Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Founders / Framers Minute: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3b

The death knell of slavery was sounded and the decennial census was founded.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3b

Founders / Framers Minute:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3b

by Cornel Rasor

Article I.

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.”

Debating in the Massachusetts ratifying convention of January 1788, founder Nathaniel Gorham allowed that should the constitution survive, within 100 years there would be 1.400 – 1,500 Federal representatives. It was understood that the “more numerous” branch would grow with the population. As we showed in the last Founder’s / Framer’s Minute, the number of representatives was fixed in 1909 and 1911.

Much debate centered around the mode of taxation. Should the land be taxed or the people? It would be very difficult it was decided, to ascertain land values but population could be relatively easy to determine once an official census was commissioned. Thus population became the basis for both taxation and representation. Interestingly, in this convention, it was noted that Georgia with it’s slave population was content with the three representatives allotted.

The main content of the federal convention debate and the Federalist Papers addresses the first section of Clause 3. Not much is said about the deliberate numbering of representatives. Much more was said about the idea of direct taxation replacing tariffs and excises. Once the founders settled on representation as a function of population viz. one representative per 30,000 citizens, it remained only to decide on initial representation. As mentioned, the 3/5th’s clause was the vehicle for this decision.

The population of North Carolina counting slaves was 393,751 in 1790 and they were given 5 representatives. Pennsylvania with a population of 434,373 was given 8 even though the difference in population was only 40,622, or about one representative. This speaks well of the carefully crafted compromise that was designed to end slavery. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 disallowed Congress from banning slavery before 1808. True to form, in 1807 a statute was introduced that banned the importation of slaves. Also, Article 5 of the constitution prohibited an amendment interdicting this plan.

Thus, a beginning was made for taxation and representation in the new nation. The death knell of slavery was sounded and the decennial census was founded.

View Fullscreen

Minute 1: Article I, Section 1

Minute 2: Article I, Section 2, Clause 1-2

Minute 3: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3a

 

Please support our coverage of your rights. D//onate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews

Editor’s note: minor autocorrect corrections. 8/9/2018

33 Comments on Founders / Framers Minute: Article I, Section 2, Clause 3b

  1. And the slavers get away once again with false history. Slavery is always against the real, truth based, moral, law.

    Slavery was outlawed under the voluntary (not slavery) Federation (confederation) of independent republics.

    It was the slave traders who wanted a consolidated (involuntary) nation state to replace the voluntary federation, altering the moral, voluntary, government from the moral, voluntary, form, and altering the government into subsidized slavery under the color of law.

    That was how the soul of America was lost, and that was how the Revolutionary War was lost; yet people still regurgitate the lies told by the slave traders.

  2. I find it difficult to believe that so many people have been hoodwinked for so long, yet the mountains of evidence proving the facts in this matter still preserve that capacity for people to simply wake up.

    “Part of Garrison’s opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed “the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools.” Phillips argued that this experience proved “that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery.”

    https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-1.html

  3. “Gen. SAMUEL THOMPSON exclaimed, Mr. President, shall it be said that, after we
    have established our own independence and freedom, we make slaves of others? O!
    Washington, what a name has he had! How he has immortalized himself! But he holds those in slavery who have as good a right to be free as he has. He is still for self; and, in my opinion, his character has sunk fifty per cent.” – The Massachusetts Ratification Convention (1788)

    Although all 13 State’s did Ratify the Constitution in five of the States the percentage of dissenting votes was over 40%; it was a close call.

  4. Boyd White, do you fail to see the con game? The original counties, original states, and the original federation was not majority rule, or any other profitable monopoly power, it was consent of the governed under the common law.

    The conspirators knew, on the official record no less, that they had ignored the original federal agreement when they set in motion this thing called rat-ification. Rhode Island refused to attend the con con, so the conspirators had no legal standing to start the ratification of a new government that replaced the original federation. They had no authority to do so, as specified in the original agreement that formed the United States (plural) of America.

    The failure by the people was such that those having the power to investigate, indict, and then try the conspirators at the first Con Con, did not do so. Everyone, according to the real common law, has the power to investigate, indict, and then try an presumed to be innocent criminal: in principle.

    In practice the common law only works when enough people use it.

    That is not majority rule over and above the government, it is trial by the country, where the country through the jury must agree unanimously: consent of the governed. This unanimity in the original federation shows how the original federation was formed below the principles of the common law, whereby every single state had to agree to change the government: not powerful states doing whatever they want to less powerful states.

    From the original agreement to join defensive forces into a con-Federation of independent states under the common law:

    “Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”

    Crime scene evidence:

    “Resolved, That the proceeding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, that is should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled.”

    If it takes another con-man to figure this out, then that evidence can be added to the well established fact that these people were criminals when these people made slavery legal.

    In simple layman terms the states insisted upon having “equal footing” for their mutual protection: very sound reasoning. The same sound reasoning is evident in trial by jury and the real common law. The sound reasoning is to nullify power hungry tyrants by out-lawing absolute majority rule, out-lawing absolute minority rule, and outlawing any other segment of the population gaining absolute power to do whatever they want to any other individual, or any other group. Power by people over people (absolute), against their will, was known to corrupt (absolutely), it is now known to corrupt, it even corrupts the best people, so don’t allow it in the first place.

    Congress did not agree to change the government, the people who remained at the Con Con agreed to do so, and Rhode Island did not attend. Furthermore, many who attended the Con Con refused to sign the slave trading agreement, some walked out.

    The slave traders had to resort to deception to gain the absolute power over people that they still command today, and the lie still works well enough to this day on the majority.

    “But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the “Rights of Man” was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.

    “But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.”

    To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
    November 15, 1802

    A profitable monopoly is not a voluntary mutual defense association under the common law, the later (Articles of Confederation) was useful enough to drive off the largest criminal military power then on the planet: The British Monarchy, and that criminal military power, the former, still is a profitable monopoly.

  5. “The failure by the people was such that those having the power to investigate, indict, and then try the conspirators at the first Con Con, did not do so.”

    That is probably the sad truth, Joe Kelley. Even though by 1786 the Articles of Confederation could not obtain a quorum that cold hard truth is there was a lot of opposition to the creation of the Constitution. This short video is one of the best I have seen on the enmity; it pits Benjamin Franklin and Patrick Henry talking about the Con Con and why Patrick Henry would not be attending; and boy do these actors go at hard:

    Two Good & Noble Men
    https://nccs.net/collections/videos/products/two-good-noble-men

    “Power by people over people (absolute), against their will, was known to corrupt (absolutely), it is now known to corrupt, it even corrupts the best people, so don’t allow it in the first place.”

    And this is another solid observation, Joe Kelley. Our Republic is not doing a very good job in defending the idea the humans can make good law (hell, they have indentured the entire populace of the USA)…and they have every advantage to do so…no one can dictate to them bad law…all they have to do is law good. The obvious answer being just like you said, “Don’t allow it in the first place.”

    And this clause, even though it did not make it into the final draft of the Constitution, shows the mindset of at least some of the participants at the Con Con of 1787.

    Federal Convention 1787
    Monday, August 20. In Convention
    “The U.S. shall be for ever considered as one Body corporate and politic in law, and entitled to all the rights and privileges and immunities, which to Bodies corporate do or ought to appertain.”

  6. Boyd White,

    I will attempt to establish a working definition of what a republic is, as in “Our Republic,” so as then to attempt to find out why you make such a claim; perhaps you refer to whatever good government the people are able to manage on their own despite having a FAKE Republic in place stealing everything that can be stolen from the people.

    “”What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.

    “Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.

    “Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic, which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership. But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real Republic, in character and in practice, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that this, and no other, shall always be the object of their government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing governments on the system of representation only. Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of a government, for a form of government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant anything with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no representation. The case, therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the Res-Publica, or the Public Business of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple democratical form? It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject.

    “It is possible that an individual may lay down a system of principles, on which government shall be constitutionally established to any extent of territory. This is no more than an operation of the mind, acting by its own powers. But the practice upon those principles, as applying to the various and numerous circumstances of a nation, its agriculture, manufacture, trade, commerce, etc., etc., a knowledge of a different kind, and which can be had only from the various parts of society. It is an assemblage of practical knowledge, which no individual can possess; and therefore the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful practice, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical form, from the multiplicity of population. The one degenerates, by extension, into confusion; the other, into ignorance and incapacity, of which all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical form, therefore, could not be a substitute for the democratical, because it has equal inconveniences. ”

    That is from Rights of Man by Thomas Paine, page 176 in my copy.

    When someone arbitrarily excludes segments of the population (the public) from access to government, then said individuals are perpetrating a crime against the public, a treasonous crime. That was done in 1789, excluding all the people of Rhode Island, so as to usurp the existing republic (public thing), and then excluding all the slaves, and excluding all the people who work effectively at freeing any slaves: a government service within an actual republic.

    So where is this republic that is ours? Is it those rare cases when a jury is allowed to render a moral verdict in a trial by the country case: actual consent of the governed?

    Have you looked at, read, the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Naturalization Act of 1790, and the creation of the First Bank of the United States, along with the National excise tax in place to create the demand for a Central Bank Scam? These Acts are precisely how fake government creates a target population, a method by which each target is found, placed on a list, and then wealth extracted from each individual source of power. The legalese, a euphemism itself for doublespeak, more precisely fraud, as in a confidence scheme – the legalese – is as if it were cut and pasted from the British criminal Empire’s Parliament.

    What is the meaning of “Enumeration,” as in “The actual Enumeration shall be…”?

    e·nu·mer·a·tion
    “…the action of mentioning a number of things one by one…”

    Slavers brand their slaves, keep track of them, otherwise how can the slavers calculate the profits of their monopoly? If it isn’t a monopoly, then the slaves can enslave the slavers, all is fair in free markets and all; a criminal application of the Golden Rule. Here is your constitution, it works so well for everyone, well, except the slaves of course.

    • Joe Kelley, point well taken.

      How do you reconcile the “Having Things” aspect of life? Because, even though a lot of the products we have are cheaply made and don’t have a life span over a decade and the probability the monetary/economic malfeasance will lead to severe corrections, the USA is plumb full of Things. We are at the apex of “Having Things”.

      So, while your philosophy is honest and sound…some might say idealistic though that is not a bad thing…how does that translate into practice in your worldview? Yes, policies like Lysander Spooner’s “Cooperation Amongst Equals” allow for a Corporate Private Navy or Security Force to protect merchant trade to bring products from afar…there are a lot of dynamics involved which tend to trample idealism. Yes, that trampling is a crime…and yes that is why Mutual defense pacts are valuable…but sometimes the Criminals win and subjugate free people.

      Was the Constitution a criminal act against Slaves? What honest person would not say that is so? That being said, the USA through the Patent protection in the Constitution:
      “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;” Article I, Section 8, Para 8

      …has given a great boost to the world by encouraging people with the idea that they can profit by inventing better ways to do things.

      So, how do you, reconcile “Having Things” in the USA with the position the U.S. Constitution is the worst thing since the laws of Draco?

  7. Boyd White,

    In the first place, the criminals in power since 1789 did not follow this thing people keep calling “the U.S. Constitution.” To suggest that they are, or to prove that they are, misses the point, nothing is done to hold them accountable, unless they (those in power criminally) see the need to throw someone under the bus, to maintain that color of law.

    On to things, how about whiskey? Whiskey is a thing made by veterans of the Revolutionary War, those veterans that were not consumed in that pogrom, the same pogrom set in motion by the Criminal British, and their Tory sympathizers, the same one’s who were at work in the first Con Con Con Job.

    There is that thing, whiskey, which is an adaptation (correction) to the Central Banking Fraud, whereby the thing called money is monopolized, counterfeited, and used to transfer all the power that can be stolen, in due time; all the power flowing from anyone who produces anything worth stealing, and all that power flows to those same criminals who take over governments. See: Gresham’s Law.

    There is that thing, one of many things, created from grass-roots, out of necessity, adaptively, so as to maintain the power to prosper, made by the Veterans, and other producers and that thing was then immediately “taxed,” so as to – again – create the demand for the criminal issue of the fake money produced by The First Bank of the United States.

    I’ll shut up and let someone else explain this one thing since we do agree that it is important to deal with “Having Things.” But before quoting (to help answer your question) it is the color of law, not the real thing, and so what are the rules when trying to have things while the criminals run the former government?

    1. Don’t get caught
    2. Especially don’t get caught with some THING worth stealing: like whiskey, or voluntary defensive government, or gold, or children.

    “But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year’s interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government’s discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt’s benefits. “In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence,” explained Hamilton, “it assumes most of the purposes of money.” Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton’s debt program.

    “To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because “[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law,” such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.”

    Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy 1
    by William Watkins

    It was once a thing, a good thing, for people to discuss these things, now, well, it looks like just us.

    • Joe Kelley, there are some acute thoughts in your post. And I agree, what is more important that striving to find an equitable solid world view?

      I have an old hat from about 2003 with the phrase “Own Your Money” on it from the Liberty Dollar movement championed by Bernard Von Nothaus. If you don’t own your money…then, who does?

      18 U.S. Code § 8 – Obligation or other security of the United States defined
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/8
      https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap1-sec8.htm

      The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, *** Federal Reserve notes ***, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.

      It is codified that the Federal Reserve Note is an obligation of the USA and not something you can personally own.

      There were private minters in the 1780’s so, yes, there was really no need for the U.S.G. to get into the money business except to centralize power. Besides the fact there was a dearth of gold and silver on the Eastern Seaboard to the extent the “Foreign Coin Acts of 1806” and “Foreign Coin Acts of 1834” monetized Spanish, Dutch and French coins as legal tender in the USA.

      A couple observations:
      * The Coinage Act of 1792 set the standard for the early USA’s money regardless of what the First Bank of the United States or Alexander Hamilton did.
      * It was the U.S. Constitution that made the hard turn to Gold and Silver as money. Truth be known, the original Patriots like Sam Adams, John Adams, James Otis and the Sons of Liberty were very inclined to be friendly with Paper Money. (Reference back to the dearth of gold and silver on the Eastern Seaboard) The British had to pass currency laws in the 1750’s and 1760’s saying the American colonists had to pay with Gold and Silver and not passing the Colonial Script off to British merchants as money.

  8. “It is codified…”

    Say’s you and what army?

    ” The Coinage Act of 1792 set the standard for the early USA’s money regardless of what the First Bank of the United States or Alexander Hamilton did.”

    Washington assembled an army larger than any army he commanded in the Revolutionary War to then invade Pennsylvania to enforce Alexander Hamilton’s required extortion fee, so as to create the demand for Alexander Hamilton’s Central Banking Fraud. That is a fact that matters to any competitor in an otherwise free market of things, such as any form of exchange agreed upon by any exchangers under the sun, and that fact is recorded, if not codified, on the official National (fake federal) record.

    Then you mention the “domestic terrorist” who dared to follow the same course as the Revolutionary War veterans, this Liberty Dollar fellow. For the crime of offering competition in money markets, the competitors will meet a similar fate as the Revolutionary War veterans in Shays’s and the so-called Whiskey Rebellion. I see what happened to Nothaus as further proof of a different kind of terrorism, a terrorism running amok throughout history as despotism, tyranny, empire, or just plain old organized crime (under or not under the color of law), codifying, codifying, codifying, merrily along, along with all the dead people who dared to question all that codifying.

    A dearth of gold and silver? So…natural laws, such as what happens when criminals issue fake money, counterfeit (opposite) money, which can be paper or anything whatsoever, there isn’t anything inherently injurious to innocent people in the paper, not in paper money, and not in paper edicts from tyrants doing what tyrants must do so as to be tyrants. The army is issued orders, such as seize whatever you can while you murder all those people, and the paper suddenly is to blame for all the dead people? Gresham’s Law works to move out all good money, real money, honest money, accurately accountable money, in whatever form it may be agreed upon by the free traders, because foreigner won’t accept the counterfeit stuff, so anyone trading with foreigners must keep the criminal money, and give up the real money. Those foreigners insisting on real money have not yet been visited upon by the army of aggression for profit, or they have their own.

    Gresham’s Law in a nutshell: Homegrown tyrants running a counterfeiting extortion racket under the color of law drive out all the real money from the local population, as imports are paid with real money; leaving no real money locally.

    It isn’t the fact that the counterfeit money is paper, as you have noted, people like Benjamin Franklin, and later both free marketeers of fame Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner forensically spelled out how paper money can be accurate exchange mediums, leaving no hidden third party extorting wealth during every transaction. Now there is digital accounting such as bitcoin: what happened to the original Pay Pal? See: PayPal Wars.

    A con game is one because there is a willful attempt to mark a victim, to convince the victim that a lie is not a lie, and then wealth, or some other power, is extorted by that willful application of fraud, and often force of some other form, even if the inspiring force is an empty threat.

    Then you move on to Sam and John Adams? Do you know what happened once Sammy made it to the big league in Massachusetts right after the pogrom known as the Revolutionary War? See: Shays’s Rebellion.

    As as for John Adams:

    To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
    November 15, 1802

    “But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the “Rights of Man” was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.

    “But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.

    AND

    “Others objected that the powers given to a President were too great, and that in the hands of an ambitious and designing man it might grow into tyranny as it did in England under Oliver Cromwell, and as it has since done in France. A republic must not only be so in its principles, but in its forms.

    “The executive part of the Federal Government was made for a man, and those who consented, against their judgment, to place executive power in the hands of a single individual, reposed more on the supposed moderation of the person they had in view, than on the wisdom of the measure itself.

    And

    “If ever America lose sight of this principle, she will no longer be the land of liberty. The father will become the assassin of the rights of the son, and his descendants be a race of slaves.

    “As many thousands who were minors are grown up to manhood since the name of Federalist began, it became necessary, for their information, to go back and show the origin of the name, which is now no longer what it originally was; but it was the more necessary to do this, in order to bring forward, in the open face of day, the apostasy of those who first called themselves Federalists.

    “To them it served as a cloak for treason, a mask for tyranny. Scarcely were they placed in the seat of power and office, than federalism was to be destroyed, and the representative system of government, the pride and glory of America, and the palladium of her liberties, was to be over- thrown and abolished. The next generation was not to be free. The son was to bend his neck beneath the father’s foot, and live, deprived of his rights, under hereditary control.

    “Among the men of this apostate description, is to be ranked the ex-President John Adams. It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish in contempt. May such be the fate of all such characters.”

    Loyalists are such, they get their pound of flesh?

    • Joe Kelley,

      I’m fairly certain the U.S. Military would back the U.S. Code as long as the U.S. Code is the U.S. Code. (Don’t let the giggles you might hear as to there might be any other conclusion disturb you.)

      The way people view honor is very revealing in our age:

      “The particular act of meanness which I allude to in this description, is forgery. You, sir, have abetted and patronized the forging and uttering counterfeit continental bills. In the same New York newspapers in which your own proclamation under your master’s authority was published, offering, or pretending to offer, pardon and protection to these states, there were repeated advertisements of counterfeit money for sale, and persons who have come officially from you, and under the sanction of your flag, have been taken up in attempting to put them off.

      A conduct so basely mean in a public character is without precedent or pretence. Every nation on earth, whether friends or enemies, will unite in despising you. ‘Tis an incendiary war upon society, which nothing can excuse or palliate, – an improvement upon beggarly villany – and shows an inbred wretchedness of heart made up between the venomous malignity of a serpent and the spiteful imbecility of an inferior reptile.”
      – Thomas Paine “The Crisis: LANCASTER, March 21, 1778”

      That is some pretty good cussing by Paine without using cuss words. And it is true, Money is about honor, cheating at money is despicable. We cheated the Germans during WWII by dropping counterfiet money into Germany; Iran and North Korea has printed United States F.R.N.’s with tools/ink/paper from France and Germany (and many more examples)…it is sheer bastardy. It destabilizes society at its very core.

      And that is why it pays to take things seriously; on one hand the sycophants will say, “What real harm comes?” coupled with, “Why take things so seriously?”; but when it destabilizes values and trade it is misanthropic in its worst form.

      Yes, Benjamin Franklin made his living as a Printer of Money in Philadelphia during the 1730-40’s…and in his autobiography said Paper Money is ok up to a point where there is too much of it. At the very least Paper Money (Greenbacks) are not as bad as “Obligations” or “Fiat Debt Notes”.

  9. Boyd White,

    If something is worthy of concern it is our temporal salvation, which can be – as you have noted – waved off with a shrug by those whose concerns are private, or secret for some reason, or those who have been told to shun any concern whatsoever except what might happen in cases of disobedience.

    Edicts, or Military Code, or paper money, or digital money, or written laws, or spoken laws, or laws etched in stone, on their own, are like guns, or many people trained in the arts of killing ready to strike when given a target and marching orders: Nothing happens without a power of will deciding to employ those, and many more, things.

    Peaceful coexistence ensures our temporal salvation within the boundaries of natural law; we can thrive for a long time when we decide to coexist peacefully. Then large armies of criminals, such as The British in the 1700s, break the peace, they extort, they enslave, they torture – very effectively – and the criminals counterfeiting government mass murder, for profit or perhaps just for fun, who knows, ask them and they say all of that is for your own good: trust me.

    The gun did it, not the shooter choosing to target someone, shoot them, and then move onto another target. The government did it, not the tyrant choosing to enslave the population by criminal means under the color of law, so the tyrant can move onto greener pastures. Speaking of greener pastures you may want to look into the work of Anthony Sutton if you are hanging onto the idea that “we” did this or that in the pogrom called World War II.

    Antony Sutton Wall Street, USSR, FDR & Hitler
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuZtsRwhMsY

    How does someone gain enough power to buy an obedient government power? What is Central Banking Fraud?

    Boom: Roaring 20s (money supply magically double)
    Bust: Great Depression (money supply magically halves)
    See Murray Rothbard The Great Depression

    Where did all the economic power go, did it vanish?

    Debt slavery was the goal, and in order to reach the goal African slavery was subsidized for 20 years, whereby the “government” issued orders to extort compliance even to the extent that good people refusing to “help” send freed slaves back to their masters were – those good people refusing to aid and abet criminal salvers – where officially targeted as criminals.

    So…over 200 years later people today still regurgitate the lies that moved African Slavery from a moral outrage in America “…cruel war against human nature itself…” to a subsidized business venture, also known as a profitable monopoly, despite all the natural laws, and moral laws, and common laws, defended by free people in a perishable liberty. Why regurgitate the lies? What is the payoff? Is it sheer ignorance, and willfully so? Is it blind obedience to falsehood without question?

    Back to money:

    “Thirdly, Want of Money in a Country discourages Labouring and Handicrafts Men (which are the chief Strength and Support of a People) from coming to settle in it, and induces many that were settled to leave the Country, and seek Entertainment and Employment in other Places, where they can be better paid.”
    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-01-02-0041

    Or:

    “First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency.

    “It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount.

    “If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks.

    “This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product.

    “Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.”
    http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

    When people somehow manage to live free in liberty, despite all the tyrants and drones, and the false history being written, or regurgitated, the natural order is for labor to demand an equitable price: what the market will bear.

    Tyrants (criminals) have no power when the targets know better. When crime no longer pays so well (subsidized) people find a more profitable vocation working in peace, coexisting, with everyone else, so divide and conquer is not simply a tactic, it is a requirement.

    “We ask your attention to the injuries inflicted upon you and your children, by an institution which lives by your sufferance, and will die at your mandate. Slavery is maintained by you whom it impoverishes and degrades, not by those upon whom it confers wealth and influence. These assertions will be received by you and others with surprise and incredulity. Before you condemn them, ponder the following considerations and statistics.”

    https://archive.org/details/addresstononslav00lcamer

    • Joe Kelley;

      Couldn’t agree more.

      The Cato Letters, written the early 1720’s in response to the South Seas Bubble crisis, were full of indignation of this same scenario. Government collusion with propped up rapine corporations and business people. The Cato Letters were the most quoted source in American colonial newspapers leading up to the revolution.

      Likewise, G. Edward Griffin’s “The Creature from Jekyl Island” is a valuable resource delving into the descent of our monetary system.

      I will watch that Antony Sutton video.

      There is a certain amount of maturity required to talk amount using Gold and Silver as money. In reading the U.S. Statutes, in the context of something like a history book, it was interesting to see that each year Congress would have write off “wastage in the gold and silver coinage of the mint.” True, minting in 2018 probably has a lot less wastage…but it is something to keep in mind.

      http://constitution.org/uslaw/sal/sal.htm

      EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS. Sess.I. CH. 32. 1824.
      For incidental and contingent expenses, and repairs, cost of machinery, and for allowance of wastage in the gold and silver coinage of the mint, seven thousand seven hundred and seventy-five dollars.

      EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS. Sess.II. CH. 13. 1825.
      For incidental and contingent expenses, and repairs, cost of machinery, and for allowance of wastage in the gold and silver coinage of the mint, seven thousand seven hundred and seventy-five dollars .

      NINETEENTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. CH. 13. 1826.
      For incidental and contingent expenses, and repairs, cost of machinery, and for allowance of wastage in gold and silver coinage of the mint, seven thousand seven hundred dollars.

      It also shows how important the people who wrote and passed the Coinage Act of 1792 thought debasing our money was:

      “Section 19. And be it further enacted, That if any of the gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint shall be debased or made worse as to the proportion of the fine gold or fine silver therein contained, or shall be of less weight or value than the same out to be pursuant to the directions of this act, through the default or with the connivance of any of the officers or persons who shall be employed at the said mint, for the purpose of profit or gain, or otherwise with a fraudulent intent, and if any of the said officers or persons shall embezzle any of the metals which shall at any time be committed to their charge for the purpose of being coined, or any of the coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint, every such officer or person who shall commit any or either of the said offenses, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death.” – http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt

  10. Boyd White,

    Contrary to the notion that group A can dictate fact, law, guilt, and punishment if group A finds someone to be guilty of some arbitrary rule, there is the common law with trial by jury. I have spelled out 2 contrary systems of control, one is voluntary, the other is abject slavery, arbitrary “government,” also known as despotism. 1. Dictatorship, rule by criminal means, under the color of law, and 2. A republic, where the public determines fact, law, restitution, redemption, remedy, in their tribunals: consent of the governed.

    I’m not sure why you offer the concept of maturity as a requirement when speaking about gold and silver. My guess is that the idea there is along the lines of an agreement among mature people to exchange viewpoints in the hope of improving those viewpoints; and immature people contrarily wish to impose their viewpoint, winning an argument, each attempting to overpower the other, so as to massage ego, or for some other unstated purpose.

    I can state, so as to be clear, that my viewpoint is incomplete (perhaps not mature), and over the years I have found incremental improvements in my viewpoint which are direct results of borrowing, sharing, combining the good parts of other viewpoints, and discarding viewpoints that are proven over and over again to be false, misleading, damaging, dividing, discordant, derisive, viewpoints, such as: monopoly power (for profit of a few at the expense of everyone) over money issued by one gang, calling itself a government, over everyone else, backed up by volumes of deceit, and backed up by aggressive military force: criminal force under the color of law.

    If the gang in question has gained power over everyone by deceit, then the proper, accurate, label for the said gang is along the lines of organized crime, with the caveat “under the color of law.”

    Government is a voluntary association, not a group gaining power by deceit, by a threat of aggressive violence for disobedience, and by exercises of aggressive violence upon innocent people for disobedience.

    That is what was fought for in the Revolutionary War, and that is what was lost in 1789.

    Back to money. If the people through their trial juries in a county consent to the enforcement of a death penalty for failure to use gold and silver as money, then my opinion is that those people have become criminals in that county; they do not represent the public at large, meaning they do not represent a republican form of government, and people who prefer to use less expensive money would likely flee from that county, to find freedom in a perishable liberty in another county.

    If, on the other hand, the people in a county, through their trial juries, consistently found people who deceive innocent victims with a lie that misrepresents the value of the money they use during an exchange with an innocent victim, then my opinion is that those people in that county clearly represent the entire public, the republic, because those people accurately account for a criminal perpetrating crimes in that county, someone dictating a lie as if a lie is a truth, causing injury to someone as a result of that use of dictatorial powers by that criminal in that county.

    Gold and silver is fine as a voluntary form of exchange. Gold and Silver as a required form of payment of extortion fees, where those extorting accept nothing less, is something else entirely.

    “It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

    “If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

    “If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because: ”
    Lysander Spooner an Essay on The Trial by Jury

    “Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.”
    STATE OF MINNESOTA
    COUNTY OF SCOTT
    First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
    vs
    Jerome Daly, Defendant.
    12/18/2003

    “Bills of exchange, bank checks, and negotiable paper of all sorts add just so much to the body of the currency; and this issue is unlimited by law, and unlimited in fact, except by the exigencies of trade. They are just as really currency as the specie dollar, the greenback, or the bank bill. A field which has no fence up one of its sides is not fenced in, no matter how high and strong its fences may be on the other sides. So, the volume of currency is not, in any true sense, limited by prohibitions of free banking, by a return to specie basis, or by any other means, so long as negotiable paper can be freely issued by individuals; and this free issue of negotiable paper is too useful, and too well entrenched in necessity, ever hereafter to be interfered with. Commerce can be hindered and trammeled to some extent—by statute arrangements claiming to regulate the currency, whether by restrictive measures, or by flooding the community with over-issues; but the volume of the currency can no longer be adjusted by such means. ”
    Stephen Pearl Andrews, Labor Dollar, 1881

    The 3 sided fence describes all dictatorships whereby people, despite serious consequences if caught, still maintain free markets euphemistically called “Black Markets.” The original federation (voluntary association before 1789) maintained a legal black market, including a legal place for runaway slaves to escape their local tyrants. That free market value was exemplified in Shays’s Rebellion as people found out that it was possible to escape one State when that State turned despotic, and people could flee to a non-despotic, or less despotic state, and there was no National Standing Army of Conscripts ready to invade the State where the slaves escaped, to return those slaves back to slavery.

    • The reason why I “offer the concept of maturity as a requirement when speaking about gold and silver” is that it is too common to make broad sweeping claims about gold and silver being the “cure all” for monetary instability. The power of the peg of how much gold or silver is in a monetary instrument is another facet; if you have the power of the peg you can get $20 Trillion from one ounce of silver by decreeing that 1,750 atoms of Silver equals $1.00.

      And I was speaking in the third person and conceptually; not personally. Likewise, a person can see how much effort you have put into your education and that is respectable. Further, one facet of wisdom is to know what you don’t know and there are many things I don’t know…for instance, I have only gave a brief read over one of John Locke’s essays, nothing of Vital, nothing of Montesquieu….and probably more that impart important ideas. So I have a lot to learn before I could have a meaningful conversation with someone truly smart. That being said…Good Lord are there some B.S.’ers around.

      This is good: “Government is a voluntary association”.

      And these are bad: “…not a group gaining power by deceit, by a threat of aggressive violence for disobedience, and by exercises of aggressive violence upon innocent people for disobedience.”

      Equitable Allegiance is a value based decision with a greater leaning towards the Good versus the Bad.

      Government is also two important things besides a voluntary association: 1) It holds sway within the borders the association has control over, and 2) It is backed by martial power. If a person is born within the borders of an “association” they will inherit a government and it is impractical to assume they can just say, “I don’t won’t to volunteer or play”, when those before them have made policies which are enforceable with those borders. And defending borders with martial power means there is a cost on our lives to maintain that association (hopefully it is equitable allegiance). Even the colonial farmer carrying his black-powder pistol and musket while plowing with oxen paid that price in having to carry the extra weight of guns all day long…and when greater numbers of people are needed to defend that leads to Militias…and military command necessarily restricts liberty.

      It is pure and idealistic to base politics on the premise no one will cross borders to attack and raid; however, it is unrealistic and contrary to the entire history of Humanity. “If you want peace prepare for war.”

      Yes, the death penalty for anything other than murder I can agree is excessive. That being said, the mismanagement of money held by the “Voluntary Association” is a serious transgression. And yes, if “We The People” allow something to happen we are to blame…and that includes allowing our Monetary System to become so debauched.

      The standardization of Money via the Coinage Act of 1792 did solve considerable issues in interstate trade which occurred under the Articles of Confederation. People in one State were getting paid with Script from another State during interstate trade…only to have the originating State issue beaucoup more Script thereby devaluing the Script held by people in other States…causing considerable resentment. Yes, the free market would/should punish the originating State since people would not accept their Script any more…that is fine and would probably happen after considerable caterwauling, bickering, howling and gnashing of teeth…much to the annoyance of the neighbors.

    • “…If the people through their trial juries in a county consent to the enforcement of a death penalty for failure to use gold and silver as money, then my opinion is that those people have become criminals in that county; they do not represent the public at large, meaning they do not represent a republican form of government.”

      Under common law one voluntarily obliging themselves to terms of duty must abide by those terms or they are in breach of that duty. Every one working for every State in the United States has obliged themselves to the terms of the State and US Constitutions and every single one of them stand in breach of article 1 section 10 of the US Constitution because they accept some Thing other than gold or silver coin as tender for payment in the debt of their time on duty. This violation applies to those who work for the State not the people because the people did not oblige themselves to that duty, the government employees did. Since their breach of duty also involves using a devaluing tender that is also forced upon the people under threat and acts of violence and theft, it is everyone working for each State and co-conspirators working for the Feds whom juries should justly convict and issue the death penalty to. According to the crimials interpretation of US law generally, the people created the terms of the obligations via the Constitution and those whom work in the government took the duty upon themselves. Also, nowhere in any State or US Constitution is the government authorized to make law upon the people nor does any Statute claim applicability to the People. So, if the common law to uphold duty and remedy all breaches according to the terms is properly upheld, everyone working for the government would be convicted and given the death penalty for their breach of the duty they voluntarily obliged themselves to and the injury they are influcting upon the People for not doing so. The Constitution is the law for government not the law for the people. The people would not be criminals for giving every government employee the death penalty, the people ARE lawless for not doing so.

      Great dialogue here fellas. Don’t want to interrupt but it is paramount to understand whom the Constitution and Statues actually applues to and to know that the Constitution that the criminals claim gives them authority actually applies duty that should rightfully and justly be used to remove them (and their tyranny) from existence.

      • Nobody wrote:

        “This violation applies to those who work for the State not the people because the people did not oblige themselves to that duty, the government employees did.”

        The organic federation was formed before 1789. The usurpation of that organic federation between 1787 through 1789 was a crime scene on the official record. To then point out that the criminal document known as the 1789 Constitution is not being followed is useful because that is more inculpatory evidence piled on top of the official record that documents the criminal take-over of America. They, the criminals, routinely claim to be the law, claiming that the law they follow is written right here, and then they routinely break that law: precisely what was done when the slave traders, warmongers, and central banking frauds, calling themselves “Federalists,” broke the law that required Congress, not a convention of 12 states, to alter the existing federal agreement; which was written as a “perpetual” agreement.

        So…how high is the pile of evidence proving the fact that the criminals have taken over the government today?

        “The Constitution is the law for government not the law for the people. The people would not be criminals for giving every government employee the death penalty, the people ARE lawless for not doing so. ”

        That was the existing, organic, federation when The President of the United States of America was the president of the federation, not some dictator presiding over everything every individual in every state might produce.

        “Who can deny but the president general will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too; a king elected to command a standing army? Thus our laws are to be administered by this tyrant; for the whole, or at least the most important part of the executive department is put in his hands.”
        Philadelphiensis IX
        February 06, 1788

        What was the Whiskey Rebellion but proof positive that the criminals had taken over the government that organically formed in defense against arbitrary, criminal, government; whereby the criminals claiming to be government routinely break the laws that they claim to be the source of their authority.

        The criminal British, for example, prosecute a criminal war of aggression upon Americans, which breaches at least Magna Carta.

        The criminal Washington, for example, prosecuted a criminal war of aggression upon Americans, invading Pennsylvania, which breaches at least a Declaration of Independence, and Articles of Confederation.

        If someone still claims that Washington was right to assemble a conscripted army to enforce an excise tax in Pennsylvania, then someone could also use the same reasoning to claim that it was also right to enforce the return of runaway slaves, confessing the fact that the apologist for criminal acts is constructing an immoral version of “facts,” filled with falsehoods.

        “Rhode Island Is Right!

        “This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman’s Journal; (Or, The North-American Intelligencer?)

        “The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.

        “They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.

        “The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes – the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) – would be doubled or trebled.

        “The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, “appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact,” which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury. Congress will have the power of guaranteeing to every state a right to import Negroes for twenty one years, by which some of the states, who have now declined that iniquitous traffic, may re-enter into it – for the private laws of every state are to submit to the superior jurisdiction of Congress. A standing army is to be kept on foot, by which the vicious, the sycophantick, and the time-serving will be exalted, and the brave, the patriotic, and the virtuous will be depressed.

        “The writer, therefore, thinks it the part of wisdom to abide, like the state of Rhode Island, by the old articles of confederation, which, if re-examined with attention, we shall find worthy of great regard; that we should give high praise to the manly and public spirited sixteen members, who lately seceded from our house of Assembly [in Pennsylvania]; and that we should all impress with great care, this truth on our minds – That it is very easy to change a free government into an arbitrary one, but that it is very difficult to convert tyranny into freedom.”

  11. OK, Boyd White, this is getting better with age, and usage.

    (hopefully, it is equitable allegiance)

    Why gamble when knowledge provides a clear path? That same path that caused people to reject The British Empire, and then said British Empire rioted in the blood of the innocent in American for failing to obey without question?

    “It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which has been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.”

    Added to:

    “Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free.”

    Why gamble?

    Then:

    “1) It holds sway within the borders the association has control over, and…”

    Response:
    “Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee’s economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

    “Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee’s meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.”
    Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
    by William Watkins

    If one state turns despotic, whereby criminals take-over the government, as happened in Massachusetts, which led to Shays’s Rebellion (so-called), then a Federation works as a voluntary association, whereby those States that are still operating under the common law, consent of the governed principle, welcome those people fleeing (runaway slaves) from that State that turned despotic.

    “2) It is backed by martial power. If a person is born within the borders of an “association” they will inherit a government and it is impractical to assume they can just say, “I don’t want to volunteer or play” when those before them have made policies which are enforceable with those borders. And defending borders with martial power means there is a cost on our lives to maintain that association (hopefully it is equitable allegiance).

    That has always been the problem, still is, and as far as I know the only way to preserve freedom in a perishable liberty is to agree to raise children who know better and do not allow the criminals to take your children from you and indoctrinate your children into a world of lies and aggressive violence for the profit of a few, at the expense of all.

    “9.2 – Escalation
    Further:
    ” A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
    “When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen’s U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists.”
    http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm

    “In American history, the Declaration of Independence served the legal purpose of making a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, which is a Notice of Military Lien Right, a warning of No Trespass, an assertion that any killing or taking of human life necessary for the protection of the legal remedies of the common citizen is being done, in the immediate situation described in the Solemn Recognition or Notice, not as murder, but as lethal self-defense of the commercial and social remedy against the cited domestic enemy or enemies. The Declaration of Independence is the legal model or format for the construction of the Solemn Recognition of Mixed War and the Notice of Military Lien Right.”
    http://sicknesshope.com/node/2033

    The point at which the bad guys take-over, and the good guys fail to defend that perishable liberty, is not a grey matter: it is black as night compared to the sun shining on a bright summer day.

    “His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington’s conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
    To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: “New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it.” Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
    At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
    In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused.”
    https://mises.org/library/generalissimo-washington-how-he-crushed-spirit-liberty

    “Yes, the death penalty for anything other than murder I can agree is excessive.”

    Again, you and what army?

    “The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community.” – 1 Hume, Appendix, l.”
    Lysander Spooner Essay on The Trial by Jury

    Knowing that is worth something. That puts a new light on the Magna Carta deal; a deal soon broke. Free people maintaining liberty with their voluntary mutual defense association, tried and true for centuries, their common law, their law of the land, spent no “public money” with executions, or prisons, because crime doesn’t pay when the people know better.

    “And yes, if “We The People” allow something to happen we are to blame…and that includes allowing our Monetary System to become so debauched.”

    So why then are there so few people, powerful people, able to take the court case offered above, and apply that in every county, right now, and in each county there will be successes, and there will be failures, and with modern communication the successes can rise to the top of the list to be worthy of following, or improving, and the failures can warn people as to what does not work in that county?

    STATE OF MINNESOTA
    COUNTY OF SCOTT
    First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
    vs
    Jerome Daly, Defendant.

    End the FED, and what happens? Pull the plug on the Empire and suddenly America is doomed to starvation, riot, and self-destruction? If the people retake government in each county, who would dare to choose America as a source of plunder? I’d like to know.

    ” Yes, the free market would/should punish the originating State since people would not accept their Script any more…that is fine and would probably happen after considerable caterwauling, bickering, howling and gnashing of teeth…much to the annoyance of the neighbors.”

    Who decides what is or is not the free market: 1) The DictatorSHIP, 2) The people themselves commanding all jurisdiction civil and criminal in each common law county, in each common law state, all under the common law, and each state may, or may not, join a federation of states under the common law.

    • Joe Kelley;
      It is not so much gambling as equitable allegiance is real-politik; even tracing and analyzing relationships back to tribes there were hooks embedded into personal liberty, some smart, some not so smart, and some arbitrary. The objective of thinking people is to realize there are hooks and to make any obligation as refined and good as possible.

      I am very amenable to not being taxed; I am. But seriously, this demonstrates just how inconsequential the populace of the USA is to the Statism of the USA; with the capability to create money out of nothing and to normalize deficit spending to fund their policies…the USG has antiquated the premise of taxation as a functioning source of payment and accounting…they do not need to tax us any more at all…if they can deficit spend a little they can deficit spend the whole freaking budget…and leave us alone with the dang forms and tracking expenses and income and frusteration. But they won’t…it is Pavlovian conditioning to make us fill out forms and recognize the authority of the State.

      But there is, it goes without saying, an extreme danger with the idea, “they don’t need us any more.”

      I am not a military expert but I believe it is considered sound doctrine to discourage fraternization between Officers and lower ranked soldiers. George Washington was tasked with creating a Continental Army and not just leading Militias.

      Are you against the Death Penalty for murder, Joe Kelley? I am fairly certain there are plenty of people who will execute someone duly convicted of murder and sentenced to death…for free.

      Some animadversion should be offered on your implementation of the Magna Carta, liberty, voluntary mutual defense associations and common law in your argument. The Norman’s invaded England in 1066 A.D. and they were in control for almost two centuries before the Magna Carta was written in 1215 A.D.. The fact the English could not repel the Normans lends veracity to my observation about martial power.

      “This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had an honorable origin: whereas it is more than probable, that, could we take off the dark covering of antiquity and trace them to their first rise, we should find the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners of pre-eminence in subtilty obtained him the title of chief among plunderers; and who by increasing in power and extending his depredations, overawed the quiet and defenseless to purchase their safety by frequent contributions.” – Thomas Paine “Common Sense”

      ..and…

      “In England a King hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which, in plain terms, is to empoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.” – Thomas Paine “Common Sense”

      Brother, end what our monetary system is doing now and bad things are going to happen. The vast majority are not into Agrarianism, Husbandry, and Savings…and more important they are not tempered and steeled to understand FAILURE. Crops fail, animals get sick and die, if you don’t have savings there is not always a Credit Card, Pawn Shop, or Payday Loan business to help you out.

      Do you know how many of those large cargo containers are lost every year at sea? That is FAILURE.

      https://singularityhub.com/2011/04/05/10000-shipping-containers-lost-at-sea-each-year-heres-a-look-at-one-2/#sm.00005q2uuzlygf4vqg32a3shpgsgg
      Apr 05, 2011
      “Right now, as you read this, there are five or six million shipping containers on enormous cargo ships sailing across the world’s oceans. And about every hour, on average, one is falling overboard never to be seen again. It’s estimated that 10,000 of these large containers are lost at sea each year,…”

      How many people lost their lives sailing on wooden ships driven by the wind before modern ships? Those losses are FAILURE. Everything that has been built up has cost very much in FAILURE.

      That is what “checks and balances”, “stop losses”, “Budget Control Acts” are supposed to save us from…but you stop our descent now and bad things are going to happen.

      “So why then are there so few people, powerful people, able to take the court case offered above, and apply that in every county…”

      Response: Because they don’t want too. They understand full well that a correction will cause much pain…and because of that they are acolytes of David Fry the last person who surrendered at the Malheur Takeover, “Fry said jubilantly, saying he was going to ‘get a cookie and one more cigarette” before surrendering.” That is the only reason there has been no correction or attempt at making our monetary and economic situation more stable, “everybody wants just one more cookie and one more figurative cigarette.”

      Look at what Trump did this year by agreeing to an almost $1 trillion budget deficit.

      Communist Plank #5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

      And the sheer arrogance of all the Anarchists, Communists, LGBT, and Democrats spouting off how bad Trump is….HE FREAKING GAVE THEM EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO KEEP LIVING AS THEY DO. They would not have the quality of life they do without what Trump did….if Trump put a screeching halt to deficit spending they would learn what hard times really are.

      And I know, I probably pricked you by bringing up Anarchist’s…but seriously…if you are not dressed in animal skins or home spun clothes you have no idea what Anarchy is. That is why the majority of people do not take Anarchist’s seriously…though they should be very friendly to Anarchist’s since Anarchist’s are rooted in pro-Liberty…when pictures are shown of Anarchist’s wearing clothes and using things created by Corporations and Foreign Labor it exposes the hypocrisy.

      Trump said he will not sign a huge Budget Deficit again in 2019…that is a major benchmark coming up…how can he not do it again?

  12. Is that so, or not so?

    “…they do not need to tax us any more at all…”

    In order to create a demand for the fraudulent money (profitable monopoly money), there is a demand (obey without question) for that money; without which, meaning without the pay or else required enforcement, fewer, and fewer, people would use the fraudulent money, or none would ever use it in the first place. That is why Alexander Hamilton had to put in place the “excise tax” on whiskey, essentially killing a whole lot of birds with one stone. That is also why Generalissimo Washington had to conscript that slave army to set an example for everyone in the slave plantation (Nation-State) what happens to those who disobey.

    How about a 2 front, 2 dimensional, look at this knowledge in modern times: 1. No Slave Plantation National Tax, and therefore no inspiration for anyone to work for Federal Reserve Notes as payment, and therefore no more demand for that form of fraudulent mone. 2. Continued expansion of free market money such as Bitcoin, along with the many other competitors in money markets, and so far no tax on anyone exchanging with that form of money.

    What happens to The FED under those conditions in our modern times? Add to that my suggestion of powerful people in each county, in each state, rendering a verdict through common law due process, that exculpates anyone from having to meet a fraudulent obligation of debt, due to the fact that the fraudulent debtors have created the “value” used for “consideration” in creating the fraudulent debt obligation?

    In other words, if the criminals operating the nationwide organized crime ring – under the color of law – can’t tax (extort) they the can’t get away with their fraud.

    “But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood.”
    Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Lecture, 1970

    “George Washington was tasked with creating a Continental Army and not just leading Militias.”

    The point has to do with maneuver warfare, or adaptive, fluid, combat effectiveness enhanced with individual contributions of real-time leadership harmonized with a collective whole, as opposed to antiquated cannon fodder waste all the good men you can, so as to then have an easier time enslaving everyone.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkwZDRB3tZo

    “Are you against the Death Penalty for murder, Joe Kelley? I am fairly certain there are plenty of people who will execute someone duly convicted of murder and sentenced to death…for free.”

    In the centuries-old common law, which pre-dates Magna Carta, someone convicted of a crime was offered a means to redeem themselves, those who chose not to pay the affordable fine chose not to be inside the law. Once outside the law, the law would not protect them, which means that someone then killing the outlaw would not be guilty of a crime any more than someone who kills a mad dog running amok in the playground.

    I am not against killing mad dogs running amok in the playground, because I am for protecting children from harm done to them by mad dogs, or sociopaths. Those who are better at it, this killing stuff, are those who rise to the top of that demand for that type of work. But the point is that once the people choose to retake control of their government: crime no longer pays. How much does a “congressman” make? How many of them are sociopaths?

    “The fact the English could not repel the Normans lends veracity to my observation about martial power.”

    England was under Roman Rule for some time, and what happens to a population that grows accustomed to free security? I think that our viewpoints are superficial at best, but the point seems to be that you are for an involuntary association, because you think it is necessary, while I see things precisely opposite.

    “That is what “checks and balances”, “stop losses”, “Budget Control Acts” are supposed to save us from…but you stop our descent now and bad things are going to happen.”

    That covers a lot, and I missed the point, but I can go over it a few more time, meanwhile, if we are allowed to continue here, you may be able to elaborate some. I can say that when all things are voluntary, except those who chose otherwise, the checks and balances are due to free market forces (voluntary), and within the boundaries of natural law, good luck for humanity, we may survive past the lifespan of this planet. On the other hand, there are those who willfully, and with malice aforethought, choose involuntary association, along with many who are fooled into doing so, and what can be done to check those, and balance those, and you have been offered at least one option: trial by the country, common law, where crime no longer pays at all, but again within the boundaries of natural law.

    “everybody wants just one more cookie and one more figurative cigarette.”

    As far as I can tell you are on the wrong side, the involuntary association side, whereby that slave plantation is maintained by your say so; again as far as I can tell. I see no reason to suggest that it is in any way wrong for people to want one more cookie. When faced with overwhelming aggressive, criminal, power – under the color of law – most people will surrender; not all do.

    Martin Luther King Jr. knew he was risking all for all. There is something similar to a common law court case in that case: the verdict is that the government conspired to murder that man, in cold blood, with malice aforethought.

    It sounds to me like your message is that we are all criminals now, everyone one of us, so therefore we must…”

    I have often misunderstood what I read. That is why I prefer to ask for clarity.

    “if Trump put a screeching halt to deficit spending they would learn what hard times really are.”

    I think not, as my opinion is quite the opposite, when the dictatorSHIP sinks, the rats will have to adjust, that can be understood, certainly. I just don’t think that we are all rats: yet.

    “And I know, I probably pricked you by bringing up Anarchist’s…but seriously…if you are not dressed in animal skins or home spun clothes you have no idea what Anarchy is.”

    From someone called The First American Anarchist:
    True Civilization.
    Warren, Josiah
    (1863) Boston, Mass.
    “496. Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it.”

    How many people share your definition of anarchism: apparently I do not.

    Proudhon and his Translator
    The Index July 23, 1876, Steven Pearl Andrews

    “Another of Proudhon’s startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter. Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix an has meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it.”

    “Trump said he will not sign a huge Budget Deficit again in 2019…that is a major benchmark coming up…how can he not do it again?”

    If enough people are no longer prevented from prospering (at the expense of no one), then existing wealth turns into more future wealth, and the measure of wealth can become more accurate. I don’t know if that works to answer your question, but I can explain in greater detail, if allowed.

  13. Joe Kelley:

    You brought up a good point with “no inspiration for anyone to work”…that is the impetus for the one of Zulu Wars (1879-1896)…lots of blacks left their surrounding areas (names have changed lots of time) to go to South Africa to work the mines…and the remaining black people did what they always had done…which was not the British conception of “work”…so the British decided to make the black people work by, “a hut tax was imposed, not only on each hut but on every wife regardless of whether she occupied a hut.”

    And the Zulus said, “Ain’t happen, jack.” However, the British with their martial power did make it happen.

    So how many people in authority in the USA today view taxation as a means to “make us work”. Don’t get me wrong, I like to work,…no, I love to work…but I do not like to be manipulated.

    I agree, the whole marching lines of soldiers into cannon’s, even as late as Pickett’s Charge in the War Between the States, was insane.

    It is interesting you bring up the notion of paying a fine…even up to the point for redemption of murder; the Icelandic Sagas which were the first written novels in Europe are chock full of these examples…it was kind of strange reading them in that context…one Viking would kill another…the clans would battle for a while…then the Viking who did the original murder would agree to pay a fine and everybody would carry on as if nothing happened.

    Crime is the antithesis to Anarchy…you have to be responsible and knowledgeable to be an true Anarchist…crime is treason to Anarchy.

    Being born is an involuntary association…but I am pretty much in favor of being born. Need I point the ludicrious contrast to that with your, “while I see things precisely opposite”.

    I cannot subscribe to the logistics of your politics; can you prove that you can live like what you describe and envision? I know the current situation will impugn that capability a lot…but what strides have you made to live like what you outline…it is highly idealized stuff…it is stuff good to hear and dream about…but the logistics are huge.

    I bought 10 acres of land for $3,500 in 2014; my land taxes are $14 a year; I haul my own water in; all my electricity comes from Solar Panels; I have chickens and 23 rabbits that I fixing to start eating…compare that with come city dwellers resources and expenditures. Could you get the things you have without Corporations…and even sadly…by being a patron of “the criminals”?

  14. Boyd White,

    It is often the case that I write something and the reader assumes that I have confessed to many things that I have never confessed, or done.

    “I cannot subscribe to the logistics of your politics; can you prove that you can live like what you describe and envision? ”

    I exist, that is proof. I do my best to harm no one, I do my best to hold other people to account; the lawful way: I volunteer for jury duty. There is more, unconfessed, but that won’t stop people from assuming the worst.

    “So how many people in authority in the USA today view taxation as a means to “make us work”. Don’t get me wrong, I like to work,…no, I love to work…but I do not like to be manipulated.”

    Each unit of work, measurable of calories expended, or measured with accurate monetary units, that flows from the slaves on the plantation to the masters running the plantation causes the slaves to grow weaker in their own defense, and causes the masters to grow stronger, and more able, to maintain the slaves in their place digging their own graves.

    That process that you describe (perhaps) as being manipulated is further manipulated by the most powerful owners of all the plantations, owners of all the plantation masters, and owners of all the slaves. They keep mastering all those plantations, somehow. Such as a routine culling of the herd: see for example those works done by Anthony Sutton. So…I don’t like being manipulated too, in that way just described.

    “I agree, the whole marching lines of soldiers into cannon’s, even as late as Pickett’s Charge in the War Between the States, was insane.”

    A Civil War was warned about during the take-over of the existing federation in 1788, but those insisting on pushing through, by deceit, by threat of aggressive violence, the take-over of the existing federation probably had in mind the need to cull the herd at some point as there were way too many patriots alive, even after the culling euphemistically known as the Revolutionary War.

    New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism
    Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788

    “There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word. ”

    AND

    “Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted – as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify. ”

    Prophetic or just plain old common sense?

    “Crime is the antithesis to Anarchy…you have to be responsible and knowledgeable to be an true Anarchist…crime is treason to Anarchy.”

    Who in both of our viewpoints has the power to determine what is or is not a crime? I think I have accurately stated my viewpoint, and I can only assume to know your viewpoint: what is it? Who, in your viewpoint, commands the power to know what is or is not a crime? Furthermore, what can be done with that knowledge?

    If the whole country is asked through a random selection of 12 people if each case of possible crime is a crime, and that jury of 12 people representing the whole country unanimously agrees that it is a crime, then that is preferred over summary justice whereby a criminal takes the power to say what is or is not a crime, and abuses that power, using that power to take everything from everyone. That is my opinion concerning what you wrote, here again:

    “Crime is the antithesis to Anarchy…you have to be responsible and knowledgeable to be an true Anarchist…crime is treason to Anarchy.”

    That is an attempt at defining the meaning of the word Anarchy, according to you, and to me, there remains a problem of what is to be done with this need to know who is the worst criminal, and if that is found out, then what is to be done with that criminal. How many possible processes are already known, such as the two mentioned?
    1. Trial by Jury, the common law
    2. Summary Justice rule by the criminals themselves.

    Are you aware of a better option than those 2?

    Does this anarchism that you know deal with criminals, such as the criminals who took over England after Magna Carta, or the criminals who took over America after Shays’s Rebellion?

    “Being born is an involuntary association…but I am pretty much in favor of being born. Need I point the ludicrious contrast to that with your, “while I see things precisely opposite”.”

    I am not aware of this idea that you have, this idea that you attempt to share, whereby being born is an involuntary association. I’ve tried to conceive of my state of mind before being born, and I have failed. My guess is that I would agree to be born, and the only way I see to prove it, so far, is the fact that I was born. If I had no mind, no conscience, no soul, no power of will, before being born, then how could it possibly be a choice?

    As for corporations. I thought, and still think, that corporations, like words on paper, or pointed sticks, or guns, are useful when the user intends to be responsible and accountable for using the thing. It appears to me as if your viewpoint is such that corporations are exclusively bad: meaning, perhaps, criminal; as in “the corporation did it” like the gun did it, or the government did it, or the church did it, rather than an individual doing something.

    That

    • Joe Kelley;

      There is another liability with Anarchism and that is it does not exist in a vacuum; the Communists openly try to influence and incorporate the Anarchist’s with the parallel that the Communist “Utopia” is the same thing as the Anarchist “Free State”.

      “State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not “abolished”. It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: “a free State”, both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.” – Frederick Engels “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”

      The Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War actually did well for themselves…until they aligned with the Communists to fight against the Fascists (Franco) who tried to abolish the Spanish Republic. The Communists showed their true colors and suppressed the Anarchists.

      Which brings up another point which you touched in passing by using the Josiah Warren quote; that is in the 1760’s leading up to the American Revolution in Boston they held yearly Guy Fawkes Day (e.g. Anonymous)…so, there is every reason for Pro-Liberty American Patriots to tip the hat to Anarchist’s and “save” them from the Communists….if only the Anarchist’s would quit breaking storefront windows…that does not play well.

      Yes, those with power (Masters) tend to exercise that power over anyone they can:

      “This was depressing—to a man with the dream of a republic in his head. It reminded me of a time thirteen centuries away, when the ‘poor whites’ of our South who were always despised and frequently insulted by the slave-lords around them, and who owed their base condition simply to the presence of slavery in their midst, were yet pusillanimously ready to side with the slave-lords in all political moves for the upholding and perpetuating of slavery, and did also finally shoulder their muskets and pour out their lives in an effort to prevent the destruction of that very institution which degraded them. And there was only one redeeming feature connected with that pitiful piece of history; and that was, that secretly the ‘poor white’ did detest the slave-lord, and did feel his own shame. That feeling was not brought to the surface, but the fact that it was there and could have been brought out, under favoring circumstances, was something—in fact, it was enough; for it showed that a man is at bottom a man, after all, even if it doesn’t show on the outside.” – Mark Twain “A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’s Court”

      That book by Mark Twain is actually a biting political and religious commentary.

      This is a good point…who does choose what is a crime or not? Can a jury convict for anything it feels like convicting? Does something like Kritarchy just decide in favor of one part or another…and what if the other party is unable to defend themselve because they are dead, underaged, infirm, or mentally challenged? There are also categories of law which have their own intracacies: Constitutional, Civil, Corporate, and Maritime…and more. Can Common Law be codified?

      Lol, a person might say the criminals were the Normans who took over England almost two centuries before the Magna Carta.

      “If I had no mind, no conscience, no soul, no power of will, before being born, then how could it possibly be a choice?”

      Precisely, therefore being born is an “involutary association”…for instance when later told to do your chores you could have said, “Who are you? I did not volutary associate with you.” And then reality would have been presented to you.

      There are so many branches to what we have discusses…because along with Voluntary Association there is also the opposite like Segregation and the right to not associate, which can seen as harsh or inhumane.

      No, I think Corporations are noble and useful along this line of thought, “…are useful when the user intends to be responsible and accountable for using the thing.” But there again, when Corporations become “too big to fail” and are propped up by Crony Capitalism I can understand how they are labeled Fascist. Crony Capitalism is despicable.

  15. Boyd White,

    If the phrase “…does not exist in a vacuum…” means something along the lines of “…openly try to influence…” as in: infiltrate, subjugate, subdue, manipulate, and usurp, then I think your take on what was or was not the Communists (Trademark?), the Anarchists, and the Utopians is superficial, if not simply wrong.

    A more clear example of what was not operating in a vacuum is the Patriots working to organically create a federation of free markets, free people, in free, independent states, under the common law. The federal people, working to organically create, and maintain a federation were not working in a vacuum. Any seats of authority left unfilled by volunteers working to organically create, and maintain a federation were filled with criminal usurpers, frauds, cheats, slave traders, warmongers, criminal British agents, and central banking prostitutes.

    First checking evidence on the “Real Communists:”

    “Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the “educated” classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it. ”

    Utopian, socialist/anarchist, was represented by Fourier and Owen, just before Proudom coined the label anarchism as “free market,” do no harm, independent, and the sovereignty of the individual. Clearly in the Communist Manifesto 1788 edition, quoted above, the “Real Communists” (TM) were as openly criminal as the slave trading fake Federalist Party, an in your face declaration of dependence, whereby those “Real Communists” openly called for violent, criminal, offensive, take-over of power over all people. Sure there was, and always will be, a thin covering of nice talk, which has only one purpose, and has nothing to do with honor, promise, responsibility, accountability, peace, or justice. That type of doublespeak, that thin coating of good feeling verbiage, salted with a healthy dose of vengeance as a reward for obedience, is just a copy – the Communists copy – of the fake Federalist criminal usurpation by deceit, threat of aggressive violence, and real examples of aggressive violence where dead bodies start piling up in mass graves.

    If you look into works like Anthony Sutton’s work, it is actually the American fake Federal Criminal Gang – thinly hidden behind a government facade – represented by “Wall Street” financing the “Real Communist” criminal gang.

    As to the benchmark in the 18th century set by the fake Federalist Party, setting the example to follow for all future usurpations such as the “Real Communist Party,” there is ample evidence proving this fact of wolves hiding in sheep’s clothing.

    Friday, June 20, 1788
    Melancton Smith

    “He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.”

    As to breaking windows, or throwing tea in a harbor, to agitate, to go on the offensive, violently, destructively, to break the peace, by anyone, anywhere, anytime, there was, and is a peaceful alternative.

    If those in power claim to have lawful authority then they can prove it, or prove otherwise, when the people gather organically into grand juries, according to the laws that those in power claim to be the source of their power, and if the people suspect, have probable cause to suspect, that those in power are guilty, then those in power can agree to their trial by jury.

    If those in power somehow claim to have the power to raise their pay at will, and place themselves above the law, claiming immunity from prosecution, then that is a clue for the clueless.

    As to the so-called poor whites, poor blacks, poor any race whatsoever, the claims made by Mark Twain notwithstanding, our world, in peace, is abundant with every power required to create almost unlimited wealth, for all, and that ought to be known as a fact because it is a fact, a powerful one.

    Those who claim otherwise are often reaching into the victims pocket while saying so.

    As to what you consider to be involuntary, or voluntary, and my working meaning of those words, I can say that we do not share the same working meaning of those words.

    As to modern labels such as Fascist and Crony Capitalism, there is again that benchmark of a criminal gang operating under the color of law, those fake “Federalist” Party members, and the words of warning from Thomas Paine about those criminals, setting that benchmark.

    “But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property.”

    A profitable monopoly and the people as slaves, under the color of law, by any name is still the same thing.

    • Joe Kelley:

      It does bear some serious consideration that the Communists look down on Anarchists as heathens they can manipulate.

      If the 13 Colonies intention was to be free, independent States, then, they would not have bound themselves to the Articles of Confederation. And mind you, in this list, “criminal usurpers, frauds, cheats, slave traders, warmongers, criminal British agents, and central banking prostitutes” you can also find examples under the Articles of Confederation.

      It also pays to keep in mind the people and environment they were in: Yellow Fever Epidemics, daily exposure to heavy metals, short lifespans, bleeding as a method of curing sickness, lack of dental hygiene. These were hard core rough impatient people who not a small part of the populace descended from imported criminals and indentured servants. They were in the process of Creation. They were not hell bent on wickedness. If they were hell bent on wickness they would not have tried to find balance with a Bicameral Congress, separated the Judiciary out from under Executive influence nor put in that no Titles of Nobility were to be granted.

      And it is a bit melodramatic to call the early implementers of the Constitution as warmongers, they had every reason to help the French fight the British in the Mediterranean in the mid-1790’s…likewise, to fight against Napolean…likewise, to help Simon Bolivar rid the South American continent of Spanish rule. But the USA did not engage in those warmongering opportunities. Yes, the USA did get into wars…but it is not like they were Mongols, Huns or Turks.

      I agree on your analysis of that paragraph from the Communist Manifesto, “…that type of doublespeak, that thin coating of good feeling verbiage, salted with a healthy dose of vengeance as a reward for obedience, is just a copy – the Communists copy – of the fake Federalist criminal usurpation by deceit, threat of aggressive violence, and real examples of aggressive violence where dead bodies start piling up in mass graves.”

      I did download some vidoes by Antony Sutton…good stuff…very good stuff.

      Yes, the name switch between Federalist and Anti-Federalist is important to understand.

      I would not go so far as to say “there is always a peaceful alternative”. Sometimes this saying is true, “The {fill in the blank} is either at your throat or your feet; better the {fill in the blank} be at your feet.” Statism is definitely something to plugin into that blank.

      Yes, Grand Juries are way underused. Consider this law:

      1091. Affirmative Defense to Solicitation – Renunciation
      https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1091-affirmative-defense-solicitation-renunciation

      Section 373(b) provides for an affirmative defense of renunciation. The defendant bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he/she voluntarily and completely abandoned his/her criminal intent and that he/she actually prevented the commission of the crime solicited. To be voluntary and complete, the renunciation must not be motivated by a decision to postpone the crime or substitute another victim or objective. In addition, the defendant must actually prevent the crime; a mere effort or attempt to prevent the crime is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the defense.

      If, “he/she voluntarily and completely abandoned his/her criminal intent” via association with criminal activities by their government…the only that remains for this law to cover them with innocence is ” the defendant must actually prevent the crime; a mere effort or attempt to prevent the crime is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the defense.”

      So how do they prevent the crime? Grand Juries is one legal way.

      “If those in power somehow claim to have the power to raise their pay at will, and place themselves above the law, claiming immunity from prosecution, then that is a clue for the clueless.”

      Reply: Yes, the Constitution does allow Congress to raise their pay, they are immune from prosecution while in session, and Congress is allowed to make their own operating rules which has given us the Two-Party/Committee system which is a briarpatch. Bad mojo all three of those.

      “…our world, in peace, is abundant with every power required to create almost unlimited wealth, for all,…”

      There is a coin from early America that had stamped on it, “Mind Your Business”. That is sage advice; some peole want wealth, some people do not; some want just enough to live healthy and comfortably…to create a political philosophy or social system that objectifies people’s wants is unviable. What does a Hindi holy man think about a Saudi prince who leaves one of his many Lamborghini at the airport parking lot with the keys in it to never retrieve it again?

      I will help you out with what I think you mean about Voluntary and Involuntary…that capability being the choices a person has to make at their “Coming of Age”. If you are a ward of your parents, relatives, foster parents, or the State you are not at complete liberty to make associations. It would be a very good deal if upon reaching the “Coming of Age” if a person could choose to live at liberty…without inheriting any encumbrances…and that is something to work towards.

      • “criminal usurpers, frauds, cheats, slave traders, warmongers, criminal British agents, and central banking prostitutes”

        More along who these people were…they wrote with quill pens and ink wells, lighting was by fire fueled by wood, candle or whale oil, and either walked or rode horses, roads were muddy messes, inns were of dubious quality for overnight travel. They would look at our lives and our imperious observations on their lives and probably would not give our opinions too much weight or credit.

  16. Boyd White,

    First in order of importance in my opinion concerning that which threatens our temporal salvation is deliberation, such as that which happens in trial by jury according to the (real) common law. We are deliberating here and now, but without the power of voluntary government for our mutual defense (jury trial), so it is to use a phrase: just for fun.

    Second, when I say wealth or voluntary association, you appear to see something other than what I see. Wealth is an individuals value judgment, not a claim made by an individual as to what everyone will value: or else. See: “The power of the peg of how much gold or silver is in a monetary instrument is another facet; if you have the power of the peg you can get $20 Trillion from one ounce of silver by decreeing that 1,750 atoms of Silver equals $1.00.” Boyd White, 2018, Redoubt News Article “The death knell of slavery was sounded and the decennial census was founded.” Discussion

    “If the 13 Colonies intention was to be free, independent States, then, they would not have bound themselves to the Articles of Confederation. And mind you, in this list, “criminal usurpers, frauds, cheats, slave traders, warmongers, criminal British agents, and central banking prostitutes” you can also find examples under the Articles of Confederation.”

    Who speaks for they, you? Those who made a lot of profits from the war, or stood to make a lot of profits from the war, spoke for themselves, and they lied. Those who actually acted morally, lawfully, so as to create and maintain a republican form of government under the common law spoke for themselves. Who is accountable for which people then, you?

    In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10

    “The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/

    Thomas Jefferson
    Declaration of Independence
    “he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”
    https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

    The slave traders were making war on, at least, all those African slaves, and all those “poor” Americans put out of work because the slave trader, warmonger, central banking whores, created, and maintained, a poor for them, rich for us, fake government.

    Who were the warmonger, slave trader, central banking whores, then?

    Who was the republican, free in liberty, defenders, creating a grass-roots, voluntary association for the mutual defense of all, a government under the common law?

    Who told lies to gain power, then began enforcing dictatorial orders to be obeyed without question?

    14th of October, 1774

    “On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”

    On the 20th day of October 1774
    “This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world. In the article respecting non-exportations, the sending of rice to Europe was excepted.”

    On the 1st of April, 1775
    “On this occasion, the importation of slaves was expressly prohibited.”

    What is the method by which the people as a whole consent to any government by anyone, anytime? What is the method by which the people hold everyone to account for anything?

    “Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free.”
    http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial12.html#p222

    I am deliberately grinding a particular ax here, one that you appear to marginalize: deliberately.

    “They were in the process of Creation. They were not hell bent on wickedness.”

    Who are they?

    June 17, 1788
    George Mason:
    “Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.”

    Patrick Henry, Monday, June 9, 1788
    “A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated.”

    Page 13 Luther Martin

    “One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.”
    https://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up

    Boyd White:
    “So how do they prevent the crime? Grand Juries is one legal way.”

    Don’t you get it? In 1789 the legal way was outlawed by the criminals who took over, why is that hard to see?

    1788, June 6
    George Mason:
    “Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”

    December 7, 1787
    Rhode Island is right!
    “The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes-the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) — would be doubled or trebled. The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, “appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact,” which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury. Congress will have the power of guaranteeing to every state a right to import Negroes for twenty one years, by which some of the states, who have now declined that iniquitous traffic, may re-enter into it-for the private laws of every state are to submit to the superior jurisdiction of Congress. A standing army is to be kept on foot, by which the vicious, the sycophantick, and the time- serving will be exalted, and the brave, the patriotic, and the virtuous will be depressed.”

    Boyd White:
    “They would look at our lives and our imperious observations on their lives and probably would not give our opinions too much weight or credit.”

    They are who? We are who? They did not all, in unison, enslave mankind with malice aforethought, but some did, those individuals were not stupid, perhaps criminally insane, but not stupid. Many of “them,” then, were moral, peaceful, and willing to give their fortunes, and their lives, for moral goals, and many died during the culling.

    We now are similarly diverse from one end of a moral perspective to the other end, and is it not useful to know the difference accurately? Is it not useful to have a process by which facts, and guilt, and remedy, is found, and found accurately?

  17. “I hope you find some place to live as you want to.”

    I am going to assume that the above is directed at me, which then leads me to make the follow observations.

    1. I try to make the best of whatever I face, so that statement is, to me, inappropriate.
    2. Why would someone assume that someone else fails to make the best of whatever they face?
    3. Is the statement quoted above a claim made by the author whereby the target of the author, who is me, has started a campaign of demonization? The target, me, is some sort of utopian dreamer that will not likely ever “find some place to live as you want.”
    4. No attempt was made to answer the very serious questions that affect our temporal salvation.

    The following questions are questions that affect our temporal salvation.

    1. We now are similarly diverse from one end of a moral perspective to the other end, and is it not useful to know the difference accurately?

    2. Is it not useful to have a process by which facts, and guilt, and remedy, is found, and found accurately?

    3. Did the warmonger, slave trading, central banking fraud criminal political party known falsely as the “Federalist Party,” willfully, and with malice aforethought, take from the people the known method by which criminals are found, tried, and offered a remedy, redemption, or if there is no possibility of remedy, said convicted criminal is deemed outside the law?

    4. If our best hope of a prosperous future, in peace, in a perishable liberty, is to regain our tried and true method of accurately discriminating between fact and fiction, law and outlaw, remedy and destructive revenge, then ought we not at least acknowledge that fact, even if we car not to do anything about it?

    • Methinks thou doth protest too much.

      Let me tell you about my day…the productive parts. First I stirred in a ladle full of sugar into a gallon of homemade wine I am making…one gallon out of a series to keep the vino flowing. Then I raked my chicken pen and turned over the soil with a pick ax since it had not been done in a year. Then I cut a couple loads of sagebrush to put in my chicken and rabbit pens. Meanwhile the Solar Panels are charging up my batteries. Then I finished unloading by wrastling and siphoning two 55 gallon blue plastic drums of water off my truck into my stock water tank. Then I cut wood manually since my electric chain saw decided to quit. Then I whacked two rabbits to fry up over an open fire which I am eating right now.

      So how many convenient switches and faucets did you use today? And with all that free time left over you posted this nice…and I do mean nice in the 1828 sense…message. When all I wanted to do was to wish you a life as you wanted it.

      “I try to make the best of whatever I face.”

      Well isn’t that nice.

      “Why would someone assume that someone else fails to make the best of whatever they face?”

      Let’s see, uhm, with all history to pick from…let’s pick the Ukrainians in cattle cars being shipped to Siberia on 15 minutes notice. Happy faces everyone…let’s make the best of what we face.

      Nature abhors a vacuum…your politics are clear…and a lot of your politics I agree with…but when the U.S. Constitution is gone which is seeming what you want what will replace it? Are you really that delusional to think it is going to be a smooth segue? That your switches and faucets will keep working?

      I want to hear now about how you face REALITY? Acquiring calories and conserving calories. The last breath of many a person who died hard from hunger, thirst, heat and cold was spent uttering, “I did the best I could do.”

  18. “Methinks thou doth protest too much.”

    Notes:

    1. The questions that so dearly affect our temporal salvation are set aside so as to attack me personally, which is standard, routine, practice for those who wish to avoid answering the questions that so dearly affect our temporal salvation.

    2. I do not protest. I volunteer for jury duty. I attempt to deliberate with other people – just for fun – on matters that affect our temporal salvation, and I do so because my viewpoint is improved when I can find viewpoints that offer answers to questions that affect our temporal salvation, such as an answer to the questions concerning why some people got away with subsidizing slavery for 20 years into the future from the date 1789, when those criminals managed to get that usurpation, that crime, perpetrated.

    “Well isn’t that nice.”

    Why has a deliberate exchange of information concerning matters that affect our temporal salvation turned into a personality contest: a pissing contest?

    “Let’s see, uhm, with all history to pick from…let’s pick the Ukrainians in cattle cars being shipped to Siberia on 15 minutes notice. Happy faces everyone…let’s make the best of what we face.”

    How can you not get it?

    “The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a “covenant with death” and “an agreement with Hell,” he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting “the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States.” Instead, under the slogan “No Union with Slaveholders,” the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.

    “Part of Garrison’s opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed “the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools.” Phillips argued that this experience proved “that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery.”

    https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-1.html

    “To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, feeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed. It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.”

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp

    You want to now turn the subject matter to what is happening in Europe, some time ago, and your choice of events is so far removed from the local matters in America, as to be only linked, possibly, by the flow of money flowing to the criminals in Serbia, flowing from the criminals in America. How can you fail to see that the events you now place on the discussion table are financed because the criminals in America took-over in 1789?

    I’d like to know how anyone can fail to see what was abundantly clear when it happened.

    “Nature abhors a vacuum…your politics are clear…and a lot of your politics I agree with…but when the U.S. Constitution is gone which is seeming what you want what will replace it? Are you really that delusional to think it is going to be a smooth segue? That your switches and faucets will keep working?”

    You make claims that are demonstrated as false, as to what my “politics” are, or are not, as if you assume this power to know arbitrarily. You want to have this power, so you arbitrarily assume that you do have this power, and in fact, you do not have this power, so what can be done about it?

    You can go on assuming powers that you do not have, until you, on your own, realize that fact.

    Apparently, you have this idea that the power to keep “switches and faucets” working is a power dependent on something other than the individuals who know how to keep switches and faucets working. You apparently think that the Constitution of 1789 is in some way this power that keeps switches and faucets working.

    My view is such that the State Constitutions are independent recipes for people to volunteer for our mutual defense, and the better State Constitutions have working Bills of Rights, whereby common law, with trial by jury, still rules the day, and the people still consent to, or do not consent to, any government, by any means, of any kind, anywhere, anytime, with, or without a Constitution.

    “I want to hear now about how you face REALITY? Acquiring calories and conserving calories. The last breath of many a person who died hard from hunger, thirst, heat and cold was spent uttering, “I did the best I could do.”

    Somehow you have painted this picture of someone incapable of surviving without the Constitution of 1789, and if this dependent, poor soul, you have created get’s the wish you put in this poor souls mind, then this poor soul will no longer survive, and that poor soul you create has my name on it.

    Where did the conversation about matters of our temporal salvation turn into this straw man creation routine, where a personal attack is the means to the obvious end of character assassination?

    “But let us not forget that violence does not and cannot exist by itself: It is invariably intertwined with the lie. They are linked in the most intimate, most organic and profound fashion: Violence cannot conceal itself behind anything except lies, and lies have nothing to maintain them save violence. Anyone who has once proclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose the lie as his principle. At birth, violence acts openly and even takes pride in itself. But as soon as it gains strength and becomes firmly established, it begins to sense the air around it growing thinner; it can no longer exist without veiling itself in a mist of lies, without concealing itself behind the sugary words of falsehood. No longer does violence always and necessarily lunge straight for your throat; more often than not it demands of its subjects only that they pledge allegiance to lies, that they participate in falsehood.”
    Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s speech at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1974

    Is your next move to declare that I am a terrorist for the thoughts you place in my head?

    • “Is your next move to declare that I am a terrorist for the thoughts you place in my head?”

      No brother, because I am 100% sure the F.B.I. has a jacket that places me already in the terrorist category. You place nothing in my head that was not placed by taking the bathroom pass at the elementary school in Keflavik, Iceland in 1978 and sitting in the library and reading about the American Revolution. In fact, you are so far behind me it is not funny.

      For instance, the reason I booted up my Hughesnet modem at 2:25 A.M. is that I just got finished watching the video by Stefan Molyneux which you posted about “The Truth About George Washington”…it is gibberish. Like a Werefolf I could rip my monitor from top-left to bottom-right and from top-right to bottom-left it is so full of lies and spin. Trust me, it is rank comedy, knife into the table rage, and sadness some one would spend so much time to create such a piece of scat. My mother’s maiden name is Laporte and she is a French-Canadian…I can so see where this French love is coming from…what spin. I think I will go puke now.

      You say, “I volunteer for jury duty.”…that is the most honorable thing a social Human can say. I do trust you in that regard…and I do trust you to a high degree to vote well.

      You say, “You make claims that are demonstrated as false, as to what my ‘politics’ are, or are not, as if you assume this power to know arbitrarily.”

      Well, I am pretty good at arbitrary and I am pretty good at gibberish…I assume very little…I aim to get the job done. As a side note, I have worked freeway construction in Houston, Texas where I was the only white person on a crew of 22 short Mexicans who did not speak English well…and we got along just fine and I contributed much with Spanglish and pointing and geustering…you will have to prove quite a bit to convince anyone I cannot comprehend to get the job done.

      Joe Kelley, you have lately being trying to weasel the term “Temporal savalvation” into the thread…that is your bait entirely which I am not biting. I am not interested in Salvation by any conception of Humans…especially equatorial clucks. Mikhail Gorbachev said, “People are born, they suffer through life,and then they die.” It is the suffering through life that should be aimed at to mitigate.

  19. Anyone,

    “In fact, you are so far behind me it is not funny.”

    Resorting to personal attacks and character assassination as a means of communication is routine in my experience. It is a choice that can be compared to many alternative choices. If the viewpoints here offered by people quoted, that include George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry, are incapable of offering someone useful information, because they are so far ahead, then why not choose to help those behind to catch-up, rather than shoot them down?

    “Trust me, it is rank comedy, knife into the table rage, and sadness some one would spend so much time to create such a piece of scat.”

    If information by Stephan Molyneux contains error, then someone could choose to point out precisely where that error is, and Stephan Molyneux offers plenty of references to back up his work, if he is wrong personally, then why is he wrong personally?

    As to trust, when someone resorts to personal attack as a means of communication, then that is what someone can be trusted to do.

    “You say, “I volunteer for jury duty.”…that is the most honorable thing a social Human can say. I do trust you in that regard…and I do trust you to a high degree to vote well.”

    Thank you very much for the help that you have provided, it was an educational experience. My politics are summed up in that last quote if anyone prefers to know what my politics are according to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*