ebola? said:
>>
We've voted out our rights.
We've voted out our voices...>>
What I'm saying is that even if we had our rights and even if we had proper representatives, the political system would STILL tend towards oligarchical rule.
Ah... well...
Vigilance was to be the cost of liberty.
We stopped paying the price, and now we suffer for it.
>>And frankly, I'm torn between promoting him and promoting a complete dismantling of our government, establishing stronger protections against governmental infringements of our rights...
And starting over.
>>
Not that I like Ron Paul all that much, but these two strategies are not mutually exclusive.
But they are.
To support a president under the current political system...
Promote the current political system - and hope it corrects itself despite historical evidence that it will only continue to grow more corrupt (Insanity?)- and then leaving the same problems existent before Ron Paul's presidency to linger - threatening future generations?
This is compatible with supporting the elimination of the current political system and starting over?
I understand what you're saying - they don't HAVE to be exclusive - but it's hypocritical to support both.
I do see Ron Paul as a step in the right direction.
I don't see him as the ultimate solution.
If he fails to get into office, eliminating our government is the only course remaining if we hope to remain/re-become a free people.
What was created by the constitution and declaration of independence was a GOOD constitutional republic (with the necessary additions of all HUMAN LIFE being created equal - not just white men).>>
I think that there were problems from the start. Our founding fathers had severe misgivings about the capability of the "common man" to decide his own political affairs. Many items in the Bill of Rights were concessions added by American elites to convince the wider American populace to side with their colonial rulers rather than Britain. And then there's the whole women and slavery thing.
There were problems...
However the bill of rights were a critical part of getting the constitution amended.
The problem was that the Constitution did not establish equal protections - it did not ensure liberty and justice for all...
And these problems - ever the more apparent after 250 years - needs to me fixed and the loopholes closed so that we can ensure our rights are not infringed upon in the same way again.
A permanent solution will be difficult - just as the constitution was difficult - and was not a perfect permanent solution, but an ideal that they hoped would last.
>>
But what it is corrupted into doesn't matter - technically - so long as you truly have a right to a fair trial...>>
If you can afford a better lawyer than the opposition. In this way, trial law often hurts the underprivileged.
Inequality UNDER the law, not prior to it.
The law is now so tightly regulated that FACTS no longer have bearing upon anything...
Procedural process (expensive) and loopholes within it (if your budget permits) have allowed for this inequality to arise.
The courts are no longer fulfilling their intended purpose - to settle disputes among sovereign rulers of their own lives that cannot be solved peaceably by those involved.
Crimes against the state are fictitious claims against the sovereign individual - they are criminal attempts to deprive the sovereign of their rights of life, liberty, and property.
Criminal cases are nearly all fraudulent - there should be no criminal law short of theft, enslavement, and murder.
All matters are civil - between two people.
One person (plaintiff) feels wronged or harmed...
One person (defendant) is accused of the wrong or harm suffered.
Theft is even civil - however it becomes criminal when the plaintiff does not feel that his time is best spent trying to recover his losses at the hands of the defendant - and he asks the state to step in.
Most criminal cases are matters where the state steps in despite the desire of either party to get involved...
This is not the province of the state - to meddle in the affairs of the sovereign.
By doing so, it has packed the courts schedules necessitating the rules that ensure no one can achieve justice within the court system.
The rules of evidence...
Rules favoring the rich with money to spend on attorneys...
Are all made to prevent the state from acquiring evidence for which the state is a party.
The state should NEVER be a party to a criminal case - there must always be a plaintiff with RIGHTS - with STANDING - to bring the case.
The state MAY do so upon their behalf, but this party MUST exist.
Murder cases - the murder victim should have the state bring charges for them... the state should not just usurp the legal standing of the victim and claim its rights were violated.
Drug cases - there is no case - no plaintiff, no standing... There is nothing.
Theft - the person suffering loss is injured - there is standing.
Rules that prevent the state from acquiring evidence and presenting it exist to protect the people from governmental infringements upon their rights.
However, if the state could NOT bring charges against people themselves, this issue would be moot.
Assume that your house is your castle - anything you do inside it is your RIGHT to do (so long as no one else with rights complains of you violating their rights...) You cannot enslave someone on your property, chain them so they can never leave... You cannot murder someone on your property...
But short of that, you can do whatever you want - so long as they consent - or have the choice to leave.
That's liberty.
If this is the way things are - and the state THINKS you've committed a CRIME and decides to search your property...
And you have not committed a CRIME...
Nothing they find in your house can be brought against you - no new CRIME can exist because of your claim and exercise of your private property.
Only because the state can claim it has RIGHTS - and can place you on trial for violating these "RIGHTS" - which are no more than opinions and prohibitions of the exercise of your rights - do these rules need to exist.
The courts themselves, through the progressive creation of these rules of procedure have undermined the judicial system and eliminated equality and justice.
In a free state, these rules would not need to exist.
>>
We were created equal PRIOR TO the law.
The law is supposed to ensure that all RIGHTS are protected equally...
>>
I would say that concrete relationships of power (in the workplace, in the hospital, in the family, etc.) produce us as individuals prior to the establishment of rights. What more, the administration of juridical rights depends on a bureaucratized state and a monitored, measured, and administered populace. Similarly, the modern state depends on a rational, capitalist economy, which depends on close disciplinary control of workers.
Disciplinary control (which is decidedly hierarchical and shapes our behavior and identity before the possibility of free action) is the dark underbelly of mass-democracy and political equality.
But we aren't supposed to have mass-democracy or political equality.
Disciplinary control by the state is prohibited by the constitution.
Malum prohibitum crimes are prohibited by the constitution.
The constitution does not GRANT rights.
It does NOTHING to the sovereign people.
It only places limitations upon the intervention in the lives of the people by the government.
The government has crossed these limitations and is in violation of it's contract with the people - it is in violation of the Constitution.
As such, it has undermined it's authority - as the constitution is the sole source of governmental authority.
Our rights are divine - they are existent prior to the establishment of government.
The powers of government are inferior to our rights - their powers are derived from our rights.
They have increased their powers to supersede our rights.
Because of this, we have the disciplinary attempt to control the master (the individuals) by the servant (the state) through discipline and threats.
It is in direct conflict with the constitution - direct conflict with the concept of liberty...
And is an attempt to enslave the master by the servant.
>>
Equal before the law shouldn't be that difficult - it should mean that any violation of ANYONE'S rights be treated equally.
>>
But what I'm saying is that so much of our lives lie outside of explicitly legal matters, where we are equal before the law. Legal equality cannot be enough.
All matters are legal matters.
If you trade with someone, you enter into a contract - a contract is a legal matter.
If you touch someone, you infringe upon their rights - you violate their property by infringing upon their person as they are self owned - this is a legal matter.
If you step on someone's lawn you are trespassing - this is a legal matter.
The thing is, most of these things do not require a court to resolve the conflict between the people.
If you step on someone's foot at the store, you issue an apology, they accept it, and you both get on with your lives.
They are not obligated to accept your apology - they can ask for whatever retribution they desire.
If you cannot come to a compromise, the necessity for the court comes in - to resolve a difference that can only be solved by the courts as a last resort.
Your matter doesn't suddenly become LEGAL because you're going to court - you entered into a legal contract by associating with that person - a treaty between sovereign people.
Most of the time we consent to these intrusions upon our rights - we allow others to touch us in passing in a crowded place...
We waive our right to restitution when an accident takes place and we know we will heal, or the damage to our property is negligible and the damage was accidental.
We assert our right to restitution when the damage to our property is either intentional (criminal) or so great that we cannot heal easily (car wrecks, broken bones, bleeding, etc.. great damages to the body that cannot be healed)
However all these matters are LEGAL matters - arising from the confrontation of two KINGS - true rulers/masters of themselves with equal rights before the law.
The law is meant to ensure these rights are acknowledged equally.
The law has failed in this purpose and has become a tool of control by the state that was meant to serve but means to rule....
>>How can the common man challenge the WILL of an immortal being who dictates how the world will operate?
How does the common man combat this false GOD?>>
The first step is seeing through it. We must realize that the state is only a false community and that the apparent equal rights it grants are thin distractions.
Then what? I wish I knew...
ebola
The state does not GRANT equal rights.
It does not grant rights at all.
The constitution grants PRIVILEGES to the State in order that it may protect the NATURAL RIGHTS of the sovereign individuals.
The law does not ensure equal rights.
The law increases inequality in the exercise and protection of these rights.
The law, therefore, is in violation of its purpose - those enforcing it are in violation of their purpose, and those creating the law are in violation of their purpose.
Quick link;
http://revolutioni.st/liberty.html - the expanded philosophy of liberty... with commentary and jpg's added by me (ignore the bit about the civil flag - that turned out to be bogus information - the rest still stands...)
Constitutional RIGHTS are a complete fiction.
There is not one single constitutional right held by any person in these united states of America.
The constitution doesn't grant rights to the people - it grants privileges of power to the government.
The rights of the people are existent prior to the government; they cannot be taken by the privileged government...
