Socialism for the Uninformed (interstate, generation, independent, how much)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you for the kind words of support.
Since you resorted to personal invective, ad hominem, and lacked any factual rebuttal, you have acquiesced. Capitulation graciously accepted.
As to the actual BASIS for American government, let me direct your attention to these.
“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the Rights of mankind.”
- - - Thomas Jefferson
“I firmly believe that the benevolent Creator designed the republican Form of Government for Man.”
- - - Samuel Adams;
Statement of (14 April 1785), quoted in The Writings of Samuel Adams (1904) edited by Harry A. Cushing
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."
- - - CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.
Without consent, no majority can rule nor govern, only secure endowed rights.
So you missed where I linked how John Locke was behind the formation of America?
And your Abraham Lincoln quote was about slavery and state's rights. I'm not really sure the relevance of the others.
America's republican form recognizes the absolute ownership rights of the sovereign people.
However, after 1820, most Americans voluntarily abandoned their sovereignty in the republican form and migrated to the (indirect) democratic form, with all its obligations and duties. The Progressives (collectivists) gained control in the late 19th century, and slowly perverted the law.
The "shambles" you observe are due to the socialist democracy (in place since 1933) and bankruptcy to usurers.
As to the notion that "redistribution of wealth" is a remedy for poverty, let's consider what happens when we make everybody EQUALLY wealthy and never needing money ever again.
STOP! That isn't the only thing the redistribution of wealth does. It also takes from the poor in the forms of inflation and debt to increase the wealth at the top.
Quote:
If everyone is equally rich - and no one “needs money†and therefore does not go work, farm, manufacture, transport, nor trade goods and services, what’s available to buy? Nothing! No one needs money so no one needs to sell anything. Unless people are productive, all that money is worthless, useless and meaningless. Even starving babies are rich!
The carefully crafted scam of money madness keeps us striving to acquire the scarce money token, and paying interest for credit, so that we are perpetually enslaved. To add insult to injury, using government to TAKE from one to GIVE to another, is a perversion... and needs a police state to enforce.
I've argued against this for years.
Quote:
Prosperity is not based on money. Prosperity is based on production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services. Doing more with less so more can enjoy is superior to doing less with more so few can enjoy.
If you see a society with UNMET NEEDS, UNEMPLOYMENT, UNUSED FACTORIES, etc, you have to question the sanity of the people.
If you ask why are there unemployed, unused factories, and people in need, the universal answer is - "No one has enough money."
But I just showed that having more than enough money doesn't do diddly for prosperity.
Can you see the remedy now?
It's not redistribution, it's not wealth, and it's not collective ownership.
What is stopping the unemployed from "working" at some useful task?
What is stopping the production and trade of usable goods and services?
Many things including the government protection of businesses they want to protect. You want to start your own business? You have to get this license, that license. This permit, that permit.
Quote:
If that's too hard to comprehend, let's turn it around.
Or one might ask those "strange folks" who spend a lifetime in a religious order, serving people for NO remuneration? Or ask parents who care for children without getting ONE DIME in salary. Or ask children who care for parents without getting paid. Or communities that pitch in and have a "barn raising" or "house raising" and don't get paid.
Such cultures do not need to deny capitalism (private property ownership) in order to survive and thrive.
Deny capitalism? I don't have a problem with capitalism. I have a problem with people who claim to want capitalism and condemn socialist programs EXCEPT for when those programs benefit them.
So you missed where I linked how John Locke was behind the formation of America?
FEE's article is opinion, not law.
The republican form is PROMISED in Art. 4, sec. 4, USCON, and not Locke's "Social compact."
And according to the various references, the SOURCE of the RFOG is the Declaration of Independence, where it states we have endowed rights, etc, etc. NOT obligations to some "Social Compact."
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion. . .”
- - - United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4.
CONSTITUTION, Art. 4, Sec. 4. The guarantee of a republican form of government to every "state" means to its people and not to its government: Texas v. White. 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. . . The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that "the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government." The form of government is to be guarantied, WHICH SUPPOSES A FORM ALREADY ESTABLISHED, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1856
The republican form existed BEFORE the USCON, thus it cannot be a “constitutional republic.”
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, ... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
Sovereign people are not bound by compact.
Citizens are NOT sovereigns, but are subjects.
CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
. . . Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
.....................
In most other countries, men are subjects of sovereigns, bound to obedience. In countries like the USA, that ENJOY a republican form, sovereign men are not presumed to be subjects and citizens. Nor are they bound to OBEY laws (regulatory).
BUT if one is NOT in a republican form - such as those in a constitutionally limited indirect democracy - one is a subject and bound to obedience - by consent. Perhaps that is where the "social compact" lies.
. . .
Ironically, there is only ONE NATION on EARTH with a republican form and 99.9% of its people cannot accurately define it nor its source.
I prefer the republican form of government, where the people have inherent / endowed / sacred rights and liberties that governments were instituted to secure.
But if folks want to consent to be governed, surrender their endowment and become subjects, who am I to say they can't?
I'm not sure you actually said anything here. The government is to secure our rights but it's wrong to be governed?
Many things including the government protection of businesses they want to protect. You want to start your own business? You have to get this license, that license. This permit, that permit.
Not really.
The law that is in harmony with the REPUBLICAN FORM is still on the books. The sovereign American, free inhabitant, domiciled upon private property within the boundaries of these united States of America retains his endowment of rights (inalienable and natural) and liberties (natural and personal), and oath bound government is his servant, not his master.
I have not read all law, but I have yet to find a law that trespasses upon the natural and personal liberty of the American national / free inhabitant domiciled upon private property within the boundaries of the united States of America.
However, there ARE voluminous rules, regulations, taxes, and penalties imposed on U.S. citizens / residents, duly enumerated (via FICA), engaged in usury, who reside at residences, registered as real estate, and are obligated to get permission (license) and / or pay taxes to live, work, travel, buy, sell, operate a business, transmit radio, fly a plane, trade in healthcare, buy medicine, cut hair, build a house, hunt, fish, marry, and / or own a dog.
In short, if one has not given consent to be governed, all that servant government can do is secure rights, adjudicate disputes, prosecute those who deliberately injure the person and property of another, and defend against enemies, foreign or domestic. But once consent is given, all bets are off.
In America, if you have endowed rights, you’re under the republican form of government. If instead of endowed rights, you have “constitutional rights†and mandatory civic duties, you’re under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy that serves the people in the republican form of government. If you have socialist obligations, you’ve volunteered into the socialist democratic form, via FICA.
“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...â€
- - - The Social Security Administration
We aren't discussing law. We are talking about the basis for the foundation of America and Modern Western democracies. But John Locke's philosophy was the basis, just because it doesn't use the term "Social Compact" doesn't mean it came from within that. "Life, liberty, and estate" is what John Locke proposed the function of government should be. Now doesn't that sound familiar?
Quote:
The republican form is PROMISED in Art. 4, sec. 4, USCON, and not Locke's "Social compact."
And according to the various references, the SOURCE of the RFOG is the Declaration of Independence, where it states we have endowed rights, etc, etc. NOT obligations to some "Social Compact."
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion. . .”
- - - United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4.
CONSTITUTION, Art. 4, Sec. 4. The guarantee of a republican form of government to every "state" means to its people and not to its government: Texas v. White. 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. . . The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that "the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government." The form of government is to be guarantied, WHICH SUPPOSES A FORM ALREADY ESTABLISHED, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1856
The republican form existed BEFORE the USCON, thus it cannot be a “constitutional republic.”
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, ... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
Sovereign people are not bound by compact.
Citizens are NOT sovereigns, but are subjects.
CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
. . . Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
.....................
In most other countries, men are subjects of sovereigns, bound to obedience. In countries like the USA, that ENJOY a republican form, sovereign men are not presumed to be subjects and citizens. Nor are they bound to OBEY laws (regulatory).
BUT if one is NOT in a republican form - such as those in a constitutionally limited indirect democracy - one is a subject and bound to obedience - by consent. Perhaps that is where the "social compact" lies.
. . .
Ironically, there is only ONE NATION on EARTH with a republican form and 99.9% of its people cannot accurately define it nor its source.
If you want to talk law then look at Article 3 which establishes the Judicial Branch. I'm sure you hate Judicial Review since it generally doesn't support YOUR point of view, which is really what this comes down to.... point of view. I do have the law on my side.
The Clinton Admin HUD told Fannie and Freddie that 50% or more of the loans they bought had to be made to low-income and/or credit-compromised borrowers. HUD most definitely is part of government. And so are the GSEs (Fannie and Freddie).
As a result, the Federal Reserve has had to create $2 trillion to buy GSE MBS, at least ten thousand people haven't made their mortgage payments in 5 years or more but are still living in the mortgaged homes, and many of them will get to keep those homes and never have to pay another dime on their mortgages because the statute of limitations has expired on foreclosure proceedings: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/bu...ires.html?_r=0
Do you really expect any of us to believe the government and the Federal Reserve weren't in collusion on trying to clean up that mess?
Just because someone said they had to buy them doesn't mean someone had to sell them. Or underwrite them. All the banks had to do was underwrite good loans and keep them on their books. The banks were doing bad. Everyone blames the borrowers blame the banks.
I'm not sure you actually said anything here. The government is to secure our rights but it's wrong to be governed?
LOL. Right? It's only wrong to governed when it goes against your personal view according to Jet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
