Debate on a proposed new "Declaration of Independence"

[Technosoul]

I do not think you can get a lot of people to sign something and then present it to some unidentified Higher Authority for approval. Because then people would claim you are basing the authority on some fantasy, and beleive me, getting people to comprehend the metiaphysical Spirit of the Consitution is not easy, as you might know I have experience relative to that kind of stand.

So unless some UFOs come down from the sky and they like it and commanded "this is how it shall be then, or else". Then you would have no force to back it up.

And people sign lots of stuff, but that is no insurance they would be willing to fight, perhaps even to die, for such a cause.

None the less you worked hard and did create a well-writen document. And I do favor alternative thinking even if I do not always agree with the contents of the concept.

I doubt if you could take it to the U.N. for approval (due to one line in the declaration).

But perhaps you could get it on the ballot during a Presidential election if you had enough signatures in all the states. The votes would then become the authority (unless rejected by the Surpreme Court as being unconsitutional).

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanatos said: Umm...because private schools aren't free?

Public schools aren't free either, and in fact, are unjustly paid for, and parental control is GREATLY reduced in public schools.

Thanatos said: Indeed, but without an educated free-thinking populace democracy is a sham.

I fully agree. The first step to being a RESPONSIBLE parent, is being able to provide for the education, well being and future well being of the child until age of majority is reached.
People shouldn't have kids they can't support, and as reasonable, responsible people, we should use and understand how to use birth control methods.

You seem to make the assumption that people who recklessly disregard their parental responsibility, should be taken care of to equal levels of those who plan and take responsibility for their actions. I disagree with that, totally.

Also, government is the most inefficient vessel of action known to man, I think, unless someone cares to show me I am wrong.

Even non-profit collectives do better at money handling than government, so why would I trust government to do such a thing?

This doesn't even address the issue of a right to tax for education.

Thanatos said: If I had to make an unsupported guess I'd say that if the founding fathers here today they'd go along with it.

If I had to make an educated, well grounded guess, using the expressed thoughts and words of the forefathers, I think they would be spilling blood in the streets over the system we have currently.

Thanatos said: It doesn't. An amendment could be proposed, and I think the majority of the people in the U.S. would agree with me.

So, why try to exploit the mass ignorance of the people?

Most of the problems we have in this country spawn from the CURRENT lack of understanding of the system of law, by most people.

Because these people agree with something, it makes it right to remove rights from a minority, who indeed COULD be right, though opposed?

I couldn't disagree more.

Technosoul said: Needless to say that when the Consitution was written we did not have to deal with Global Warming.

POINT?!?

What relevance does this have?!?

Techno said: If you re-created that idea then how would we get together for international meetings to collectively combat that problem globally and therefore, for our own safty.

Rights don't need to be violated to address problems, work together, or work as a collective.

Once again Techno, you are falsely attributing causes and effects, and going off on what you imagine, as opposed to what "exists".

Techno said: Would we just ignore every other nation as we blamed Saddam of doing?

Who blamed Saddam, for what?

Hello?

Are you in the right thread?

[Kamehameha34]

Umm...because private schools aren't free?

Neither are public schools.

[Mr. Jaggers]

Well, Mr. Enready: If we follow your lead, we shall have to repeat all the cases that have already been decided in order to determine what our rights are under your new “Declaration of Independence.” It seem a rather tiresome venture, and of little likelihood of any good results.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am curious.... Could you show me a single individual right that has not been infringed on EVERY level through law at the federal level in some way?

And do not attempt to cite free speech either, as there is a long list of Gag Orders eminating from the Bush administration. ( Librarians, translators, AT&T employees... )

[Osborn F Enready]

Mr Jagger said: Well, Mr. Enready: If we follow your lead, we shall have to repeat all the cases that have already been decided in order to determine what our rights are under your new “Declaration of Independence.”

Isn't that more or less the point of reclaiming independence? Reforming government, to better reflect the will of the people?

Obviously, I and many others, find that what has passed for "justice" over the last 150 years has been sadly lacking objective backing, and reasoning for the decisions in relation to Constitutional Law.

You have the right to disagree, and not to sign, as did the British Loyalists during the Revolution.

Mr Jagger said: It seem a rather tiresome venture, and of little likelihood of any good results.

Well, I don't remember asking for those who were intellectually lazy to sign.

Do you dispute the partisanship of the courts today?

Did you notice the partisan slant as it exists in the courts today is conservative, and I, who am fed up with the "partisan issue" am also economicly conservative? This isn't about bettering one group, its about reinforcing the rights as intended, and removing the criminal infringement into our lives by local, state and federal government, as it exists today.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley And do not attempt to cite free speech either, as there is a long list of Gag Orders eminating from the Bush administration. ( Librarians, translators, AT&T employees... )

And media monitors. eh?

Rights can only be taken from you if they were not given to you by a True Authority.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Public schools aren't free either, and in fact, are unjustly paid for, and parental control is GREATLY reduced in public schools. I fully agree. The first step to being a RESPONSIBLE parent, is being able to provide for the education, well being and future well being of the child until age of majority is reached. People shouldn't have kids they can't support, and as reasonable, responsible people, we should use and understand how to use birth control methods. You seem to make the assumption that people who recklessly disregard their parental responsibility, should be taken care of to equal levels of those who plan and take responsibility for their actions. I disagree with that, totally. Also, government is the most inefficient vessel of action known to man, I think, unless someone cares to show me I am wrong. Even non-profit collectives do better at money handling than government, so why would I trust government to do such a thing? This doesn't even address the issue of a right to tax for education. If I had to make an educated, well grounded guess, using the expressed thoughts and words of the forefathers, I think they would be spilling blood in the streets over the system we have currently. So, why try to exploit the mass ignorance of the people? Most of the problems we have in this country spawn from the CURRENT lack of understanding of the system of law, by most people. Because these people agree with something, it makes it right to remove rights from a minority, who indeed COULD be right, though opposed? I couldn't disagree more. POINT?!? What relevance does this have?!? Rights don't need to be violated to address problems, work together, or work as a collective. Once again Techno, you are falsely attributing causes and effects, and going off on what you imagine, as opposed to what "exists". Who blamed Saddam, for what? Hello? Are you in the right thread?

Apparently you are unable to follow my line of reasoning or that my comments are relative to the topic at hand in this thread. Perhaps others are able to do so.

If your document prevented the United States from joining with other nations to form an organization (simular to the U.N.) in order to establish rules about polution then we could not solve the Global Warming problem, that is how my remark refers to the topic (aka your document).

Likewise do my other remarks.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul And media monitors. eh? Rights can only be taken from you if they were not given to you by a True Authority.

Dude, your mixing up your medication again.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul Apparently you are unable to follow my line of reasoning or that my comments are relative to the topic at hand in this thread. Perhaps others are able to do so.

Oh, we can follow it alright, right to your own personal God. Thanks for sharing. Clearly you have enough for everyone.

[Thanatos]

Unless everybody is forced to pay via taxes or a tax-like system then the cost for those who actually have kids in school will go up. This will make a bad situation much, much worse. The U.S. needs vastly more money for its schools and probably a crackdown on the teacher's unions and we need it ten years ago.

Yes, people who don't want to be responsible should have their kids forced to go to school. Ideally, their kids learn things their parents clearly did not and come out OK. Don't you get it?

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanatos said: Unless everybody is forced to pay via taxes or a tax-like system then the cost for those who actually have kids in school will go up.

You're missing the point my friend.

THE PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO TAKE THAT MONEY BY FORCE, EXPECT THAT MONEY BY FORCE, OR PASS LAWS TO USE GOVERNMENT FORCE TO DO SO.

Once again, you use pragmatism as an excuse to use government force against the people whose rights they are CHARGED to protect.

Once the tax burden is lifted from people, they will have more money for education, healthcare as well as other necessary items for life.

Point is, it is the PARENTS responsibility to provide education to their child, or a means to achieve it, not the nation, state or local community.

Thanatos said: This will make a bad situation much, much worse.

Explain please, using cause and effect?

Thanatos said: The U.S. needs vastly more money for its schools and probably a crackdown on the teacher's unions and we need it ten years ago.

Explain why you think your statement provides the "answer" to all our education problems please?

Thanatos said: Yes, people who don't want to be responsible should have their kids forced to go to school.

Why? Why aren't the parents held accountable, and instead, the entire society? (keeping in mind we have the RIGHT to use law to hold parents responsible, but NOT the right to use law to hold society responsible for irresponsible parents.)

Thanatos said: Ideally, their kids learn things their parents clearly did not and come out OK. Don't you get it?

I get that you have no concept of how economics, or Constitutional Law affect society, and instead you use your claims of lack of time, to take the way of intellectual sloth, as opposed to actually figuring out cause and effect, and how to properly address problems.

[Osborn F Enready]

I also want to clarify something.

Permission (vs Rights) A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyones permission. If you exist only because society permits you to exist--you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time. If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society--you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right. Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer's permission. He does not hold it by permission--but by contract, that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job. A slave cannot. (Textbook of Americanism, pamphlet, 5.) Quote, quoted from "The Ayn Rand Lexicon."

Our government was intended to live or die by "conscent" of the people. This means the people have a right to "opt-out" of society, and government is directly affected by people becoming disenfranchised by government, as their collections and operating ability is affected by financial support through Constitutional taxation, prior to the 16th amendment, and erosion of property rights.

What erosion of property rights you ask?

When a citizen owns land, they have allodial title. I doubt anyone reading this holds allodial title to their land. You are a renter, even though you THINK, are TOLD by bankers and politicians, you are an owner. One of the first schams sold to the American public by bi-partisan monopoly. Now, since 1933, the government owns your land, as a "security" backer of the fiat money they circulate, which replaced hardbacked currency, gold and silver certificate fiat.

This is all against the limits outlined in the Constitution (before being changed by the bi-partisan monopoly on power, which has existed between democrat and republican control over the system for over 157 years) Many alledge that this monopoly, and all of its "decisions, legislation, declarations, treaties and government duties" have been unConstitutional, illegitimate, and corrupt to the ideals and procedures, spirit and intent of our Constitution, mainly the Bill of Rights.

With citizens able to attain allodial title over their land, they own it, they can opt out of society and operate self sufficiently if they disapprove of government. This is VITAL and REQUIRED for a government that CLAIMS and is BOUND to govern a people by conscent.

One method of appealing to government, a RIGHT that the citizens hold, is the right to withhold tax dollars until "petition for redress of grievance" is addressed. This is why we revolted from England, as the King simply ignored the petitions and demands of the people he held rule over.

The system we currently have, has stripped individuals of all of their rights without the bulk of the citizens even realizing its happened. The reason is, because they have replaced rights, with permission, legally. Were you represented in these decisions? Were you solicited for opinion? Were you made aware these actions were taking place? No.

Now, they can remove your permission to exist, and even your right to trial is under direct threat by the Executive, the Judicial Branch, and the Legislative Branch has stayed silent.

So, what do you suggest be done?

I ask all people who read this, regardless of where you live, to ask yourself the same questions of YOUR government.

[Thanatos]

No, apparently I don't understand you. I do not understand how poor people working multiple menial jobs because that's what they can get are supposed to be able to get their children educated under this system.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Thanatos No, apparently I don't understand you. I do not understand how poor people working multiple menial jobs because that's what they can get are supposed to be able to get their children educated under this system.

The point your missing is "who created this system for you"? The system you're living under right now. This is the egregious crime that you overlook.


The people we are trying to get out of power are the criminals that built this system of corruption over the original framework of "legitimate" laws.


You are making the same mistake that so many make in thinking that the perverted justice we see now is representative of what is supposed to be. What we see now is basically almost a worste case scenario. The Empire struck back, and now they have the high ground.


Sadly, most people don't even know that they are the first waves of cannon fodder being saccrificed in this battle.

[SoylentGreen]

I have to agree with Thanatos. The gap between the rich and poor geows greater every year. The poor can only afford at best a low quality education. while the rich get better education. This is surely going to lead to class division, Equality in any sense will dissapear.

Osborn F Enready This means the people have a right to "opt-out" of society

How does one opt out of society now? Where do they go?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: SoylentGreen How does one opt out of society now? Where do they go?

Well that's exactly the point. Where is there room for dissentors under this type of leadership?


Here in the States most of these issues are supposed to be decided on a State by State basis, leaving room for dissent, and dissentors.

[SoylentGreen]

Milton Bradley Here in the States most of these issues are supposed to be decided on a State by State basis, leaving room for dissent, and dissentors.

I have come to the conclusion that you are right about the corruptness of federal governments.
I left Australia because of that idiot Howard trying to and succeeding in stealing the rights of government of the states.
Perhaps it would be better if you took the U out of the USA and become separate independent countries, Model yourself after the UE that Europe has.

[Osborn F Enready]

The goal of the forefathers was a loosely bound group of states that held as a common thread, respect for individual rights, and respect for a system of law based on protecting them.

I think the forefathers would rather have seen a 50 independent states rather than what we have today.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Dude, your mixing up your medication again.

That statement is not a form of debating. Anyway, I do not take medications because I do not need any at this time. And you are taking this off topic with that kind of guestioning.