A Message to the Liberty Movement

[HVACTech]

Read and then get back to me on that point.

you seem to like to pick on Chris.

I was seriously enamored of your definition of Entropy. and yet sir,
you will NOT discuss it with me... :o

 

[HVACTech]

Ad hominem - the final resort of the defeated man.

You have a good day.

twas, not my words sir. twas your own admission.

 

[HVACTech]

Ad hominem - the final resort of the defeated man.

You have a good day.

ETA: you are now the sole resident of my ignore list, so post to your heart's content. I will not be seeing any of it.

Cheers.

yeah, it was a REALLY stupid idea to use the word Entropy in a conversation with me sir.

you have a nice day yourself sir..

 

[HVACTech]

can someone give me a clue, as to WHY I should play nice with this wise-ass?

 

[Working Poor]

can someone give me a clue, as to WHY I should play nice with this wise-ass?

Because it is the right thing to do. Come on babe.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Yes, but osans points need consideration. The constitution obviously has flaws, but it is no where near as bad as osan portrays it.

Actually, it is every bit as bad as I claim. It fails structurally, as well as semantically, all of which I have outlined previously.

You left out comment on the below. Such is not comprehensive and not competent in rational discussion.

The constitution is mechanistic legal structure and it has at least prevented its own extinguishment for quite a long time.

Obviously structure and semantics are strong enough to last 226 years despite the act of 1871. You are wrong.

Recognizing that the basic constitution was a compromise between bureaucrats, tyrants and anarchists, goes quite a long ways to understanding the endless BS about taxes.

And in such contexts, "compromise" is perhaps the most vile of all the words.

Are you saying that violence is better? Is that constitutional? Are you constitutional by suggesting such a thing, or the effect of your ambiguity? And you have not defined which compromise is "vile". Cherry picking in ambiguous obfuscation. No wonder AF is slamming you.

The oversight in your position is here.

"leaving it to be worked out by the "states" in other bodies of work."

Where are the people in that? Left out again. Assuring another form of deficiency.

That is precisely why I put the term in quotes. There is no such thing as a "state". The "state" is the people - each and every one of us. As such, the term is naught but an expressive shorthand to denote all of us. That is has been so deeply perverted by those seek power does not alter its true meaning.

Oh, now your vague ambiguity is "shorthand"

Here, my use of "states" might more precisely have been taken to mean that the PEOPLE of each of the states would have convened with each other to work out these irrelevant details of structure and procedure by which the functions of governance would be carried out and carried forth.

But you have NO DESCRIPTION of how the people would have convened. Again, not comprehensive enough to be competent in this discussion BECAUSE I am defining HOW the people are to convene by describing how social unity can be created around "referenced principles [that] are universally applicable to all [resonable, honest] men".

Prime constitutional intent relating to the ultimate purpose of free speech is what Americans can unify around. Unity is convening in a social sense. When that escalates it becomes officially "convening". Accordingly, with your argument you are refusing to convene, to unify, to agree with "referenced principles [that] are universally applicable to all men" or at least those that are honest.

With the proper expression, understanding, and holding of the fundamental principles of human sovereignty and human relations, this potential would have remained vanishingly small. Smart people, imbued with the attitude of intolerant vigilance pursuant to their love and desire to be free, would flay and slay anyone who would date so much as suggest the adoption or imposition of anything that would diminish the Individual Prerogative. A nation of such übermenschen would be indomitable by would-be tyrants.

We have said almost exactly the same thing, except I have been specific and you have been vague. I specifically have stated that unity creates the power to defeat tyranny and I've defined that such statement IS constitutional intent but that one of the deficiencies of the constitution is that IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY state that fact.
It is by implication and inference. Both of which can be logically and competently made in this case.

IF the framers stated we have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, THEN they intended for us to have power adequate to do so.

WHERE would that power come from?

Our unity is the only logical answer.

What would serve the purpose of creating that unity?

Freedom of speech is the only possible logical answer. CONCLUSION-Free speech has the ultimate purpose of enabling unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Now, if you cannot compromise at this point, you will forever be the bitch of the infiltrated government that you hate so much you've developed intellectual myopia.

Those principles have been worked out right here in the past few weeks. I'd begun work on them years ago and finally put them forth to the rest and we came up with this. From these principles, the entire body of objectively correct and complete Law may be derived, which I will add would manifest the compact elegance that appears to have charmed so many about our Constitution. With that in hand, the nation would right itself in short order, were it to be recognized as the supreme and immutable law of the land.

Okay, I've read some of your blog and find it quite good relating to the united nations which I do not trust anymore than you. However, the same deficiency exist here where you skip over the social mechanism that enables unity.

"The right of freedoms of speech and belief are positive rights. That is, they assert the right to act positively. You may speak and believe as you please, both of which are positive acts, whereas any right to be "free from" is negative in nature. A negative right means is that one entitled to be free from unwanted outside interferences or influences."

You assume that definition of the positive and negative aspects completes your analysis.

The constitution is mechanistic legal structure and it has at least prevented its own extinguishment for quite a long time.

Not if the great majority fails to recognize it as such. I assert that they have so failed.

Now you assert this AFTER separating it from the original context AND ignoring that it is our failure to know the PURPOSE of free speech as a point of unity that is .

You continue with the failure.

Once again, the tool however present, serves no function if it will not be used. At this stage of the game, and Article V convention would be an unprecedented disaster for the entire world.

This is exactly what I say BUT, I explain how to use it starting with the very first step. Unity around the right that serves to engage the tool.

Read the article in the link I provided. It is not terribly long. It provides precisely the unifying mechanism needed. These are the lowest level, common denominator elements that define the nature, metes, and bounds of proper human relations.

If you cannot appreciate proper compromise and continue cherry picking, losing context for the sake of your argument, your words upon human relations are empty.

So I've shown exactly how you do this, which I describe below AGAIN.

You've made the same mistake as the authors of the constitution. You've left out the mechanisms of unity by which the people actually unify and implement their unity to adjust, correct the system and defend their vital rights.

The integrity required to make intelligent compromise in perspective relating to facts of law is not difficult for people that truly appreciate freedom.

The agents of the infiltrated government do not give a damm and will continue with obfuscation.

The aspect of creating and maintaining unity is what requires the constant vigilance, not the watchdog act over government. If the gov becomes too onerous or abusive a unified people will just slap them down and restructure.

Both are required.

Honesty in discussion is required too.

It is the action of creating and maintaining unity that is slippery on each of our personal levels.

It is far less so if you have in hand the right principles.

So will you continue to ignore the right principle, the ultimate purpose of free speech to pretend you actually have an argument rather than an agreement?

It calls for agreement. Agreement call for understanding, understanding calls for information and open dialog upon it in the formation of informed opinion. Then, each can consider small compromises or sacrifices of their perceptions or perspectives leading to agreement.

Exactly so, and the above referenced principles are universally applicable to all men. They are easy to accept, while rejecting them places onerous demands upon he who rejects them to provide a valid basis for his refusal. This quality alone recommends them with substance of force.

So what "onerous demands" demand does the acceptance of the ultimate purpose of free speech impose upon you? What is you valid basis for refusal to accept this "referenced principle(s) [that should be] are universally applicable to all men"?

Read and then get back to me on that point.

As you can see I've read enough and I'm getting back to you CORRECTING your obfuscation which I understand or see as being intellectual protectionism or an ego that that refuses to compromise intelligently.

You left out comment on the below. Such is not comprehensive and not competent in rational discussion.

The constitution is mechanistic legal structure and it has at least prevented its own extinguishment for quite a long time.

Obviously structure and semantics are strong enough to last 226 years despite the act of 1871. You are wrong.

Recognizing that the basic constitution was a compromise between bureaucrats, tyrants and anarchists, goes quite a long ways to understanding the endless BS about taxes.

And in such contexts, "compromise" is perhaps the most vile of all the words.

Are you saying that violence is better? Is that constitutional? Are you constitutional by suggesting such a thing, or the effect of your ambiguity? And you have not defined which compromise is "vile". Cherry picking in ambiguous obfuscation. No wonder AF is slamming you.

The oversight in your position is here.

"leaving it to be worked out by the "states" in other bodies of work."

Where are the people in that? Left out again. Assuring another form of deficiency.

That is precisely why I put the term in quotes. There is no such thing as a "state". The "state" is the people - each and every one of us. As such, the term is naught but an expressive shorthand to denote all of us. That is has been so deeply perverted by those seek power does not alter its true meaning.

Oh, now your vague ambiguity is "shorthand"

Here, my use of "states" might more precisely have been taken to mean that the PEOPLE of each of the states would have convened with each other to work out these irrelevant details of structure and procedure by which the functions of governance would be carried out and carried forth.

But you have NO DESCRIPTION of how the people would have convened. Again, not comprehensive enough to be competent in this discussion BECAUSE I am defining HOW the people are to convene by describing how social unity can be created around "referenced principles [that] are universally applicable to all [resonable, honest] men".

Prime constitutional intent relating to the ultimate purpose of free speech is what Americans can unify around. Unity is convening in a social sense. When that escalates it becomes officially "convening". Accordingly, with your argument you are refusing to convene, to unify, to agree with "referenced principles [that] are universally applicable to all men" or at least those that are honest.

With the proper expression, understanding, and holding of the fundamental principles of human sovereignty and human relations, this potential would have remained vanishingly small. Smart people, imbued with the attitude of intolerant vigilance pursuant to their love and desire to be free, would flay and slay anyone who would date so much as suggest the adoption or imposition of anything that would diminish the Individual Prerogative. A nation of such übermenschen would be indomitable by would-be tyrants.

We have said almost exactly the same thing, except I have been specific and you have been vague. I specifically have stated that unity creates the power to defeat tyranny and I've defined that such statement IS constitutional intent but that one of the deficiencies of the constitution is that IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY state that fact.
It is by implication and inference. Both of which can be logically and competently made in this case.

IF the framers stated we have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, THEN they intended for us to have power adequate to do so.

WHERE would that power come from?

Our unity is the only logical answer.

What would serve the purpose of creating that unity?

Freedom of speech is the only possible logical answer. CONCLUSION-Free speech has the ultimate purpose of enabling unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Now, if you cannot compromise at this point, you will forever be the bitch of the infiltrated government that you hate so much you've developed intellectual myopia.

Those principles have been worked out right here in the past few weeks. I'd begun work on them years ago and finally put them forth to the rest and we came up with this. From these principles, the entire body of objectively correct and complete Law may be derived, which I will add would manifest the compact elegance that appears to have charmed so many about our Constitution. With that in hand, the nation would right itself in short order, were it to be recognized as the supreme and immutable law of the land.

Okay, I've read some of your blog and find it quite good relating to the united nations which I do not trust anymore than you. However, the same deficiency exist here where you skip over the social mechanism that enables unity.

"The right of freedoms of speech and belief are positive rights. That is, they assert the right to act positively. You may speak and believe as you please, both of which are positive acts, whereas any right to be "free from" is negative in nature. A negative right means is that one entitled to be free from unwanted outside interferences or influences."

You assume that definition of the positive and negative aspects completes your analysis.

The constitution is mechanistic legal structure and it has at least prevented its own extinguishment for quite a long time.

Not if the great majority fails to recognize it as such. I assert that they have so failed.

Now you assert this AFTER separating it from the original context AND ignoring that it is our failure to know the PURPOSE of free speech.

You continue with the failure.

Once again, the tool however present, serves no function if it will not be used. At this stage of the game, and Article V convention would be an unprecedented disaster for the entire world.

This is exactly what I say BUT, I explain how to use it starting with the very first step. Unity around the right that serves to engage the tool.

Read the article in the link I provided. It is not terribly long. It provides precisely the unifying mechanism needed. These are the lowest level, common denominator elements that define the nature, metes, and bounds of proper human relations.

If you cannot appreciate proper compromise and continue cherry picking, losing context for the sake of your argument, your words upon human relations are empty.

So I've shown exactly how you do this, which I describe below AGAIN.

You've made the same mistake as the authors of the constitution. You've left out the mechanisms of unity by which the people actually unify and implement their unity to adjust, correct the system and defend their vital rights.

The integrity required to make intelligent compromise in perspective relating to facts of law is not difficult for people that truly appreciate freedom.

The agents of the infiltrated government do not give a damm and will continue with obfuscation.

The aspect of creating and maintaining unity is what requires the constant vigilance, not the watchdog act over government. If the gov becomes too onerous or abusive a unified people will just slap them down and restructure.

Both are required.

Honesty in discussion is required too.

It is the action of creating and maintaining unity that is slippery on each of our personal levels.

It is far less so if you have in hand the right principles.

So will you continue to ignore the right principle, the ultimate purpose of free speech to pretend you actually have an argument rather than an agreement?

It calls for agreement. Agreement call for understanding, understanding calls for information and open dialog upon it in the formation of informed opinion. Then, each can consider small compromises or sacrifices of their perceptions or perspectives leading to agreement.

Exactly so, and the above referenced principles are universally applicable to all men. They are easy to accept, while rejecting them places onerous demands upon he who rejects them to provide a valid basis for his refusal. This quality alone recommends them with substance of force.

So what "onerous demands" demand does the acceptance of the ultimate purpose of free speech impose upon you? What is you valid basis for refusal to accept?

Read and then get back to me on that point.

As you can see I've read enough and I'm getting back to you CORRECTING your obfuscation which I understand or see as being intellectual protectionism or an ego that that refuses to compromise intelligently.

 

[Anti Federalist]

can someone give me a clue, as to WHY I should play nice with this wise-ass?

Because osan is a genuinely sincere and intelligent poster who has a brilliant way with words.

I don't make my case with as much wordsmithery, but the facts of the matter are simple, at least to me:

1 - The anti federalists were correct in their warnings and concerns about the 1787 constitution.

2 - And so was Lysander Spooner when he said: But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

3 - Therefore, we have the right to alter or abolish this form of government and institute a new one, better suited to protecting and enhancing liberty.

4 - Certainly a peaceful sort of change is desired, but that needs to be spontaneous, like the Berlin Wall falling, which did not rely on large amounts pre planning and "free speech providing unity" beforehand. But in the end, I believe that only a credible display of force and the willingness to use it will result in the massive shift needed from our current trend to absolute despotism.

 

[Anti Federalist]

So, does anyone else have an opinion on what CPUd wrote on this? It seems to place a wrench into the gears, but knowing nothing of it, I cannot assess with any competence.

Based on just cursory examination, and unable to view videos where I am, it seems like they (the NLA) are yet another one of these "fly by night" patriot outfits that end up getting people thrown in jail following their bad advice.

Can't say if that is what the video in the OP is talking about though.

I can say with some confidence that appealing to the system's courts for protection and justice from the system is more often than not a losing cause.

 

[CCTelander]

Based on just cursory examination, and unable to view videos where I am, it seems like they (the NLA) are yet another one of these "fly by night" patriot outfits that end up getting people thrown in jail following their bad advice.

Can't say if that is what the video in the OP is talking about though.

I can say with some confidence that appealing to the system's courts for protection and justice from the system is more often than not a losing cause.

Kind of like appealing to Don Vito Corleone in a dispute between yourself and Sony Corleone. The likely outcome of such a proceeding is hardly in question.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Kind of like appealing to Don Vito Corleone in a dispute between yourself and Sony Corleone. The likely outcome of such a proceeding is hardly in question.

Yeah, no kidding.

Either my signature or my brains will be on that contract.

 

[CCTelander]

Yeah, no kidding.

Either my signature or my brains will be on that contract.

He'll make you a deal you can't refuse.

 

[Anti Federalist]

He'll make you a deal you can't refuse.

And, as you pointed out, this all government is, in the end.

Do this...or Else!

 

[CCTelander]

And, as you pointed out, this all government is, in the end.

Do this...or Else!

You'd think after 5,000+ years of recorded history we could come up with something better.

Oh wait! We have. But people are more interested in playing politics, apparently.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You'd think after 5,000+ years of recorded history we could come up with something better.

Oh wait! We have. But people are more interested in playing politics, apparently.

Won't in our lifetimes, but, assuming the machines don't rise up and exterminate us, the day will come when that kind of thinking is as repulsive as human sacrifice or chattel slavery.

In the meantime, press on brother, press on.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You'd think after 5,000+ years of recorded history we could come up with something better.

Oh wait! We have. But people are more interested in playing politics, apparently.

Won't in our lifetimes, but, assuming the machines don't rise up and exterminate us, the day will come when that kind of thinking is as repulsive as human sacrifice or chattel slavery.

In the meantime, press on brother, press on.

 

[HVACTech]

Because osan is a genuinely sincere and intelligent poster who has a brilliant way with words.

I don't make my case with as much wordsmithery, but the facts of the matter are simple, at least to me:

1 - The anti federalists were correct in their warnings and concerns about the 1787 constitution.

2 - And so was Lysander Spooner when he said: But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

3 - Therefore, we have the right to alter or abolish this form of government and institute a new one, better suited to protecting and enhancing liberty.

4 - Certainly a peaceful sort of change is desired, but that needs to be spontaneous, like the Berlin Wall falling, which did not rely on large amounts pre planning and "free speech providing unity" beforehand. But in the end, I believe that only a credible display of force and the willingness to use it will result in the massive shift needed from our current trend to absolute despotism.

RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.

I was fooled by that, and it is still right down at the bottom of the page.
the fact is, that RPF's most popular member by FAR, Anti-Federalist. stands in violent opposition to the Constitution.

Ron Paul is the self proclaimed "champion of the Constitution" and Rand Paul is "going to Washington with the Constitution in one hand and the bill of rights in the other"
these men, clearly do NOT share your views.

I don't think even the onion could make that shit up!

7 years and nearly 60 thousand posts... wow.
and you are STILL quoting Lysander Spooner?

1 - The anti federalists were correct in their warnings and concerns about the 1787 constitution.

no, they were not. the Constitution died by 1933 at the hands of Woodrow Wilson, FDR and the progressives.

2 - And so was Lysander Spooner when he said: But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Violation of a contract, is NOT the fault of the contract.

3 - Therefore, we have the right to alter or abolish this form of government and institute a new one, better suited to protecting and enhancing liberty.

would this involve contract? obviously NOT... right?

4 - Certainly a peaceful sort of change is desired, but that needs to be spontaneous, like the Berlin Wall falling, which did not rely on large amounts pre planning and "free speech providing unity" beforehand. But in the end, I believe that only a credible display of force and the willingness to use it will result in the massive shift needed from our current trend to absolute despotism.

what you are pushing for here is clearly violent Revolution.

that you are the sites standard bearer, and yes. this is reflected in the sheer number of compatriots that you have.
tells me that this is a reflection of what the site is really about.

I was fooled. I thought the site was well.. like it says at the bottom.
this is a bitter disappointment for me.

myself, I am dedicated to restoring the Republic and the original intent of MY Constitution.
yourself, Osan and many many others stand in violent opposition to these goals.
therefore it is incumbent upon me review both my participation and membership in this group.
sincerely,
Ken

 

[HVACTech]

//

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I was fooled by that, and it is still right down at the bottom of the page.
the fact is, that RPF's most popular member by FAR, Anti-Federalist. stands in violent opposition to the Constitution.

Ron Paul is the self proclaimed "champion of the Constitution" and Rand Paul is "going to Washington with the Constitution in one hand and the bill of rights in the other"
these men, clearly do NOT share your views.

I don't think even the onion could make that shit up!

7 years and nearly 60 thousand posts... wow.
and you are STILL quoting Lysander Spooner?

no, they were not. the Constitution died by 1933 at the hands of Woodrow Wilson, FDR and the progressives.


Violation of a contract, is NOT the fault of the contract.

would this involve contract? obviously NOT... right?


what you are pushing for here is clearly violent Revolution.

that you are the sites standard bearer, and yes. this is reflected in the sheer number of compatriots that you have.
tells me that this is a reflection of what the site is really about.

I was fooled. I thought the site was well.. like it says at the bottom.
this is a bitter disappointment for me.

myself, I am dedicated to restoring the Republic and the original intent of MY Constitution.
yourself, Osan and many many others stand in violent opposition to these goals.
therefore it is incumbent upon me review both my participation and membership in this group.
sincerely,
Ken

Regarding the Lysander Spooner quote AF provided:

 

[HVACTech]

Regarding the Lysander Spooner quote AF provided:

and? did you not hear anything the man said?

Ron Paul agreed with me. I agree with Ron Paul.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I do not have any "compatriots": I simply speak my mind, and reasonable people can disagree.

You disagree with what happened at Bundy Ranch?

Do whatever you wish.

I was fooled by that, and it is still right down at the bottom of the page.
the fact is, that RPF's most popular member by FAR, Anti-Federalist. stands in violent opposition to the Constitution.

Ron Paul is the self proclaimed "champion of the Constitution" and Rand Paul is "going to Washington with the Constitution in one hand and the bill of rights in the other"
these men, clearly do NOT share your views.

I don't think even the onion could make that shit up!

7 years and nearly 60 thousand posts... wow.
and you are STILL quoting Lysander Spooner?

no, they were not. the Constitution died by 1933 at the hands of Woodrow Wilson, FDR and the progressives.


Violation of a contract, is NOT the fault of the contract.

would this involve contract? obviously NOT... right?


what you are pushing for here is clearly violent Revolution.

that you are the sites standard bearer, and yes. this is reflected in the sheer number of compatriots that you have.
tells me that this is a reflection of what the site is really about.

I was fooled. I thought the site was well.. like it says at the bottom.
this is a bitter disappointment for me.

myself, I am dedicated to restoring the Republic and the original intent of MY Constitution.
yourself, Osan and many many others stand in violent opposition to these goals.
therefore it is incumbent upon me review both my participation and membership in this group.
sincerely,
Ken