely agreed to where both parties give their explicit consent. It can be no other way; else the State is no different than any other of the most rapacious institutions that purport to call themselves the legitimate sovereigns over any geographical area. Whether premised on divine right or a supposed mandate of the majority, the latter of which is nothing more than a mob, easily manipulated to suit the ends of scruple less men, rule by anything other than by consent of all those subject to the sovereign is incompatible with being free and which I might endeavor to say that no man, but of craft or ignorance, would argue.
Such is the nature of a body politic, a corporation. I need not delve into the definitions of such, additionally, federal, state, republic, etc… That I’ll leave to you, but dig you must on these. The Constitution of the United States is believed to be a contract between every Citizen within the geographical area of which it holds hegemony, how many have any recollection of having ever signed such an agreement or whom the other party were. There was no privity. I cannot for the life of me go into the legal chicanery of which this document is composed here, that I’ll leave it to another man of greater legal training than myself (http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64). The Constitution is, as the courts have said, a compact between states (federal corporation) and not the common man (look up 14 Ga. 438, 520 in the law books amongst others).
Further, the courts having also said, that the State has no duty to protect the general public (its subjects) as it physically can’t nor would as the same court system has established that any law enforcement is there to do just that, enforce the will of the sovereign authority and to protect it from harm (try Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84, 88 (4th Cir.1983) amongst others). If, as has been established, the agreement between State and Citizen is such that there is none, as none can be produced, and the very institution which extols such an obligation publicly but does not, in private, uphold it, how can it be said that said institution exists for the benefit of anyone but those composing the State? It is a mere contrivance to give some countenance of legitimacy; less people become wise unto them and discover that it is a mere tool for a small conclave to extort large sums of money for their own aggrandizement through the control of commerce. As I’ve said, the old world isn’t dead, the methods employed have.

By: The Ithacan

The Ithacan — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:12:17 +0000

Cynicism
Cynicism

“An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.”

Cynicism is great for blog comments but bad for democracy.

People have given their lives to protect the Bill of Rights. We should be able to do better than…
“meh nothing really matters”

By: anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:03:24 +0000

Just to be clear, a ‘corporate oligarchy’ can only exist when one body (in case the State aka a body corporate) has a monopoly on the threat or use of force, as that is the only way they can impart their scam/con (which you fell for) can exist for such long durations. If you go to the ‘State’ you lose. That’s their ball field and you play by their rules.

The old world ain’t dead folks, they just changed tactics! The illusion of freedom is not just that.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:57:11 +0000

Descent into corporate oligarchy?? Are you kidding?

There is no and will be no ‘descent’ into such a thing, it has ALWAYS existed. The two go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other.

And no, the BOR does not apply to you! If you can’t figure it out, you’ve no busniness complaining!

By: The Ithacan

The Ithacan — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:48:59 +0000

Well I know which horse I am backing…

I want America to survive as a democratic republic.

I fear a descent into a corporate oligarchy.

Who will decide the question?
Young people.
Will they be suckered by the propaganda. Taxes on the rich are BAD! Regulating the banks is BAD!
Or will they fight for self government and our. Bill of Rights.
Stay tuned!!!