The Right to Private Property

[mick silver]

America's most prominent modern liberal legal theorist was Professor Ronald Dworkin, professor of Jurisprudence at University College London and the New York University School of Law until his death in 2013. His books, Taking Rights Seriously, Law's Empire and Sovereign Virtue are all serious defenses of the idea, basically, that the Lockean tradition of law and politics which the American Founders had invoked in crafting the Declaration of Independence and, to a lesser extent, the US Constitution, is wrong. As he said in one exchange in the pages of The New York Review of Books (December 6, 2007), the US Supreme Court, in upholding the law in New York State in the famous Lochner decision of 1905 that defended private property rights, "relied consistently on the mistaken but principled view that property rights are basic human rights."
But contrary to Dworkin's assertion, the right to private property is indeed a basic human right. It is fundamental to any bona fide free society. Just consider, as one vital case in point, that unless one has the right to private property, one does not have the right to freedom of speech – it is because of that basic human right that government may not censor what we say and write but may do so when it involves public property, such as radio or television stations that use the public airwaves, or a public park. In fact, all basic individual rights rest, practically, on the right to private property and are threatened by its abrogation.



Some have made the point that property rights had been used to justify slavery but that is sophistry. The only reason that one could plausibly claim to own slaves is that they were falsely, immorally declared not to be full human beings, more akin to domesticated animals than to people. It needed such spurious thinking to get around the fact that human beings have a property right in their own life, their labor and its fruits.
The idea goes back to John Locke (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/2764/) and even farther in human political history, to William of Ockham. Both of these philosophers realized that to be in charge of one's own life, one must have the right to it fully respected and protected in the legal system. If one may not own one's life and resources – lacks the right to life and property – one is at the mercy of governments and all other people. They can command how one will live, who one will serve, etc. But if one has one's right to life and one's right to private property secured, others must ask for one's support or help or consent and are barred from simply using a person against his or her will.
Of course, modern liberals like Professor Dworkin don't approve of this principle because they believe that people must be available to government to order about, to conscript for all sorts of purposes they do not themselves freely accept. This is the Left's major thesis, after all – people belong to society, to humanity, to the body politic. (The most forceful advocate of this was the French philosopher Auguste Comte (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/2680/), who wrote
...All human rights ... are as absurd as they are immoral. This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely." August Comte, The Catechism of Positive Religion (Clifton, NJ: Augustus M. Kelley Publ., 1973), pp. 212-30.
It is no accident that the first thing Karl Marx (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/2508/) listed as in need of abolition on the way to socialism (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1901/) and communism (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1900/) is the right to private property. That principle, when observed and protected, is what makes us sovereign individuals instead of serfs and slaves or mere cells in the "organic body" of society.
Sadly, the American Founders spelled out excellent ideas in the Declaration of Independence but then, in the pursuit of national unity they compromised them in the US Constitution (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1926/). But today, with the leadership of the likes of Professor Dworkin, even the ideas of the Declaration are in jeopardy, ready to be abrogated in the name of some undefined public or common good or the will of the people. It is going to be most important whether this jeopardy will be effectively resisted or yielded to in the coming decades. On that issue the future of human liberty will hinge.


- See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/34950/Tibor-Machan-The-Right-to-Private-Property/#sthash.w1Q1TNL5.dpufhttp://www.thedailybell.com/images/library/privatesign.jpg

[palani]

You give up all natural rights when you become a citizen in exchange for civil rights. This is your choice even though the concept may not have been explained to you at the time you made your choice.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their honor as well as their estates to insure the success of their endeavor. When you, as their heirs, fall short of full accountability your estate is going to be seized to fulfill the debt.

[Ares]

The signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their honor as well as their estates to insure the success of their endeavor. When you, as their heirs, fall short of full accountability your estate is going to be seized to fulfill the debt.

I wouldn't exactly call the Treaty of Paris, or the Constitution a "success" by any stretch of the imagination. If anything the founders practice the same abject failure that has plagued mankind since the dawn of civilization. The BELIEF that there needs to be a government. The Articles of Confederation were a far superior form of rule. But what happened? The founders got greedy, and wanted a central government. (federalist vs anti-federalist). Well the Federalist won out, and we have this leviathan of a monster that no matter how many laws you quote that they are supposed to abide by, it's becoming far more evident that they do not, and will not recognize laws that they use to constrain you and I.

How is any debt my obligation when I have no real means of discharging said debt? Giving someone a debt note does not discharge the debt, only transferring it.

[7th trump]

I wouldn't exactly call the Treaty of Paris, or the Constitution a "success" by any stretch of the imagination. If anything the founders practice the same abject failure that has plagued mankind since the dawn of civilization. The BELIEF that there needs to be a government. The Articles of Confederation were a far superior form of rule. But what happened? The founders got greedy, and wanted a central government. (federalist vs anti-federalist). Well the Federalist won out, and we have this leviathan of a monster that no matter how many laws you quote that they are supposed to abide by, it's becoming far more evident that they do not, and will not recognize laws that they use to constrain you and I.

How is any debt my obligation when I have no real means of discharging said debt? Giving someone a debt note does not discharge the debt, only transferring it.

Let me step in here and say this.
These elected people are not who they claim they are. Most of the influencial politicians have dual citizenship to Isreal and to Isreal first and foremost.....this needs to be addressed and another amendment of the Constitution needs to be written forbiding this practice. An amendment...not a rule or a regulation....an amendment to stop this legal foreign political takeover dead in its tracks.
If there was any real representitives instead of infiltraders pretending to be representitives the constitution would be followed closer to the letter.
Just because the pretenders play act as representitves with your best interests doesnt mean the Constititution failed.
If anything the Constitution is working if these play actors are pretending to do their job....they hate the Constitution...its gets in their way.

The central government was needed to address foreign issues such as debts to foreign countries....the Articles failed in this area and just after the revolutionary was over other wars were brewing if these other foreign countries werent getting paid back for supporting the revolution.......America wouldnt have last another war with another foreign country..........the articles failed!

[7th trump]

You give up all natural rights when you become a citizen in exchange for civil rights. This is your choice even though the concept may not have been explained to you at the time you made your choice.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their honor as well as their estates to insure the success of their endeavor. When you, as their heirs, fall short of full accountability your estate is going to be seized to fulfill the debt.

Not to start another debate but this is exaclty why we bicker back and forth.
You can recognize that you lose natural rights when becoming a citizen but you dont tell anyone how they become this second class citizens. This country is bleeding to death and all you can say is tell the judge you are not a citizen. It doesnt work that way when the government has you on the books accepting the benefits of a government serf.
You cant put a small bandaid on a severed artery.

However, I think you are starting to understand this.

[iOWNme]

You give up all natural rights when you become a citizen in exchange for civil rights. This is your choice even though the concept may not have been explained to you at the time you made your choice.


EVERY single individual in this country was unable to speak, communicate, understand or even FATHOM what a contract or aggreement was when they became a 'citizen' because THEY WERE NEW BORN BABIES. And you sit there and act like you have some inside knowledge about how the system works while you continue to blame the victims.

Fuck man.

I just decided that you are now my slave. How did i decided this? Well, while you were in your mothers womb i drew up a special 'contract' which stated that if you decided to leave your mothers tummy, you AUTOMATICALLY agree to be my slave for life.

What time should i stop by to collect my money? I have armed enforcers who totally agree that my scrap of paper with scribbles is perfectly legitimate.

What? This isnt legitimate? Why not? How would the 'Government' get the Right to do something that I do not have the Right to do, if Im the one who elected them?

Do you REALLY believe this crap you post? There isnt a god damn single person who voluntarily chose to be a citizen with full knowledge of what that actually meant. There is a word for this, it is called FRAUD, and no individual has ANY moral obligation to obey criminals and fraudsters.

[Ares]

Let me step in here and say this.
These elected people are not who they claim they are. Most of the influencial politicians have dual citizenship to Isreal and to Isreal first and foremost.....this needs to be addressed and another amendment of the Constitution needs to be written forbiding this practice. An amendment...not a rule or a regulation....an amendment to stop this legal foreign political takeover dead in its tracks.
If there was any real representitives instead of infiltraders pretending to be representitives the constitution would be followed closer to the letter.
Just because the pretenders play act as representitves with your best interests doesnt mean the Constititution failed.
If anything the Constitution is working if these play actors are pretending to do their job....they hate the Constitution...its gets in their way.

The central government was needed to address foreign issues such as debts to foreign countries....the Articles failed in this area and just after the revolutionary was over other wars were brewing if these other foreign countries werent getting paid back for supporting the revolution.......America wouldnt have last another war with another foreign country..........the articles failed!

Central governments are not needed, neither was this one. The articles could of been amended, or the states could of agreed to pay back what was owed. You didn't need a central government to collect taxes. Even at the time, the only revenue the government collected was through import / export duties. The constitution failed, unless of course you consider the TSA, FBI, CIA, DEA, NSA, etc. and any other number of alphabet agencies the upholders of the constitution and protector of our rights? :rolleyes:

[palani]

How is any debt my obligation when I have no real means of discharging said debt?
I said the SIGNERS of the Declaration of Independence pledged THEIR sacred honor and estates. Why do you assume that is you? Although precedent has been set that you may also sign the Declaration of Independence any time you choose. One of the signers was late and permitted to sign days later thereby setting a precedent that anyone may choose to be a signer.

Giving someone a debt note does not discharge the debt, only transferring it.
The same debt note also does not transfer any ownership either leaving you in a position of not being able to discharge a debt that you don't owe.

[palani]

This country is bleeding to death and all you can say is tell the judge you are not a citizen. It is impossible to prove a negative. Rather than telling 'his honor' what you are NOT why not inform him what you ARE?

[palani]

[COLOR=#ff0000][B]How would the 'Government' get the Right to do something that I do not have the Right to do, if Im the one who elected them?

You answered your own question but I don't believe you see it. If you elected them then you consented. What gives you the right to elect anyone? Two principles come to us from Roman law

1_ Jus soli ... The first soil your tiny little baby feet touched established your nationality [not so true for members of the military or diplomatic service ... so there are exceptions]
2_ Jus sanguinis .. Your parentage established your nationality ... through the blood so to speak.

Now in later life you might decide to expatriate to another nationality. Check 15 Stat 223 for information on this.

My own little baby feet first touched soil that the French conveyed to the United States in 1803. That soil transferred under that conveyance came with conditions annexed. Here is article III of those conditions


Art: III

The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess.

Note I highlighted the most important features of this condition. Thank you for asking.

[Santa]

Want local commerce? Then you'll need a governing body that implements and enforces local commerce rules... or written laws.

Want State commerce? Then you'll need a State governing body that implements and enforces those laws.

Want National commerce? You'll need a National governing body that implements and enforces commerce laws.

Want international or global commerce? Ditto. The bigger and more complex those laws become, the bigger and more complex the governing body becomes.

Want borders? Same shit. Laws and a governing body to enforce those laws.

Any perimeter beyond your own body that you claim as your own requires external rules or written recorded laws to back up your claim.

All these thousands of years of private property claims of entitlement have exponentially grown into the bureaucratic government nightmare we have today.

[iOWNme]

You answered your own question but I don't believe you see it. If you elected them then you consented.

Again, its like talking with an Attorner with you. I didnt ask you if by electing them i consented, i asked you if i can logically give to another man a Right that i do not have as an individual?

I have asked you this question literally 50 times, and you constantly twist the topic around so you dont have to recognize the MASSIVE contradictions inside your own head.

This is a yes or no question. Very similar to "Can pigs Fly"? Do you DARE to answer this honestly?


BTW, you didnt tell me what time i can come by to take some of your money. Is silence acquiescence?

[iOWNme]

Want local commerce? Then you'll need a governing body that implements and enforces local commerce rules... or written laws.

Want State commerce? Then you'll need a State governing body that implements and enforces those laws.

Want National commerce? You'll need a National governing body that implements and enforces commerce laws.

Want international or global commerce? Ditto. The bigger and more complex those laws become, the bigger and more complex the governing body becomes.

Want borders? Same shit. Laws and a governing body to enforce those laws.

Any perimeter beyond your own body that you claim as your own requires external rules or written recorded laws to back up your claim.

All these thousands of years of private property claims of entitlement have exponentially grown into the bureaucratic government nightmare we have today.


Are 2 people acting voluntarily in a peaceful transaction considered 'commerce'?

Do YOU need 'laws' to tell you who to interact with, what to buy and how much to pay for it?

Do YOU need a 'politician' to go with you to the grocery store and tell you what products to buy?

Do YOU need 'rules' in order to figure out how to morally behave?

[palani]

i asked you if i can logically give to another man a Right that i do not have as an individual? Two examples where this is possible.

1_ Emergency War powers
2_ Necessity



BTW, you didnt tell me what time i can come by to take some of your money. Is silence acquiescence?
I am on natural time. If you come at any other time you won't find me at home.

[Santa]

Are 2 people acting voluntarily in a peaceful transaction considered 'commerce'?

Do YOU need 'laws' to tell you who to interact with, what to buy and how much to pay for it?

Do YOU need a 'politician' to go with you to the grocery store and tell you what products to buy?

Do YOU need 'rules' in order to figure out how to morally behave?

Sure, laws are unnecessary as long as 2 people aren't arguing over property rights.

[iOWNme]

Two examples where this is possible.

1_ Emergency War powers
2_ Necessity

What you seem to be describing are times when men attempt to delegate Rights they dont have. But since they dont have them, THEY CANT DELEGATE THEM. The question was supposed to make you actually THINK about the issue.

So what your saying is that pigs can fly? In 'special' 'emergency' situations they can actually grow wings and take flight? If a pig deems it a 'necessity' he will overcome his biological and physical limitations by growing a set of wings to fly?

Why do you IMAGINE this to be true?

You see this is the core illusion of 'Government'. Men CAN NOT delegate Rights they do not have, just like the pig CAN NOT grow wings and take flight. No matter how badly you want it, no matter how badly you think we need it, doesnt matter in the slightest. There is no such thing as 'Government' for this exact reason.

Do I as an individual have these 'Emergency War Powers? In other words, can I as an individual alter human morality by turning something bad (murder) into something virtuous (War) by changing the name of it? Can i 'declare' that i have altered human morality BECAUSE i scribbled down some words on parchment?

The answer is NO. And this is why each man has the Right to own what he produces (sometimes called Private Property), because no man has the moral Right to take it from him without his consent.



I am on natural time. If you come at any other time you won't find me at home.

I used 'Emergency Powers' out of 'necessity' when i declared that you are my slave. So you totally agree with me, right?

[iOWNme]

Sure, laws are unnecessary as long as 2 people aren't arguing over property rights.

If 2 people are 'arguing' over property Rights, how are some scribbles on paper going to decide who is right and who is wrong?

If you create and produce something using your own energy, time and skills and another man comes along and declares he is the rightful owner of what you made, would you think it is perfectly reasonable for you to have to look at the scribbles of 'politicians' in order to figure out if you owned it or not? Of course you woudnt, which dispels your entire myth.

[palani]

Why do you IMAGINE this to be true?
Because the (un)civil war remains to be determined.

Look .. I get that you are into arguing with yourself over the philosophy of government. Have all the fun you like with that but when force is present laws step aside.

Silent leges inter arma.

[iOWNme]

Because the (un)civil war remains to be determined.

Look .. I get that you are into arguing with yourself over the philosophy of government. Have all the fun you like with that but when force is present laws step aside.

Silent leges inter arma.

Again now you ADMIT that there isnt any 'Government' or 'Law' there is ONLY FORCE.

So why have you spent decades studying the scribbles of 'politicians' knowing full well those scribbles MEAN NOTHING?

Im pretty sure your an Anarchist, you just dont want to admit it. :)

[palani]

Again now you ADMIT that there isnt any 'Government' or 'Law' there is ONLY FORCE.
I haven't admitted 'no government' or 'no law'. I just acknowledge that wars go on for much longer than we perceive. Napoleon's war was settled in the 1990s to permit the two Germany's to be reunited. The U.S. (un)civil war [actually an international war] is yet to be resolved. Look ... congress sits by resolution. Whose resolution? The president's. This is the way it has been since 1861.


So why have you spent decades studying the scribbles of 'politicians' knowing full well those scribbles MEAN NOTHING? My quest? Just looking for reason. That, after all, is the true source of law. When the reason is gone then the law goes away.


Im pretty sure your an Anarchist, you just dont want to admit it. :) An anarchist is against all government. This is not rational. Every state needs good government and they just try to survive bad government. I am pretty sure there would be no anarchists if they understood that they are the state and have mistaken the government instead for the state. We have all the power and authority we need to deal with those in government. If we put them there as our representatives and they do wrong then we reprimand them or get rid of them. If we instead choose to govern ourselves we just make that point clear to the politicians and rely upon those who put them in power to perform that correction process for their own benefit and not ours.

Note ... you really ought to read AS A MAN THINKETH by James Allen. Bad thoughts are like weeds in a garden. A man is where he is by the law of his being. Your frustration with the government in place comes about because you lack the political clout to correct it. What have you done to correct your own behavior? Stop being a snake oil salesman and start controlling your own environment rather than attempting to gain a quorum of others to do this for you.

[Santa]

If 2 people are 'arguing' over property Rights, how are some scribbles on paper going to decide who is right and who is wrong?

another man comes along and declares he is the rightful owner of what you made, would you think it is perfectly reasonable for you to have to look at the scribbles of 'politicians' in order to figure out if you owned it or not? Of course you wouldn't, which dispels your entire myth.

Lol... if you really believe that, why would you even bother scribbling your own political opinions in an attempt to change other people's minds. And by doing so, haven't you become a scribbling politician yourself?

[iOWNme]

Lol... if you really believe that, why would you even bother scribbling your own political opinions in an attempt to change other people's minds. And by doing so, haven't you become a scribbling politician yourself?


Nice deflection Santa. You cant answer the simple questions because they uncover the contradictions inside your own head.

Why would i be a 'politician'? I do not scribble 'political' anything, i scribble ANTI-POLITICAL messages. Do you know the difference? I do not IMAGINE that you should obey my scribbles. I do not IMAGINE that i am any different than every other human on this planet. I do not IMAGINE that i can alter human morality with magic ink. I do not IMAGINE that without my scribbles, the entire world would collapse. But do YOU IMAGINE these things?

I seriously thought you were a lot smarter than this. But i do see that most members here when asked very simple questions that a child could answer, resort to name calling, defelection, strawman's, etc.

How about you just set your emotions aside, and try and answer the simple question i asked you? Ill make it easy and ask you again:


1. If 2 people are 'arguing' over property Rights, how are some scribbles on paper going to decide who is right and who is wrong?

2. If another man comes along and declares he is the rightful owner of what you made, would you think it is perfectly reasonable for you to have to look at the scribbles of 'politicians' in order to figure out if you owned it or not? Of course you wouldn't, which dispels your entire myth.


If i am wrong, or misinformed it should be very easy for you to show me using simple lines of reasoning, logic and evidence. Im waiting.....

[7th trump]

Lol... if you really believe that, why would you even bother scribbling your own political opinions in an attempt to change other people's minds. And by doing so, haven't you become a scribbling politician yourself?

Hit the nail on the head Santa!
Sui doesn't see that hes writing political scribbles himself. His political views trumps everyone else's political views.

Doesn't matter what you say to this guy you'll always be a statist unless you agree to his particular political mindset....and it is political.

[Santa]

Nice deflection Santa. You cant answer the simple questions because they uncover the contradictions inside your own head.

Why would i be a 'politician'? I do not scribble 'political' anything, i scribble ANTI-POLITICAL messages. Do you know the difference? I do not IMAGINE that you should obey my scribbles. I do not IMAGINE that i am any different than every other human on this planet. I do not IMAGINE that i can alter human morality with magic ink. I do not IMAGINE that without my scribbles, the entire world would collapse. But do YOU IMAGINE these things?

I seriously thought you were a lot smarter than this. But i do see that most members here when asked very simple questions that a child could answer, resort to name calling, defelection, strawman's, etc.

How about you just set your emotions aside, and try and answer the simple question i asked you? Ill make it easy and ask you again:


1. If 2 people are 'arguing' over property Rights, how are some scribbles on paper going to decide who is right and who is wrong?

2. If another man comes along and declares he is the rightful owner of what you made, would you think it is perfectly reasonable for you to have to look at the scribbles of 'politicians' in order to figure out if you owned it or not? Of course you wouldn't, which dispels your entire myth.


If i am wrong, or misinformed it should be very easy for you to show me using simple lines of reasoning, logic and evidence. Im waiting.....
Simple.
You are a politician when you attempt to sway public opinion or are involved in influencing public policy. Politics is not limited to governance through public office. Political offices may also be held in corporations. In civil uprisings, politicians may be called freedom fighters. In media campaigns, politicians are often referred to as activists.

Your questions are in effect, diversionary deflections away from my original comments that government is the enactment and enforcement of laws that are made over time due to the implementation of the concept of private property and commerce. That's historic fact. Sorry. Without written documentation, which you refer to as scribbles on paper, there is no valid record of private property ownership to begin with. Thus, without documentation, there is no peaceful means for property dispute resolution between parties. The fact that government and law are everywhere on earth is more than sufficient proof that you are indeed wrong and misinformed. Laws are the tools for mediation between the dispute and the force.

There, your question have been answered.

Now, how bout you simply respond to that.

By the way, I have no interest in pissing matches.

[iOWNme]

Im not trying to get in a pissing match, and i enjoy your responses.



Simple.
You are a politician when you attempt to sway public opinion or are involved in influencing public policy. Politics is not limited to governance through public office. Political offices may also be held in corporations. In civil uprisings, politicians may be called freedom fighters. In media campaigns, politicians are often referred to as activists.


'Politicians' are people who IMAGINE they have the moral Right to violently dominate their fellow man. But you neglected to mention that and that is the only part that matters. They IMAGINE they have the ability to alter human morality with their magic ink and they IMAGINE they have super-human Rights that we dont have. None of the examples you gave outside of 'Government' do any of those things, or have the ability to do any of those things. If Walmart came to your door tomorrow with armed thugs and DEMANDED you pay them some money, you would instantly recognize it as illegitimate and you would resist and disobey. And this is the core: People would never put up with what this thing called 'Government' does if it were a Corporation or rebel fighters. So i contend it is exactly 'limited to' 'Government'.



Your questions are in effect, diversionary deflections away from my original comments that government is the enactment and enforcement of laws that are made over time due to the implementation of the concept of private property and commerce. That's historic fact. Sorry.

Do you see the inherent contradiction in saying that 'Government' was created to 'protect private property'?

You cannot use stolen money to create a virtuous entity. Please understand this. No matter how many people have tried to do it, it still can never be done. And you are right, that is why men have tried to create 'Governments', but they have never succeeded. They were IMAGINED into existence in the minds of the oppressed people. 'Government' has an inherent contradiction to it, and without recognizing that contradiction, there is no rationality, logic or reason in the discussion. You can not say "All men are created equal" and then turn around and say "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes". They are an oxymoron. They are a contradiction one to the other. Like a glass of dry water or a square chicken egg.

If i lit my car on fire and then told you i was protecting my car from fire, would you believe me? Because that is EXACTLY the same as saying 'Governments' were created to 'protect private property'.



Without written documentation, which you refer to as scribbles on paper, there is no valid record of private property ownership to begin with. Thus, without documentation, there is no peaceful means for property dispute resolution between parties. The fact that government and law are everywhere on earth is more than sufficient proof that you are indeed wrong and misinformed. Laws are the tools for mediation between the dispute and the force.

There, your question have been answered.

Now, how bout you simply respond to that.

By the way, I have no interest in pissing matches.



Again, let me understand. What makes Private Property valid are random scribbles on paper? And without these random words, we would not have Private Property? But i thought 'Government was created to 'protect private property'? So didnt Private Property exist BEFORE 'Government'? How did it exist?

There is no 'peaceful means' to a property dispute without the 'politicians' scribbles? Are serious man? Without 'politicians' violently dominating us, stealing our money and bossing us around; We would all be stealing each others money and bossing each other around? Do you REALLY believe this? If YOU had a property dispute, would YOUR first choice be to pick up a gun? Or would you first try and use rationality and reason?

Do you know what 'Law' is? ITS A THREAT OF VIOLENCE. Threats of violence funded through stolen money is not virtuous or rational. Do YOU need to be threatened with violence in order to know how to behave like a human? As an individual, i have the moral Right to issue threats of violence to protect MY property. But i do not have the moral Right to steal YOUR money to fund my protection. Do you see the difference here? I would never as an individual be allowed to issue threats of violence to everyone of they didnt pay me money, and claim it was for my 'safety or protection'.

How about this example: Lets say you and i mutually join forces to protect each others property. Are we now this thing called 'Government'? So now we can start to violently impose our will on others, and they will obey us right? I mean because we did come to an agreement?

The fact that everyone (including you?) IMAGINES 'Government' exists does not mean i am misinformed. The fact that you keep referring to 'Government' as if its real means that you may be misinformed. There is no such thing as 'Government', and it is logically provable using reason and evidence. 'Government' is the hallucination of something that isnt real. Just because most of the world believes something that isnt true, doesnt make it true. Did the world used to be flat? Did the earth used to be the center of the universe? Did Kings used to have the true Divine Right? No, but all of those people who lived under those systems IMAGINED it to be true.

[Bigjon]

Does it matter what you think Sui Juris?

The people who run this world, believe in the principles of chutzpah and take what they want from whoever has what they want. They have set the ground rules and interpret them to come out in their favor everytime, no matter what is logical or even fair and just. Just look at how they created a collosal fraud called the Federal Reserve right out in the open and proceeded to hoodwink every citizen of the USA, by stealing their wealth based gold and silver money and replacing it with worthless paper. Most of us on this board know this, but the regular idiots, our fellow US citizens have no clue and couldn't care less.

I guess what I'm trying to say is you are a dreamer and I have had similar dreams, but we are up against stupid and stupid's handlers, the handlers are winning and stupid doesn't even imagine stupid has handlers. The most stupid people of all are those who have spent the most time being educated (indoctrinated).

[Glass]

I guess what I'm trying to say is you are a dreamer and I have had similar dreams, but we are up against stupid and stupid's handlers, the handlers are winning and stupid doesn't even imagine stupid has handlers. The most stupid people of all are those who have spent the most time being educated (indoctrinated).

I wise man once said "Stupid is as stupid does".

Stupid doesn't know it is stupid. And also doesn't like to be alerted to this so it is tough. What we are dealing with are mentally ill people not so much the stupid but the people who levitate to banking, law and politics. The mental affliction is phsycopath. Actually I think there is another word I need but it does not come to mind. Morality is not part of their comprehension. That's why waving "a piece of paper" means nothing.

Sociopath might be the word I am looking for?


Profile of the Sociopath
This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.


Glibness and Superficial Charm
Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Incapacity for Love
Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.



link to source (http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html)

[Santa]

I'm not defending government or law. I just see it as being inevitable in the organization of human affairs. Good, bad and everything in between.

[iOWNme]

I'm not defending government or law. I just see it as being inevitable in the organization of human affairs. Good, bad and everything in between.


Again, how can the mere 'organizing' of stuff give to certain people the moral Right to INITIATE VIOLENCE? Rearranging things and people DOES NOT create anything more than what the individuals are to begin with. Human morality does not change because people 'organize'.

I could give you all sorts of examples where people organize for their own mutual benefit. Does this mean they have the moral Right to INITIATE VIOLENCE? Does it mean that all the other people will IMAGINE them to be 'Government'?

This is a common misconception from statists, they IMAGINE that if you remove the initiation of violence from society, that we would have no organization. Does this sound sane and rational to you? Do you organize stuff in your own personal life? Do you initiate violence to do it?

[iOWNme]

Does it matter what you think Sui Juris?

Nope, not in the slightest. But what does matter is HUMAN MORALITY. And when you advocate for 'Government' you are advocating for the INITIATION OF VIOLENCE which is immoral, unjust, irrational and anti-human.


The people who run this world, believe in the principles of chutzpah and take what they want from whoever has what they want. They have set the ground rules and interpret them to come out in their favor everytime, no matter what is logical or even fair and just. Just look at how they created a collosal fraud called the Federal Reserve right out in the open and proceeded to hoodwink every citizen of the USA, by stealing their wealth based gold and silver money and replacing it with worthless paper. Most of us on this board know this, but the regular idiots, our fellow US citizens have no clue and couldn't care less.

There isnt anyone 'running the world'. You IMAGINE that. If the people didnt IMAGINE them to be legitimate they would have NO POWER. If the Chinese Army invaded here tomorrow and demanded you pay them taxes, would you submit? Or would you instantly recognize them as illegitimate and resist and disobey? What do you suppose would have to exist between the ears of people for them to IMAGINE they must obey thieves, murderers and criminals?

Did the 'Evil Jews' create the US CON? Because that is where CONgress gets the power to tax, the power to PLUNDER, the power to STEAL private property, the power to KIDNAP, the power to MURDER, etc. If a foreign Army showed up tomorrow and scribbled those same things down on paper, would YOU believe them?


I guess what I'm trying to say is you are a dreamer and I have had similar dreams, but we are up against stupid and stupid's handlers, the handlers are winning and stupid doesn't even imagine stupid has handlers. The most stupid people of all are those who have spent the most time being educated (indoctrinated).

"The most valuable tool of the Tyrant is the mind of the oppressed people" - Uncle Joe Stalin

What do you think Joe meant by this?

If you want to actually fix the problems, it starts with fixing what is between your own ears. ALL of their perceived power is IMAGINED into existence. You think the problem is some external thing or person, and i recognize that the root of the problem is the belief in 'Authority'.

"There are a thousand people hacking at the branches of Evil to one man striking at the root". - Henry David Thoreau

Im a 'dreamer' because i recognize reality for what it is, and i do not IMAGINE there is something called 'Government' who has the moral Right to boss me around and steal my money? More like i understand human morality and i have chosen to remove all of the contradictions that go along with the belief in 'Authority'. I use my own free will, my own conscience, my own self determination and my own moral code to guide me. While you use the scribbles of 'Politicians' to tell you what is Right and what is Wrong.

And Im dreaming?

[palani]

Im dreaming?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

When you find you cannot live with the policies of the country you belong to ....

An opportunity to select your preferred country based upon the tax rate. I assume your favorites will be Andora, Bahamas, Brunei, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and the British Virgin Islands.

[Santa]

Do you organize stuff in your own personal life? Do you initiate violence to do it?

I organized the storage shed a couple days ago and put down some rat poison. Does that count as initiating violence?

[EE_]

Still wondering where you're going with all this?


Nope, not in the slightest. But what does matter is HUMAN MORALITY. And when you advocate for 'Government' you are advocating for the INITIATION OF VIOLENCE which is immoral, unjust, irrational and anti-human.

What is human morality? The world is not a moral place and different cultures have different definitions of morality...who's is right?




There isnt anyone 'running the world'. You IMAGINE that. If the people didnt IMAGINE them to be legitimate they would have NO POWER. If the Chinese Army invaded here tomorrow and demanded you pay them taxes, would you submit? Or would you instantly recognize them as illegitimate and resist and disobey? What do you suppose would have to exist between the ears of people for them to IMAGINE they must obey thieves, murderers and criminals?

Those with the greatest power are running the world. You don't need your imagination for that.
People only submit because it's necessary to survive. People will only resist when they know it's no longer possible to survive.
What needs to exist in the minds of people, is the courage to fight and the willingness to die trying.



Did the 'Evil Jews' create the US CON? Because that is where CONgress gets the power to tax, the power to PLUNDER, the power to STEAL private property, the power to KIDNAP, the power to MURDER, etc. If a foreign Army showed up tomorrow and scribbled those same things down on paper, would YOU believe them?

The Jews did not create the CONgroup, they have usurped congress to use the power for plunder and theft.
If a foreign army imposed rules, people would only submit if their power and guns were greater then their own.


The most valuable tool of the Tyrant is the mind of the oppressed people" - Uncle Joe Stalin

What do you think Joe meant by this?

Make the people fear you with brutality and death. Take the people's will.



If you want to actually fix the problems, it starts with fixing what is between your own ears. ALL of their perceived power is IMAGINED into existence. You think the problem is some external thing or person, and i recognize that the root of the problem is the belief in 'Authority'.

What is 'Authority'? Authority can mean several things.
1) someone that posesses more knowledge then most others of a particular subject or skill.
2) Someone, or a group that posesses more force and might then a person or group.

If you were walking in a dark ally and were suddenly surrounded by a group of black gang members, at that moment would you believe the gang has authority over you? If you imagined they weren't legitimate, or didn't have authority over you, would it change anything or make their power disappear?


"There are a thousand people hacking at the branches of Evil to one man striking at the root". - Henry David Thoreau

Im a 'dreamer' because i recognize reality for what it is, and i do not IMAGINE there is something called 'Government' who has the moral Right to boss me around and steal my money? More like i understand human morality and i have chosen to remove all of the contradictions that go along with the belief in 'Authority'.


I use my own free will, my own conscience, my own self determination and my own moral code to guide me. While you use the scribbles of 'Politicians' to tell you what is Right and what is Wrong.

It's good to use your own free will...you are free to live, die, or just to go along with someone else's rules in order to survive.
It's good to have your own concience...that is different from everyone else's.
It's good to have self determination...some have more, some have less.
Everyone has a moral code that guides them, to be good to others, or to steal from, harm and kill others for personal gain or power...even pleasure.


And Im dreaming?

Please tell us what your dreams tell you. How do we kill the 'authority' and make them disappear? Who do we kill first and how do we organize without the 'authority' finding out?
I IMAGINE you have some thoughts on this?

[iOWNme]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

When you find you cannot live with the policies of the country you belong to ....

An opportunity to select your preferred country based upon the tax rate. I assume your favorites will be Andora, Bahamas, Brunei, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and the British Virgin Islands.


So the 'Politicians' OWN all of the dirt here? And just by me being BORN here, means i must obey their 'policies'? Lets see how that works....

I am now claiming that by you living in YOUR own house, that you agree to be my slave. You agree to pay me your money, let me boss you around and punish you if you disobey. If you resist my armed enforcers, they will have the moral Right to kill you because you agreed to those terms simply by LIVING in your own home. But dont worry, if you dont like it YOU CAN LEAVE.

Doesnt this sound completely insane and irrational to you? Yet you parrot that same crap back at me and expect it to have any type of value or meaning?

[iOWNme]

I organized the storage shed a couple days ago and put down some rat poison. Does that count as initiating violence?


Dude you killed the rats! Yes that is initiating violence! LOL only kidding


Im prtty sure you proved my point: Just because people 'organize' does not give them the Right to initiate violence against their fellow man. Because logically, none of the individuals who make up the 'organization' have the Right to intitiate violence. Agreed?

I really would like you to adress some of the examples and questions i raised.

[iOWNme]

Still wondering where you're going with all this?

Ive laid it out for you 20 times so a child could understand. What do you supposes exists between your ears that is blocking you from seeing reality for what it is?




What is human morality? The world is not a moral place and different cultures have different definitions of morality...who's is right?


Can YOU figure out who is right and who is wrong? Do YOU need me to help you figure out reality?

Im coming by to hurt your family and steal your stuff. Will you try and stop me? Would it be Right or Wrong for me to do that? Do you know what human morality is now?

So if a culture says its ok to kill babies, you are saying that proves there is no such thing as human morality? Are you serious? How about if you went and killed one of the 'politicians' children from that culture? Would they then think human morality exists? Just because there are poeple who choose to commit acts of violence, does not prove human morality exists. In fact it proves quite the opposite.

If a thief steals your stuff, you are saying that means human morality does not exist? I bet if you went to his house and stole his childs bike, he would understand human morality. Again, just because there are people who are willing to initiate violence, does not mean they themselves do not beleive in human morality.





Those with the greatest power are running the world. You don't need your imagination for that.
People only submit because it's necessary to survive. People will only resist when they know it's no longer possible to survive.
What needs to exist in the minds of people, is the courage to fight and the willingness to die trying.

Here we go again. How many people did Stalin kill with his own hands? How many people did the good natured well meaning citizens who IMAGINED they should obey him kill?

How many people did Lenin kill with his own hands? How many people did the good natured well meaning citizens who IMAGINED they should obey him kill?

Notice all Tyrants use other SLAVES as their enforcers. In other words, there is no 'Government' or 'Volcano God'. When you disobey 'Government' who shows up to hurt you? YOUR FELLOW SLAVE! Why would your fellow slave IMAGINE he has the moral right to dominate and control you? Because of the belief in 'Authority', thats why.

They do not rule you through brute force, they rule you through PROPGANDA, which means it is indide YOUR HEAD.




The Jews did not create the CONgroup, they have usurped congress to use the power for plunder and theft.
If a foreign army imposed rules, people would only submit if their power and guns were greater then their own.

You actually believe that the average American would submit to a foriegn army invading? I hate to tell you this but you are wrong. Americans only let their own Masters treat them like crap. Would YOU let a foriegn army come into your home and let them have their way with your family? But i bet if the local SWAT team showed up, you would submit and obey. WHats the difference?




Make the people fear you with brutality and death. Take the people's will.

This is EXACTLY why America hasnt turned into the Soviet Union. Tyrants always learn from other Tyrants. Using brute force to suppress a people wil ALWAYS lead to the Tyrants destruction. All of the develpoed countries now have a BILLION times more control over their populations than Stalin,Lenin and Hitler COMBINED. And they did not do this with brute force.





What is 'Authority'? Authority can mean several things.
1) someone that posesses more knowledge then most others of a particular subject or skill.
2) Someone, or a group that posesses more force and might then a person or group.

If you were walking in a dark ally and were suddenly surrounded by a group of black gang members, at that moment would you believe the gang has authority over you? If you imagined they weren't legitimate, or didn't have authority over you, would it change anything or make their power disappear?


1. If a math teacher came to you and said "2+2=5" and he had many diplomas and special trophies proving how much of an 'Authority' he was on math, would you believe him or would you use your own judgement?

2. This proves my point! You IMAGINE that if someone has more power than you, he is your 'Authority'. You can believe that if you want, but it is not true.


First of all the word 'Authority' has a legitimate conotation to it. No i would not IMAGINE they have 'Authority' over me, because NO MAN on earth does. I OWN MYSELF. Now would i submit to them? Maybe, maybe not. But no matter what decision i make, they do not have any type of 'Authority'. There would be no imagining they arent legitimate, there would only be reality and evidence to suggest THEY ARE NOT. I bet you totally agree with me. You may submit to stay alive, but you would never IMAGINE you were submitting because it would be immoral if you didnt, and THAT is what the belief in 'Government' creates.






It's good to use your own free will...you are free to live, die, or just to go along with someone else's rules in order to survive.
It's good to have your own concience...that is different from everyone else's.
It's good to have self determination...some have more, some have less.
Everyone has a moral code that guides them, to be good to others, or to steal from, harm and kill others for personal gain or power...even pleasure.


You seem to be getting it!




Please tell us what your dreams tell you. How do we kill the 'authority' and make them disappear? Who do we kill first and how do we organize without the 'authority' finding out?
I IMAGINE you have some thoughts on this?


There is no 'Authoriuty' to kill becaue it exists inside the minds of the oppressed people, which i why i do what i do. If people would just stop obeying them, they would disappear overnight. No revolution or elections needed. I have helped many people see the inherent, built in violence of the state. Ive probably had 10 members here pm me privately and tell me i helped them see reality for what it is. Im not saying we all agree, but i am saying that there is an underlying problem, and poeple are starting to figure it out.

The system hs NO POWER without your own imagination.

Example: There are 100 million taxpayers in America. But there are only 100,000 armed IRS enforcers. PLEASE show me how brute force alone makes the 100 million poeple obey the 100,000 enforcers.

REALLY think about it before you answer.

[EE_]

Example: There are 100 million taxpayers in America. But there are only 100,000 armed IRS enforcers. PLEASE show me how brute force alone makes the 100 million poeple obey the 100,000 enforcers.

REALLY think about it before you answer.

Add, there are 100 million tax payers, but out of those 100 million there might be 10 million strong willed ready to fight...the other 90 million are spineless jellyfish that were born beaten and are glad/even beg to submit.

How do you change the minds of a spineless jellyfish?

Secondly, how do you organize the spread-out strong 10 million to resist in a combined force, at the same time?

[quote]Why would your fellow slave IMAGINE he has the moral right to dominate and control you? Because of the belief in 'Authority', thats why.[quote]

Shoot, I thought it was for the handsome salary they are paid and the good life it provides them and their families.
These are corruptable soulless people...there are many!

Believe me, no one has authority over me...it is just a label on placed on people that are paid well to take from someone for the sake of others.

When I refer to someone that is an authority on a subject or skill, I concider him/her an authority to that subject or skill, NOT of me!


We are not that far apart as you may think. We both just have different ideas on how to deal with the situation.
I think trying to change minds of the weak is a fruitless endevor...the lives of the oppressers is where change needs to be made.

[palani]

I am now claiming that by you living in YOUR own house, that you agree to be my slave. You agree to pay me your money, let me boss you around and punish you if you disobey.
For being such an anarchist your examples always seem to have you procuring something for nothing. Reminds me that the young and newly immigrated are usually Democrat because they see a lot of stuff they would like to have and the Democrats usually is the goto party for getting something for nothing. As they become older though and have collected 'stuff' they become Republican in order to protect their stuff from Democratic giveaway.

What stage are you in with respect to this cycle?

[iOWNme]

For being such an anarchist your examples always seem to have you procuring something for nothing. Reminds me that the young and newly immigrated are usually Democrat because they see a lot of stuff they would like to have and the Democrats usually is the goto party for getting something for nothing. As they become older though and have collected 'stuff' they become Republican in order to protect their stuff from Democratic giveaway.

What stage are you in with respect to this cycle?


LMAO!

I was giving you an example (which i fully know you understood) and that example uncovered such a massive contradiction inside your own head, that you deflected my question and changed the subject. LOL

Come on man! Im challenging you to actually think. I know its not the same as studying the scribbles of 'politicians', but give it a try! LOL


Can you answer my question using reason logic and evidence? All i did was twist your logic back onto you. If your logic was sound then you would have agreed that you are now my slave. You didnt, so it wasnt.

[palani]

If your logic was sound then you would have agreed that you are now my slave. You didnt, so it wasnt.

LMDO!!

I asked a question. That is known as INQUIRY. In doing so I am rejecting being deposed. Didn't you know that?

[iOWNme]

Add, there are 100 million tax payers, but out of those 100 million there might be 10 million strong willed ready to fight...the other 90 million are spineless jellyfish that were born beaten and are glad/even beg to submit.

How do you change the minds of a spineless jellyfish?

You still dont understand, and history is our lesson.

It has ALWAYS been a small minority of people who have changed the world for the better. The Founders were the MINORITY. The 'jellyfish' as you call them have never mattered in history and never will. If you think we need them, you dont understand reality and history. If there really were 10 million people armed and willing to fight and die, the fucking IRS would run like hell! LOL It wouldnt even be close. Do you know how many Cops and Federal Agents died during prohibition? LOL And the those pesky 'terrorist law breakers' were the MINORITY......They were also the GOOD GUYS.


Secondly, how do you organize the spread-out strong 10 million to resist in a combined force, at the same time?

Personally i think that the people spread out is a very strong point. There is no way ANY foreign Army could EVER set foot here, because they do not have the man power to control the entire US. Its too large and spread out. Imagine trying to overtake individual houses, house by house......For 3000 miles. LOL No army on planet earth has a fairytale of a chance. Which is why we are emslaved inside our own head, because the system knows it cannot do it using brute force. This isnt 1000 years ago where Kings could use violence to make people submit. The firearm changed EVERYTHING. Now i can take out a tank driver from a mile away and he wont even know where i am. I dont care how long it takes. He cant live in his tank.



Shoot, I thought it was for the handsome salary they are paid and the good life it provides them and their families.
These are corruptable soulless people...there are many!

I totally disagree. They do it because they IMAGINE they are doing virtuous work. They IMAGINE they are good 'patriots'. Most Cops and Military are good natured well meaning people who have been tricked into using their good intentions to power Evil.



Believe me, no one has authority over me...it is just a label on placed on people that are paid well to take from someone for the sake of others.

You seem to get it. Why arent you an Anarchist?



When I refer to someone that is an authority on a subject or skill, I concider him/her an authority to that subject or skill, NOT of me!

Sure, and i agree with you. But i gave you an example using your scenario and you didnt answer. I bet you agree with me. If that stupid idiot math professor tried to tell you that 2+2=5 you would laugh at him. You wouldnt care how many diplomas he had, how many shiny trophies he had. You would recognize him as illegitimate and would have no moral obligation to listen to him. I guess if he is Right and says 2+2=4, then we could say he knows math and that he is smart. But i still dont see him as an 'Authority'. Although i do realize that people use that word for that term, i think i showed you that is not a concrete way to determine if someone is an 'Authority' on a certain subject.



We are not that far apart as you may think. We both just have different ideas on how to deal with the situation.
I think trying to change minds of the weak is a fruitless endevor...the lives of the oppressers is where change needs to be made.

Ive told you many times: The enforcement class comes from the slave class! The 'oppressors' are your neighbor! You can try and change the minds of the sociopaths (sometimes called 'politicians') and i will continue to try and change the mind of the slaves. Because without the slaves, there is no master.

[iOWNme]

LMDO!!

I asked a question. That is known as INQUIRY. In doing so I am rejecting being deposed. Didn't you know that?


What is you BAR ID number?

LOL

i still love you palani.

[palani]

What is you BAR ID number?

As I don't know what a BAR ID number is I'll give you a number that you should find interesting instead.

9998 is the smallest number n for which the concatenation of n, (n+1), ... (n+21) is prime.

How's that?

[EE_]

Upside Down & Backwards
Jim Kirwan2-3-14
AMERICA

Has been in this position for over 100 years!



The only thing that’s certain now is that all this must change!

It’s no wonder so many people are confused. American’s have been living in a place that has been operating as if it actually is upside down and backwards; ever since we let this nation become owned

outright by private-foreign corporations back in 1913.

Add to that the fact that those initial owners were, and still are international bankers, and you’ll begin to get a much clearer picture of exactly what’s been going on here since before WWI. Everyone knows who these people are that are pulling our strings—all that must happen is that we need to cut those strings and end their power permanently! This is not about religion, race or nationality: It’s about an ideology that has been twisted since people first began to plot to steal the wealth of others.

What does that mean?




Simply put it means that everything we think do or say, is owned and always has been since before anyone that’s alive today was even born!

It means that none of what we think we have belongs to any of us: These foreign-corporations which were and still are part of the Old World Order, have taken over everything we thought we were building for ourselves—when in fact everything we created, back when we were prosperous, was already owned by the same global criminals that are smashing the world into the onrushing oblivion.

It also means that everyone wearing judges robes, a civil uniform or anyone who says they “represent the ‘government’ is a fraud and a traitor to the real America: Because all of them work for a privately owned corporation that serves the Global-Banking Cabal, in one degree or another. That includes USI, the Crown, the City of London and the Vatican, as well as all the private-corporate-states that are larger than most governments in the world today. And there are millions of Zionists imbedded in the mix from every country where they’ve hidden themselves for centuries.

All that talk about the constitution, all the various forms of actual legalities, including all members of the political parties and the entire selection process, has to cease, because all of that has only served the imposters. There is no one who represents the people of the Republic any longer.

It’s been this way since 1913 but we have refused to even notice what happened to us, since the illegal bill was signed that created the Federal Reserve Bank: That’s because it was sent to the president without a legal-quorum and an insufficient number of votes yet President Wilson signed it anyway. Making even the creation of the Federal Reserve a criminal act!

The media, since at least the end of the Vietnam War, has colluded with the foreign-owners of this country to keep everything secret from the people they were supposedly created to inform. Apparently the only people that have remained unaware of the hijacking of the nation have been those who are paying for all that criminality along with everything they think they still “own”.

All the people above ought to be physically-stripped of all their assets and confined to prison immediately, until we can get around to charging each and every one of them with their specific crimes against us all.

How can anyone explain to a place, or to those still living here, that have been so very stupid for so very, very long that it has come to this?

When you are stopped you need to demand, from whatever stops you: “Show me some ID!” If they claim to be ‘Citizens of the United States’ then you know you’re dealing with privately-owned-corporate security: Which means that they are the enemy of the people of this country and need to be disarmed and arrested, on the spot.

The same thing is true for every politician, every public-official, and every “authority-figure” who says that he or she speaks for the government: What makes this true is that none of them represent the people of this Republic. What they represent are the stealth-forces that have been stealing this country for the last one hundred plus years. That alone makes them are traitors now!

If we had the nerve to force this issue then their private-mercenary-corporate-armies would have to surrender to the American Republic, or face the consequences individually. For legitimacy; maybe a core of private grand-juries could be created to organize the charges and the shutdowns, until the public could clear the political-field of traitors so that a semblance of integrity could be restored to the entire process?

On the face of it this might seem impossible. Think this over carefully and you might begin to see how this could work, given the pressures mounting on all sides along with the physical-collapse that’s already begun internationally.

“The U.S. has a Banker Occupied Government (BOG). BOG has put 8 million Americans on their Main Core list. These people are deemed to be the core of the resistance to Banker Occupied Tyranny. Wall Street mistakenly believes that if they can just get rid of these [10] million troublemakers, they can starve the other 300 million people living in country and a few billion overseas into submission.

If you are an American, do you think you are on the list? It does not matter if you are living overseas. Our Banker Occupied Government has declared the right to kidnap you from overseas and disappear you into secret prisons and torture you.

If you are not an American, don’t think that the Banker Occupied Government has forgotten you. They have already kidnapped foreign nationals and tortured them. Just think what they will do to you after they get Banker Occupied World Government.”

“You probably have seen the stories about automation taking away jobs. Tens of millions of driving, warehousing, manufacturing, restaurant and clerical positions will be gone in a generation. But that does not deter BOG from legalizing 30 million illegal aliens and inviting in another 30 to 50 million illegals. BOG wants to lower wages to nothing and force young Americans to choose between joining the military or starving.

I knew when I was in high school that we would see a Rise of the National Security State because Wall Street was stealing our pensions and savings through massive fraud. The Federal Reserve has bought trillions of dollars in worthless Mortgage Backed Securities and other assets through Quantitative Easing and the Discount Window.

BOG has been allowed to disappear 8.5 trillion dollars from the Pentagon budget since 1996.”

“Americans can clearly see the dollar and the entire world economy is in trouble. The majority had hoped that BOG would leave them alone and allow them to keep their homes, their jobs and what few possessions they had if they would just keep silent about this obnoxious tyranny. But BOG is not satisfied. BOG is a Hungry Beast. Wall Street doesn’t just want more. They want it all. They will leave you nothing.

I have written about a Currency Reset which will cut the value of the dollar in half. For the benefit of those who went to American schools, that means BOG will soon cut your wages and pensions in half at a time when they will be legalizing 30 million illegal aliens to drive wages even lower than you can imagine possible.”

“I should explain why the first two words in this essay are Screw Up. BOG has invested a lot of time and effort in telling us what they will do to us after the Dollar Collapses. I remember a clip from the TV series 24 in which a US security agent interrogated a prisoner who refused to talk. The ‘hero’ played by Kiefer Sutherland killed the man and cut off his head. This little clip tells you what Hollywood and BOG thinks of you and your Constitutional Rights. Anyone who talks about the Constitution on TV and in movies will turn out in the next scene to be the Bad Guy either to be killed or to be jailed for life.

The Screw Up is that BOG has gone too far. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, most East Germans thought the Stasi had a file on them. If you took a poll of Americans asking them if they think they are on that Main Core List of Americans To Be Disappeared the Day the Dollar Dies, you will get a lot more than 8 million to say: ‘Yes. I am on that list of people to be disappeared, tortured and killed.’ Americans who speak out have every reason to believe the government will come after them because BOG has said many times they would do that to us.

We have heard the following many times over the past few years: Returning veterans, Christians, people who believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, anyone who participated in Occupy Wall Street and gun owners are on terrorist watch lists. BOG has taken action to unfairly single out veterans to take away their children. In a recent drill the children of a small town were taken from their schools. Parents were not allowed to get their children back until they turned in their guns.

BOG has organized campaigns to beat non-violent Occupy Wall Street protesters. They sent cops to Israel to learn how to treat Americans like Palestinians. In Oakland an Occupy protester was hit in the face Israeli style at close range with a supposedly non-lethal projectile. Israelis tell American cops to aim for the eyes and the head of peaceful protesters. BOG has unjustly thrown outspoken veterans and others into mental hospitals for their political views threatening chemical lobotomies for dissent. Criticism of BOG is not allowed.

Americans read these news articles and wonder. Bill Ayers is a friend of the President and ten other people in the president’s administration. Ayers said 25 million Americans need to go to prison camps. Maybe only 8 million will go in the First Round of Disappearances and 17 million more go in the Second and Third Rounds.

Here is the Stupid Part. BOG does not have enough people willing to round up 8 million Americans on Day One of the first round of Disappearances. Suppose they declared martial law and drew up secret orders the day after the Dollar crashes. They have all FBI agents, armed IRS agents, Federal Marshalls and a few thousand others from Homeland Security report to a hundred locations throughout America in the early morning hours of the first day after martial law is declared. That’s enough manpower to go out and get the 20,000 most dangerous men on the Main Core list of [10],000,000. For the benefit of those who graduated from the California public school system, I will subtract 20,000 from the Main Core list for you. That will leave 9,980,000 people to be picked up on Days 2 to 400.

What do you think those 20,000,000 or more people who sincerely believe they are on the list to be Disappeared will do? Will they wait at home and watch martial law news on CNN waiting to be Disappeared, Tortured and Killed? Or will half a million men gather in groups of two or three or five to take out everyone on their own Enemies List. High on those lists will be the IRS. If there is no IRS, who will collect the taxes? Chris Dorner, the fugitive cop killer, was able to shut down Los Angeles all by himself.

What do you think 500,000 men like him could do nationwide? 800,000 men in America have Bump fire (slide fire) stocks that allow them to fire their AK-47s and AR-15s on full auto. 500,000 men have 50 caliber rifles that will permit them to take out people on their Enemies List at 400 yards (366 meters). More than 22 million can use hunting rifles to take out targets at 300 yards (275 meters). The Jews of America would likely side with BOG against the people. There might be 20 million plus Jews in America but there are very few Jews in the Marines and the Army. Fewer still in the police forces outside main Jewish centers.”

Incidentally: What those with real rifles will mean is that the traitor’s favorite tactic, at the moment, is a line of forward pointing robots headed for each door they want to smash. They could be cut down in their entirety in less than a second with a neck-high burst from heavy automatic weapons. A second burst focused on the vehicle they came from and within just a few seconds that first wave would no longer be a problem. That’s one of the real advantages of distant in this kind of potential war.

“BOG will not have that many agents volunteer to come back for Day 2 of the Disappearances. Some will be dead or in hospital. Others will be taking their families into hiding. I can guarantee you that someone would have cut off the electricity into Washington D.C. and maybe even New York by dawn of Day 2 of the Disappearances. The international community will assess the situation and quit the dollar. That will start Nationwide Food Riots and send America into a multi-polar racial Civil War. Blacks and Hispanics against whites and Asians. Hispanics against blacks and blacks against Hispanics and Whites. Wall Street has been promoting racial strife for years to keep the cattle in line.

Everyone who lives in an American city would have to flee to a safe haven. Everyone who thinks they might be on one of those lists of Enemies of the 500,000 men with automatic weapons and 50 caliber rifles will of course try to flee the country. How will they do that under martial law with the airports closed?
America will not survive the Disappearance of even 20,000 citizens on Day One so let’s find another solution to our problems.

A Race War is what Wall Street wants. They would prefer to see American cities burn to the ground to having everyone unite to go after the men who stole tens of trillions of dollars from them.

Several times in recent years the U.S. military has had to go to the White House to tell the politicians there would be no war. The Pentagon has played War Games over the scenario of a Dollar Crash. The results of cutting your wages and pensions in half are not pretty and the military already knows that.

We are not allowed to have free and honest elections in America. There are no political solutions available in a land with a Banker Occupied Government that controls both political parties. And the Banker Occupied Media will not permit a Third Party to run and win. And then there is the proven fact that BOG has killed several of our leaders.

The only solution remaining is for the U.S military to stage a coup arresting the bankers and seizing their assets. Those assets should be used to fund our pensions and to finance Worldwide Debt Cancellation so we can end this Depression before 10 million Americans and half a billion people overseas starve to death.”(1)

The traitors have assumed that we will crumble the minute this starts, but that’s not nearly as possible in the flesh & blood world as these creatures have assumed.

Once some of their installations begin to ‘have problems’ the fake-government will assume that someone on the inside is helping us—because they can’t trust anyone. To the degree that breakdowns and black-outs begin to occur within the supposedly impregnable foreign troops and their installations * everything could become much less of a threat while at the same time limiting their mobility and their effectiveness * if these barbarians are determined to begin this unthinkable act.

Of course none of this would be happening in a vacuum. The gangs that are now everywhere in the US will definitely play their part as well, in how every faction stays alive or not…

A reader said: “At present these gangs are typically competing and battling with each other for turf and making a living selling drugs and running prostitutes, some captive sex-slaves. At some point if the economy worsens and the SHTF, they could easily start looting and attacking anyone and everyone.”

And the traitors have not planned on how they will deal with them either!
http://rense.com/general96/upside.html

[monty]

A handful of westerners continue to battle the heavy handed federal government for their right to their private property

Dr. Angus McIntosh's newly created Range Allotment Owners Association was formed to educate ranchers regarding their private property rights.

http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/03/10/angus-mcintosh-responds-to-plc-its-time-to-drain-the-swamp-on-the-public-lands/

Angus McIntosh responds to PLC: Its time to Drain the Swamp on the “Public Lands”

March 10, 2017 (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/03/10/angus-mcintosh-responds-to-plc-its-time-to-drain-the-swamp-on-the-public-lands/) editor (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/author/editor/) Leave a comment (http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/03/10/angus-mcintosh-responds-to-plc-its-time-to-drain-the-swamp-on-the-public-lands/#respond)


By the time Trent was finished questioning Ethan Lane, he had backpedaled to the point where he said he agreed with 95% of what I have been teaching ranchers in my seminars for the past 16 years.


by Angus McIntosh, PhD

Executive Director, Range Allotment Owners Association (http://www.rangeallotmentowners.com/)

Recently the Range Allotment Owners Association (RAO), an association of Western ranchers who own Grazing Allotments and Range Units on split-estate land in the 17 Western States, has been attacked in the press by the Public Lands Council (PLC), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), and state affiliates of those organizations (such as the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association). In particular, the Executive Director of PLC (and Public Lands Coordinator for NCBA), Ethan Lane, led the attack and included with his stated disinformation, a letter signed by several attorneys who like to style themselves as champions of Western ranchers. There was so much mischaracterizing, deception and outright fabrication in these attacks that it was difficult to know how to immediately respond. Fortunately, many of the Western ranchers who know me and belong to the RAO themselves, began to respond to the attack through Facebook and letters of their own to the various livestock publications which had printed what can only be described as PLC’s “Fake News.” Chief among the respondents, I’m happy to say, was renowned Radio Host and farmer, Trent Loos. By the time Trent was finished questioning him, Ethan Lane had backpedaled to the point where he said he agreed with 95% of what I have been teaching ranchers in my seminars for the past 16 years.

Frankly, I am used to personal attacks by anti-ranching groups and the environmentalist left, so I usually just ignore their ranting, distortions and outright lies. However, since I have been involved in Western Allotment Owner’s property rights issues for 37 years, have been an Allotment Owner myself for 33 years, and, for at least 27 years have been widely known throughout the Western States as an outspoken public supporter of rancher’s property rights, I decided I could not let the falsehoods go unaddressed. Failing to address the issue would only further harm Western ranchers who, for the last 40 years, have been denigrated by a steady stream of misinformation spewed by career lobbyists and globalists inhabiting the Washington D.C. “swamp.” Many of these anti-ranching interests are entangled by Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service. Exactly how have these globalist-controlled Washington insiders helped the Western split-estate ranchers? They have not. By all measures; number of Allotments, number of Allotment Owners, number of head of livestock, or number of AUMs used for stockraising, in the last 40 years the Western Livestock Industry has been cut by approximately 60%.

First, never at anytime has the Range Allotment Owners Association or myself stated that we represent the “public land” rancher. It is precisely this erroneous representation that has been the cause of many Western ranchers being forced off their Allotments during the past 40 years. The term “public land” has a well established and undeniable legal definition. Neither I nor the PLC get to pick what that definition is. Only Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court get to define that term. During the settlement period from 1776 to 1920, “public lands” were defined as “lands open to entry and disposal upon which there were no rights or claims” (see Words & Phrases and cases cited therein). “Most enduringly the public lands have been defined as those lands subject to sale and other disposal under the general land laws” (Utah Div. of State Lands v United States, 482 US 193 (1987)). By legal definition there are NO private rights on “public lands” and there never has been. However, once land was opened to settlement, occupied, improved and had a possessory right or claim established, it was no longer “public land” because it was no longer “unoccupied,” but now had private rights attached to it that prevented anyone else from settling on the land (see Frisbie v Witney, 76 US 187 (1869), Atherton v Fowler, 96 US 513 (1877), Hosmer v Wallace, 97 US 575 (1878), Rector v Gibbon, 11 US 276 (1884), Cameron v United States, 148 US 301 (1893)).

During the settlement period, bona-fide ranch settlers occupied, improved and possessed the Western rangelands with the intent of permanent settlement. Through their settlement and improvement, ranchers established “possessory property rights,” which gave them a valid claim or color of title to the land. These lands were thereafter called “entered unpatented lands” or “entries,” and the settlers in occupancy were called “entrymen” or “bona-fide settlers.” Under a series of post Civil War statutes, Congress sanctioned and confirmed the water rights, ditches, canals, roads, (1866, 14 Stat 253), reservoirs (1870, 16 Stat 218), improvements (1874, 18 Stat 50), forage/grazing use (1875, 18 Stat 482), timber use (1878, 20 Stat 88), and State/Territorial possessory range rights (1885, 23 Stat 321) of these bona-fide stockraising settlers (or “entryman”) on the Western ranges. See Atherton v Fowler, supra, Griffith v Godey, 113 US 89 (1885), Brooks v Warren, 13 P. 175 (1886), Comm. Natnl. Bank of Ogden v Davidson, 22 P. 517 (1889), Wilson v Everett, 139 US 616 (1891), Cameron v United States, supra, Lonergan v Buford, 148 US 581 (1893), Swan Land & Cattle Co. v Frank, 148 US 603 (1893), Grayson v Lynch, 163 US 468 (1896), Ward v Sherman, 192 US 168 (1904), Bacon v Walker, 204 US 311 (1907), Bown v Walling, 204 US 320 (1907), Curtin v Benson, 222 US 78 (1911), Omaechevarria v Idaho, 246 US 343 (1918).

https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/cattlemen.jpg?resize=554%2C309

Ranchers’ property rights were so well established by 1909, that it was virtually impossible for the United States to grant a homestead or mining patent to any applicant that did not infringe on some valid existing claim. The West was covered with ranchers’ water rights, easements, improvements, and land-use rights that Congress had already statutorily recognized and granted. There was constant turmoil between Western ranchers and federal bureaucrats, particularly with the newly formed U.S. Forest Service. The fact was that under the traditional definition of “public lands” there were no more “public lands.” Nearly all the land in the West had some valid existing claim attached to it. In a speech to Congress in 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the only logical solution, which was to create a split estate. “Rights to the surface of the public land….be separated from rights to the forests upon it and to minerals beneath it, and these should be subject to separate disposal.” (Special Message to Congress, Jan. 22, 1909, 15 Messages and Papers of the Presidents 7266.) The United States would retain the mineral estate and the commercial timber while granting a surface fee title to the stockraisers for all agricultural and ranching purposes (Kinney Coastal Oil Co. v Kieffer, 277 US 488 (1928), Watt v Western Nuclear, 462 US 36 (1983).

https://i1.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/prospectors.jpg?resize=542%2C385

By 1910, the corruption, abuse and overreach by federal bureaucrats had become so bad that Congress enacted special legislation to have a full Congressional Investigation of the Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, and the Forest Service (36 Stat 871). The result of this investigation was the adoption of the split-estate policy and enactment of several key statutes: Pickett Act of 1910/1912 (36 Stat 847, 37 Stat 497), Act for the Relief of Settlers (which specifically incorporated the Enlarged Homestead Acts) (37 Stat 267), and the Agricultural Entry of Mineral Lands Act (38 Stat 509). By a special Act passed in 1912 (37 Stat 287) Congress “directed and required” the Secretary of Agriculture to classify all land within National Forests open to entry and settlement. These Acts taken together in para materia resulted in the perfection of ranchers surface titles to their Allotments. The split estate policy was fully implemented by the passage of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (41 Stat 437) (Kinney Coastal Oil v Kieffer, supra.). Western National Forests were explicitly included into the language of the Pickett Act and the Mineral Leasing Act.

This change in land disposal policy resulted in the need to redefine the term “public land,” which Congress did in the Federal Power Act of 1920 (41 Stat 1063). “’Public lands’ means such lands and interests in lands owned by the United States as are subject to private appropriation and disposal under the public land laws.” Since the allotment owner was referred to as the “surface owner,” (Agricultural Entry Act 1914 and StockRaising Homestead Act 1916) the mineral estate and commercial timber is what constituted “public lands” (ie “interest in land”). The only requirement to “prove up” on their allotments was that the ranchers construct improvements worth $1.25 per acre. Similar to the Reclamation Fund established for Irrigation Districts, Congress established the Cooperative Improvement Fund Act in 1914 (38 Stat 43), to provide a cooperative program for constructing the requisite range improvements under the Agricultural Entry of Mineral Lands Act of 1914, (38 Stat 509) and the StockRaising Homestead Act of 1916 (39 Stat 862). A cursory reading of the “permit” provisions of the Forest Service Organic Act (30 Stat 32), the Taylor Grazing Act (48 Stat 1269) and the Granger Thye Act (64 Stat 82), reveals that the intent of Congress was to regulate Allotment Owners grazing only to the extent of protecting the “young growth of trees” and to prevent “soil erosion” (ie the government’s reserved mineral and timber interests).

https://i2.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/loggers.jpg?resize=608%2C481

The definition of “public lands” continued to be “lands and interest in land open to sale and disposal,” and after Allotments were adjudicated, the only kind of entry or disposal that could be made was a mining claim or lease, and a timber sale. This remained the law up until October 23, 1976, when Congress adopted Federal Lands Policy Management Act (FLPMA) (90 Stat 2743) and National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (90 Stat 2949). On that date, the definition of “public land” changed to the current definition and has been in place since. The current definition is found on page 3 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (90 Stat 2746): “The term ‘public lands’ means any land and interest in land owned by the United States within any of the several States and administered by the Secretary of Interior through the Bureau of land Management…”

The definition still embraces the split estate nature of the lands. Missing, however, is language expressing that those retained federal interests are open for sale or disposal. Significantly, after passage of FLPMA and NFMA the US Supreme Court ruled that ranchers still owned their water rights within National Forests, and these prior existing rights were not affected by either FLPMA or the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (74 Stat 215). See United States v New Mexico, 438 US 696 (1978).

For the benefit of the globalist Washington “swamp” insiders who want ranchers to believe that they have no rights and are merely “permittees” on the “public lands,” we want you to know we have a “deep bench” of legal minds on the side of the Allotment owners. The Range Allotment Owners Association believes that Allotments owned by ranchers in National Forests and Grazing Districts withdrawn by authority of the Pickett Act, are “split-estate” lands, NOT part of the government’s “interest in lands” as defined by FLPMA and the Federal Power Act. I’ve been asked by the following attorneys to publish their names to ranchers as an alternative to the government insiders and the anti-property rights groups who have been colluding with the BLM and Forest Service for decades to undermine Western ranchers property rights. Its time to DRAIN THE SWAMP!

Mark Pollot, (208) 867-8389 (tel:(208) 867-8389) Former Spec. Asst. to the US Att. Gen. for Nat.Res. & Environment
Margaret Hageman, (307) 635-4888 (tel:(307) 635-4888) Hageman Law P.C.

Korry Lewis, (307) 635-4888 (tel:(307) 635-4888) Hageman Law P.C.

Morgan Philpot, (801) 891-4499 (tel:(801) 891-4499)

Bret Whipple, (702) 493-6075 (tel:(702) 493-6075)

Blair Dunn, (505) 750-3060 (tel:(505) 750-3060)

Roger Roots, (406) 224-3105 (tel:(406) 224-3105)

https://i0.wp.com/freerangereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/cattledriv2.jpg?resize=711%2C524

Free Range Report

[Bigjon]

Is Angus a US Citizen?

Does Angus know what that means?

[monty]

Is Angus a US Citizen?

Does Angus know what that means?

Is there something in his article that indicates he might believe he is a US Citizen?

[palani]

Is Angus a US Citizen?
Do you suppose he is running for an office of public trust?

[Bigjon]

Is there something in his article that indicates he might believe he is a US Citizen?

I don't know, but until recently almost everyone believed they were US Citizens.

BarnacleBob posted a link to this guy who kind of explains how we got into this situation through having a PERSON via our Birth Certificate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GOJQEK2dw4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GOJQEK2dw4

To cut to the chase go to 28 minute mark "the secret".

add: I listened to all 9 Marcus videos and think this is great insight into the scam called money banks courts and religion all leading us to volunteer to give up on god and go down a path that steals our substance all the while we feel good and never wake up to all the lies and deception.


Now Anna comes along and says to get rid of the PERSON.

[monty]

I don't know, but until recently almost everyone believed they were US Citizens.

I have no idea what Angus McIntosh knows about his civil status. Thanks

[Glass]

This links into a bunch of these threads. A review of the background of commerce and mercantilism, mechants, law of the land, law of the sea. Words and their meaning AND context AND entomology. Context is one of the key elements left out of education, ensuring people do not fully grasp the meaning of the words they use everyday, How words can have the same source or root meaning even though they might appear slightly different.

American civil war about debt not ending slavery. How water, oceans, seas concepts permeate everyday life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-JQhiOc8u4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-JQhiOc8u4

Ships at sea: Friendship, Citizenship, Companionship, Courtship, Dealership, Dictatorship, Directorship, Entrepeneurship, Fellowship, Flagship, Govenorship, Lordship, Ownership and so it goes on.
JFK Moon Speech - We set sail on this new set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won,
my comment: is Money derived from moon?
Birth - Berth
Birth canal
Boats berth and people sleep in berths on boats
Delivery
Manifest
Manifest is like summoning (conjuring)
Bank - currency flows
River bank - current flows
Currency is energy
Bench and Bank have the same root source. Court bench is the same think as Bank.
Notes, bonds are money
Captain comes from the tool Cap, Head, Capital. (capital punishment - off with the head.
Money is capital
Bail - required when locked up. Required when underwater.
Bankruptcy - of course the crashing of your vessel - running it aground - Salvage etc.
Discharging bankruptcy - discharging is what vessels do when they get to port.

Talks about the BC is a bond traded on world markets. Says you can still look these up, although method is slightly different to 10 years ago.
Explains how in part II. I have not got to that part yet. Will add description of "current" method when I've listened to it.

Ok I've listened to part II several times. They talk about looking up the using either BC number or the SS number. The results that come back are the same. A series of bonds issued on the DOB of the guy doing the search. They do not say what web site he used. He said Fidelity was the one he used 10 years ago but this time all he says is "some government bond web site" that he got from a 5 minute YT video someone posted. Again no specifics on the web site he used or the video he watched. So who knows.

[palani]

How water, oceans, seas concepts permeate everyday life.

In the U.S. insurance is a maritime concept that came ashore in the 1840s. Dry land is hard to find these days. The last dry land on the planet was Sark Island but they succumbed to Democracy about 10 years ago. Jonah found himself subject to the domain of the whale because he was trying to shirk his responsibilities.

Connect the dots. It is not hard. If you are chattel it is because of actions you take and nobody else. Again ... most people attempt to shirk responsibilities for their own actions and tend to blame others ... and find themselves at sea.

[Glass]

Connect the dots. It is not hard. If you are chattel it is because of actions you take and nobody else. Again ... most people attempt to shirk responsibilities for their own actions and tend to blame others ... and find themselves at sea.

Most people don't know any better because they are not taught. Denying someone access to information in legal matters is fraud and creates a situation where one party who might be taking action against another is doing so "without clean hands".

There is also the indoctrination that the Government will take care of X Y Z which is normally the task of a responsible grown up to deal with. This leaves people in the state of being imbeciles - wards (of the State). Interesting that the Government prefers people to be berthed in Wards.

[Dachsie]

Private property is joined at the hip with the nature of man, the natural law, and God's moral law.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12462a.htm

Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > P > Property

Property

Excerpt

"We shall prove first of all that, generally speaking, the institution of private property is necessary for human society and that it is consequently a postulate of the natural law; this established, it follows at once that the right of acquiring property is a natural right. The first reason for the necessity of private property is the moral impossibility of any other disposition of property. If all goods remained without a master and were common to all, so that anybody might dispose of them as he saw fit, then peace and order would be impossible and there would be no sufficient incentive to work. Who indeed would care to cultivate a field or build a house, if everybody else were allowed to harvest the crop or occupy the building? Consequently, the right of ownership must rest either wholly with communities, as the communists and socialists maintain, or with private persons. It is impossible to reduce the doctrines of communism and socialism to practice. All attempts hitherto made have ended in failure. Of longest duration were the experiments of some sects which were founded on a religious basis. But it is manifest that communities based on religious fanaticism cannot become the general rule. History, too, testifies to the necessity of private property. An institution which meets us everywhere and at all times with only a few negligible exceptions, which develops more and more among the nations as their civilization advances, which has always been recognized and protected as just cannot be an arbitrary invention, but must be the necessary outcome of the tendencies and needs of human nature. For a universal and permanent phenomenon supposes a universal and permanent cause, and this cause in the present question can only be human nature with its wants and inclinations, which remain essentially the same. Besides, only private property is a sufficient stimulus for man to work. The earth does not furnish the products and fruits which man needs for the sustenance and development of soul and body, except at the expense of hard, continued labour. Now men will not undertake this labour unless they have a guarantee that they can freely dispose of its fruits for their own benefit and can exclude all others from their enjoyment. This argument, however, does not bind us to the labour theory refuted above. This theory maintains that each one can call his property all that and only that which is the product of his labour. This is wrong. The correct theory on the other hand says, if man had not the right to acquire private property, the necessary stimulus to work would be wanting; and the fruit of labour in this theory signifies private property in the widest sense, for instance, wages.

Private ownership alone is able to harmonize order and freedom in the social life. If no one could exclude others from using his property, order would be impossible. Nobody could lay down in advance a plan of his life and activity, or procure in advance the means and the material for his livelihood. If on the other hand productive goods were the property of the community and subject to its administration, liberty would be impossible. Man is not really free unless he can, at least to a certain degree, dispose of external goods at will, not only of goods of consumption but also of productive goods. The largest portion of human activity, directly or indirectly, aims at procuring external, useful goods; without private property, all would lapse into abject dependence on the community, which would be obliged to assign to each man his office and his share of the work. But with private property, both freedom and order can exist as far as the imperfection of all human conditions allows it. This is proved by history and by daily experience. Thus also the peace of society is best guaranteed. True it is that in spite of private property many disputes arise about "mine and thine." But these are settled by the law courts and do not disturb the essential order of society. In any other disposition of property among free men, the disputes would be far more numerous and violent, and this would necessarily lead to quarrels and feuds. Just as for the individual, so private property is necessary for the family. The family cannot exist as an independent organism unless it can freely manage its internal affairs, and unless the parents have to provide for the maintenance and education of their children, and this without any external interference. All this demands property, the exclusive use of a dwelling, food, clothes, and other things, which frequently must be procured in advance so that a well-regulated and secure family life may be made possible. Like the individual, the family, when deprived of all property, easily falls into a vagabond life or becomes wholly dependent on the will of others. The duty to care for the preservation and education of the family urges the father and mother to work unceasingly, while the consciousness that they are responsible for their children before God and men is a powerful stay and support of their moral lives. On the other hand, the consciousness of the children that they are wholly dependent on their parents for their maintenance and start in life is a very important element in their education. The socialists are quite logical in seeking to transfer not only the possession of productive goods, but also the care of the education of children to the community at large. But it is obvious that such a scheme would end in the total destruction of the family, and hence that socialism is an enemy of all genuine civilization.

Private property is also indispensable for human society in general. Progress in civilization is possible only when many co-operate in large and far-reaching enterprises; but this co-operation is out of the question unless there are many who possess more than is required for their ample maintenance and at the same time have an interest in devoting the surplus to such enterprises. Private interest and public welfare here meet each other half way. Private owners, if they consult their own interest, will use their property for public enterprises because these alone are permanently paying investments. The advances and discoveries of the last century would not have been accomplished, at least the greater part of them, without private property. If we but recall the extensive net-work of railroads, steamship lines, telegraphs, and telephones, which is spread around the world, the gigantic tunnels and canals, the progress made in electricity, aerial navigation, aviation, automobiles etc., we must confess that private property is a powerful and necessary factor in civilization. Not only economic conditions, but also the higher fields of culture are bettered by the existence of wealthy proprietors. Though they themselves do not become artists and scholars, still they are indirectly the occasion for the progress of the arts and sciences. Only the rich can order works of art on a large scale, only they have the means that frequently are necessary for the education of artists and scholars. On the other hand, poverty and want are the reason why many become eminent artists and scholars. Their advance in life and their social position depend on their education. How many brilliant geniuses would have been crippled at their birth if fortune had granted them every comfort. Lastly, we must not overlook the moral importance of private property. It urges man to labour, to save, to be orderly, and affords both rich and poor frequent opportunity for the exercise of virtue.

Though private property is a necessity, still the use of earthly goods should in a manner be general, as Aristotle intimated (Polit., 1. 2, c. 5) and as Christian philosophy has proved in detail (St. Thomas, "Summa" II-II, Q. lxvi, a. 2; Leo XIII's encyclical, "De conditione opificum"). This end is obtained when the rich not only observe the laws of justice, by not taking unjust advantage, but also, out of charity and liberality, share their abundance with the needy. Earthly goods are meant to be, in a certain manner, useful to all men, since they have been created for all men, and consequently the rich are strictly obliged to share their superfluities with the poor. True Christian charity will even go beyond this strict obligation. A wide and fertile field is thus opened up to its activity, through the existence of poverty. For the poor themselves, poverty is a hard, but beneficial, school of trust in God, humility, renunciation. It is of course self-evident that poverty should not degenerate into wretchedness, which is no less an abundant source of moral dangers than is excessive wealth. It is the function of a wise Government so to direct the laws and administration that a moderate well-being may be shared by as many as possible. The civil power cannot reach this end by taking away from the rich in order to give to the poor, for "this would be at bottom a denial of private property"; but by regulating the titles of income in strict accordance with the demands of public welfare."

[palani]

Most people don't know any better because they are not taught. A liberal arts education includes the trivium; grammar, logic and rhetoric. These are the principle tools needed for rationalizing and reasoning.


Interesting that the Government prefers people to be berthed in Wards. For the same reason coppicemen are selected from the lesser classes with lower IQ and addicted to steroids. These people don't realize that the more they lessen other peoples status they also diminish their own. A government based upon democracy is the same as an economy based upon the lottery.

[monty]

Supreme Court Rules against private property,

the 4 left wing justices' ruling coincides with with the communist manifesto

http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/06/25/scotus-rules-landowners-have-no-recourse-when-government-regs-undermine-property-values/



“Put simply, today’s decision knocks the definition of ‘private property’ loose from its foundation on stable state law rules,” Roberts wrote. The ruling “compromises the Takings Clause as a barrier between individuals and the press of the public interest.”


Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kennedy in the majority opinion, while conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent. The Supreme Court’s newest member, Justice Neil Gorsuch, did not participate in the case.


Eric Boehm
Reason.com (http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/23/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-property-rig)
Supreme Court Deals Blow to Property Rights
When governments issue regulations that undermine the value of property, bureaucrats don’t necessarily have to compensate property holders, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court voted 5-3, in Murr V. Wisconsin (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-214_f1gj.pdf), a closely watched Fifth Amendment property rights case. The case arose from a dispute over two tiny parcels of land along the St. Croix River in western Wisconsin and morphed into a major property rights case that drew several western states into the debate before the court.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in a scathing dissent (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-214_f1gj.pdf), wrote that ruling was a significant blow for property rights and would give greater power to government bureaucrats to pass rules that diminish the value of property without having to compensate property owners under the Firth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

Read more . . . http://freerangereport.com/index.php/2017/06/25/scotus-rules-landowners-have-no-recourse-when-government-regs-undermine-property-values/

[goldleaf]

I live in St. Croix Co. The planning & zoning dept. ( now called community development) is horrible. We don't have enough money to maintain roads and these idiots have a whole network of bike trails planned that will be on a lot of our roads. Try maintaining an extra 4 feet of pavement on each side of these! There is also a National Heritage area in the works that will extend from Duluth to south of the Twin Cities restricting property rights in Wisconsin & Minnesota. I was on the Town board here and had the opportunity to opt out of county zoning which could have helped us but couldn't get anyone to agree with me. I got people in to speak and purchased and printed off gobs of material for people to read, mostly agenda 21 stuff. I've pretty much given up on these assholes around here. Their main concerns are deer hunting and the packers.

[Dachsie]

"We don't have enough money to maintain roads and these idiots have a whole network of bike trails planned that will be on a lot of our roads."

Agenda 21, now Agenda 2030 is relentlessly trudging forward. I believe we as a nation are already on the path to total economic collapse. I also think that looks good if it will stop Agenda 21.

If you live in a liberal or left leaning town, the mayor will continually push through municipal bonds which promise bike lanes and hiking trails and all sorts of goodies that appear to all the SJWs , Starbucks groupies, or whatever they are called. Problem we never receive the things promised from the bond money, incur debt for the city for a long long time, and we have no way of knowing what happened to the money and where it was spent. The whole bond issue thing looks more and more like an under-the-table high finance deal that lines the pockets of a few government people on the take.

Infrastructure is going down the tube except for international corridor nightmare highways and toll ways that go through the cities, more Agenda 21 garbage.

States of Illinois and Wyoming are bankrupt and many other states are on the verge of bankruptcy. Many of our cities' finances are in dire straights and that will be kept hidden until sudden default on debt. Massive corruption of local government officials of course speeds up the destruction of the cities.

Tom DeWeese of American Policy Center will be going on tour and will be on several MSM TV shows explaining push for preservation of private property rights, but even though I fought hard locally against Agenda 21 and the kinds of issues his organization supports and promotes, it all is looking irrelevant now that the reality of fake financial condition of our cities and being kept in the dark about where the money is really going. It is not going to take care of the basic needs of the city or the basic civil rights of the residents.

As far a rights connected with owning a homestead, I question whether we actually OWN private property as property taxes are eternal and escalating. Also the laws are that a city can mandatorily annex contiguous subdivisions at will and that looks just like a way to increase city tax revenue to a larger population. The private property rights of individuals seem to be almost nonexistent these days.