Fonceai vs Osborn F. Enready - Man, world, society.

[Osborn F Enready]

I am starting this thread so that Fonceai and I may have a place to trade views, debate and discussion of the world without being accused of going "off topic".

Fonceai, I ask you to define what you fault with my logic please.

[Fonceai]

Logic on which issues?

Drag something in from another thread and we'll see where we stand.

[Osborn F Enready]

Life, world, society and mans role and limitations as you see them, compared to how I see them.

For example, taxes, individuals, government.

[Fonceai]

Well, pick one, tell me what your logic is. Use one where we have disagreed, and I'll see what we can come up with.

[Osborn F Enready]

Ok Fonceai, let us take my thread on the "roots of Libertarianism".

You said: 1) Yes. But I believe I should make it perfectly clear that I want that say; one should take the time to reaffirm that right within the existing legal structure (i.e. Living Wills, etc.). And I agree with Aeris, if I commit a capital offense, I have decided my life is worth whatever it is I did. 2) Yes. 3) This is a poorly worded question. What do you mean by "claim"? If I discover the cure for cancer and say, "I have the cure for cancer" then society really can't do anything. If I publish the cure then anyone with access to the published material now also has the cure. So I would say that in some cases, society DOES have a claim to the fruits of my labor. 4) Do mean that other than the differences we are born with, we should all be fundamentally equal in rights and status? Yes. 5) This question is funny... you really need to define "collective". You're basically saying that a group has free will to accept me or not, and IF they will accept me, I can choose if I want to be a part of that group? If that's the question, then my answer is Yes. 6) Do you mean "prerogative"? And is this basically asking if I think that if an employer is willing to pay what I deem to be the worth of my labor, that I have a right to assign that worth to my labor? Basically, should I be able to negotiate my salary to a level to which an employer will pay? Yes. 7) What do you mean by "sole proprietor"? Do you mean that I should be the only one in charge of my life and decisions that only affect me, as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others? Yes. 8) This is the same as #1. If I make choose to engage in an action where a possible consequence is death and then I face punishment, I have made my decision that I surrender that right. So, Yes. --- And yet after all of this, I don't consider myself Libertarian. Maybe, by definition, I am. But I would argue that all 8 of these are rights I currently have under the American system. I would need to see some really solid examples of how I don't have these rights already. That's why I think some people are confused about being Libertarian. It's a belief system, not a type of government.

Let us discuss these differences?

[Fonceai]

Ah, okay.

I figure that all of those 8 things you mention, if answered yes, can apply to any sort of person. Those are all freedoms that we currently possess in America.

My position was that any time you see a violation of one of those, it isn't actually the government violating it, but a consequence of personal choice.

[Osborn F Enready]

I figure that all of those 8 things you mention, if answered yes, can apply to any sort of person.

Yes, well sort of. A person who places the needs of the individual, above the needs of society, could easily answer yes to all those questions.

Those are all freedoms that we currently possess in America.

That is a verifiably untrue statement.

For example. May I consume marijuana because I so choose, without punishment from society if caught?

May I alchohol because I so choose, without punishment from society if caught?

Notice how more information is required in either case? The questions I have are where does the "derivation of authority" come from for instances such as these.

I own my body, and I can own or create EITHER good, so why or how can government interfere, and by what authority?

My position was that any time you see a violation of one of those, it isn't actually the government violating it, but a consequence of personal choice.

Government is simply a tool, but without the tool, the "force" of government can't be misused.

Personal choice, is individual. Government is a way for many individuals to use force against others, for their own ends, without conscent of those having force used upon them.

Does silence imply conscent?

[Fonceai]

Well, the statement is true when you consider that each of those actions has with it a set of consequences. By choosing to commit an action, and being aware of the consequences, you lose that right.

I see what you're saying... again, we agree on the logic but I come from a different direction.

I'm not sure where you're going with "does silence imply consent".

But I want to think this out on my road... let me know where I misunderstand...

You are saying that government is a tool based on the type of force upon which it is established. Be it Strength, The Majority, The Working Class, The Educated, etc. Without the government as a tool, that form of force can't be misused. Government is a way for those that fall into the category of authority to use that authority against others without their consent.

Is that what you're saying?

[Osborn F Enready]

You are saying that government is a tool based on the type of force upon which it is established. Be it Strength, The Majority, The Working Class, The Educated, etc. Without the government as a tool, that form of force can't be misused. Government is a way for those that fall into the category of authority to use that authority against others without their consent. Is that what you're saying?

I am saying that in the United States, the Federal Government is a tool of force created by the people to take care of the needs that States could not do, uniformly, without bias. The State governments are tools of force created by the people to take care of things the counties/parishes/cities and villages could not do, uniformly, without bias. Its "authority" is limited, clearly, by the Constitution.

These governments were largely created to simplify/equalize trade within a specific "region" of the nation, as well as to provide access to government to citizens, not to provide the roles they have "assumed" by legal and illegal means over time to what they are today including everything from health and human services to city services,bank, police and fire insurers, etc.....

The root fact is that government is a tool of force, and it derives it force from all people, not some people. Our country was not founded on a "simple majority" principle. Our Constitution takes the place of a seated King, literally. The Bill of Rights is non-negotiable, or in the drafters words I believe inalienable. These rights may not be infringed, by government, regardless of claimed necessity, authority or mandate. We have a three branch government, that was supposed to ensure this did not happen, supposedly by making it "too hard" to permeate with corrupt players, without the people noticing, and taking action. Keep in mind, that the Constitution is a "contract" of government, between the people, and the government they created.

The changes have taken place, piecemeal, over generations so slowly, that the people are just now waking up to the level at which our nation has been stolen, by those that pass laws, and now (thanks to them) operate outside its auspice, based on unjust authority, using unjust methods of law passage and "end-runs" around the Constitution, and the peoples knowledge.


So, to sum up.

Government is force. Application of force is governments only purpose.

The United States Government, is Constitutionally Limited force, as well as limited by the people, at any time they seek to exercise that right by peaceful means, or whatever means necessity should dictate.

[Fonceai]

But force is not a thing, it's a concept.

All force has a derivative.

It's the derivative that requires attention.

I would say that the U.S. gov't has lost focus on the derivative of its force and instead gone off in a different direction.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would say the U.S. lost its focus, on what justifies force.

The U.S. used to recognize that man had inalienable rights, and to defend these rights was just by whatever means necessary including force, used in reaction to force.

Well, you say force is a concept, to which I fully agree. A concept that has been proven in many forms from economic coercion, to violence of fisticuffs between individual men.

The point I make is quite simple.

All men are responsible for their actions. Action, is a result of thought being converted by an individual. Those conversions can be ruled by many things, but the underpinning to society is a standard of accepted "conversion" expressed through logic.

Knowing this, it would be more honest to say I think the U.S. has lost its focus on responsibility of the individual, by perversing its logic by "accepted terms of the day and age".

Interpretation defines us, regardless of what it is.

What can be standardized if there is no "standard" of interpretation?

The interpretation of the Constitution, and all within it, has been perverted by those who have ruled, past and present. The blame of the perversion lies in the men who committed the action, but the blame for allowing a sleeping dog to lie, rests within the people, and their "defrauded" sense of self worth, purpose and national patriotism.

[Osborn F Enready]

Also, don't forget to include the changes to our societies, all the worlds societies by technology. Our societies are more open now, therefore more open to skepticism now, since the evolution of new media technology.

I would say these are a worthwhile read if you have the intrest:
http://www.mediastudies.com/
http://www.media-ecology.org/publica.../Habermas.html

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Osborn All men are responsible for their actions.

I want to add that they are also responsible for their inactions.

Quote by: Osborn Knowing this, it would be more honest to say I think the U.S. has lost its focus on responsibility of the individual, by perversing its logic by "accepted terms of the day and age".

The term U.S. has two parts.

U.S. politicians have lost focus because they have taken away responsibility FROM the individuals.

U.S. citizens have lost focus because they became complacent and relinquished their responsibility beyond the point of no return.

Quote by: Osborn The interpretation of the Constitution, and all within it, has been perverted by those who have ruled, past and present. The blame of the perversion lies in the men who committed the action, but the blame for allowing a sleeping dog to lie, rests within the people, and their "defrauded" sense of self worth, purpose and national patriotism.

And this here basically summarizes above. The people allowed the politicians to continue.

To be honest, looking back in history I can't see how people could allow things to go the way they did. They are so obvious that you wonder why they didn't put on the brakes.

---

On a side note, remember how I said we both agree on the same things, but we disagree any way? I think I see why.

Consider government...

We both agree on what it should be, how it is, and how it got there.

You start your journey by seeing how it is bad and trying to trace back to the roots to see what happened.

I start by seeing how it can be good and trying to trace the path of the corruption developing.

In a sense, we are each seeking the answers that the other already knows.

Our posts are like two boats on opposite sides of a sinkhole. They circle the same point but are in opposition. They start circling closer and closer into they are in the same place.

I think we'll find that if we keep that in mind, we can see clearly through issues.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: I want to add that they are also responsible for their inactions.

I say:
If that is true, than is it not reliant on ignorance or fraud of information that can be attained?

Fonceai said: U.S. politicians have lost focus because they have taken away responsibility FROM the individuals.

I say:
Which I alledge is by design, since about 1850.

Fonceai said: U.S. citizens have lost focus because they became complacent and relinquished their responsibility beyond the point of no return.

I say:
I alledge this is due to fraud, information fraud to be exact.

This fraud is perpetrated by these things, in order: (but to sum up, this fraud was perpetrated by a group of governments who worked together through coercion and extortion to assemble an establishment organization that is fully compartmentalized.)

First, by private schools such as privately funded universities as in the first ones to appear in the States, who were designed to compete against each other in the realm of science, and mans relation to the physical world. (Religion, Constitutional Interpretation, Rights of Man, the Role of Man in Society.) They were set up to teach opposing ideologies, by people who clung to those ideologies they supported, instead of working within a common framework of interpretation.
Secondly, by public schools once they evolved, by increasingly removing or simply not teaching vital information to citizenship, liberty and the birth of our nation.

Then we have the media, that has grown beyond our wildest expectations. Truth in advertising was a thing that came and went, as did media value for vital information on the nation. Propaganda was recognized as a national value in WWII, and has been used against the populace by government since. (Operation Mockingbird, Operation Northwoods and many other examples.)

That covers the entire spectrum of LEARNING and EDUCATION until the internet came out and started destroying the lies through free speech among nations peoples.

Also, the rights of incorporation changes, that allowed most of the above mentioned monopolization of media to occur. Corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800's by establishing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings. This removed control of corporate charter from the community, to the government as well as changing the ability to do business for national, and multinational corporations.



Now, I fully understand, and agree that inaction is the fault of those who don't act. The true question in this case however is was their motive, means and intent by government to fraud the people of information? I say yes, based on several sources, means and described methods as well as clearly stated intent by many of the major players who made it happen.

Here are a couple quotes from those who knew then, what we are learning today....

“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”
-Joseph Stalin

“One of the greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a new idea”
-Walter Bagehot (1826-1877)
(Bagehot was an English journalist and economist, and first formulated a distinct theory of central banking. He was an early editor of The Economist. He was a member of the establishment, and he explains quite accurately how the establishment experiences new ideas.)

“Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”
-Richard Salant, former President of CBS News

“The best time to buy is when blood is running in the streets.”
-Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild

“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class. The great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages, will bear its burden without complaint.”
-Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863-Jun-25, in a letter to fellow members of the establishment

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
-Henry Ford

“...all of us here at the policy-making level have had experience with directives... from the White House.... The substance of them is that we shall use our grant-making power so as to alter our life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”
-H. Rowan Gaither, Jr., President, Ford Foundation, to Norman Dodd, Congressional Reese Commission, 1954

“What luck for the rulers that men do not think.”
-Adolf Hitler

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
-David Rockefeller, Bilderberg 1991 (Baden-Baden Germany)

“People shouldn't expect the mass media to do investigative stories. That job belongs to the 'fringe' media.”
-Ted Koppel

“This proposal will never prevent criminals from possessing firearms and we never said it would.”
-Daryl Smeaton, Attorney General's department, Director of Law Enforcement Co-ordination, on the new Australian gun bans, in The Weekend Australian, 20-21 September 1997, page 6

“It is true that despite an increase in gun ownership in Australia over the past 15 years, there has been a decline in the murder and suicide rates.”
-Melanie Granger, for the Hon. Daryl Williams, Attorney General of Australia and Minister for Justice, from a Letter to Ross Wilmoth dated 27/8/97

“Tighter gun control laws were not framed with the specific expectation that gun related deaths would decline.”
-Anne Standford, press secretary for Police Minister Bill McGrath, in The Geelong Advertiser, 11/9/97


“No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by demanding empirical evidence.”
-Ann Landers, former director of Handgun Control, Inc.

“The Democrats ran away from gun safety in the 2002 elections, and look where it got them. Whoever is advising them on gun control should be shot.”
-Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (in "Democrats shunning gun control", 2003-May-31, Washington Times)

“Whatever right the Second Amendment protects is not as important as it was 200 years ago....[The government should] deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrassing Amendment.”
-George Will, 1991

“I don't care if you want to hunt. I don't care if you think it's your right. I say: `Sorry, it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.'”
-Television talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell

And now, a few quotes from those who spoke of logic I respect....

“Government is not suggestion nor persuasion, it is force...and force is violence. ...When you advocate any government action, you first must believe that violence is the best answer to the question at hand.”
-Laws of the Jungle, by Allen Thornton

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
-George Washington, presidential farewell address

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.”
-Barry Goldwater

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”
-Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government


I make no allegations of which I feel I can't fully backup.

If you think my allegations of intentions are wrong, question them. If you think I can't provide a fact, source or date, ask me to. If you doubt my logic, question it.

I will happily be of any service in those pursuits that I can.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: Our posts are like two boats on opposite sides of a sinkhole. They circle the same point but are in opposition. They start circling closer and closer into they are in the same place. I think we'll find that if we keep that in mind, we can see clearly through issues.

I say:
I couldn't agree more.

[Osborn F Enready]

You still out there Fonce?

[Fonceai]

I'm here. Busy weekend. Will respond as soon as I can.

[Osborn F Enready]

No rush, just checking.

[Fonceai]

You continue to address the circular nature of the problem.

Politicians gave the citizens fradulent information, so they are to blame.

The majority of citizens accepted that information and didn't really look into it.

Chicken and the egg.

I watched V For Vendetta this weekend. About 30 minutes into the movie, my wife is looking at me and says, "I see the little gears of forums posts turning in your head." I admitted she was right.

But I could see why a lot of people get so extreme with their dissatisfaction with government; they are right, but for the wrong reasons.

Any citizen with a problem with their government but not willing to do more than complain is the type of citizen that is to blame for the problems.

Governments gain power because citizens allow it. A corrupt government, and by corrupt I mean a government that is no longer adhering to its foundation of authority, is a sign of a lazy population.

Logically speaking that is the only conclusion at which I can arrive.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: You continue to address the circular nature of the problem.

I say:
Because that is the REAL problem. Until it stops, the circle continues.

Fonceai said: Politicians gave the citizens fradulent information, so they are to blame. The majority of citizens accepted that information and didn't really look into it.

I say:
Exactly, citizens have suffered due to blatant with-holding of information, and manipulative or "fraudulent" government procedure and disclosure.

A good example?

Marijuana and Hemp laws.

As my rights according to the Constitution, I have the right to consume anything I wish to consume as long as I own what it is I am consuming.

I own my own body, correct?

If I plant a marijuana plant in my yard for personal consumption, how is any right being infringed?

Now, look at how they went about illegalizing marijuana and hemp. (hemp by the way was a national STAPLE crop, and was once "ORDERED" to be grown by the government of any farmer so ordered.)

They circumvented the Constitution to illegalize marijuana and hemp, which means they didn't create the law as was PRESCRIBED by the standing Law of the Land. This makes the laws void. At the same time, States rights are being totally ignored, even today, concerning this issue. This issue has been being brought up by the people since the 1970's, and the courts still refuse to act on the ORIGINAL injustice.

This is blatant mis-use and abuse of law, and the free market, and is a punishable offense. Even if no restitution is issued, the case must be reversed, on principal if we are to have any respect for our system of law.

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
-Abraham Lincoln (1809-65) U.S. President.
Speech, 18 Dec. 1840, to Illinois House of Representatives

Fonceai said: Any citizen with a problem with their government but not willing to do more than complain is the type of citizen that is to blame for the problems.

I say:
It takes complainers, and activists to GET NOTICED anymore, in the world of corporate media that exists now.

In a nation of 300,000,000 people, the media has no time for individual causes unless they have something to gain from it. That is not how media is supposed to operate. They get profit from selling papers, but their JOB is to inform the public.

We all know that "unbelieveable headlines" sell news publications. That does not mean their job is to focus only on stories that profit them.

We have failed at media regulation, especially with the FCC and televised information. If there is no truth in broadcasting, broadcasting is simply a propaganda tool.




I agree, people deserve the government they get. However, when the information that is being "allowed" to citizens is not a complete or even NEAR complete picture, they fail in their mission to "inform the public". In this case, fraud can be an issue, and this is where evidence comes into play.

I have a lot of evidence that spans from 1850 to current, showing a trend of government hiding information in a supposed "transparent society". The trend also shows a constant increase in "black funds" and budget increases that are NOT approved by the people, but instead that same government that is with-holding information from the people.

If the FCC doesn't do their job, why are they there? If the Congress doesn't take action, or can't, why are they there? If the Senate doesn't take action, or can't, why are they there. All of these people SWORE AN OATH to uphold the Constitution, not their party. We the people must hold them to that oath by bringing this evidence to light, any way we can, until the media is FORCED to deal with it by public demand, or by a show of loss of respect for media.(which is now happening, and has been, since the start of the Iraq war and 9-11)

This is why I go easy on complainer/activists and HARD on government and media. Government and media have a lot of money to throw away on ANY given case, as well as a department of their own law firms. People have themselves, and whatever money they can raise for their cause(usually very meager).

The media is no longer serving the people, instead they serve their paymasters and advertisers. (corporate America)

The government no longer serves the people, instead it serves its lobbyists and its corporate paymasters and campaign funders. (corporate America)

Our foreign policy hasn't served the public since WWII, it serves the parties by raising black funding for black jobs, such as the Pablo Escobar fiasco in Columbia.

We have been sold out, by our sworn and elected leaders. Now it is time to prove the fraud, and all the help that can be attained is needed.