The PEOPLES’ case for what happened at the constitutional convention.

You can see the judge was not impressed with my argument.

You can see the judge was not impressed with my argument.

We are steeped in a whole world of how wonderful our constitution is and what a miracle of freedom it was, etc.  Understanding how it is that nothing seems to WORK in PRACTICE as we are taught in school, starts with understanding what a spin job they put on the drafting and RATIFICATION of that constitution.  Now I don’t claim to be “telling the whole story”.  That is impossible anyway.  My goal here is to be the PEOPLES’ Lawyer.  To make the case ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE, instead of the money power. The OPPOSITE side of the story from what you’ve been told all your life.  Just a sketch.  A little “equal time”.  We need a little counter balance to the one way propaganda machine that describes this event.  I want to put it into some perspective for you.  Then you can make up your own mind.  Probably for the first time.

I am not a historian, I am just  a simple caveman lawyer. But I can read and I can understand bulls*** when I see it.  Don’t believe the brainwashing that only “scholars” and formal historians are fit to comment about “history”.  You don’t have to go through the archives to see what was really going on at the constitutional convention. I can see THE RESULT. And that is the gigantic federal government they claim is supported by a constitution they claim created only a  “limited” government.  Those two don’t fit together. So maybe it is worth a bit of time to look into what REALLY happened that summer in Philadelphia.

But wait there's more.  Not only will this constitution keep you free through a 1000 loads, it will do it for LESS than you are now paying for your laundry detergent.

But wait there’s more. Not only will this constitution withstand a 1000 loads of bs, it will do it for LESS than you are now paying.

When I read the ridiculous sales brochure called “The federalist papers” written by guys pushing for big government by selling “limited government” I start to get even MORE suspicious of the fairy tale I have been told.  I suspect, that it is always the same con.  Obamacare is sold as something to help reduce costs. Income tax is sold as only applying to the rich. Social Security is sold as a limited program where the social security number will NEVER be used as a national ID. The patriot act is sold as a way to make US SAFE. And on and on. People in government are habitual liars. It is WHAT THEY DO FOR A LIVING.

First off let’s be clear.  There was no “single mind” of the men who met in Philly that summer.  Some may have been decent honest people.  We can’t know that.  But what we can do is use common sense with what we do know and compare it and see what theory fits with the KNOWN facts.

To me, it is clear.  The people driving the bus that “august summer” when “history was made” and the “holy constitution” was drafted, were typical power hungry politicos and nothing more.  That doesn’t mean the place didn’t have plenty of honest well meaning individuals.  But the reality is that many of them walked out or didn’t bother attending because they KNEW what was up.   Whoever remained and did not stop what was going on, were either duped, didn’t care, or were in on it.

I appreciate the trouble your people went to in drafting this constitution, however, the people who wrote it were either in on the scam it or were too stupid to notice.  Either way, I can't endorse it.

I appreciate the trouble your people went to in drafting this constitution, however, after reading it, it is clear that the people who wrote it were either in on the scam or were too stupid to see it. Either way, I can’t endorse it.

For this article I have chosen to use a site that is run by an institution that is designed to “teach” the “teachers”. That’s right a propaganda school for propagandists. Here’s the site. If I quote it and I don’t tell you another source, that is the source I used.   I am going to give you an overview of my read of what THEY SAY happened, and what are checkable facts.

First, understand that those “holy men” who met in Philly that summer were NOT SENT THERE to do what they did. They were acting completely outside their “agency authority”. The recommendatory act of Congress that EMPOWERED the “constitutional convention” reads thus:

“A Convention of delegates should meet “for the sole purpose of revising the articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.” (Italics in the original of the version reprinted in Federalist 40.)”

Too bad this book wasn't available to the delegates so they could have understood what they were sent to do.

Too bad this book wasn’t available to the delegates so they could have understood what they were empowered to actually do.

They weren’t sent to tear up the articles of confederation and create this mammoth centralized power structure.  Got it?  There already was a constitution.  There already was an arrangement. It worked fine. It needed a little tweaking, nothing more.  When they went there and scrapped the whole thing they did something they had no agency authority to do.  NOBODY, not the people, not the legitimate government of the people, NOBODY Who sent them and who they CLAIMED to represent sent them up there to create a WHOLE NEW FORM OF CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT.

Knowing that, let me ask you, if you’re doing something you KNOW you aren’t supposed to be doing, what is the NUMBER ONE thing you want and need while you are making your plans and doing it?  That’s right, make sure the proceedings are ALL SECRET and there are as few a records as possible.

The delegates also agreed that the deliberations would be kept secret. The case in favor of secrecy was that the issues at hand were so important that honest discourse needed to be encouraged and delegates ought to feel free to speak their mind, and change their mind, as they saw fit. …the windows were closed and heavy drapes drawn.”

Secrecy?  Check.  Are you picturing this?  It is the opposite of freedom of discourse FOR THE PEOPLE.  Secrecy is the heart of a conspiracy.  Look at that ridiculous excuse for it they give.  Absurd.  Not credible.  But doesn’t this all seem very familiar?  Of course it does.  Power grabbers do it all the time. Meet in “closed session” and keep all the details secret until they are ready to submit the bill, etc.  Can you say Hillary care or Obamacare?  THAT is the same thing that went on at the holy constitutional convention.

Here is a hand scribbled note from one of the delegates that is rarely seen by the public.

Here is note made at the constitutional convention by one of the delegates who subsequently WALKED out.  This type of thing is rarely seen by the public.

Before we get too far into it I think it is important to know WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT they were sent to improve.  The government that needed a small amount of tweaking. Here’s how it is described.

The Articles of Confederation created a nation of pre-existing states rather than a government over individuals. Thus, the very idea of a Bill of Rights was irrelevant because the Articles did not entail a government over individuals. The states were equally represented in the union regardless of size of population, only one branch was needed, normal political activity required the support of super majorities, the union was limited to the powers expressly enumerated, and amendment was required to endow the union with powers that weren’t specifically articulated. Amendments required the unanimous approval of all thirteen state legislatures.”

Are you seeing this?  It was a very small very DECENTRALIZED government.  THAT is what the people had CHOSEN AFTER THE WAR. Doesn’t this sound eerily familiar to what we are TOLD the basics of  the CONSTITUTION ARE. It is almost exactly what the federalist papers CLAIMS the constitution creates but with just a teeny tiny bit more “authority” so “it runs better”.

Of course you can return it if you don't like it.  Trust me, you're gonna love it.  This constitution was hardly driven.  It will last for years. You'll be able to collect trillions in taxes with this thing. i GUARANTEE it.

Of course you can return it if you don’t like it. Trust me, you’re gonna love it. This constitution will last for years. You’ll be able to collect trillions in taxes with this thing. Nobody will catch on, I personally GUARANTEE it.

And of course they had to sell it like it was just a tweak to the system because that is what they were sent to do and they knew the People didn’t want what they had ACTUALLY done. So they sold them a load of crapola about limited government and express powers etc. etc. The guys pushing it wrote the federalist papers to sell it.  The government that EXISTS and that WE EXPERIENCE bears no resemblance to what they DESCRIBE. It is all an illusion.  That’s why we can never “get back to the constitution”.

Well let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe the proceeding notes and minutes can at least illuminate what went on there even if the discussions themselves were held in secret. Oops, no such thing. They didn’t bother to keep any official record of the proceedings. No minutes taken.  Darn, I hate it when that happens.  All we have to try and piece together what went on there are Mr. BIG GOVERNMENT himself’s personal notes. The other attendees only made sporadic notes about certain issues. So, secret proceedings, no record. Check check.

James Madison took extensive Notes of the proceedings and although some scholars have questioned their authenticity and completeness, they remain the primary source for reproducing the conversations at the Convention.”

So in other words we are put in the position of having to rely on what Nancy Pelosi tells us went on when she met with Harry Reid and the rest of the gang.  Makes sense. This sounds like  the exact kind of arrangement that I would expect to find when agents for “we the people” meet.  Oh and did I mention that even Madison’s  notes weren’t made public for about 35 years. Yeah, that too. So secret meetings, no documentation released to the public, and a group of delegates sent by the people to do one thing who did something else. Yeah, I’m getting that freedom vibe baby.

Relax people, the notes are safe.  See them? Of course you can see them. Just not at this particular time.  Come back in 50 years.

Relax people, the Madison’s notes are safe. See them? Oh, you want to see them before you vote?  Of course you can see them. Just not at this particular time. Come back in 50 years.

Well maybe it was unclear at the time they were overstepping and that they were way over the line?   No, turns out they knew. In fact delegates from Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, New York argued:

“that the Convention had exceeded the Congressional mandate because the Articles had in fact been scrapped rather than revised. Thus the Convention had violated the rule of law. Moreover, the Convention was about to propose a novelty——a large country under one republican form of government——that would never be accepted by the electorate. These delegates knew… republican government could only exist in areas of small extent where the people kept close watch over their representatives.

Are you getting the picture? Remember I am using the teaching tool for teachers. But I am rearranging it and putting it in the CORRECT order so you can see what really went on there.

The guys pushing this thing knew that the time was running out to capitalize on the public’s image of them from the revolutionary war. They were extremely, crazily wealthy land owners.  How suspicious would you be if the 25 richest people in america, like Buffet, and Zuckerberg etc. all met in secret with no notes of the proceedings and came out and said, Eureka, we have drafted a document FOR THE PEOPLE? lol. Well that is what ACTUALLY happened that summer.

The guys driving this boat wanted a centralized BIG GOVERNMENT THEY controlled but they knew the people wouldn’t go for that, so they hid it in the details.

Several statesmen, especially George Washington, were concerned that the idea of an American mind that had emerged during the war with Britain was about to disappear and the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to foster the development of an American character.

It is a little known fact that George Washington actually started the foster care system in this country.  He wanted to be sure we all had a fair chance.

It is a little known fact that George Washington actually started the foster care system in this country to develop “the American character” . He was quite the humanitarian as far as a slave owner goes.

He wanted to foster “an American character”. Who is he to WANT anything for anyone else? What is “an American character” anyway?  This is just code talk for a centralized power structure to CONTROL the people “in the country” There already was a constitution.  It was a FEDERATION, not a giant centralized country the people had CHOSEN. He was “concerned” the “idea of an American mind” was about to disappear. I’m sure he was.  He understood that very soon they would no longer be able to play that “revolutionary war hero card” to trick people into buying this scam, so they needed to act NOW. Get it?

Who didn’t hear growing up as a kid in school about how Washington “could have been King” if he wanted, but chose not to because he was so noble and humble etc.  Where is there ANY actual evidence for this idea that the people were clamoring to have him be a king? Look at the actual government they had chosen. It is the opposite of a monarchy. It was totally decentralized. The idea that the people wanted him as a king is so ridiculous. Honestly, it is insulting. It’s like saying Obamacare is wildly popular. How do we know this? Oh, because the people administering Obamacare tell us so.It is absurd. Washington was a social climbing man who married a wealthy woman with connections and proceeded to parlay it into a huge land fortune.  That’s WHO HE WAS. 

They produced a constitution to create a giant centralized monster OVER TIME through the courts and then they sold it as a limited government.  It was the greatest deceptive trade practices act violation in history.  It is hardly a moment to rejoice and remember longingly as having “secured our freedom”.

And the delegates wondered whether or not the power to create a national university was implied within the meaning of the necessary and proper clause.”

Are you seeing this? This is the kind of propaganda they floated to get it passed.  Worried about the authority to create a national university? Cue the belly laugh.  are they kidding?  They “have the power” to tell you what kind of light bulbs you can use?

Known as the "final solution" this note shows the compromise proposed for how the constitution would be  ratified.

Known as the “final solution” this note shows the compromise proposed by Madison  for calculating the votes necessary to ratify the constitution.

Look at some facts. 70 delegates were chosen to go to the convention. Only 55 ever even WENT. So 20% of the people had NO REPRESENTATION AT ALL at the convention. It takes 75% of the states to get an amendment passed under the document, but did 75% of the delegates WHO EVEN ATTENDED sign the thing? NO. 39 of 55 THAT ATTENDED signed it. So 39 of a total of 70 CHOSEN ever signed it.  That is just 55% signing! And remember Rhode Island refused to even send any delegates because they smelled a rat just like Patrick Henry did. 

So how did they get this stinker through?  Simple they used the same kind of tricks they use now.  You know, where it goes to committee and then gets changed and then jammed through right before a holiday with low turn out etc.  Games people.  Games.

Remember they were sent by the states to fix the articles.  And the empowering document empaneled them: for the sole purpose of revising the articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress…”

So they WERE empowered to come up with a fix, and then REQUIRED to bring it back to Congress and have CONGRESS approve it.  So did they follow the law?  Of course not.  Do you see? the guys in charge DON’T bother to follow the law.  But they insist you “FOLLOW THE LAW”.  It is game theory.

The reason they didn’t bring it back to Congress for approval like they were SUPPOSED TO, is because,they knew that it would NEVER be approved by Congress, who were the Peoples’ representatives.  So instead they claimed they wanted to “take it to the people” directly.  What a charade.

In order to fulfill the revolutionary principle that the consent of the governed is the only legitimate foundation of government, the Framers proposed a popular-based ratification, rather than exclusively state-based ratification. But as a nod to reality, the voice of the whole people was collected through state-based popular conventions.

What double talk bs.  “As a nod to reality..”.  Look there was NOTHING preventing the vote from being a DIRECT VOTE of the people. But did they do that?  No, they put the vote in the hands of yet another group of “delegates” chosen to then go vote for the people.  Why? How does that make sense? Simple, it builds in a layer so they could manipulate and FIX that VOTE.  It’s always the same. They are simply liars. Like so many other politicians. They lie to people for a living and the people never bother to look into it.

Annual commemorative  re enactment of the unanimous vote that took place at the Delaware convention approving the constitution.

Annual commemorative re enactment of the unanimous vote that took place at the Delaware convention approving the constitution.  The participants are careful to accurately reproduce every detail of the actual vote.  

So how did the actual vote go down? Remember this is to CREATE AN ENTIRELY NEW GOVERNMENT? Surely in order to do that you have to get a “super majority” of votes to approve it in EACH state!!  So was any type of super majority required? Of course not. lol Why would they make a limitation like that part of the process?  That would only assure they could never get the power they wanted.  The basics are this. They needed 9 states to “approve”, meaning they needed to bribe at least one extra delegate from the needed 9 states.  Here are the 8 states where they didn’t get a super majority of 75% as is required to amend it.

 NY. 30-27,  NH 57-47, VA 89-79, RI 34-32, MA. 187-168, NC 194-77 Pa. 46-23,  S.C. 149-73

Look at THOSE NUMBERS. Look at how CLOSE that is in 5 of the states.  And that is using the jerry rigged system they created instead of just putting it to the people and requiring a SUPER majority of voters to approve in EACH STATE. Think about what that jacked up scammed up vote has wrought.  Is that what self determination looks like for a whole PEOPLE?  No, it is absurd.

And this doesn’t even take into account that ONCE AGAIN there are NO NOTES of the proceedings or the discussions that the delegates undertook before making their votes.  There were no supervisors, no people allowed to watch the proceedings, no oversight of the financial affairs of the delegates, no follow up to be sure they hadn’t been bribed  etc. etc.  Nothing.

Inspired by the freedoms in our country people around the world are inspired to copy the methods used to found our great nation.

Inspired by the freedoms in our country people around the world attempt to copy the methods used to count the votes for the founding of our great nation.

Oh and did I mention that there were three states, NJ, DE and GA who’s “delegates” all voted UNANIMOUSLY and quickly in favor. ??? And once again, no notes about what took place. Are you telling me that a document, created in secret with no authority to go do it and no notes or proceedings kept during it, and that was designed to form a WHOLE NEW government had UNANIMOUS approval from the people of three states in a matter of months!?  Absurd!

Here is what THE STATE OF DELAWARE ITSELF tells us about the “election” of these delegates who then went on to unanimously vote for it with virtually no known discussion or record of the proceedings.

The elections were held and thirty men were chosen to meet in Dover and decide the action Delaware would take on this important matter. History tells us that all the elections were orderly with one exception–the one held in Sussex County. here we find, from the words of a political pamphleteer of the time that armed men prevented a fair election.”

Are you seeing this?  This is from a government site!  Evidence of ARMED MEN preventing a fair election of the delegates?Nothing to see here, move along you had your election.  “The people have spoken”. Sound familiar?  How much constant vote fraud is there today? It was no different then. They don’t even claim to have bothered to keep any records etc.

Here is the last and most extensive quote I will put here. And remember this is the teachers teacher and it is discussing the extremely quick unanimous approval by Delaware, where Delawares’ own website says there were reports of armed men preventing a fair election of the electors. Biden’s home state, known far and wide as a center of corruption.

rigged voteUnfortunately, there is no record of the proceedings or significant correspondence that might illuminate what took place. It is clear, however, that Bedford and Bassett needed to do very little explaining because the 30 people who were elected were all Federalists, and all were in favor of adopting the Constitution before they even entered the ratifying convention. These 30 people showed up in Dover on December 4th, and these delegates representing the 60,000 people of Delaware had a momentous decision to make. Shall we or shall we not ratify this Constitution? Three days later, they ratified. There was not much conversation. They were all in agreement and they also behaved themselves. Not one deviated from what the voters understood when they were elected — I voted for you and you will vote for ratification… Now it might strike you as a little odd, given the conventional wisdom, that Delaware, the smallest state in the Union, had no objection to ratifying. There are all kinds of self-interested, even conspiratorial, theories that have circulated over the years to explain away this oddity including that Delaware ratified first in order to be favorably considered for federal grants.

Honestly, you can’t make the stuff up.  It is beyond farce.  And this is what we ARE TOLD represents self determination and freedom?  Remember, they did what the people had told them to do.  Really? Well what about those reports of armed men at the polls?  Does any of this pass the most basic smell test?  It doesn’t for me.

Go my brainwashed Brethren and investigate it yourself if you care to.  I encourage it.  But I think it is pretty clear what went on, and it isn’t the celebration of freedom you were told as a child.  Go nose around and see all of the “conspiratorial theories” that abound about bribes and everything else.

Why wasn’t it just PUT TO THE PEOPLE? Why wasn’t a super majority required to pass it? Why are there no records? Why was everything kept secret?

Doing THAT freedom dance baby!

Yes, he’s doing THAT freedom dance again baby!

Why? Well because they were selflessly creating a freedom machine for all times of course. A freedom machine for the ages. A freedom machine that the very same freedom machine itself now says you can’t leave. And who would want to leave such a wonderful freedom machine anyway? Only a crazy person or maybe a “Terrorist”.

My friend my work is done on this. The rest is up to you. I have showed you the framework. I have given you the keys. You can either crank it up and take it for a drive, or you can just leave it in the garage and go back to catch the season finale of  “The Voice”.  Gives July 4th a whole new perspective doesn’t it?

That’s all for now. Take care my brainwashed Brethren, don’t be down, live in the light and don’t forget to tell someone about the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

82 thoughts on “The PEOPLES’ case for what happened at the constitutional convention.

  1. JusticeGenie

    This is in reply to Robert Graf, December 18, 2015 at 9:55 am entry, since there is no Reply link for his post I’m entering it separately here.

    Hello Robert,

    Wow! 🙂 I was taken aback by your message. Do you actually read all that I said? If so, I do suggest you carefully re-read my post you replied to, and all my other ones, if you are willing. I say this only because the claims you made about me are completely baseless and illogical based on anything and everything I posted here. Which anyone can read anytime. How you concluded what you did, I have no idea. I assume you either misunderstood or made some assumptions on your own that have nothing to do with anything I stated or implied.

    But since from your words we seem to be completely apart, perhaps it would be best to have LegalMan chime in and add his independent viewpoint and perspective?

    That said, IMO we actually seem to be in full agreement in all areas except the following, regarding change vs. elimination of the government/system.

    I stand by my point that the system needs to be changed/replaced, not eliminated as you stated. In fact, doing what you proclaimed would be FAR worse than simply leaving the thoroughly corrupt, out-of-control existing system completely alone, as-is. Because your solution would surely lead to anarchy and complete destruction of the country, and relatively quickly to boot. If the system is eliminated who and how will our roads/highways be maintained, which are used and shared by all? What happens if one of the existing bridges collapses? Who is going to defend us if a malicious foreign country invades and plunders the country and enslaves the citizens? Would that be each citizen with his/her handgun or rifle, for those who have one? What if we’re attacked by nuclear weapons or some other form of mass destruction/death? Who is going to ensure that traveling on our streets is orderly and safe? Who is going to defend and protect a grandmother from being beaten and robbed? Who will negotiate our trade and peace agreements with other countries for the collective good of the whole? What about air traffic control? Etc. etc.

    What example in all of recorded history do you have for any country to exist and prosper without at least a minimal form of government of some kind? Whether it is called “government” or not makes no difference either. I happen to be for privatization and open competition for it all myself (including even defense—and have thought of ways to deal with the security/secrecy necessities). Someone covering the needs applicable to the whole. And what rationale do you have to support such a Utopian existence in this world, ever?

    In my opinion the overall best solution would be replacement of our current corrupt system with a bare minimum government that is run and controlled by the people to handle only those necessities that are common to all (national defense, road/highways/bridges, air traffic control, parks, law enforcement/judicial, and treaty negotiation and establishment — with little else, if anything). Its workers are all employees who are hired and fired at anytime (not elected politicians — hiring would be like electing though, and fitting like impeaching), and anyone/everyone can compete for any position, which is hired based on merit and proven qualifications. The constitution and law/code is completely rewritten and minimal (completely simplified), the IRS is unnecessary since the tax code is flat, simple and automated with only a few sound deductions allowed (gift giving and charitable contributions, retirement savings, and possibly mortgage loan interest). The >70,000 page tax code (federal alone) would be replaced by a 1-3 page code, and it would take a super majority vote of the entire civilian population to change it. There would be a requirement to have a balanced budget and no deficit spending built into the constitution. Etc. etc.

    If possible the entire tax system is eliminated altogether and replaced with a profit generation model where we sell our resources and inventions/work products to other countries and the profit from it all goes to cover the minimal gov operations. Also, natural resources are owned by the whole (all the citizens). So oil, coal, gold, silver, etc., mined from the earth, belongs to the people, not the few. The money is used to fund the government and offset taxes (if any) and any addition is saved in the national treasury which is 100% owned by the citizenry and/or simply paid to them quarterly or annually. Land ownership doesn’t mean you own what’s under the surface to an unlimited depth. I can go on and on.

    The main point here is I’m completely open and encouraging of creative new and better ways to govern and fund the governance, by and from the free market of all the citizens—resulting in the best overall solution that is chosen and controlled by the entire citizenry, thus governing themselves/ourselves.

    This is the last notable chuck of time and effort I intend to expend on this “discussion”. And I will only respond to rational and respectful discourse moving forward. If this overall site/blog is anything but intelligent, open-minded and respectful, this entry will be my last, and I will move on in search of any others who are actually serious and interested in resolving the massive problem we all face and much worse, our descendants will face.

    Anyway, you made it clear that you don’t agree with what I already said, and everything in this reply is in complete alignment with my points already made. Therefore I expect you will not agree with anything above either. So we can simply agree to disagree, agreeably, I suppose. 🙂

    Any other readers can and will decide for themselves whatever they decide. I for one was alone in my thinking before I happened into this refreshing site and all the spot-on and greatly helpful facts and rationale LegalMan provided wrt the various topics he has covered. And as I’ve already said, I’m open to and welcome any convincing intelligent argument contrary to any position I currently hold from my own research and thinking. I expect that to always be the case.

    Respectfully and sincerely,

    JG

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      JusticeGenie let me just say a few quick words. One you can’t allow someone else’s comment to get under your skin. who knows how comments were intended etc. and ultimately it matters not. Everyone has their own opinions. You have yours and I have mine. Don’t take comments too personally even if the are intended that way. Lol. The one thing I know is that 99 percent of the people will NEVER COMMENT. Lol. So don’t judge anything from the response you get. You may have a lot of support. Then again you may not. Lol.

      THe internet is an open forum. People say a lot of things. Some people are blunt or even a bit harsh. I go out of my way to not do that to individuals because ultimately I feel that reflects poorly on me and it doesn’t work. But that comes from being in a very antagonistic profession for 25 years. You learn a lot of lessons seeing written letters and comments go before a judge or jury and seeing how they can come across very negatively even if not intended to. I have learned that it is NEVER a mistake to give the benefit of the doubt and to show compassion. But I know most people have not had that experience so they may not see how that works. So I give them that same benefit of the doubt.

      I don’t mediate disagreements. If you believe what you have said in the past then you know that people make up their own minds. They change their own minds. You don’t have to defend yourself against everyone’s opinion. What you say speaks for itself.

      I get people all the time who tell me that nobody will take me seriously because I use lol or funny pics. I just laugh at it. If they don’t like my humor then oh well. I am not here for them. I am here for me. I assume and hope that everyone is here for themselves. Mr Graf included. He has made many good points many times. It is not my job to pass judgment on his tone or points. I hope I have made my point here. All are welcome here. Or to paraphrase the Nazarene. Many are called but few answer. Lol

      Anyway that is my two cents. My useless inflation ravaged two cents. — L

      Reply
      1. JusticeGenie

        Hi Legalman,

        Thanks for your “two cents”. More like two grand. 🙂

        I’m not used to this blog stuff. It’s my first time at it, actually. My degrees and background are in high-tech, and I’m used to solving highly complex problems for multi-national/global corporate enterprises, and building sophisticated technology products. The common denominator is problem solving, which I enjoy doing — for topic areas I am personally interested in that is. i.e., which I think are important toward helping people/society in some notable way. Whether one person, a few, or many.

        And this topic area happens to be one of those I’ve been interested in for many years.

        If you don’t hear from me again it’s not at all because I don’t appreciate you and the many informative and meaningful articles and dialog exchanges you have graciously shared with us all. Just the contrary actually. And I can assure you that you have already enriched my life. perhaps it’s needless to say, though I am grateful for that.

        PS – IMO your LOL’s and zany pics don’t hinder your credibility or effect negatively at all. On the contrary, they add to the affirmation that you’re genuine. And “PC” is nothing more than gift-wrapped BS. So I found it refreshing to read articles without all the phony shit sprinkled in. And I for one would be very grateful to have you on my side if I were ever in need of an attorney.

        Sincerely,
        JG

        Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          JusticeGenie, I am glad you enjoy my site and I’m glad I could help in whatever way. And yes, I put whatever I want into my stuff because it is there to be read. This isn’t an academic forum, or a brief with absurd rules and requirements that make no difference. It is a place to put out what’s in my head. Nothing more.

          Take care of yourself and perhaps I will hear from you again sometime. And in the pc spirit of the holidays, Merry RammaHannaKwanzaMas to you! lol — L

          Reply
    2. Robert Graf

      Mycommentsare inline to address everything in your response

      Hello Robert,

      Wow! 🙂 I was taken aback by your message. Do you actually read all that I said? If so, I do suggest you carefully re-read my post you replied to, and all my other ones, if you are willing. I say this only because the claims you made about me are completely baseless and illogical based on anything and everything I posted here. Which anyone can read anytime. How you concluded what you did, I have no idea. I assume you either misunderstood or made some assumptions on your own that have nothing to do with anything I stated or implied.

      Yes, I read everything you wrote on this entry. not just the one i responded to. the response was not baseless. the fact that you consider it baseless only verifies my conclusions.

      But since from your words we seem to be completely apart, perhaps it would be best to have LegalMan chime in and add his independent viewpoint and perspective?

      I stand by my reply. He’s free to jump in, but i have read his response, and i have found it to be reasonable.

      That said, IMO we actually seem to be in full agreement in all areas except the following, regarding change vs. elimination of the government/system.

      Yes, that is the basis for my reply. By what reasoning do you justify that any person should be compelled to comply with any form of government? If one’s action cause no harm, what is your justification for any agency to prohibit or otherwise interfere with thoseactions?

      I stand by my point that the system needs to be changed/replaced, not eliminated as you stated. In fact, doing what you proclaimed would be FAR worse than simply leaving the thoroughly corrupt, out-of-control existing system completely alone, as-is.

      What is your proof of this? What evidence do you have to support this claim?

      Because your solution would surely lead to anarchy and complete destruction of the country, and relatively quickly to boot.

      Do you understand what anarchy means? An – without, archy – rulership. Anarchy is not chaos, nor does it imply violence or criinal activity. It only means that nobody rules over anybody else, no matter what the mainstream media would have you believe. This statement is only further evidence to corroborate myprevious reply. The system requires that you believe that it is necessary. As for the country being destroyedl that is a separate issue. The notion of a country is an abstraction. Who had the right to declare any boundary that they declare themselves to be sovereign in regards to?

      If the system is eliminated who and how will our roads/highways be maintained, which are used and shared by all?

      The same people who built them. The government doesn’t build anything: it is all contracted out at exorbitant cost. Did you see the case where they finally caught some woman selling a hardware store variety common washer on a government contract for a million dollars? She was apparently looking for items that the major contractors wouldn’t bother with. They pay $500 dollars for a $5 hammer, and their procurement requirements require they also purchase $50 worth of replacement parts. For a $5 hammer. And that is just one item.

      What happens if one of the existing bridges collapses?

      The same thing that happens now. Are you saying that the existing system is keeping the bridges from collapsing? What is your evidence of this? There are bridges that are on private property, that the government has nothing to do with. And the infrastructure of this country is decaying as it is.

      Who is going to defend us if a malicious foreign country invades and plunders the country and enslaves the citizens?

      The same people who would do so now. Would you wait for the government to take action if this occurred now? I doubt you would survive if you did wait. And your statement implies that the justification of government is protection from *other governments*? And it is acceptable for *your* government to enslave the populace and plunder them, as they are doing now?

      Would that be each citizen with his/her handgun or rifle, for those who have one?

      Yes, that is who would have to do it. No difference.

      What if we’re attacked by nuclear weapons or some other form of mass destruction/death?

      If that is the case, the government would be of no help to you, whatsoever. Do you think they can prevent a nuclear reaction? Are you aware of the number of cases where the US government has already done these very things to its own populace already? In case you haven’t noticed, the government has provided nuclear shelter for themselves, not you nor I. So they’ll be safe from the mess that they keep provoking. Not to mention that it takes a government to threaten all life on the planet, as they do now.

      Who is going to ensure that traveling on our streets is orderly and safe?

      Orderly? What order do I need do I need to walk down the street. I don’t need the government telling me I can’t cross in the middle of the block. I check for traffic first. How hard is that? As for safety, it is government that has enabled the overcrowding of the metropolitan areas that has caused the mess. And like they say, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. I grew up in Chicago. It’s a mean city. I’ve walked a homeless person out of the alley during their last political convention, when the police were given free rein to beat up the homeless people and throw them in the bullpen for the duration of the convention, in order to keep them from bothering the hookers. Are you aware of how many unarmed people get assasinated by the police every year?

      Who is going to defend and protect a grandmother from being beaten and robbed?

      Are you unaware of the number of cases where grandmothers have been beaten or killed when swat teams can’t even find the right address? I have served jury duty on an armed robbery case in Cabrini Green. The victim was a grandmother. Nobody stopped the robbery. I learned quite a bit about the *justice* system from that. It was a sham. The judge was a racist fool. The prosecutors were fools, too.

      Who will negotiate our trade and peace agreements with other countries for the collective good of the whole?

      What is this collective good? What is this whole? what is the need for peace afgreements, except for the transgressions of another government?

      What about air traffic control? Etc. etc.

      Air traffic control does require coordination, but it is hardly something that requires anything like the massive government intrusion on the populace. Certainly not one hell bent on such psychopathic policies such as mutual assured destruction.

      What example in all of recorded history do you have for any country to exist and prosper without at least a minimal form of government of some kind?

      What do you mean by prosper? What example is there in history of any government not infringing on the right sof the individual totend to their own needs without the interference of others? How is anyone, or any group justified in declaring themselves to be ‘government’? It’s all a variation of the ‘divine right to rule’ declared by the self proclaimed ‘descendants of the gods’? Do you remember your junior high social studies (maybe called ‘civics’) class? The first words out of the teacher’s mouth were, ” The Epic of Gilgamesh is considered to be the bebeginning of history, because it is the first story written by an author whose life was independently verified.” I remembered that sentence when I heard it again when I took an ancient history class in college. Same exact sentence to start the class. Not any further mention of Gilgamesh other than that. And it was never on any test. I would think that the beginning of history would be something significant to the class. History is supposedly facts, so what are the facts about Gilgamesh? Two parts god, one part human. Slew the beast Huwawa and the Bull of the Heavens. Rejected the marriage proposal of the goddess Inanna. sought out the last living survivors of the deluge, in a quest to achieve immortality, as was granted to Atrahasis by the gods. Just to mention a few key points. Any wonder why there was no further mention of Gilgamesh? And then, they jumped right into civilization. As if civilization developed after the rule of Gilgamesh, when, in fact, it was already extant. So, civilization is, by their own definition, prehistoric, as its tennants were already established beore his reign. And when they could no longer fool the populace with the descendants of the gods hoax, they came up with the notion of the republic. Read ‘The Republic’ by Plato. He considered the populace to be a herd to be led by the ‘elite’. Let anyone declare themself to be elite, and how long before they abuse it? That horse left the barn long ago.

      Whether it is called “government” or not makes no difference either. I happen to be for privatization and open competition for it all myself (including even defense—and have thought of ways to deal with the security/secrecy necessities).

      Why the need for secrecy? What do they have to hide? Are they not supposed to be responsible to the populace?

      Someone covering the needs applicable to the whole.

      What whole is this? Needs are food clothing and shelter. Why would you expect anyone to tend to your needs before their own needs? Are you incapable of tending to your own needs? I help others, but government never does anything as efficiently. Organic structure is from the bottom up. All of the material domain functions like that, except government, which is top down.

      And what rationale do you have to support such a Utopian existence in this world, ever?

      What is uptopian about tending to one’s own needs? There will still be hunger, disease, predation by wild animals and the ravages of nature, just as it is now.

      In my opinion the overall best solution would be replacement of our current corrupt system with a bare minimum government that is run and controlled by the people to handle only those necessities that are common to all (national defense, road/highways/bridges, air traffic control, parks, law enforcement/judicial, and treaty negotiation and establishment — with little else, if anything).

      None of what you mention are necessities. Food, clothing and shelter are necessities.

      Its workers are all employees who are hired and fired at anytime (not elected politicians — hiring would be like electing though, and fitting like impeaching), and anyone/everyone can compete for any position, which is hired based on merit and proven qualifications.

      You are free to participate in any system you choose. You have no right to expect the same of anyone else. The only legitimate function of any government is the protection of the individual’s right to tend to their own needs, free from the interfernence of others.

      The constitution and law/code is completely rewritten and minimal (completely simplified), the IRS is unnecessary since the tax code is flat, simple and automated with only a few sound deductions allowed (gift giving and charitable contributions, retirement savings, and possibly mortgage loan interest).

      Who has the right to the fruits of anyone else’s labor? what is your justification of any cumpulsory system?

      The >70,000 page tax code (federal alone) would be replaced by a 1-3 page code, and it would take a super majority vote of the entire civilian population to change it.

      You can submit to any system you want. You have no right to impose it on anyone else. It doesn’t matter how many other people agree to it. Nobody owns anyone else.

      There would be a requirement to have a balanced budget and no deficit spending built into the constitution. Etc. etc.

      There is no justification for any government actions other than protection of the individual’s right to tend to their own needs without the interference of others.

      If possible the entire tax system is eliminated altogether and replaced with a profit generation model where we sell our resources and inventions/work products to other countries and the profit from it all goes to cover the minimal gov operations.

      Tend to your own needs. Don’t interfere in the affairs of others.

      Also, natural resources are owned by the whole (all the citizens).

      The Earth does not belong to us. We belong to the Earth.

      So oil, coal, gold, silver, etc., mined from the earth, belongs to the people, not the few.

      Oil, gold and silver have very little purpose regarding one tending to their needs.

      The money is used to fund the government and offset taxes (if any) and any addition is saved in the national treasury which is 100% owned by the citizenry and/or simply paid to them quarterly or annually.

      Money is an illusion. Authority is an illusion. The entire materium may well be an illusion.

      Land ownership doesn’t mean you own what’s under the surface to an unlimited depth.

      Nobody has the right to declare any portion of the planet as their property. The Earth does not belong to us. We belong to the Earth.

      I can go on and on.

      Likewise, here.

      The main point here is I’m completely open and encouraging of creative new and better ways to govern and fund the governance, by and from the free market of all the citizens—resulting in the best overall solution that is chosen and controlled by the entire citizenry, thus governing themselves/ourselves.

      You have no right to govern anyone else. Nor does anyone else. no majority or plurality does either.

      This is the last notable chuck of time and effort I intend to expend on this “discussion”.

      You’re free to do as you wish. i object to your insistence on intefering in anyone else’s actions that cause no harm. Cooperation is fine. Compulsion is not.

      And I will only respond to rational and respectful discourse moving forward. If this overall site/blog is anything but intelligent, open-minded and respectful, this entry will be my last, and I will move on in search of any others who are actually serious and interested in resolving the massive problem we all face and much worse, our descendants will face.

      You are only responsible for your own actions. I neither need nor want anyone else deciding my course of action for me.

      Anyway, you made it clear that you don’t agree with what I already said, and everything in this reply is in complete alignment with my points already made. Therefore I expect you will not agree with anything above either. So we can simply agree to disagree, agreeably, I suppose. 🙂

      You are entitled to believe whatever you want, whether I agree to disagree or not. That doesn’t make any sense to me. Seems to me that merely a platitude.

      Any other readers can and will decide for themselves whatever they decide. I for one was alone in my thinking before I happened into this refreshing site and all the spot-on and greatly helpful facts and rationale LegalMan provided wrt the various topics he has covered. And as I’ve already said, I’m open to and welcome any convincing intelligent argument contrary to any position I currently hold from my own research and thinking. I expect that to always be the case.

      It doesn’t seem like that to me. It seems that you can’t conceive of the posibility of anything much more than what you have experienced. you seem to believe that government, for one thing, is necessary. This has been programmed into you. It is all you have ever known. In order to see the future, you must forget yourself.

      Reply
      1. JusticeGenie

        Hi Legalman,

        I noticed that you didn’t post the long reply I made to Robert Graf’s last posting.

        I certainly can understand why, considering it included some personal points. Though only in response to and definitively refuting his unsubstantiated personal claims and attacks. I have no idea why you approved and allowed his largely baseless posting, loaded with personal assumptions and statements that are not only wrong, they are without citation, reference or merit–while rejecting mine. Of course that is your right and decision alone, not mine or anyone else.

        Either way, I don’t blame you at all. As it sounds like two petulant children fighting over nonsense. 🙂 And two wrongs never make a right. I know better and let my emotions get the best of me. No excuse, my fault alone. (Note that I toned that long reply down before posting it. The original was more intense. :))

        I took the time to rewrite it, and stripped out the various personal stuff included in my last one, and cut out many of the other examples and counterpoints. It was a worthwhile exercise for me alone, for dealing with such persons and attacks in general (as mentioned earlier I am new to this entire world of blogging in the open world). Though perhaps my pared down response can add some value and benefit to the conversation and your blog as well? I’ll go ahead and post it next and leave that to you to determine and decide.

        (No need to “Approve”/post this reply either. It’s intended for you alone as I have no other way of contacting you. That said, feel free to post it if you wish also.)

        Cheers! : – )
        JG

        Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          JusticeG it wasn’t that I didn’t post, it’s just that my software requires I “approve” the comments. I don’t normally read them prior to “approving” if they are in response to someone else’s comments. People are free to have whatever conversation they care between them on a point.

          So hopefully that clears that up. — L

          Reply
          1. JusticeGenie

            Thank you Legalman. I appreciate your openness to free expression.

            I left out a lot of counterpoints in my last one (several that were included in the prior). I can submit them later if helpful. Though I don’t believe it’s necessary at this point, nor is it necessarily worth any additional time.

            I’m in the process of taking action on my beliefs rather than just talking about them, as I think that is the only way to make a substantive positive difference ( proverbially “move the needle”) in all probability. Otherwise it would depend on someone else stepping up and acting and who knows if anyone will care enough or believe in the same.

            High regards,
            JG

        2. Robert Grf

          “Either way, I don’t blame you at all. As it sounds like two petulant children fighting over nonsense.”

          Why do you use the disclaimer “I will only reply, if at all, if your words are respectful, absent of personal attacks and are of sound reason and logic.” when you write this? You’re free to characterize your comments this way, but when you imply that about me, it undernmines your moral high ground.

          Reply
          1. JusticeGenie

            I meant every word of it. It’s my opinion And I stand behind it. You’re the one who began the personal attacks and other such unsubstantiated nonsense, not me. And never in-person. What does that say about you? Go re-read everything from the beginning and answer the question honestly to yourself, if you are able and willing.

            And I never claimed any moral high ground anywhere on this site or anywhere else. Where exactly did I do so? Provide any quote/citation in support of your usual baseless, arrogant personal statements.

          2. Robert Graf

            “I meant every word of it. It’s my opinion And I stand behind it. You’re the one who began the personal attacks and other such unsubstantiated nonsense, not me.”

            I said you were programmed, and you’ve written nothing to disprove that to me. And your characterization of my comments as “personal attacks” is just more of the same. And then, in the very same sentence, you characterize them as “unsubstantiated nonsense”. So, which is it, an attack or nonsense? If it was an attack, you must have made sense of to determine this. If it was indeed nonsense, then what is your basis for interpreting it as an attack? Personally, I don’t think words can cause me any harm, so the concept of attacking someone with words makes no sense to me.

            “And never in-person.”

            This isn’t a complete sentence, and it doesn’t follow from the previous one, so I have no comment.

            “What does that say about you?”

            It says nothing. Any meaning anyone assigns to it is up to them.

            “Go re-read everything from the beginning and answer the question honestly to yourself, if you are able and willing.”

            I have read it all. It is collectivist and inconsistent, quite often circular reasoning. Filled with appeals to emotion.

            “And I never claimed any moral high ground anywhere on this site or anywhere else. Where exactly did I do so? Provide any quote/citation in support of your usual baseless, arrogant personal statements.”

            Your characterization of my reply as an attack is the first one. And there’s this from your first reply:

            “This is the last notable chuck of time and effort I intend to expend on this “discussion”. And I will only respond to rational and respectful discourse moving forward.”

            My interpretation is that somehow, you consider your opinion sacred, and expect some formal protocol in order to reply, which implies some sense of ‘righteousness’. And somehow, I’m arrogant for having an opinion contrary to yours. I could find consistency in your response if you used the word rude, but arrogance is another issue. None of your comment seems consistent with the choice of that particular word.

            As for your use of my “usual, baseless” comments, you should have called them out in your reply, so that I could substantiate any of them, if that is your objection. Instead, you just responded with a diatribe that lacked focus and cohesion, as far as I could interpret.

      2. JusticeGenie

        Hello Robert,

        Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to provide a thoughtful, in-depth reply. I respect and appreciate that, and thought the least I could and should do is return the same one last time, and answer the specific questions you raised.

        I’ll start with the conclusion. That is, your last reply served to prove my point, and in fact, showed that you actually agree with me. ☺ Let me explain.

        First, I’m ignoring all the statements you made claiming my position has anything to do with submitting to any government, ruling over any person or that our existing system is working. Since I never said or implied anything even close to that and you didn’t provide any citations/quotes from me so there is nothing for me to defend or address about it. Furthermore, the most important thing I did say completely negates these contrary statements: “…in my opinion NO human being is qualified or capable of properly and justly ruling over any other human being. None. Ever.” This is the key principle, the rest is just implementation per full adherence to the essential principle. (BTW, this is why I mentioned in the outset of my last reply that it seemed to me we were far more in agreement than not.) I’m also ignoring all the personal attacks and judgments since they are not relevant to the topic matter (which is not about me) and impossible for you to know either way.

        Since only a single contrary example is all that is necessary to disprove a supposition, I will do so and more here—providing at least two.

        Regarding the law/order/governance need in the area of street/traffic/road travel I pointed out, as just one of very many example areas, unfortunately you picked one that is among the least relevant: “What order do I need do I need to walk down the street.” Although there are many much more relevant areas of concern and need on this topic matter, let’s stick with this example you provided.

        Say an impatient driver is stuck in slowing moving traffic for am extra 5 or 10 minutes or so and doesn’t feel like waiting for it. Since he knows there is no government and its laws, and no consequences for his actions (other than someone shooting him who is carrying a gun at the time, which doesn’t bother him since he has a gun too – plus he added armor plating to his car walls and windows just in case), he decides to cut over to the sidewalk and “accidentally” kills two and maims/cripples a third (whether intentional or not, and perhaps one of them is one of your own loved ones). He doesn’t stop, rather, speeds up so as not to get caught and hits a fourth in the process then returns to the street far down the sidewalk ahead of the traffic jam. He’s arrives at the place he was headed all excited he got away with it and saved 10 minutes to boot! He’s not concern since he is lacking moral character and conscience and there are no laws he broke or at least no consequences to be concerned with other than someone who might (not necessarily) expend the time, effort and money and have the wherewithal and courage to find him and track him down. And even if so, perhaps will end up dead or maimed as well. Either way, he’s not going to lose any sleep over it. All is good and fair in his opinion. After all, the underlying rule as he understands and believes is “every man for himself” and “survival belongs to the fittest”.

        Also, who built the street the person is walking down? The private sector? How are they compensated for it? Who makes the rules for driving on it and how does it differ from all the other streets/highways owned and built by the private sector? What is to stop a single corporation (hierarchical structure oligarchy) from monopolizing the entire industry, especially considering the enormous barriers to entry for such a private sector undertaking and charging whatever they want for it? What if the private sector owner decides “xxxx category people” (black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.) are not allowed to drive on their roads? Or if they feel like taking target practice at vehicles randomly with their assault rifles for the fun of it? Or to destroy all red cars because they don’t like the color red. What if one of their stray bullets hits someone not walking on “their” streets? Etc. etc.

        That said, since you stated that “Nobody has the right to declare any portion of the planet as their property” there can be no private enterprise solution, and you believe there should be no government (as you made it crystal clear you disagree with me that one is necessary), then there is no possible solution at all in what you are proposing. This actually is a form of oppression, as it forces free people to not be able to advance and prosper and pursue their own personally determined happiness to the maximum of their ability and desire while not harming any others in the process.

        Regarding, “Nobody has the right to declare any portion of the planet as their property. The Earth does not belong to us. We belong to the Earth”, this particular one appeals to me very much, personally and in general—being the romantic and idealist that I am. I believe in this wholeheartedly from a perfect justice standpoint, and poetically. What does a person actually own? Each of came into the world with nothing and we will leave the same way. (I would further seek to make the case that we don’t even own ourselves (or deserve to own ourselves at least) since we didn’t create ourselves.) The only problem with “Nobody has the right to declare any portion of the planet as their property” is it is utopian (as said) and does not and likely never can exist here on earth, operationally, when it comes to addressing the free will choices, acts, needs and ways of two or more human beings existing on said earth at any given time—at least the way humanity is and has been since the beginning of recorded/known history to date (if you are a Christian, then “not until Christ returns”).

        According to this principle, for example: Let’s say you decide to build a home on a particular lot for yourself and your family. You work very hard, and all your children, extended family and friends do as well. A year later you finish. A month after that, another fellow citizen of earth travels by your home, sees it and likes it. Since nobody “owns” it, according to this “law”, then the traveler decides he’s going to move in with his family. Since it’s not yours, according to this principle, including the lot it sits on or any of the materials from and of earth used to build it, then you have no right to defend or stop these acts. Otherwise you are breaking the law. And if there is no law, whether explicit or implied, then you could stop him if he doesn’t stop you first. He may, for instance, decide to watch you carefully and wait for the opportune time to overtake you (even with your sidearm strapped to your waste), tie you up, rape your wife and daughters, make you all slaves and/or do whatever he feels like doing and live happily ever after without consequences from the “evil government”. (That is, until the same thing happens to him and his family. And so on. A life of fear, chaos and terrible suffering—which is no life at all.)

        And if you agree that there is the need for law and protection for the above case or any case I have presented to you, then you believe in the need and benefit of government plain and simple, necessarily and definitively. In short, it would mean you actually agree with me and all of your disagreement and contrary position were for naught. (BTW, this particular point has nothing to do with the manner and method in which said government is formed and administered.)

        And what if, for instance, there is a lovely plot of oceanfront property in a most beautiful and convenient/ideal location. Who has the right to that land in your lawless world? What if ten million people greatly desire the same property, and only that property among all other lots they have seen or are aware of? What if others desire it tomorrow? Who gets it? If your answer is, whoever gets to it first and defends it, as was tried to immense failure throughout recorded history, and caused the inhabitants to live in a state of constant fear and dread along the way, thus essentially losing their true liberty and life as a result. So not only is that a bad answer, it also breaks the very law you stated: “Nobody has the right to declare any portion of the planet as their property.” With the lawless society you so firmly cling to, that alone is sufficient to prove the folly in it. It is literally impossible to achieve your utopian type society with the solution you proposed. There MUST be a fair and mutually agreed way of acquiring the land (call it owning or renting or borrowing or temporarily using or whatever you wish) and living on it without fear and wasted time, treasure and effort protecting it from being taken from them. And it is not possible to do so in this world we live in without some form of collective agreement (i.e., “government”).
        (BTW, it must be lawless since you made it clear that there is no place for a collective group determining what there own governing rules et al. are to be. Unfortunately one cannot have it both ways. You either agree with me or you do not. And you made it clear that you do not.)

        Lastly, and this alone is all that is necessary to prove my point, you agreed with me that air traffic control governance for the whole (overall society) was needed. Not just here in the US but also in and between all nations of the world. There you have it. Even if this is the only thing/area you believe to be necessary, it is one thing and that is all that is required to prove my point that a government (and like I said, regardless of what you call it) is indeed necessary. And I consistently said the government should be only for the absolutely minimum (necessary and sufficient only) needs and/or benefits of the collective, whole society.

        Note that I never once said or implied that our existing government, including air traffic control implementation, is the best way to go. And I already suggested that it should be privatized and competed for. However, either way, it still serves the whole (not just one person or a few persons in society) therefore
        would fall into the category of “government” managed/addressed. That is, until (if/when) it is no longer necessary from technological advancement or innovative process breakthrough from the competitive free enterprise system that is focused on the matter (hired and paid by the citizens).

        Besides national defense (such as protection from being taken over and made work slaves or murdered by the Nazis, fascists and Bushido warriors in WWII), there are many areas requiring such rules, standards and cooperation for maximum peace, justice/fairness and prosperity. Such as invention protection (patent, trademark and copyright), trade agreements between nations, justice agreements between nations (e.g., for the case of a person or group who steals from or kills a citizen and flees to another country – even if the “law” is “you are free to come to our nation with your weapons and go after the criminal in any way you choose at your own risk”), border management (if that’s not covered by the national defense), property rights and protection, …

        Obviously some sort of fair, just, balanced, agreed rules/laws need to govern any civilized society. And IMO done so by the people themselves since we do not have the option of a perfect, all-loving, all-knowing, completely just benevolent despot or God in the physical form to do so. That’s why I have proposed and firmly believe that universal principles that span all “races”, cultures, religions, genders, sexual orientations, et al., not people, should “rule” (i.e., cause maximum freedom, opportunity to pursue happiness, cooperation, And the people hire/fire administrators to “govern” (serve the collective whole).

        Additionally, since its very relevant here, to answer your question, “Do you understand what anarchy means?”, and address your incorrect claim after it, “Anarchy is not chaos, nor does it imply violence or criinal activity.”: yes, I do know what anarchy means, and what you said about it is incorrect. And I stand by what I said about it.

        Here’s the definition (i.e., lawlessness, CHAOS, disorder, confusion, absence of a cohesive principle, …):

        an·ar·chy
        (ăn′ər-kē)
        n. pl. an·ar·chies
        1. Absence of any form of political authority.
        2. Political disorder and confusion.
        3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

        American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright
        © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by
        Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

        anarchy
        (ˈænəkɪ)
        n
        1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) general lawlessness and disorder, esp
        when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
        2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the absence or lack of government
        3. the absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos
        4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the theory or practice of political anarchism

        Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers
        1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

        an•ar•chy
        (ˈæn ər ki)
        n.
        1. a state of society without government or law.
        2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
        3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a
        political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of
        individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
        4. confusion; chaos; disorder.

        Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd.
        Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

        anarchy
        An absence of government and law; political disorder, often accompanied by violence.
        See also order and disorder. See also: Government Extreme disorder. See
        also government. See also: Order and Disorder

        -Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

        SOURCE: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anarchy (other: http://www.merriamwebster.
        com/dictionary/anarchy, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/anarchy)

        Finally, if someone wishes to live apart from society, or form their own society, they are free to do so in my opinion and recommendation (and nothing I ever said or implied was to the contrary), provided they don’t harm or impose their will on any other person. So what I have proposed solves for both the individual and the community; and all community types. With the community ruling itself therefore no person or group/government above it and no possibility for oppression other than its own oppression to itself. i.e., this solves for everyone on earth now and forever without any limitation, restriction or oppression of any kind. I have yet to find or come up with a better solution than this to date. And if I do, or anyone presents a convincingly better one than what I proposed, I will be quick to adapt it and make it my new preference and do what I willing and able at the time to support it and further it into existence.

        In closing, regardless of all said by both of us here, it is not and never will be a matter of whether “you’re right” or “I’m right” in this or anything else. That is reserved exclusively and entirely for the creator of whatever is good and just and right. The one who created all natural and common law—both moral and physical/scientific. The same one who gave everyone, regardless of “race”, culture, language, geography and religious practice and/or belief (or not), having a healthy, working mind the inner sense and knowing that murdering another innocent, peaceful human being for some form of personal gain is universally “wrong” and “bad”.

        The only thing any of us can do is see/understand, accept and choose, via the free will which has also been graced to us by the same creator, whatever is good and right (again, that neither of us created) or not choose and act accordingly. IMO, no person deserves any sort of “credit” for doing so other than to use said free will instead of choosing the contrary. And there is ample evidence available to us from throughout recorded history demonstrating that doing so ultimately overall benefits the one who does so as well as others (the world in general) to some degree depending on the topic and act.

        Most importantly perhaps, in my opinion all of us (myself included at the top of the list) can and should take a step back, chill out, laugh, and not take ourselves and the world in general, with its irrational, emotional inhabitants, so seriously. And to watch more movies like The Great Beauty. ☺

        That’s all I have to say about this for now. If you should happen to reply to or reference this, and I read it, I will only reply, if at all, if your words are respectful, absent of personal attacks and are of sound reason and logic. I remain on a continuous learning and growing track myself, and I believe one can learn from anyone or anything.

        Respectfully, and best wishes,

        JG

        Reply
        1. Robert Grf

          “Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to provide a thoughtful, in-depth reply. I respect and appreciate that, and thought the least I could and should do is return the same one last time, and answer the specific questions you raised.

          I’ll start with the conclusion. That is, your last reply served to prove my point, and in fact, showed that you actually agree with me. ☺ Let me explain.”

          I don’t agree with you. You have misinterpreted my reply if you have drawn that conclusion.

          “First, I’m ignoring all the statements you made claiming my position has anything to do with submitting to any government, ruling over any person or that our existing system is working. Since I never said or implied anything even close to that and you didn’t provide any citations/quotes from me so there is nothing for me to defend or address about it.”

          Your entire message had that implication. What I was addressing was your inability and/or refusal to see that. The system depends on that, since the controllers are a very small minority. And when I ask these questions, you just ignore them, and take it as an insult, as if you were above questioning. You then characterize my questioning as a personal attack, it seems. I cut and paste your entire reply to address every point. You just make a vague characterization and ignore my objections. And then, you characterize my response as an attack. On the other hand, you just make general replies to my points, taking them out of context, and resort to the fallacies of generalization and specificity, which I point out.

          “Furthermore, the most important thing I did say completely negates these contrary statements: “…in my opinion NO human being is qualified or capable of properly and justly ruling over any other human being. None. Ever.” This is the key principle, the rest is just implementation per full adherence to the essential principle.”

          Then, by this, you would agree that no form of government could ever be considered to be just. And, by your own logic, then you are the one who is in agreement with me, not the other way around. The rest of your argument is flawed and/or in conflict with this principle.

          “(BTW, this is why I mentioned in the outset of my last reply that it seemed to me we were far more in agreement than not.) I’m also ignoring all the personal attacks and judgments since they are not relevant to the topic matter (which is not about me) and impossible for you to know either way.”

          This seems to be the nature of your posts. Anything that challenges your position is taken as an insult, and rather than address the issue, you take some moral high ground, as if your opinion alone absolves you of any criticism. You are denigrating my argument in a manner that is impossible to address logically. It is a straw man, at best.

          “Since only a single contrary example is all that is necessary to disprove a supposition, I will do so and more here—providing at least two.”

          This works both ways, and you have already totally undermined your position with your statement that no person is ever qualified to justly rule over another. Also, exercising a single ‘freedom’ that is ‘allowed’ by the rulers does not negate the overall slavery. Freedom is absence of the rule of another. A single restriction, and there is no freedom.

          “Regarding the law/order/governance need in the area of street/traffic/road travel I pointed out, as just one of very many example areas, unfortunately you picked one that is among the least relevant: “What order do I need do I need to walk down the street.” Although there are many much more relevant areas of concern and need on this topic matter, let’s stick with this example you provided.”

          I picked that as an example, as it is simple, fundamental, and universal. And, notice, you are berating my choice, while, it seems to me, that you object to me dong the same to you. Keep that in mind when as you reply. You don’t seem to take any criticism very well.

          “Say an impatient driver is stuck in slowing moving traffic for am extra 5 or 10 minutes or so and doesn’t feel like waiting for it. Since he knows there is no government and its laws, and no consequences for his actions (other than someone shooting him who is carrying a gun at the time, which doesn’t bother him since he has a gun too – plus he added armor plating to his car walls and windows just in case), he decides to cut over to the sidewalk and “accidentally” kills two and maims/cripples a third (whether intentional or not, and perhaps one of them is one of your own loved ones).”

          The voice of reason requires no appeal to emotion. This is what the politicians do: instill fear for purposes of compliance. This is one of the reasons that I contend that you wear your chains willingly. You have made false appeal to emotion, here. A single, simple example should be enough to illustrate your point.

          “He doesn’t stop, rather, speeds up so as not to get caught and hits a fourth in the process then returns to the street far down the sidewalk ahead of the traffic jam.”

          What difference does this make? If he slowed down, and observed all the other laws, would this make up for his previous actions? This is how the government justifies taking away freedoms one by one. As an example, the argument for limiting free speech (freedom of speech doesn’t extend to yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater) is just one example. They paint a visual picture of granny and the grandchildren being trampled by a panic stricken mob. ‘Fire’ and ‘crowded theater’ are enough to throw reason out the window. But there is no fire, and nobody is going to get up and run, until they at least see smoke. This is a foot in the door, also.

          “He’s arrives at the place he was headed all excited he got away with it and saved 10 minutes to boot!”

          Just more irrelevant emoting, here. Does it take a difference if he saved the 10 minutes? Would it be ameliorate the circumstances if he was late?”

          “He’s not concern since he is lacking moral character and conscience and there are no laws he broke or at least no consequences to be concerned with other than someone who might (not necessarily) expend the time, effort and money and have the wherewithal and courage to find him and track him down. And even if so, perhaps will end up dead or maimed as well. Either way, he’s not going to lose any sleep over it. All is good and fair in his opinion. After all, the underlying rule as he understands and believes is “every man for himself” and “survival belongs to the fittest”.”

          More appeal to emotion, here. If there was someone with the resources to track him down, are you suggesting that this wouldn’t have happened in the first place?

          “Also, who built the street the person is walking down? The private sector? How are they compensated for it?”

          So, if the person who ran the victims over built the street, then he would be justified in murder? And if the builder of the road was or was not compensated, it would alter the impact of the action?

          “Who makes the rules for driving on it and how does it differ from all the other streets/highways owned and built by the private sector?”

          So, there should be roads where one is allowed to run people over, in order to save time? Or, somebody should be allowed to build such a road?

          “What is to stop a single corporation (hierarchical structure oligarchy) from monopolizing the entire industry, especially considering the enormous barriers to entry for such a private sector undertaking and charging whatever they want for it?”

          This is exactly what government has done, and you don’t seem to be able to see that. You seem to think that is justified, somehow, because you derive benefit from the present conditions. This ignores all the slaughter of innocents that occurred to obtain this hegemony.

          “What if the private sector owner decides “xxxx category people” (black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.) are not allowed to drive on their roads?”

          The government has done this. And worse. They interred American citizens of Japanese descent purely on racial grounds. not only were they not allowed to drive, they were imprisoned.

          “Or if they feel like taking target practice at vehicles randomly with their assault rifles for the fun of it?”

          They do this, as well. All over the world.

          “Or to destroy all red cars because they don’t like the color red.”

          So, it’s OK if they decide that blue cars are fair game? You keep adding examples, as if this somehow justifies your position, even though you are straying from that position.

          “What if one of their stray bullets hits someone not walking on “their” streets? Etc. etc.”

          They call it ‘collateral damage’ if they do this in a foreign country. If it happens in this country, they do an internal investigation, and declare it justified or unavoidable.

          “That said, since you stated that “Nobody has the right to declare any portion of the planet as their property” there can be no private enterprise solution, and you believe there should be no government (as you made it crystal clear you disagree with me that one is necessary), then there is no possible solution at all in what you are proposing.”

          What is it you claim I am proposing?

          “This actually is a form of oppression, as it forces free people to not be able to advance and prosper and pursue their own personally determined happiness to the maximum of their ability and desire while not harming any others in the process.”

          How does it force anybody to do anything? You have made a straw man argument here.

          “Regarding, “Nobody has the right to declare any portion of the planet as their property. The Earth does not belong to us. We belong to the Earth”, this particular one appeals to me very much, personally and in general—being the romantic and idealist that I am. I believe in this wholeheartedly from a perfect justice standpoint, and poetically. What does a person actually own? Each of came into the world with nothing and we will leave the same way. (I would further seek to make the case that we don’t even own ourselves (or deserve to own ourselves at least) since we didn’t create ourselves.)”

          I’m not commenting on this portion, but just separating it out, to make my response to the next portion less ambiguous.

          “The only problem with “Nobody has the right to declare any portion of the planet as their property” is it is utopian” (as said) and does not and likely never can exist here on earth,…”

          So, you’re saying that since it does not exist now that it can never exist? This also implies that there was always ownership of the land, right from the big bang, if you believe in that theory. Just because you have never known anything different, it doesn’t rule out the possibility. Humans existed before the concept of ownership of anything. you have become so infatuated with your materialism that you can’t see any other possibilities.

          “ …operationally, when it comes to addressing the free will choices, acts, needs and ways of two or more human beings existing on said earth at any given time—at least the way humanity is and has been since the beginning of recorded/known history to date (if you are a Christian, then “not until Christ returns”).”

          The Epic of Gilgamesh is considered to be the beginning of history, because that is the first story written by an author whose life was independently verified. those were the first words out the social studies teacher’s mouth in seventh grade. Same words from the teacher of the ancient history class I took in college. Dated back to around 2800 BC, or so, according to the Sumerian List of Kings, which was the independent verification referred to. And civilization was already in existence, well before this.

          “According to this principle, for example: Let’s say you decide to build a home on a particular lot for yourself and your family. You work very hard, and all your children, extended family and friends do as well.”

          Does it make a difference if nobody worked hard? Who determines what is hard work, and how much hard work implies what status?

          “A year later you finish. A month after that, another fellow citizen of earth travels by your home, sees it and likes it. Since nobody “owns” it, according to this “law”, then the traveler decides he’s going to move in with his family. Since it’s not yours, according to this principle, including the lot it sits on or any of the materials from and of earth used to build it, then you have no right to defend or stop these acts. Otherwise you are breaking the law.”

          What law? And, since you seem to be ignoring it, government doesn’t allow you to own any land. You are only paying rent. you don’t own something if you have to keep paying for it.

          “And if there is no law, whether explicit or implied, then you could stop him if he doesn’t stop you first.”

          And, if there is law, then how is this prevented? It’s not. Anti never stops governments from doing this both domestically and abroad. the government you are defending is the largest violator of the principles you think they are protecting you from. Just because you are not on their enemy list at the moment, you don’t be able to see the cuts of the death by a thousand cuts.

          “He may, for instance, decide to watch you carefully and wait for the opportune time to overtake you (even with your sidearm strapped to your waste), tie you up, rape your wife and daughters, make you all slaves and/or do whatever he feels like doing and live happily ever after without consequences from the “evil government”.”

          What you are describing here, is exactly what the game of government is. I believe it was Neils Bohr who said, “Revolutionary ideas very seldom gain acceptance by convincing the opposition. Rather, they are accepted by a generation that has grown up with them.” This is a very old game, and Socrates was put to death for corrupting the youth. His student was Plato, who resorted to the very same form of argument that you employ. You have been programmed by the school system to think that you have been educated, when, in fact, you have been schooled. Your refusal to consider will cause you to take this as an
          insult. As Mark Twain said, “It’s easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.” They have presented a one sided argument, much the same as ‘the Man in the Cave’ of Socrates. It was basically a false appeal to authority. Have you ever studied formal logic? Ever wonder why it is not mandatory in the school system? They make sure you know their version of history. Without knowing formal logic, you can’t even understand your own language.

          “(That is, until the same thing happens to him and his family. And so on. A life of fear, chaos and terrible suffering—which is no life at all.)”

          another appeal to emotion. This are all groundless statements. All was not chaos before civilization. It was not all terrible suffering. You have been programmed to think this way. If they repealed laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc., would you commit any of those acts? Do you know anybody that would? This is the reason that the news always shows this. The news is the propaganda arm of the government. The government determines who gets to broadcast the news.

          “And if you agree that there is the need for law and protection for the above case or any case I have presented to you, then you believe in the need and benefit of government plain and simple, necessarily and definitively.”

          I don’t agree with it. I have stated my objections. I refuse to live in fear because of people yelling fire in a crowded theater. I think for myself.

          “In short, it would mean you actually agree with me and all of your disagreement and contrary position were for naught.”

          Yes, it would, but I don’t.

          “(BTW, this particular point has nothing to do with the manner and method in which said government is formed and administered.)”

          Which is the cause of more death and injury than anything else, which you seem to overlook.

          “And what if, for instance, there is a lovely plot of oceanfront property in a most beautiful and convenient/ideal location.”

          Convenient/ideal for what? By what standard?

          “Who has the right to that land in your lawless world?”

          Nobody. Who has the right to that in your world of slavery? How did they get that right? By what ‘authority’ do they claim this? If they are Christian, is God a real estate agent?

          “What if ten million people greatly desire the same property, and only that property among all other lots they have seen or are aware of?”

          So, ten million should be denied access so that a single person can claim possession? What is your justification for this? Why does one person have this right, and how is it determined that this person has this right? And if the person has no inheritor, who gets it next? Or, even if they do, is that person the most qualified to inherit the property?

          “What if others desire it tomorrow?”

          You mean like when they declare imminent domain?

          “Who gets it?”

          Whoever the government chooses, in your slaveworld. In a free world, nobody gets it.

          “If your answer is, whoever gets to it first and defends it, as was tried to immense failure throughout recorded history, and caused the inhabitants to live in a state of constant fear and dread along the way, thus essentially losing their true liberty and life as a result.”

          No, it’s not my answer. And once again, you resort to the fear porn of ‘constant fear and dread’ as well as the nebulous ‘true liberty’, which you equate with acquiescence to government that is slavery to me.

          “So not only is that a bad answer, it also breaks the very law you stated: “Nobody has the right to declare any portion of the planet as their property.”

          It’s your answer, not mine. This is a straw man. i never said anything like that. you have merely assumed that I agree with you, figuring you can ‘enlighten’ me, when it is rather apparent that you have never studied formal argument.

          “With the lawless society you so firmly cling to, that alone is sufficient to prove the folly in it.”

          Point out a single fallacious statement I have made, if you want to engage in a rational debate. You have resorted to straw me, poisoning the well, fallacies of both generalization and specificity among others, with false appeals to both emotion and authority. The voice of reason requires no appeal to emotion. you have misrepresented my position, because it is beyond your experience. That is the purpose of the school system. To get you to put the chains of slavery on willingly.

          “It is literally impossible to achieve your utopian type society with the solution you proposed.”

          What solution are you clang that I have proposed? I have proposed nothing. I have merely pointed out the invalidity of the system you worship. i endorse no society, nor am I proclaiming any solution. The only legitimate function of government is the protection of the individual’s right to tend to their own needs, free from the interference of others.

          “There MUST be a fair and mutually agreed way of acquiring the land (call it owning or renting or borrowing or temporarily using or whatever you wish) and living on it without fear and wasted time, treasure and effort protecting it from being taken from them.”

          Why? By what reasoning are you claiming this? How does this benefit all the others who are therefore denied the very thing you claim is a must?

          “And it is not possible to do so in this world we live in without some form of collective agreement (i.e., “government”).

          Government is not an agreement, it is a forced compliance. Cooperative agreement, I have no objection to.

          “(BTW, it must be lawless since you made it clear that there is no place for a collective group determining what there own governing rules et al. are to be. Unfortunately one cannot have it both ways. You either agree with me or you do not. And you made it clear that you do not.)”

          Yes, but you don’t get it.

          “Lastly, and this alone is all that is necessary to prove my point, you agreed with me that air traffic control governance for the whole (overall society) was needed.”

          I knew I shouldn’t have stated it that way. I rescind the statement. Airlines, nor airplanes are necessary for humans or anyone else. Traffic control is only necessary because of the mess the banksters have made as far as overpopulation. Prove that humans can not exist without airplanes and crowded airspace, and you might have a point. Otherwise, your argument is irrelevant.

          “Not just here in the US but also in and between all nations of the world. There you have it.”

          No, your argument fails.

          “Even if this is the only thing/area you believe to be necessary, it is one thing and that is all that is required to prove my point that a government (and like I said, regardless of what you call it) is indeed necessary.”

          No, it is not. Food, clothing and shelter are necessary. Try keeping your position logical, and this won’t happen. you could have written one fifth the amount you did if you kept it rational.

          “And I consistently said the government should be only for the absolutely minimum (necessary and sufficient only) needs and/or benefits of the collective, whole society.”

          Which means that your point about air traffic control is superfluous.

          “Note that I never once said or implied that our existing government, including air traffic control implementation, is the best way to go.”

          I never claimed anything like this. This is another straw man. Leave these out, and the whole conversation is reduced.

          “And I already suggested that it should be privatized and competed for.”

          What should be privatized? You just don’t get it.

          “However, either way, it still serves the whole”

          There is no whole. That is just nonsense.

          “(not just one person or a few persons in society) therefore would fall into the category of “government” managed/addressed.”

          A foot in the door.

          “That is, until (if/when) it is no longer necessary from technological advancement or innovative process breakthrough from the competitive free enterprise system that is focused on the matter (hired and paid by the citizens).”

          This is far too vague for me to respond to, and I’m convinced I’ll get mother long winded, ambiguous explanation if I tried to.

          “Besides national defense (such as protection from being taken over and made work slaves or murdered by the Nazis, fascists and Bushido warriors in WWII),…”

          If there wasn’t any government, there would be no need for this. you don’t get it. You don’t need a government tonight ‘another’ government if there are no governments. If the people have to fight off a gang (which is all government amounts to), then only those who wish to, rather than leave or avoid it, should take part in it. Your argument here, is circular reasoning.

          “…there are many areas requiring such rules, standards and cooperation for maximum peace, justice/fairness and prosperity.”

          Maximum peace? Who determines that? Prosperity? you’re getting too vague, here.

          “Such as invention protection (patent, trademark and copyright),

          Who has the right to determine that ideas are anybody’s property? Intellectual property ‘rights’ is thought control. totalitarianism.

          “trade agreements between nations, justice agreements between nations”

          Without government, there are no nations. Circular logic.

          “(e.g., for the case of a person or group who steals from or kills a citizen and flees to another country”

          With no government, this would be pointless.

          “– even if the “law” is “you are free to come to our nation with your weapons and go after the criminal in any way you choose at your own risk”), border management (if that’s not covered by the national defense), property rights and protection, …”

          Again, just more circular reasoning.

          “Obviously some sort of fair, just, balanced, agreed rules/laws need to govern any civilized society.”

          OK, so what is your justification for forcing me, or anyone else into this system? This is the entire point, and you never once address that. Why should I do what you want? You are free to enslave yourself to any system you want to, but you have no justification for forcing it on me. Civilization is a siege on humanity, whether you recognize that or not.

          “And IMO done so by the people themselves since we do not have the option of a perfect, all-loving, all-knowing, completely just benevolent despot or God in the physical form to do so.”

          You can submit to anything you want. You don’t have any right to force me to comply. why do you not answer this?

          “That’s why I have proposed and firmly believe that universal principles that span all “races”, cultures, religions, genders, sexual orientations, et al.,”

          What universal principles would those be? What principles span all of humanity?

          “not people, should “rule” (i.e., cause maximum freedom, opportunity to pursue happiness, cooperation, And the people hire/fire administrators to “govern” (serve the collective whole).”

          How does a principle rule? By what mechanism the is not human intervention?

          “Additionally, since its very relevant here, to answer your question, “Do you understand what anarchy means?”, and address your incorrect claim after it, “Anarchy is not chaos, nor does it imply violence or criminal activity.”: yes, I do know what anarchy means, and what you said about it is incorrect. And I stand by what I said about it.”

          “Here’s the definition (i.e., lawlessness, CHAOS, disorder, confusion, absence of a cohesive principle, …):”

          It is not chaos. Chaos is from an entirely different root. It is not confusion. Try looking into the etymology. An – without. Archy – rule or measure. Rowdies that imply confusion or chaos? It doesn’t. The language has been corrupted to fool you, so that you think that you must have a ruler. This was the whole purpose of the schooling you accepted without question.

          an·ar·chy
          (ăn′ər-kē)
          n. pl. an·ar·chies
          1. Absence of any form of political authority.
          2. Political disorder and confusion.
          3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

          Other than the inclusion of confusion in definition two, which is inappropriate, this agrees with the proper concepts. Also, a lack of order is unordered, not disordered, which implies that was a previous order, which is not necessarily the case.

          American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright
          © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by
          Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

          anarchy
          (ˈænəkɪ)
          n
          1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) general lawlessness and disorder, esp
          when thought to result from an absence or failure of government
          2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the absence or lack of government
          3. the absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos
          4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the theory or practice of political anarchism

          This one is even worse. It makes an explicit connection between disorder and lawlessness. Once again, they falsely equate anarchy with chaos, and disorder.

          Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers
          1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

          an•ar•chy
          (ˈæn ər ki)
          n.
          1. a state of society without government or law.
          2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
          3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a
          political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of
          individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
          4. confusion; chaos; disorder.

          Note number three. And then, they falsely resort to number four, which would indicate that it is less accepted.

          Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd.
          Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

          anarchy
          An absence of government and law; political disorder, often accompanied by violence.
          See also order and disorder. See also: Government Extreme disorder. See
          also government. See also: Order and Disorder

          Can you not see the blatant propaganda, here? Government Extreme Disorder” “…often accompanied by violence.” Does that not mean anything to you? In sixth grade history class, the teacher gave failing grades to anyone who used either an encyclopedia or a dictionary as the source of research.

          -Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

          SOURCE: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anarchy (other: http://www.merriamwebster.
          com/dictionary/anarchy, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/anarchy)

          “Finally, if someone wishes to live apart from society, or form their own society, they are free to do so in my opinion and recommendation (and nothing I ever said or implied was to the contrary), provided they don’t harm or impose their will on any other person.”

          So, the government is allowed to impose its will, but the individual is not allowed to? Where is the individual allowed to do this, when ll the land is claimed by the government? And what gives the government the right to claim any land in the first place? Is God a real estate broker? If not God, is government just another form of God?

          “So what I have proposed solves for both the individual and the community; and all community types.”

          No, it doesn’t. You have just assumed that the individual gets whatever the government doesn’t take, which is nothing. You haven’t given this much, if any, thought.

          “With the community ruling itself therefore no person or group/government above it and no possibility for oppression other than its own oppression to itself. i.e., this solves for everyone on earth now and forever without any limitation, restriction or oppression of any kind.”

          No, it doesn’t. The ‘community ruling itself’ fails entirely on logical analysis, but you don’t understand formal logic.

          “I have yet to find or come up with a better solution than this to date. And if I do, or anyone presents a convincingly better one than what I proposed, I will be quick to adapt it and make it my new preference and do what I willing and able at the time to support it and further it into existence.”

          I doubt it. So far, you have refused to accept any premise that I have replied with, even though you have not provided a valid refutation of any of it. Any ‘agreement’ you have stated, is either a misinterpretation or falsely contrived.

          “In closing, regardless of all said by both of us here, it is not and never will be a matter of whether “you’re right” or “I’m right” in this or anything else.”

          And your proof of this is what? What is the logical basis for this statement? Answer that, and perhaps you’ll begin to see the fallacies of your position.

          “That is reserved exclusively and entirely for the creator of whatever is good and just and right. The one who created all natural and common law—both moral and physical/scientific. The same one who gave everyone, regardless of “race”, culture, language, geography and religious practice and/or belief (or not), having a healthy, working mind the inner sense and knowing that murdering another innocent, peaceful human being for some form of personal gain is universally “wrong” and “bad”.”

          This is all superstitious dogma. More programming. Are you familiar with the symbol G-D? It is commonly regarded as ‘the holy name of god that can not be spoken. this is just more mind control. G-D is the symbol of a very ancient philosophy known as the One True religion. So called because the primary tenet of the philosophy is ‘there is only one true God.’ The second tenet is ‘the God that can be named is not the True God’. The concepts of ‘wrong’ and ‘bad’ you refer to are remnants of the Epic of Atrahasis, and were passed down through the bible, which has been corrupted many times.

          “The only thing any of us can do is see/understand, accept and choose, via the free will which has also been graced to us by the same creator, whatever is good and right (again, that neither of us created) or not choose and act accordingly.”

          You need to study the history of the bible. And think for yourself. This is just more programming. Jesus warned of this. He also said he wasn’t God,and following him would not work. If you understand logic, you understand this.

          “IMO, no person deserves any sort of “credit” for doing so other than to use said free will instead of choosing the contrary. And there is ample evidence available to us from throughout recorded history demonstrating that doing so ultimately overall benefits the one who does so as well as others (the world in general) to some degree depending on the topic and act.”

          You’re off subject, here. Try to stay to the topic. This was already way too long, because you fail to address any of this logically.

          “Most importantly perhaps, in my opinion all of us (myself included at the top of the list) can and should take a step back, chill out, laugh, and not take ourselves and the world in general, with its irrational, emotional inhabitants, so seriously. And to watch more movies like The Great Beauty. ☺”

          It’s hard to take anyone seriously who suggests watching movies, as opposed to participating in life.

          “That’s all I have to say about this for now. If you should happen to reply to or reference this, and I read it, I will only reply, if at all, if your words are respectful, absent of personal attacks and are of sound reason and logic.”

          I don’t know what your idea of respect is, but you have disregarded my words and reasoning. I’m uncultured, because I respect no cult. I think for myself. Most people would be insulted by your implication that I have not responded with ‘sound reason and logic’. i do not consider it an insult, because it’s only an insult if it is true. it is not. Your arguments have been illogical, and without sound reasoning. your use of ‘I will only respond if …” is most likely disingenuous. Your programming will most likely not let you accept any contrary position without a challenge.

          “I remain on a continuous learning and growing track myself, and I believe one can learn from anyone or anything.”

          The voice of wisdom is silent, except to those with an open mind. I’m not sure of the origin of that saying. It doesn’t seem that you have a very open mind. you cannot conceive of a world without government. you have traumatized into believing that it would result in abject fear and misery. They have you right where they want you.

          Reply
          1. JusticeGenie

            Well, at least your reply was completely predictable. In line with your (glaringly obvious) firmly held ideology and limiting beliefs. I’m just glad you aren’t in charge or influential of anything relevant to our country or the world (otherwise we’d all have been made aware of it) and never will be (a very safe a sound bet to make), at least not unless and until you wake up and change yourself. That’s just my opinion. You are entitled to your own, as you certainly and clearly expressed in great detail and length in your three replies already.

            I’d have been completely surprised if you had responded any differently. I’ve seen more than enough evidence of this same folly throughout my life already; i.e., the deeply root stronghold and blinding power of a firmly held ideology and belief. Only wish you were my opponent in a high stakes contest on the world stage in this topic area or the like. Where others, not you or me, are the “judges and jury”.

            One seemingly good thing about this exchange is we both have much to say and are (or at least have been) willing to take the time and make the effort to express it. I find that to be both rare and great! So thank you for that.

            Let me start with the obvious, and so as to remove each of us from all judgment pertaining to this overall topic matter. That is: Any intelligent, objective reader can see and determine for themselves the truth and accuracy behind our words—both yours and mine. And for everyone else it really doesn’t matter. It’s clear that we each stand behind our own positions and beliefs, as said. I never once expected to change your mind, only to receive what all human beings are entitled to from any other human being in a free, just, egalitarian existence: some basic respect like I have given you from the start (though justly and naturally waning by your cause alone, though still greatly restrained though undeserved by you), and to respectfully express my own point of view which is contrary to yours. Like I have done with you originally.

            It is unnecessary to point out or defend anything I said any more than already done. I stand by it all, and have provided more than ample evidence and/or examples to sufficiently support it, or at minimum to cause you/another to at least question or further investigate your own contrary assumptions and beliefs. And there’s no need to add the four-times or so quantity of counterpoints provided in my original last reply that wasn’t published via the website process. (I assume you think the same from your perspective about all that you have said and could add. And probably quite easily and very much it seems to me.)

            I have given you every opportunity to explain your many bold, baseless, non-cited claims and accusations (and sticking your statements in-line after my words is not and does not serve as a citation or example of any of your claims, all of which are not substantiated by what I said there in-line surrounding each of your accusations and also not in ANYTHING I ever said on this site or anywhere else), and three times out of three you have failed to do so.

            In my opinion (and that’s all I can ultimately hold to about any of this), I have blown your “argument” and claims out of the water already. That’s just me. One person out of billions. And I’m quite sure you feel/believe the same about yours wrt mine. However, for some reason I cannot possibly know (unless I am all-knowing which I am not), only speculate (which is a waste of time), you CONTINUE to misunderstand, miscomprehend and/or misstate most or all that I’ve said. I certainly have not done the same (at least not until and after you initiated it). Again, I’ll leave that to the reader to decide (if any, other than the two of us actually read any of this ☺).

            Perhaps I’m mistaken, but from the outset (your first unrequested and unprovoked reply to one of my posts), I sensed anger, hatred, vitriol in your words and tone. At least a little (not necessarily a lot/much). If that is so, and it may not be, I cannot possibly take “credit” for that. i.e., I cannot possibly be the cause of that personal, willful choice. That is yours alone. If this is true, it explains much. If not, then it should be disregarded as false/untrue.

            For starters, you couldn’t even admit, even partially, something that was neither subjective nor reasonably questionable. That is, the definition of anarchy.

            You said, precisely, “Anarchy is not chaos, nor does it imply violence or criinal activity.” Then I provided you the actual definition which proves you are completely wrong, and you cannot even admit that. (Definition excerpts: “4. confusion; CHAOS; disorder.”, “1. general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government”, “2. the absence or lack of government”, “3. the absence of any guiding or uniting principle; disorder; chaos”, …)

            Why exactly is that? I don’t expect an honest answer since you haven’t provided one already when given the full opportunity to do so. One can only surmise as to why.

            Would you respect me or anyone if they couldn’t or wouldn’t even do that? Could you have a rational, intelligent, productive debate or discussion with anyone who refused to do so no matter what? As for me, you would have won my respect, both intellectually and in character, had you at least simply acknowledged your basic error on that matter. Like you did when you admitted that some government (or whatever name you wish to call it) is indeed necessary: air traffic control. (Again, that alone was all that was necessary to end the conversation, had you understood or acknowledged and put together the overall point I made, which I’ll net out here again later in this reply.)

            Logically and objectively, that alone exposes something that isn’t right though it’s not for me to judge or speculate (even though I’m only human, and like you, a critical thinker, so of course cannot help myself – though will keep my assumptions, guesses and opinion to myself, especially since it’s really none of my business and it doesn’t much matter). (BTW, I do actually sense and believe that you are a very intelligent person, otherwise I never would have replied in the first place. ☺)

            Whatever the case may be, said problem alone completely halts or causes ineffectiveness when it comes to continuing this conversation further; and in general, wrt getting along with other fellow human beings or persuading anyone in or toward any positive, constructive, worthwhile way or end. Who could or should even continue from that stopping point?

            I’ll go on though. Only partially, not in full, as I see no point in covering every single observation and point. That would be like going down a long and winding rat hole, and for no good end.

            How many times are you going to say, “The government has done this. And worse,” or anything like that? This has NOTHING to do with anything I ever said. I never once said that our current government or any known government in all of history to date, has been right, good, or best. (Although some governments/systems are much better than others.) That’s why I proposed AN ENTIRELY NEW WAY OF GOVERNMENT in the first place, and what the conversation is all about.

            AND AGAIN, never once did I say that any person or group or “government” should rule over anyone else. Just that there are some clear and obvious needs and/or benefits for a collective agency (that is, a “government”), who works FOR the people, not the other way around (unlike what we have today and that has essentially always existed since the US Constitution was ratified). You even agreed to this (about air traffic control). Regardless of how that is established, implemented, performed, managed, etc. Case close, argument over. Nothing more is necessary from there. So why have you continued? What is it that you are trying to prove to yourself or anyone else?

            Since you have already failed to adequately answer the collection of questions I raised, I don’t expect you to answer any of these. I’m considering all of the questions in this reply to be rhetorical only. One can only reasonably assume it is because the answers to them wipe out your argument and position (even the clear and simple anarchy topic alone was sufficient), and, perhaps (certainly not necessarily), if your sense of self worth (ego) is tied to this then that would also explain it? Who knows. You and God do, not me. Anyway, if that is incorrect then why have you not adequately and completely answered the questions? Asking another question doesn’t answer a question and making baseless accusations or claims in retort does not do so either.

            Your statements, “This has been programmed into you. It is all you have ever known.”, and the like are laughable, to say the least. Do you actually not see the ignorance and arrogance (which originates in fear and is cowardly) in such statements from any one person to any other? Especially based on nothing more than some words in a blog and nothing more. Do you really think that anyone making such a statement has any credibility whatsoever? Let me spell it out for you since you don’t seem to get it or do not have the courage to state the glaring truth (the above quote alone, and all the many other like statements all the more): You sound like a pompous, ******* ****, to say the least. Do you not know that the various words you have expressed in all of your replies naturally lead anyone to make all sorts of judgments and assumptions about you, your intellect and your character as well? Do you not know that I could say all sorts of negative things about you here as well? And I can at least back my accusations with specific quotes from you (like I just did above), and references to all sorts of history relevant to each point. What, for instance, precisely is your proof and certainty in support of your bold, definitive/absolute statements above? Not to mention all the many other ones you made. There exists none. That’s precisely why, even when given the full opportunity and all the time you wanted at your own preference and choosing, you failed to do so. Of course that is the case, since it is impossible to prove something that is both false and not definitively knowable by another.

            It seems to me anyway, only a person would make such a bold, definitive statement in such circumstances if s/he (“he” hereinafter for short) believed or intended one of the following, and especially based on only some words from that person on a blog. He believes: (a) he is God/The Creator/The Infinite Intelligence/All Knowing One (altogether, “God”); (b) he is equal to God; (c) he thinks he is “above”/superior to the other person (knows even more about the person than they know about themselves); (d) he is a bully type person or the like and is trying to pick a fight for some reason only he knows; (e) he is releasing his intrinsic anger/hatred (fear and pain) on one or more others in order to feel better about her/himself; (f) he is trying to convince himself and possibly others of his/her certain firmly held belief(s) for some reason, whether it be selfish or otherwise.

            On the national, public stage, this begs to mind the folly of Obama’s many foolish, arrogant conclusions arrived at and stated plainly, based on so little information and insufficient evidence (i.e., the police in Cambridge, Mass., acted “stupidly” when they arrested Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates back in 2009, and several other incidents since—only to be glaringly proven to be the stupid one in the end).

            So which is it? Who do you think you are? Otherwise, show the definitive proof of your claims several definitive claims about me throughout your three replies, starting with the one from you quoted above. And be sure to cover the many others, such as, “They have convinced you that the republic is somehow a representative democracy, when, in fact, it is no such thing.” Concluding and stating all of these things as you have, despite all of my words and points to the contrary, says all that is needed about you and your credibility. At least as it pertains to this entire argument.

            What person anywhere can have an intelligent, productive, reasonable discussion with any other person who:

            1. Does not intellectually understand/comprehend AND/OR does not have the moral character and strength (including courage) to admit when they are wrong. Such as, for example (and only one is requited): the definition of the word anarchy.
            2. Makes baseless, unsubstantiated claims, without any evidence, examples, or citations (and sticking your statements in-line does not serve as a citation of anything I said pertaining to your bold, baseless claims which, like I said, are contrary to anything I said in-line (near it) or anywhere in any blog entry I provided).
            3. Makes arrogant, disrespectful, hurtful and stupid personal accusations to and about the person you are communicating with (debating).
            4. Blames/accuses the other person for doing the very thing they are doing (FYI: that psychology 101 behavior is called “projecting”).

            You claim, “I’m uncultured, because I respect no cult. I think for myself. Most people would be insulted by your implication that I have not responded with ‘sound reason and logic’. i do not consider it an insult, because it’s only an insult if it is true.” Yet you cannot even understand or admit the definition of the word, “anarchy”, or provide evidence of your “brilliant” claim, to name just one: “This has been programmed into you. It is all you have ever known.” While you keep repeating things that I never said or that are not applicable, as exampled above. Of course you are free to believe anything you wish about yourself, regardless of any facts/evidence to the contrary. Good luck with that.

            I’m not going to address your various other statements, included some historic points I happen to know much about directly or indirectly, as it is clearly a waste of time. Though I’ll make a deal with you: If you answer the following I will answer all of these other points/statements/claims you wrote: (1) honestly and completely answer all the questions I raised to you in my last reply, (2) admit your error regarding the definition of anarchy and the statements you made about it, (3) explain why you didn’t “confess”/admit your error in your reply to it already (the default assumption of any sound person is “because of pride and/or weakness of character” in the meantime), (4) provide evidence of your many accusations about me, starting with, “This has been programmed into you. It is all you have ever known.” Good luck with that.

            As usual you have failed to effectively and accurately address ANY of the counter points I provided. Not one. Nor admit to your clearly proven invalid claims. Even though only one contrary example is necessary to prove your universal principles invalid, and I actually provided multiple. And that was only a small fraction of the ones initially submitted. I’ve blown your faulty “world view”/ideology out of the water, beyond a reasonable doubt, and you either cannot admit that or cannot comprehend it intellectually, or both. Who knows and who cares. Not me at least.

            That’s the least I can and should say at this point. Too bad that it’s personal in nature (like you initiated and have unproductively continued). It’s true, and we’re both persons (I assume). Especially considering your having done the same, though without any merit. And you have lost all rights and grace to any additional holding back from me, although I have held back plenty already.

            Let’s next “turn the table” for a moment. I’ll return the “favor” you did for me, provide you with an unsolicited and judgmental conclusion about yourself as you have done regarding me:

            Your ideology traps you, blinds you; and you are a slave to it (i.e., willfully ignorantly). You cannot even see that you are actually trapped in an ideology/limiting belief yourself. Ironically you do the very thing consistently done by the very ideology you obviously despise the most, the democrat, “liberal”, “progressive”.

            That is, since you cannot win an argument logically, rationally and intellectually, or even answer a plain, objective question or point honestly and completely, so you resort to emotion and insult. One need only read your initial and follow up reply to me to see that. Then you have the nerve to say that I am doing the very thing you initiated and consistently have done. (BTW, I pointed this out in my original second reply as well.)

            Much worse it seems to me that you cannot or will not see your own close-mindedness and project your very own problematic characteristic on me (psychology 101).

            Truth is the only thing that will set you free. Darkness has blinded your mind and your ego (fear) alone controls you and makes you so close-minded and willfully ignorant about it you cannot even see it.

            A genuinely open-minded, independent, critical thinker, neither beholden to nor supportive of any political party or ideology, would never espouse the ideology and mindset you cling so tightly to, that traps you, blinds you, and enslaves you (i.e., willfully ignorantly).

            How does that make you feel? Infuriated? Saying you aren’t bothered at all by this in a written reply, when in fact you are, does not change the truth about how this makes you feel. And likely fools no one. At least not me. I have just done the same as you have done to me: judged you and ascribed characteristics and conclusions to you. Done intentionally for the purpose of making the point about the ridiculousness of such claims from a fellow human being who knows so very little about you (even if they are correct, and they may not be, that doesn’t matter whatsoever re the point I am seeking to make). Furthermore, such personal attacks are only a distraction, intended to move attention away from the argument at hand, whether done knowing and consciously or not. Again, like many dishonest, persuasive politicians do all the time. And you yourself pointed out that you understand this very “method”, so why is it that you have done this exact thing?

            Please disregard all the said personal assumptions and statements, and any other personal things said, inferred, assumed or otherwise. The reason for any of it was just to “hold a mirror” up for you to see for yourself what you have done. Perhaps it was ineffective, I’m not sure. The intention was at least for an overall constructive desired end. And you may disagree, or not accept this, or whatever, I don’t know. I can only say and do what I can say and do.

            So then, again I’ll ask that which you avoided (rhetorically only), why is it that you have not, cannot and/or will not even admit your failure about the definition of the simple word, anarchy?

            BTW, since you seem to be so passionate about your beliefs, what have you actually done in this world toward making them a reality – setting them into effect? Besides blogging about it, that is. It takes courage and effort to do so by you or me or anyone else who has some opinion, idea or suggestion for positive change.

            If we do nothing about it (you, me, us, whoever), what courage (opposing fear in the process of) does that take? Even if we fail at it, is it not better to at least try? What good are we doing or even intending to do? Or is it not our purpose to do good for ourselves and any other human beings, if not the whole world?

            Other musings:

            I have no doubt that if my initial posting was precisely as written, every word, syllable and punctuation mark as-is, though signed and shown as though coming from Legalman (who you already have a positive opinion of in advance), your reply to it, if at all, would have been much different. Much. Unrecognizable in comparison. Even somewhat constructive, agreeable and positive, most likely. And I say this regardless of whether Legalman would ever say the same thing or not, even if he would never believe or say anything anywhere close to what I have said. Like if I were able to forge his name and he not notice, and you saw his name and not JusticeGenie. I believe your response would be so different it would not be recognizable in contrast with your replies to me. (I certainly don’t expect you to ever admit that based on your replies so far. However, I have no doubt you would fully agree if you answered the question to yourself with complete, naked honesty.)

            I also can’t help but wonder, as with observations of other ideologues and self-righteous, “all knowing” types, per your words and behavior here, even if Jesus Christ in the flesh, or God Himself in the spirit, were to be the one who actually wrote every single thing I wrote, and signed it “JusticeGenie”, you would have responded precisely the same way. And for all you know, unless you are actually God or His equivalent, this all was written or inspired by the an all-knowing God, and not by a person (some person using the pen name, JusticeGenie).

            “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”
            — 2 Corinthians 4

            (PS – Since it’s completely relevant to this topic matter. It actually requires much more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God. Logically, scientifically and mathematically (statistically in particular). The only valid, reasonable, sound, intelligent belief anyone can and should have about this topic is that either there is a God (intelligent creator of the universe, all that’s in it, all space, and time) or Agnosticism. There, now you have an additional proposition from me you can mock and criticize to your hearts full desire. ☺)

            My wish and prayer for each of us, and everyone else, is that we all wake up to the truth, “Then you [we] will know the truth, and the truth will set you [us] free.” (As Jesus said. And I happen to trust Him far more than you, me or any other being.) And start be realizing that we are all actually equal. Brothers and sisters. There is only one who is and possibly can be higher. The Creator of the universe including all of us in it. And we all know that no human being can claim credit for that (which would include the creation of himself).

            As said, we are all emotional beings (unless mentally deranged in such a way as to eliminate that essential quality) and anyone who doesn’t admit they don’t feel the same way when personally attacked, or when simply observing a bombastic, arrogant proclamation wrt anything of human relevance from you, me or anyone else, are only lying to themselves and/or others. Regardless of whatever coolness and poise they display on the surface, whether in some writing or in-person.

            I for one have complete confidence and no problem stating that simple and obvious truth outright. I stand by my words, in writing and in-person, and immediately admit when I am wrong (usually I think anyway) and generally learn and improve from such, and back my conclusions with sound facts, points and evidence, like I have done in our exchange, and you have not (examples already reiterated to the point of nausea, and only one example is necessary).

            And as I have said, no person is “good” or “right”, only the Creator of good and right/truth can be and is that.

            Forgetting everything else for a moment and focusing only on these objective points, as I’ve said over and over again, and will net out here again, here is a summary of the entirety of my proposition we have been arguing/debating/conversing about:

            • No person, group, organization or entity should rule over any other person (BTW, IMO this applies to corporations, religious institutions and all organizations of any/all kinds, without exception, except for the parent-child one I provided earlier and with the limitations said then).
            • Any “government” (or whatever anyone wishes to call it, which does not matter at all) that exists anywhere should be absolutely minimal, and only performing absolutely necessary and/or sufficiently (cost and time justified) beneficial services to the entire society covered by its assigned jurisdiction (determined solely by the collective people/citizens).
            • The society in its entirety should solely define and decide what such minimal service coverage is.
            • The smaller the better, and no government at all would be the best if there was actually no need/benefit for it (which we both ruled out by the mutually agreed need for air traffic control, and I pointed several other areas even more important than that which you may not agree with, and that doesn’t matter since I am not the one deciding – rather, all would be).
            • Any government that exists should he hired/fired by the entirety of the people it is being paid to address said minimal coverage (it/they serve the people alone in their entirety, not the other way around).

            What exactly is it about this that you disagree with? Objectively only, setting aside any and all personal feelings you may have about me, or “the messenger”, if any.

            If you decide not to answer this simple question, okay, fine. As I pointed out earlier, you already agreed, at least to the essence of all said bullet points. And if you are now changing your mind or words and have a different position (e.g., air traffic control within the US and worldwide is no longer necessary), what about this (the above summary points) do you disagree with and what do you propose as the alternative? Again, I never said anything about anyone “submitting to” anyone or any government, and there’s nothing about this in the above list. If your answer is, no government of any kind is needed for any reason whatsoever, I’ve already blown that position out of the water (not that I deserve any credit for stating the obvious, common sense). Even though that notion is so obvious and absurd it’s not even worth discussing.

            About this, in your latest reply, you said, “Air traffic control does require coordination, but it is hardly something that requires anything like the massive government intrusion on the populace. Certainly not one hell bent on such psychopathic policies such as mutual assured destruction.” Again, as said, I couldn’t agree more. Like I said, repeatedly, and with evidence/example, it was obvious to me from the outset, and still now, that we are actually in agreement.

            Congratulations! With each reply you’ve topped your last, at least from my perspective. Here’s my most favorite line from you to date, by far: “The voice of wisdom is silent, except to those with an open mind.” Therefore, according to you in this statement, you are not, or do not possess, or have not exercised, said “voice of wisdom”, unless you are also saying (and it is in fact, true, which we know is not the case, absolutely definitively so) that you have been silent in all of your multiple, long replies.

            You’ve made your points, and I’ve made mine. You made bold and false claims, as though honest and true, about what I said, contrary to all the words and facts that are written in plain sight for you and anyone else to see. You even made an incorrect statement about the definition of the word “anarchy”, and you failed to acknowledge or correct it. You, not me, began with all the personal, seemingly hurtfully intended accusations (likely per common sense and reasonable deduction, and whether intended or not or whether they are actually hurtful really doesn’t matter). What was the point of this? To prove to me or someone else that you are superior? To scare me away, like the typical behavior of a bully? What good and right and respectable reason do you have for EVER having done so in our or any other such discourse?

            With this final reply to you here and now, you have made three replies, and I have made three. In closing, you’ve been given every opportunity, three separate times, to substantiate your claims and come clean on your logic and fact errors, and you have failed to do so. And I have no reasonable expectation of any humble admission, intellectual honesty, or positive change moving forward, therefore I will not be reading anything more you have to say if to me or anyone else about this topic matter, if anything more. I also assume, and think it’s reasonable to assume, that you feel the same way and may and perhaps will proceed the same.

            So if you reply to this at all, whether in agreement in part in full or not at all, know that I will not be reading it. So you are doing so only for yourself (your ego?) or for someone else (if anyone) who may actually read it. And if so, I for one hope they do, along with everything I provided, so they can read all that has been said and decide for themselves in hopes of adding some amount of positive, constructive difference to the world, even if only minute. Fair and simple.

            Blessings to you and all who you love. I mean this sincerely, my world neighbor and brother (who seemingly hates me for existing ☺).

            PS – For what it’s worth, if anything at all, I’ve enjoyed debating with you about this most important (to me at least) topic matter. I do think you are a very smart person and that we actually would be friends if we new one another. Probably very close and loyal/dependable even.

  2. JusticeGenie

    Legalman, there’s no Reply link to respond to Robert Graf’s last message. Is there a fix for this? Thanks, JG

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      JusticeGenie from what I can tell, not being a webmaster, the system seems to have a preset number of reply replies that show. I note it on many “reply” comments. They don’t have the option. I will see if I can find out about that. In the meantime I would simply “reply” to the original post that his. Comment references and clarify in the first line of your comment. I apologize for any inconvenience. The stinking updating and constant software issues I am stuck with just running the thing are irritating. I guess it is just another subtle way to add layers of complication for anyone who wishes to run opposition to the status quo. Mainstream garbage has unlimited access to free cash to run tech support to keep geeks on staff to make sure the lies get out there. Lol. Individuals must overcome the constant harassment of technology etc. — L

      Reply
  3. JusticeGenie

    Hi Legalman,

    What do you think of the idea of building a “nation within a nation” of aware, sober-minded, freedom and truth loving people where we establish our own “laws” and support one another? That is, like America should already be. It would be organized and run via a members-only website and company, majority owned by the “citizens”/members. Of course the laws of the land would still govern us all. However, with a large enough membership in time we can directly impact elections and law making, et al. And gradually replace the entire corrupt system with that which we build together. Even if it takes 100 years or longer to achieve. Everyone would be welcome. Discrimination of any common or uncommon type would not be permitted or tolerated. However, all would be required to adhere to the positive, constructive, creative, supportive, et al. timeless values and principles governing the body. Of course neutral/no action is fine. It would totally free and entirely up to each “citizen” what they do or say or not. Just no destruction will be allowed/tolerated.

    It can be a way to buy/sell member created/provides products and services, apps to make volume discount purchases of high demand top quality products (by uniting together when anyone wants to make an individual purchase just like they do today, but without any intrusive and manipulative advertising), … There’s much more to this, as I’ve thought it through over a long stretch of time. Such as ridding the political party system and politicians and replacing it all with hired/fired skilled and experienced specialist citizens (employees) from the private sector who report to and work for the people, like it’s supposed to be now. It would solve the Social Security problem for the members/owners as well. It would maintain and secure its members’ personal information/data (owned and controlled by the people, not some corporation or gov agency). And much more.

    The main reason I came to this solution and approach is because long ago I determined (rightly or wrongly) that the ONLY way to fix the mess we have now, which is on an accelerating path toward total destruction, is by an organization and uniting of the people of the country. That is, a sufficient number and combined strength/influence to turn it around over a long period.

    Wondering what you think about the concept?

    Thank you,
    JusticeGenie

    Reply
  4. JusticeGenie

    Hi LegalMan,

    Have you seen this article, or any ones like it? http://presscore.ca/two-constitutions-in-the-united-states-1st-was-illegally-suspended-in-favor-of-a-vatican-crown-corporation-in-1871

    Regardless of any “conspiracy theory” claims about the site, article or author (I have no idea how credible it is at this point), I am wondering if the actual facts being presented are accurate and relatively easily and soundly provable (i.e., indeed valid facts) and if there is any substantially misleading/deceiving information provided (or key facts left out leading to such).

    It seems to me that one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome (if not the most) when exploring this topic matter openly and/or anything related to it or like it is to somehow not be labeled a “conspiracy theorist” or kook and ignored, mocked and discredited.

    Genuinely,
    JusticeGenie

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      JusticeGenie I have seen many things on this topic. I don’t write on it except in comments. Not because I don’t think there is some legitimacy to it, it’s just that, it doesn’t matter TO ME. Not that it doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter to me. And I don’t much care if they have some double secret probation system of “law” set up with preposterous word contortions where everything means some other thing and every word is a legal fiction. From what I have looked into, such as the saga of that guy in Houston/Lukin etc. I think the arguments are sound. I think Jordan Maxwell is a big proponent of all of this “all caps” stuff as well.

      My point about all of it is simple. There is no consent by anyone. You can’t get legal binding consent through fraud or misunderstanding. And that is the basis for all of the theories. BUT on the other hand, I try and show that it makes NO DIFFERENCE what is written down anywhere because i show over and over that they IGNORE WHATEVER they care to and enforce whatever they want regardless of what any law says. THAT is my point. What “binds them” to this supposed other constitution? NOTHING that doesn’t “bind them” to the “organic” one. Do you SEE? It matters not which is “true” etc. They don’t follow any law. They do whatever the people will put up with. THAT is the only REAL law. That is why they spend so much time making sure that the people all live in a fantasy land and discuss things that don’t matter.

      And frankly, it isn’t going to change. It just isn’t. That doesn’t mean that your position is not greatly improved by understanding HOW the game is rigged against you, because you do benefit. It just means that waking people and turning the ship is not going to happen right now. Everything runs in cycles. But the cycles are much much longer than one human life. So you can only do what you can do in the time in which you are living. I hope that answers your question. — L

      Reply
      1. JusticeGenie

        Thank you LegalMan. That does answer my question well. That is, the matter of the “CAPS”, et al. However, my primary interest in that article and ones like it that I’ve come across over time is wrt the Catholic Church corruption and meddling with the affairs of our country and others across the world. I mean only “meddling” as it pertains to having a harmful effect. Not about teaching or “selling” Christianity. Although, any ways it has pushed Christianity in an “un-Christian” manner (i.e., in a way Christ would never do) is also a concern, however, a topic for another time and blog. 🙂

        Sorry for not being more clear in my question about that article. I understand and agree with ALL of the points you made also. It is somewhat amazing to me how blind so many are. Me included before waking up — and that only occurred by my own research and study, as well as deep introspection (“know thyself”). I think in large part due to my being a casualty of the K-12 program and its indoctrination from the “Social Studies” books that formed our understanding on the various topics. Plus all the media and entertainment (Hollywood/TV) influence that followed (including all the distractions keeping us away from these matters). Such that the universal attitude of, “what do I care, life is pretty good for me here and now… it’s not my problem, eff off…”, has become and remains prevalent here in the US (and in many other countries as well). I agree with your point that it generally takes a long time to change this. Typically a massive tragedy…or a universal build up of pain to the point that is greater than the pleasure. Such as what happened in our own 18th century revolution.

        The same amazement applies to ideology (politics + religion/God/atheism). How cemented and blinding ideology is to people in general—even the very intelligent, and otherwise seemingly open-minded types. When it comes to ideology, how steadfast most stick with something even when confronted with overwhelming facts and rationale to the contrary—definitively proving folly in their cemented viewpoint far beyond a reasonable doubt. And how seemingly afraid (whether they are conscious of this or not) even confronting facts contrary to their already decided belief is. And predictable every time in advance, natural, knee jerk reaction to attack the messenger and relentlessly try to discredit/belittle them, as though that somehow makes their incorrect belief true and accurate. I have watched this occur so many times over the past 25 years I could not possibly count all the cases.

        What harm can their ever possibly be to openly and deeply considering and contemplating any viewpoint contrary to ones own, regardless of the topic matter? Other than ones time of course, which is (arguably) her/his most valuable asset. And the opportunity loss for any time spent on a lesser topic than what could have been spent on a greater one (if there is such a way to measure the value of a topic). That said, for the most important topics affecting the self and the whole (such as God/no-God, the reason for our existence (purpose) and all governments and institutions effecting this), how can one ever soundly justify dismissing a contrary viewpoint unless they already have sufficient evidence that definitively refutes said contrary viewpoint? And if they did have such evidence then they should simply present it or point to it.

        My uber observation about all this is that there exists no major (substantially impactful on the whole of humanity) institution since the beginning of recorded history that has not eventually been corrupted in a significant way—such that one or few unjustly and unfairly benefited at the expense of many. (The bar for me is: If one person benefits at the unjust expense or detriment of at least one other, then it is corrupt.)

        This of course applies to the Catholic Church as well. An organization of men (primarily), formed and executed by men (primarily) supposedly with good intentions originally (which I believe to be true), and has been massively corrupt in many ways over the past 2,000 years or so. No one can dispute that. One need not look any further than the pedophile/sexual abuse and cover ups all the way to the top (Pope himself looking the other way – including the beloved “saint”, Pope John Paul II, who looked the other way) alone to put that to rest. And there is much more than that. That said, it is also indisputable that the same institution has done much good for humanity as well, helping and benefiting many over the years. I have observed that this is almost always the case. Much good mixed with much bad. Like sugar and salt all mixed together. It looks one and the same on the surface though the actual taste is not as it appears. (Whether one thinks it is all salt or all sugar when observing it.)

        If even an institution with the noblest of beginnings, standards, requirements, purposes and causes can be so corrupt, how much more corrupt can an institution with lesser means and ends be?

        IMO no person is capable or worthy of ruling over any other person. And the only valid form of leadership is “servant leadership” (upside-down pyramid structure). All organizations of persons should be ruled only by timeless principle and common and specific law applicable equally to all. And all leaders (including in government) should be “hired” by the people they are leading, and “fired” by them at any time by the same people. Any other person can freely compete for the leaders job at any time. That competition and the hiring/firing authority serves as the checks and balances in the overall process. Not only at the end of a term or via a very time consuming and difficult to organize impeachment process (or coup).

        And therefore ALL organization structures of every kind should be COMPLETELY flat. No exceptions whatsoever. None. Leaders and experts/teachers absolutely are necessary, however, not necessary for them to rule over those they lead or teach. Never. Even an organization with its leader(s) should be completely flat. Where the leaders are equal colleagues and team members (like one position of a Navy Seal team unit with special gifts, strengths, education and experience, carrying out her/his role. And by this I do not mean that all persons in the flat organization are paid the same amount either. On the contrary, it is a merit-based system, guided and ruled by principles, that pays persons according to the value they add to the whole. So one person, whether an inventor/innovator/creator, technician or leader, can be paid (fairly and justly) 10 times more than another team member if they ad 10 times more value.

        Because of free will, and the option of “sin”, “badness”, harm, destruction, et al., it is not possible for perfection on earth. And IMO the relatively highly courageous 1776 leaders/founders, and deep/critical thinking philosophers such as John Locke before them (who greatly influenced them) did a relatively good job when it came to defining a new and better government/”organization” for the new country, USA.

        And I think the next major improvement to this, for the “American Experiment”, would be an overhaul of it all to the flat system I touched on above. And replacing the very many corrupt an inefficient systems that naturally came from the faulty system they instituted (especially by the corruptly and illegitimately created Constitution by the “few elite”, not the many/all, that came well after the 1776 point). For instance, the IRS would go away and the 10’s of thousands of pages US federal tax code (much more if you count that of all the states) with a tax code of one page (three at the very most, though one should suffice), and automate it all. And put all the thousands of accountants (who would have nothing to do as a result) to work on new startup businesses in the areas of technology (especially software and 3D printing), manufacturing (e.g., from the 3D printing work products), new and hidden/untapped energy production, travel, organic food and clean water—primarily and for starters.

        I can go on and on in follow through and detail, and one can write several books about all this. 🙂

        Your idealist friend to the end (I hope I never relinquish my high desires, beliefs and wishes at least! ☺),

        JusticeGenie

        Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          JusticeGenie there are many things that hold people back. I won’t get into the more esoteric things I believe at work. Though i believe they are some of the more important ones. People are turned off by them and they require a lot of base knowledge and therefore explanation.

          So let me make a few observations on practical issues. Cognitive dissonance is huge. It is a major impediment. Then there is social pressure not to stand out. Then there is intellectual laziness or a lack of curiosity. There is fear as well. Fear of losing what little they feel they do have. Fear of the unknown. Fear of looking foolish. Then you have the time issue. Most people are busy with nothing. Running around doing what the system has designed for them. Then there is intellectual ability. Many simply can’t reason through the issues without serious help. Many people don’t understand basic logic so they are fooled by simple rhetorical tricks. Looking into hard truths often causes strife in personal and family relationships with those who refuse or deny simple facts. Then there is the ever present matter of material success. Those who tow the party line are rewarded. Those who don’t are limited. There are professional concerns many times with colleagues as well. Many people feel that if they start to distrust what they were taught that it shows disrespect to their parents or mentors. Many can’t see that disbelieving is not the same as saying you were lied to. The people who taught you didn’t know the truth either. I could go on and on. All in all there are many practical reasons people don’t or won’t accept truths that are right in front of them.

          The best thing to do is accept this fact. Don’t worry about it. The world is what it is. I have come to the conclusion that is nothing but my own unchecked vanity that ever made me think there was anything “wrong” with the situation. Lol. I mean, I don’t understand the real plan or system. Meaning the system that created what I see and experience, I.e. Me. Not the material crookery and farce, the fundamental IT of it all.

          I no longer concern myself emotionally with what others believe. People wake at the rate they are ready to and not before. Myself included. I mean there are many many things that I don’t know and or think I know but am mistaken about. And that is fine. Everyone is in charge of their own mind and their own progress. Nobody and no thing except me can stop my own progress. All they can do is terminate this incarnation of me. Oh well, that May or may not slow my progress. Lol. We don’t know.

          So I don’t sweat the ignorant masses. They are doing what they do. And those small few who abuse them and take advantage of them are doing what they do. Lol. How ultimate justice is rendered, I don’t know. But I am confident of two things on that point. One there is ultimate justice in the universe, and two, I have no idea how to render it. Lol. Luckily that is not my job. My job is to take care of me. Try and do the right thing. Help those who want help if I can. And not worry about the rest. Analyze yes. Observe and learn yes. Have compassion for them. Because frankly I need compassion myself. We all do. What I don’t do is worry and grind on it.

          So that is my 2 inflation adjusted cents on the matter off the top of my head. For whatever 2 inflation adjusted cents is worth in fantasy fiat script. Lol. — L

          Reply
          1. JusticeGenie

            Dear Legalman,

            Thank you for your reply. I was looking for and forward to it.

            Perhaps oddly, it turns out I happen to agree with every core, sentient point you made. That’s very rare for me, as it turns out. I also inferred (only) that we each happened to reach the point of “letting go” after the stage of getting deeply emotionally and viscerally attached to a particular position or happenstance or outcome pertaining to others’ position, beliefs, concern, lack of critical thinking, and/or ignorance on a topic matter we each happen to deem as universally worthy. And have finally realized/concluded/let go that some things just are what they are and are not likely to change, or will only change on their own time and cause(s) unique and distinct/custom to them (if any or at all). Or something like the said.

            I remain essentially amazed by the ignorance and care level universally, however. i.e., but for a very few. Perhaps for the rest of my life.

            However, beyond just talking about all this stuff (I think, “truths”), it’s imperative that we each ACT. To the degree/extent of our courage, interest/care, aptitude, perseverance/stamina (in the face of pain) and belief. Otherwise the actual effect is likely to be nominal at best, but for another courageous and caring reader/baton carrier who gets inspired and takes appropriate positive action accordingly.

            “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.”

            I believe love is meant as an active trait or virtue in this timeless scripture. Just as James apparently said, “Faith without works is no faith at all.” (Paraphrased from memory.)

            For me, in all this, I have personally found it very very difficult to carry on in the “regular world” or work et al., knowing what I know, realizing what I realized. As it is all seemingly meaningless at best. Like a skilled artisan enthusiastically decorating a room of the Titanic to make it magnificent after it slammed into the iceberg.

            It has reached the critical point where I simply MUST act. There is no other reasonable, amenable choice for me. And I must confess, it has been very very despairing to me personally, to say the least. 🙁 I can’t even discuss any of this stuff with my very intelligent and creative (INTJ) best friend. Because he is of a combination of disinterested and not in agreement with my observations and conclusions reached so far (not even close), regardless of the plethora of supporting rationale. That said, I remain open to challenge and change per any sufficient evidence to the contrary, and am still hopeful and have chosen to march on! 🙂 Who knows where this will lead…I certainly do not.

            High regards,
            JustuiceGenie

      2. Kram

        So really the actual “remedy” is within the perspective of the observer. Regardless of a particular outcome in Court, for instance. I am learning this curve from that arena on several different levels. All civil for now. Coming in from an inside looking out perspective is, well, reflective. I appreciate the dialogue. I will be responding to one Federal “specially” & / “Avoidance” challenging Jurisdiction Lufkin/Huston…lol.. always still from within the box. In the end I will have realized an even higher form of freedom. May I be able to articulate this fact to others. Thanks for the insights Legalman.

        Reply
  5. JusticeGenie

    Hi Legalman!

    I appreciate your concerns for truth and justice and your looking out for the whole — the many rather than the few privileged alone. I’ve been concerned and intellectually curious about many (if not all) of the same topics you have written about. Including the merits of the US constitution formation at the First Constitutional Convention and its adaption/ratification after.

    For that matter, by any chance have you read the following? http://www2.gcc.edu/orgs/GCLawJournal/articles/spring%202011/Constitution%20Illegally%20Adopted.pdf

    if you are willing, would you please comment fully on its merits from your perspective? i.e., whether you are in favor or against the rationale and facts stated in it, in whole or in part, including anything relevant left out, and anything relevant claimed in it that can be definitively proven to be non-factual/incorrect/invalid, and any final conclusion you may have reached for the “argument” it makes and conclusion it reaches re the topic matter.

    Thank you much!

    Sincerely,
    JusticeGenIe (because JusticeGene was taken 🙂

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Thank you for the comment JusticeGenie. I frankly don’t have time to go through the detailed analysis of the paper you have requested, though I did read it and I have spent time to write this. I hope you don’t find the tone off putting, I respect your time having written me about the article and I love the fact that you seem to care about actual freedom and big ideas. That being said.

      My opinion is that virtually all of the arguments made by historians of this era are of the same mindset. That mindset is misplaced. They all imply or claim to justify the document because the “result” was so much freedom. The fundamental argument made in the paper rests on the concept that the US constitution is not a new constitution at all, it is just an elaborate amendment of the articles of confederation. To me, that is just more of the same sleight of hand the founders and all the apologists since then have engaged in on a myriad of topics surrounding that document. They pick and choose and take both sides of every issue whenever it suits them. Here in fact from the paper right in the beginning where it discusses the controversy.

      On the surface, these two accusations are plausible. Indeed, historians agree, essentially unanimously, on the second charge’s truthfulness. It should be noted, however, that most of these same historians believe that the end of saving the Republic justified the means of violating the Articles’ rules concerning the amendment process.

      Look at that sentence. It is exactly what I said. That is not doing history or legal analysis, that is writing ad copy for the ones in power. Frankly I don’t care who thinks it was “justified”. That doesn’t justify it. It simply cloaks their own bias with an illusion of academic or “legal” rigor.

      The two main points are that the constitution was not a new constitution, it was just a fancy set of amendments. To wit: Therefore, it is simply not true to assert that its content comprised “an entirely new document.”To be sure, the proposed amendments were presented as a package deal to be voted up or down rather than as a series of discrete amendments.

      And the second point the paper makes (and I think the details of it are also incorrect) is that the amendment process was in fact followed. The important thing to keep in mind as far as I am concerned is that if the first argument about the constitution not being a NEW constitution fails then the second argument is MOOT and fails as well. Because the constitution would not then be an “amendment” as claimed, and thus the “amendment” process itself would be irrelevant. Unfortunately, imho, the argument that the constitution was a bunch of amendments tied together that amounted to nothing but an elaborate redlined version of the articles of confederation fails. The paper didn’t produce any evidence to support the concept that the framers intended the constitution to be an elaborate set of amendments instead of a wholly new concept of government AS THEY ARGUED. And I would point out that there is nothing in the way it was presented by those who were pushing it back in 1787 or whenever their campaign of lies was conducted, to indicate it was just a redlined articles of confederation by way of a bunch of amendments. It was presented as a NEW constitution.

      Here is the opening sentence of Federalist number 1. This is the supposed author of the document telling us what it is.

      AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America.

      That is the very FIRST sentence of the papers from the holy father of the constitution!! That is not the description of an elaborate set of amendments to a document as the paper suggests and depends upon, I’m sorry. It is a call for a NEW constitution. So for me, the rest of the arguments made in the paper are irrelevant to examine in depth since they all rely on this fundamentally different way of “interpreting” what they did at the holy constitutional convention. When that fails, the rest fails. Where is the evidence that the constitution was a fancy set of amendments to the articles? Nowhere. They told us that they were creating a new form of government. Not a fancy redline of the articles of confederation. So that’s that. Case closed, no need to examine the argument about sending it to the states etc. to show that the amendment procedure was “complied with” etc. IT ISN’T AN AMENDMENT, so that law doesn’t apply.

      Many delegates walked out. Many Delegates didn’t show. They didn’t show because THEY thought what was going on in Philly was a scam and that the jokers up there didn’t have the power to be doing what they purported to be doing up there with the curtains closed! lol I just don’t see any evidence for the heart of the argument. The argument creates a legal fiction. It is just word games after the fact. It reminds me of the scene in Shawshank Redemption when Red is at the parole hearing and he is asked if he has been “rehabilitated”. He responds that “rehabilitation” is just a fancy word so that nice young men like him can wear a suit and have a job.” lol All of these legal fiction arguments are just a round about way of creating cover for what went on that summer since, “saving the union justified what they did”. And I don’t buy that my friend because that means that what they did was without any actual consent and was LAWLESS, just as the delegates who walked out and refused to go said. And a government founded on principles like that is not what they tell us we have. The very notion is a contradiction of terms.

      Of course there is a lot lot more I could go into on both procedural and substantive grounds, but it all boil down to this. Any governmental body can find historians to invent arguments and legal fictions to claim they followed some procedure that then “bound” the people. It doesn’t mean it is true. The fact is that NO GOVERNMENT can bind me when I haven’t agreed. And I wasn’t alive when they claim to have voted to get the “agreement”, so again, case closed.

      Dictators take “votes” and then claim they have the support of the people. Anything can be made to appear to have “followed some holy procedure”, it doesn’t make it legitimate. The guns those in power wield is what gives them power, not the actual consent of the governed or some elaborate argument about a legal fiction. Those who had been sent there by the people disagree with the paper’s fundamental premise. The holy father of the constitution disagrees with the fundamental premise. How can “historians” possibly be “more correct” than those actually sent there on behalf of the people at the time? it makes no sense.

      So while I appreciate people who care about freedom and the “country” I find no merit in the fundamental basis for the paper’s argument. It is my sincere hope that you use your interest and dedication to actual freedom and give serious consideration to the fact that the constitution is not in anyway about my freedom or yours. Take care my friend. — L

      Reply
      1. JusticeGenie

        Hello Legalman,

        Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed reply. I appreciate it greatly.

        There is one misunderstanding I want to be sure to clear up first: That article was NOT written by me. Rather, it was provided to me (the link to it) by a very close friend who also happens to be a historian, in response to my very long letter to him in follow up to a disagreement we had in advance of my taking the long time (hours) drafting my “argument” (lengthy logical layout of the facts et al. much like you have done in many of your articles on this site, and in your reply to my last entry). Our disagreement, although controlled and respectful, got a tad heated. ☺ Therefore I decided to invest many hours long into the night to draft a “dissertation” about the matter.

        The case I made was completely in alignment with what you have written in your various articles (at least so far I have found nothing substantial in any of your arguments/articles that is contrary to my own research, studies and understanding), and he essentially dismissed it all with the following (excerpt from his reply email, and of course keeping names/identification out for confidentiality and privacy purposes): “Here is an analysis by a historian on this subject which aligns more or less with what I recall from my studies pertaining to this topic. If necessary, I can provide more.
        http://www2.gcc.edu/orgs/GCLawJournal/articles/spring%202011/Constitution%20Illegally%20Adopted.pdf“.

        I have found it to be “disappointing” (to be kind and say the least :)) how so many people seem to believe and respect a “historian” seemingly just because of their title and therefore inferred/perceived credibility and esteem. I think a much better approach is for every person to think for themselves, and learn from the collection of historians and non-historians (any and all sources of information and knowledge). (That is one of the major reasons I was drawn to your website – your articles/work.) Unfortunately since there isn’t enough time and/or interest for everyone to do so, the “experts” oftentimes and typically get away with wrongly and/or negatively influencing so many. This certainly applies to the core (relatively few owned and controlled and influencing) media as well.

        I need to spend much more time digesting all the information and rationale you provided in your thorough reply as my next step wrt this personal interest area.

        Before closing, there is one particular point I have pondered quite a bit, and believe it does have some relevance—although not in alignment with my personal idealistic viewpoint and preference; my preference and sense of justice, equality, fairness, liberty, et al. That is, in reality, in essentially all major breakthroughs, reformations and revolutions throughout history, it is essentially the relatively few who have taken all the risk to the benefit of the relatively many. Including our own revolution against the tyranny of King George III and England/parliament in general. So I can see how can make the argument, like the historians seem to make directly or indirectly (mostly the latter): “Too bad. Those few had all the guts so they deserve all the glory.” And: “No risk, no reward.”

        I do think there is some merit to that, legal or not legal. Unfortunately we know that, due to the seemingly inevitable folly and tendency toward corruption of humankind, and the sinful nature (or at least ceaseless temptation of sin) inflicting man, in my opinion NO human being is qualified or capable of properly and justly ruling over any other human being. None. Ever. If there ever were a purely and perfectly benevolent despot then that person would be qualified. However, as far as I am aware none has ever existed in all of recorded history to date. (NOT counting any religious/profit/spiritual figures of any religion or faith here. Entire books can and have been written on that subject matter and point.) The only exception in my opinion is the parent-child relationship, until the child has sufficiently matured to self-sufficiency—though only if the parent is mentally and physically healthy and of good nature, intentions, abilities and actions.

        Thank you again for the helpful information and logic you provided. I look forward to digging in!

        High regards,
        JusticeGenie

        Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          I’m glad it helped JusticeGenie. And I know that in the original draft of my response I had assumed you as the author, but I corrected that for the final. I was having a hard time with the formatting aspect in the “response” section of my site. I couldn’t really finish my edit until I posted it. Unlike an article post where I can. In the reply that actually appears on the site you will see what I am saying.

          But you’re right, most people just won’t hear simple truths. Most people simply accept what an “expert says”. But do they even bother to check to see if the person is simply making up their CREDENTIALS?? lol no, they never bother. The entire system is a con.

          Let me just say one thing on your point about revolutions etc. where those who benefit taking all the risks etc. The winner writes the history. So I don’t believe any of those tales and myths and legends we hear about people “helping others”. How a “courageous few leaders with great vision fought on for us” etc. history is replete with self serving lies. You just follow the money. That leads to the truth.

          Just like our supposed “oppression” under George III. Wtf knows what was happening here in the colonies. I know this. There were a HELL of a lot of loyalists. Were they all masochists?? lol I doubt it. My opinion of REAL history is shown in much of braveheart. There are a lot of lessons in that movie for anyone who watches it with a keen eye. The “nobles” USE the people to benefit themselves. Remember, “we shall support the revolt with our lands in the north and oppose it with our lands in the south”. ? That was classic.

          I no more believe that those who take the risks, necessarily reap the rewards. In fact I suspect it is the opposite. The people who take the REAL risks are the FOOT SOLDIERS, and it is clear they NEVER reap the rewards. Sure those who manage to use the circumstances to benefit hire historians to paint them as courageous risk takers, but I suspect that is all a load of crap. The leaders of “movements” are, for the most part self seeking. And the very idea of some benevolent political figure is highly suspect to me, period. I remember reading in the peoples’ history of the US, that there was a HUGE reward for the person who first spotted land. Huge, set by the Queen to entice sailors to go. Well a guy in the crow’s nest spotted land. But Columbus said it wasn’t land and he then “spotted land” the next day himself. He doctored his log and claimed the prize. THAT is real history. True or not, it RINGS truer than what we have been taught.

          All of this no risk no reward is just more propaganda those who have cheated put out to try and create and image of legitimacy to their rule/abuse. I live by a simple rule. Question everything. lol Take care. — L

          Reply
          1. JusticeGenie

            Primo Legalman! Where have you been all my life! 🙂 That is, over the past 25 years or so, since the time I started taking an interest in important topics such as this. (At least I thing they’re important.) How difficult, rare and refreshing it is to find someone who seemingly and essentially thinks and sees things the same way. I have generally felt COMPLETELY alone in this topic matter with very few exceptions. And for the occasional few I have found who agrees, none of them cared enough to delve deeply or broadly. So I have continued my journey solo. 🙂

            About the “no risk, no reward” topic, I do fully agree that the winner writes the history, and the other points you made about the BS aspects of various historic situations and events. One can quickly and easily see who the “good guys” and “bad guys” surely would have been if Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo/Hirohito won WWII, for instance. And all the “truth” and history books accordingly.

            However, I still believe that in general, from a principle perspective, that there is some sound and just merit to the concept of receiving a reward for difficult, risky, courageous action toward any good end. What happens tough, in reality, due to common human nature (the points said), the winner essentially always TAKES far more than their just award. Such as what every dictator and dictatorial group (e.g., various and many governments, corporations, and even religious institutions and non-profit organizations — not saying all of them here, though I can easily cite several examples in each category area). Furthermore, nothing surrounding this is truly black and white. Not all bad guys have been good, nor good guys bad. For instance, George Washington had slaves (over a few hundred resided at his Mt. Vernon residence at the time of his death). however, he also alone rejected his nomination by the majority to be “king” or the like of the country. And was the first ruler up to that time to give up “the thrown” after just eight years–two terms. Both of those acts by him were unprecedented up to that point as far as I know. And we can go on and on about his “good” and “bad” acts and traits. And as great as he, Lincoln, Churchill, Ghandi, etc., were, or were perceived to be, I remain firm in my belief and recommendation that no human being is worthy, qualified or capable of justly, rightly and maximum beneficially rule over any other human being. No exceptions.

            Having said that, I don’t agree with the historians and don’t agree that said principle, for instance, comes anywhere close to justifying the intentions and actions by the “elite” few toward the crafting and muscling through the ratification of the US Constitution or anything else like this if/when it has or shall occur.

            A votre sante!
            JusticeGenie

          2. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            JusticeGenie I am glad you’re here. One of the only reasons I even bother to write at all at this point is to have a bit of company in my thoughts and to provide the same for any others who suffer the same fate. Like the character said in the movie sideways when his friend was telling him he was crazy to risk his marriage/engagement by fooling around, you’re a good friend and you know a lot about books and stuff but you don’t understand my plight. Lol. Great line. And true. If you don’t have thoughts so outside the accepted norm then you just can’t understand the plight of we who do.

            I have let go of the naive fantasy of “changing the system” etc. That will never happen. And that is fine. The truth is enough for me. So I keep the site around and write when I care to. There are a lot of things I haven’t said. And a lot more I probably won’t ever say on here. Lol

            I am lucky in that I have a group of like minded friends who I can say anything to and get fair feedback. That is essential to maintaining sanity. If it wasn’t for them I might be “in the news” so to speak. Lol. Take care. — L

          3. JusticeGenie

            Hi LegalMan,

            For some reason there wasn’t a “Reply” option for your December 10, 2015 at 7:30 pm entry, so I’m replying to this last one having the Reply link. (I noticed a few typos and writing snafus in my prior posts. Was writing free flow and quickly, without typical editorial review. Sorry about that! Though I think they were all minor. :))

            Thanks for your movie line share. Funny! Love the big screen and screenplays in general.

            About changing the system, I know what you mean. It would be like changing the orbit of the earth or moon, from a practicality and probability perspective. However, we only live once and life is too short (and great!) to not invest it in giving a good cause like this one a college try or more. 🙂 Even if only a minute bit of progress is made toward the positive end. Success breeds success…and synergy is a very real phenomenon. And at least if we work at it it has a chance, otherwise it surely will not.

            Anyway, I’m a die hard idealist, and likely will remain so even if I’m the last one standing this way.

            Sante!
            JusticeGenie

          4. Robert Graf

            ***About changing the system, I know what you mean. It would be like changing the orbit of the earth or moon, from a practicality and probability perspective. However, we only live once and life is too short (and great!) to not invest it in giving a good cause like this one a college try or more.

            The system needs to be eliminated, not changed. But first, you need to identifiy the enemy, and it is you. You’ve swallowed the authoritarian collectivisit wad hook, line and sinker. You’re exactly the kind of slave they want. Not only have you willingly put the chains of slavery on, yourself; you believe everyone else should do the same, by use or threat of use of force.

            You have the right to enslave yourself to whatever you wish, but you have no right to expect the same of anyone else, let alone legitimizing the use or threat of use of force to obtain compliance. You haven’t been educated. You were schooled. As Mark Twain said, “It’s easier to fool someone, than it is to convince them that they’ve been fooled.”

            The only true capital any government has is the cooperation of the populace. Quit cooperating, and the whole parasitic system dries up and blows away. A revolution will only change who is pointing the gun at your head. If you can’t see that the last revolution failed, then you can’t see it. you’ve got Bullwinkle syndrome.

            Bullwinkle: “Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!”

            Rocky: “Not again. That trick never works.”

            Bullwinkle: “This time, for sure!”

            They have convinced you that the republic is somehow a representative democracy, when, in fact, it is no such thing. Simple logic and cold, hard facts dispute that notion entirely. According to the constitution, it is the house of representatives that that is supposed to represent the populace democratically. The house does not, and, indeed, is entirely incapable of doing so. You reside in a single congressional district, for which there is a single representative. On an issue were half the populace is in favor, and the other half is in opposition, either one half of the populace is 100% over-represented, and the other half is 100% under-represented, or both sides are totally unrepresented.

            If you haven’t figured that out by now, then you are not capable of thinking for yourself. They depend on those type of people to fool the others who do not think for themselves, either. Formal logic is not part of the school curriculum, for purposes that are not in your best interest. Without knowledge of formal logic, one can not even understand their own language. If you are a college graduate, and you did not take formal logic, then you failed yourself.

            The only legitimate function of government is the protection of the individual’s right to tend to their own needs, without the interference of others. The system is one of dependency. Self sufficiency is the alternative.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Hologram of liberty is a great book Paul. I certainly agreed with his conclusions when I read it. Spooner is truly greatness. His thinking and writing is clear. Dense often because it is so much info with his footnotes. But the man was a mental giant. Glad to have you. – L

      Reply
    1. Robert Graf

      Asking what is a better system of government is like asking what is a better form of cancer.

      Reply
      1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

        LOL now that Robert was a funny response to mr. Skepticalatbest. I wasn’t going to even bother to respond to him. The type of comment he made was absurd. The article didn’t claim to attempt to address what he then acted as though it failed for having not addressed. Lol. He could have just as relevantly asked “and a better meatball recipe is……..?” He read no other material of course. He will never bother to be back to read whatever we say to him/her. He is off to try and appear glib and clever somewhere else. But I seriously enjoyed the fact that you smoked him so easily. I’m still chuckling. We few do have to stick together. For our own sanity if nothing else. — L

        Reply
    2. Ol' Pappy

      That’s easy. A better system would be a less consolidated, smaller one; closer to the people, where the politicians have to face their constituents every day at the grocery and hardware stores. Going back to the original Articles of Confederation wouldn’t get us there but it would be infinitely better than this corruptible top down monstrosity we suffer under now. Your disdain for critical thought is not appreciated here, BTW. So either shape up or ship out. Pappy out

      Reply
      1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

        LOL yet more greatness directed at our new troll friend skepticalatbest. Ol’Pappy you are right about not wasting peoples’ time. It was clear the comment was just a sad and transparent attempt to boost his own ego. It wasn’t a real request. Luckily he will not be back in all likelihood. Hope all is well with you. — L

        Reply
  6. c.c.

    Greetings Legalman,

    Curious if you have ever had the occasion to speak with Tom Woods or Lew Rockwell – or perhaps anyone else over at Mises about this subject?

    Really enjoyed this piece of yours by the way – thank you. For me, unlearning what I have learned came right about the time when I used to listen to Mark Levin’s show on the AM dial some years back. After a few broadcasts and him sounding very much like Captain Leadbottom of McHale’s Navy fame, uttering ‘the Constitution’ more times during a 2 hour program than I could keep track of, I began to suspect something wasn’t quite right…

    Cheers!!

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Thanks CC. I have not had that pleasure though I am a fan of the Austrians of course. I had to laugh with your comment about “the great one”. He really does push that crap about the constitution. I wonder if he believes any of it? He makes a nice living peddling it. Like the others in that biz. I find it hard to believe he doesn’t know the truth but he may not. The conjobstitution is worse than useless. It is quite the chore to unlearn. But it is worth it. Glad you’re here. — L

      Reply
  7. GeorgiaCracker

    Your posts are opening eyes and, hopefully, minds too. Your close reading of the Constitution has me reevaluating every sentence now. Maybe there is hope for us — we the people — after all.

    Reply
  8. Gene

    Legalman,

    Thanks for the article.

    I used to be one of those people in the rabbit hole that thought the illusion was real. I was an avid Constitutionalist, carried a pocket copy of it all of the time, and had most of it committed to memory.

    About 12 or so years ago, I realized that something was wrong with the system. I started digging and found out what was wrong and who was behind it after a lot of research. Consequently, I have not voted in any “federal election” for about 10-years because I do not want to be complicit in a crime against my fellowman.

    I am one of those people that likes to step back from the tree so that I can see the forest once I know that something is not right. Once the brainwashing is put aside, it becomes obvious that voting is not a solution since we have been doing it for 225-years and things only get worse. Also, it becomes obvious that going back to the Constitution is not a solution because that it were we started voting. Simple deductive reasoning must point to fraud covered up with propaganda.

    I am no legal eagle, but it does not require a law background to realize what happened in Philly in 1787. All that is required is to read the Articles of Confederation and be familiar with the Constitution. Thirteen sovereign nations gave up their sovereignty to become subservient States to a central government. Who benefited? It wasn’t the People or the Nations/States. Those who did the work in Philly (I refer to them as the Founding Whores) may have benefited as you point out, but they were not the biggest benefactors. It all has to do with money and the money power left their fingerprints all over the process, before, during, and after.

    Just last week, I started to do a little research on your topic and found some of the same info in your article. What a coincidence to find your article. I came to some of the same conclusions you did, but you are much more talented at expressing your conclusions that I could be. Good job. I went down the Pennsylvania approval process and it was quite interesting. They used a forced quorum to get the job done.

    My comment is already too long so I would really appreciate you sending me an e-mail. I would gladly share all I have discovered including what I believe is the only solution for this mess. I would also be interested in knowing more about what you know.

    Thanks again for the article. It’s nice to know that I’m not as alone in the process as I thought that I was.

    Reply
    1. ol'Pappy

      Wise words, Gene. Unlike you, I had not pieced together the puzzle until reading Legalman. I believe I had the financial side but the legal side remained murky. You mention “the money power” and indeed I believe you are spot on. It is the invisible money power that runs everything. Always has been. Here is a site that can help one better understand the history from a financial perspective. It may look a bit amateurish on the surface, but the insights shared within are worth it.
      http://www.greatreddragon.com/index.htm

      Reply
    2. Bayaba

      You can make a difference voting; you might put someone that likes golfing in office rather than sex in the Oval Office. All joking aside, that is about the extent of the difference you can make with your vote.

      Reply
  9. nobodyouwantoknow

    Here’s an interesting read :

    Michael MUSMANNO : Proposed Amendments to the Constitution

    House Doc # 551
    76th Congess 2nd Session
    A monograph on resolutions introduced in Congress proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America

    Reply
    1. Alan Donelson

      Do you have a link? It would seem this low-profile fellow has a rather extensive background and history, not necessarily of, by, and for the people I know.

      Reply
  10. Listens

    Happy to have read this. I will look up Gary North’s book as well. There is clear evidence that the gov in DC is careening into every conflict they can create and it has been so since the Whisky rebellion.

    I have subscribed to Ed Rivera’s organiclaws.org site and followed his posts over the years. He started a pay site last year and is reorganizing it now – but the gist of this is his research into the history as you have elucidated though he does get more on the fact that the Articles of Confederation are still law as well as the Northwest Ordinance – and that the Constitution is a revision of the Northwest Ordinance and applies principally to property owned by the United States of America – ONLY. He cites four organic laws, the first being the declaration of independence, second is the Articles of Confederation, third is the Northwest Ordinance and fourth is the Constitution of 1787. These are all listed as the organic laws before the US Code (passed by the house but no record of senate passage, I believe). The Articles of Confederation are still in force. What we have today is lie upon lie upon lie until over the years the men and women of America just accept the de jure as being absolute truth.

    Rod Class’s work is an example of the actors in government exec, judicial and legislator all breaking the laws (their laws) openly. http://www.talkshoe.com – AIB radio (Rod Class)

    Thanks for your work.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Glad you enjoyed it. There really are so many issues out there. lol. The maze of disinformation they have created is quite impressive! hope you come back and tell your friends. — L

      Reply
  11. Tom

    Our present Constitution would be just fine if we had proper law enforcement. The suspicious goings-on regarding the September 11, 2001 murders, as well as many, many other incidents indicate that our government has been subverted.

    Reply
    1. Alan Donelson

      Good going, Mr. Harris! As a frequent visitor to VeteransToday.com, I know the readers there will also benefit greatly from the information Legalman provides RE The US Constitution and other topics. Too many of us seem to think that “goddam piece of paper” (probably erroneously though appropriately attributed to The Shrub [may Molly I. R. I. P.]) has value for battles over issues going forward. I have come to doubt that.

      Reply
  12. Alan Donelson

    Thank you very much for the briefing — news to me! Thank GOD I chose to major in Chemistry, not in History, otherwise I’d have had blinders that would have lasted a lifetime or three.

    Reply
  13. john mcintyre

    I don’t know if the author is aware of it or not, but Gary North has written a whole book on this subject. Its called: Conspiracy in Philadelphia. Definitely worth the read.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I was not, but I have read some others of course. I don’t claim any unique knowledge on the subject.. lol. The information is there of course. It’s a matter of getting peoples’ attention. The con is quite deep and effective. It’s just a game to them. Glad you’re here. — L

      Reply
      1. john mcintyre

        Legalman: Would you agree that Charles Beard discovered some of the truths you are discussing early in the 20th century and was savagely attacked for doing so? Other great American truth tellers would have to include Henry George, Thorstein Veblen, and Gustavus Myers. Other than maybe Veblen, very few people today have any clue who these guys were. Its like they were disappeared down the memory hole.

        Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          lol, yes, they were disappeared. I just so happened to re-watch 1984 last night. That little fire hole they had everywhere was great. — L

          Reply
      2. Robert Graf

        Go to http://www.garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf for a look. And you didn’t mention that the attendees were overwhelmingly members of a secret society, the freemasons. Thefreemasons are an offshoot of the knights templar, who had to flee to Scotland when their perfidy was discovered by the king of France, Philip the fair, who issued an order for the arrest and immediate execution of Jacques de Molay and the knights templar. That was Friday the 13th 1307. They were tricking the royalty of Europe into wars to get the kingdoms in debt, so they could control the country through their finances. The first groundswell political movement in the country was the anti masonic movement, because the masons controlled both parties.

        Also, you might want to reference Patrick Henry’s anti federalist argument. It is not very long, and he called it. So, it wasn’t like nobody could see what was going on.

        Reply
  14. Paul Robinson

    Now there are a bunch of dupes clamoring for a Constitutional Convention. They call it a convention of States. Of course it is only to address certain limited issues. History should teach the fools otherwise.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      yes. One of the keys seems to be that people just don’t learn! lol. They can run the same plays over and over again. I find it quite amusing. You try and tell people and they get upset with YOU. lol .– L

      Reply
    2. Matthew grimes

      There are several states that have voted to call a constitutional convention already. My question is what will we get when they are done? History may repeat the Articles of Confederation edit.

      Reply
      1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

        Matthew I did recently discuss this in the comments to my front page. You might check that out. A very strong advocate for that made a long case for it and I responded. People can decide for themselves which they gravitate towards. — L

        Reply
  15. Aussie Mal

    As an Australian I am amazed at your eye opening information. Until reading this I was all behind Dr Ron Paul’s push to follow the Constitution. With this info, what does a truth seeking, honest American do? Push for another constitutional formula or push for a return to the original Constitution? I can’t see the political parasites allowing either option.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well I’m glad I could give you a bit of equal time. lol. Yeah, Ron Paul is quite an interesting public figure. My thoughts on him are that he has been reached. Not only does he now have a son to ‘carry on” etc. But just look at what he did. When the republicrats had power and he had a KEY chairmanship, instead of issuing subpoenas, bringing in witnesses and actually getting stuff on the record, what did he do? he wasted his time “running for president” in a campaign that was dead on arrival. lol. How much more actual change and waking could he have effected by doing what I suggested instead of giving town halls etc. that nobody would ever hear? And if you still think that is an accident, well.. everyone is entitled to an opinion. At least for a few more years. lol. Glad you’re here. Tell your friends — L

      Reply
  16. John Hendricks

    The beloved phrase “WE THE PEOPLE” opens the Constitution, but they are undefined. Who exactly are the people? It should have said “We the States.” “The people” would appear to be the men who signed the Constitution. Therefore, the Constitution is a legal agreement with only one party, who are not available to represent themselves?

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      You of course are correct. The only thing I would say is you “don’t go far enough”! lol. There are so many legal problems with the concept of what the constitution is. Any and everyone who even allegedly agreed is now DEAD. So nobody has in fact agreed to any of it. Further, I would say that if the constitution is supposed to be or have been what is DESCRIBED and set out in the “federalist papers”, then I believe the entire “agreement” FAILS for what lawyers call “no meeting of the minds”. In other words, the “people” were under the impression the agreement was to do one thing and the drafters were intending for it to support a government that could tell you how much water you can flush in your toilet. Thus the parties were never IN AGREEMENT, there was no meeting of the minds. And this of course is just ONE teeny tiny additional reason the whole thing needs to be examined by the people from a WHOLE NEW PERSPECTIVE. Not from within the game they have set up. The people need to turn that map upside down and see that there are a lot of totally different ways to SEE the PROBLEM. When you see the problem differently, you can THEN see a whole new set of SOLUTIONS. Glad you’re here, tell your friends that might be open. The only protection we have in the long run is opening minds. Take care. — L

      Reply
      1. Robert Graf

        During one of the recent obama eligibility challenges, the supreme court ruled that the constitution was a contract between the states and the federal republic that the citizens are not party to. By what legal principle can someone be held bound to a contract that they are not party to? Seems like this would invalidate the 16th amendment, among other things.

        Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          Nice point. Of course there are many many reasons why it utterly fails as a “contract”. lol. I don’t remember having the opportunity to agree to it or not. Isn’t that kind of basic? lol

          Reply
          1. Robert Grf

            Of course it fails as a contract. And, of course, you didn’t have to consent. How many of the founders were participants in duels? If your words or actions offended them, they immediately resorted to violence.

          2. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

            I find it quite interesting that “dueling” has been “outlawed”. Quite a leveler between the people and the people in charge. That’s not a coincidence. lol –L

          3. Robert Graf

            Dueling was illegal in New York when Aaron Buur and Alexander Hamilton had their duel, so just likes the disgraced politicians they were, they just crossed the state line, and went to New Jersey to shoot it out. Recently, I read an artivle stating that Hamilton had modified his pistol to have a hair trigger. Hamilton was, by most accounts, the leading proponent of the federalist republic, but what kind of man was he? He is touted by the school system as some kind of hero, but that doesn’t seem like a logical position to me. His oldest son, Alexander, had died at age 19 in a duel over his father’s honor a couple of years before he engaged in the duel with Burr. What kind of man would not learn from the death of his own son? Hamilton was involved in 10 duels, from what I have read.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well step one is get a bit of cover by informing people and get them to start understanding. After that, there are quite a few paths regarding jury trials and holding their feet to the fire on the actual wording. But honestly, the MOST important thing is that people need to start to wake up to the idea that “what is done is done” may not really be true. Yes they have set a system up, but the REAL question is under what theory can I or you or anyone else be BOUND to a “contract” i.e. the constitution or what the supreme court said or anything else, IF WE HAVE NEVER AGREED TO BE BOUND? And of course we have not agreed. So we need to have people start to reorient their minds to the idea that just because some crap happened 150 years ago, doesn’t mean the people today have to follow it or give it ANY WEIGHT AT ALL. The people running it KNOW that, and that is why they don’t follow the law. The great trick is fooling people into imagining that some alleged vote 230 or so years ago “BINDS” me or us for all time unless we follow the rules they also voted for etc. And of course there are all sorts of other reasons the whole system is not binding, but I do believe that is the most important thing for people to grasp. If they can start to see how key that is, things will change VERY quickly. Glad you’re here, hope you return and tell your friends who may be open. It is a process. — L

      Reply
      1. Robert Graf

        I think it’s all moot. The whole system is about to go bust. People are beginning to wake up to the fact that a republic is just rulership of the self declared elite. It is nothing more than the emperor’s latest pimp suit, now that the fatuous notions of the ‘descendants of the gods’ possessing the ‘divine right to rule’.

        Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I am glad you enjoyed. I always like feedback. It lets me know what people are thinking. Or if they even read it. Lol. Enjoy my brainwashed brethren.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *