Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: April 29, 2021, 06:35:49 AM »The status wall this discussion was on has been removed.
Private Social Media Platform
Private Social Media Platform
News:
Posting has been enabled without registration.
Posts by unregistered users will not be visible until approved.
Registered users have access to functions not available to guests.
How to post without registering
To register
✨
Posts by unregistered users will not be visible until approved.
Registered users have access to functions not available to guests.
How to post without registering
To register
✨
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: April 22, 2021, 10:26:42 AM »Quote
#1 Asking if we will have a peaceful discussion assumes I wish to spend the time. If I did decide to discuss, I would not do so any other way. I believe in liberty of conscience.
Answering your question, such authority comes from the consent of the governed organized in the body politic. It isn't imagined. The Declaration articulates it very clearly. The body politic being those individuals who benefit from the political arrangement created by their united consent and oath of allegiance in return for the civil government's protection. By the way, I don't see any capital O or N in my reading of it. Do you need glasses? Or are you simply editorializing your boss up front? 8fcso, I'm not interested because your kind is already made up. I won't waste my time if you are simply wanting to propagate your conclusions. I fear that 8s the way it will be for you for your prior comments. You have already made assumptions that were wrong. 4 Agreements says don't make assumptions. I attempt to not.
Quote
It sounds like your mind is already made up, so don't confuse you with the facts. I will admit that I do not buy into Spooner's premise. Individual sovereignty does not trump public sovereignty of the body politic. If you are taking ANY benefit from the neighborhood, by that action you give tacit consent to allegiance to the civil government in charge of it. Unless you rescind that consent and either live off the grid in a state of nature, as a very few do, or swear allegiance to another de jure (lawful) civil government, you are assimilated into the de facto civil government by default. It is that simple. I don't think debating this will do much good. I need to spend my time effectively. Debating your obvious CONflict with the illegal de facto (forced) civil government is missing the forest for the trees. I wish you well, but no thank you. We have way bigger fish to fry and see your pursuit as a distraction. Be well. I mean no harm to your passion or purpose. Just need to focus elsewhere to avoid the insanity.
Quote
364 words appears to be an attempt at discussion to me.
So I will now focus on the words and what I interpret them as attempting to convey your thoughts to me (and other readers). I will address them in the order that works best for my written "flow", so in some cases, not in the order that you presented them.
Please be aware that I copy-n-paste discussions such as this to a publicly available archive on my website.
The second reason, (I'll let you guess at the first) is so I have notes of the previous words exchanged. In this specific case with you, it's so I have points you have made, that I ignore at that moment, to bring back into the discussion to address. In other words, I set those words on the shelf for the time being.
What I have presently NOT put on that shelf is this sentence:
➽ Answering your question, such authority comes from the consent of the governed organized in the body politic.
What, specifically, do you mean by "the body politic"?
How, specifically, do you prove "the consent of the governed"
How do you prove I consented when I, Dale Eastman, have on multiple times in publicly accessible published media claimed, I DO NOT CONSENT! BTW, I just did again.
➽ It isn't imagined.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Yes. This consent IS imagined.
➽ The body politic being those individuals who benefit from the political arrangement created by their united consent and oath of allegiance in return for the civil government's protection.
So... You know about LURIA v. U S, 231 U.S. 9 (1913).
[231 U.S. 9, 22] Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.
How do you prove "united consent"?
Especially when, again, in publicly accessible published media I claim, I DO NOT CONSENT!
Point of logic:
If a human can not withdraw alleged consent; If a human can not withdraw assumed consent; If a human can not withdraw consent that was never given;
Then consent was never given.
➽ in return for the civil government's protection
I can expand and expound on the simple fact that government does not have any duty to protect. No duty to protect, no body politic to be "citizens". I will do so upon request, since it's already written and a simple copy and paste from my website.
➽ The Declaration articulates it very clearly.
From one of the "organic" documents: "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;"
I, Dale Eastman, have on multiple times in publicly accessible published media claimed, I DO NOT CONSENT! I just did again.
By government's own words, because I have publicly withdrawn consent, their powers are no longer just.
➽ I'm not interested because your [m]ind is already made up. I won't waste my time if you are simply wanting to propagate your conclusions.
I have my own website to "propagate [my] conclusions". So I don't need you to propagate MY conclusions. You are more useful to me when you fail to refute my conclusions... You are not the first indoctrinated mind I have attempted discussion with. So of course it would be a waste of your time to fail to refute my conclusions.
➽ You have already made assumptions that were wrong.
Well then... Quote the incorrect assumptions and provide your evidence refuting my assumptions .
➽ I will admit that I do not buy into Spooner's premise.
Again, quote and refute.
➽ Individual sovereignty does not trump public sovereignty of the body politic.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
➽ If you are taking ANY benefit from the neighborhood, by that action you give tacit consent to allegiance to the civil government in charge of it.
What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of this "government" you worship?
The rest of your words are on that shelf.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: April 21, 2021, 12:50:42 PM »Quote
Quote
#2A is also about the civic duty and associated right of all of THE PEOPLE to be participants in a governmental, citizen-vested, public, legislatively regulated Militia of the several States that qualifies the right to the non-infringement of the keeping and bearing of arms.
Quote
➽ legislatively regulated Militia of the several States
Sorry. Seriously WRONG!
It is quite clear that the Founders used the phrase “well-regulated” to denote that militia forces should be skilled with arms of contemporary military utility and relevant military tactics, so that they can serve in the defense of Republic against both foreign invaders and the threat of domestic tyrants commanding a national army against the liberty of the citizenry.
https://bearingarms.com/bobowens-bearingarms/2014/06/24/well-regulated-n19250
What did it mean to be well regulated?One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge."Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight."In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf#page=2
Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”
https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf#page=1
Quote
If you are correct, why are there pages and pages of legislated statutes in the archives of all of the original 13 Colonies going all the way back to colonial Virginia in 1619? Have you even read any of them? Even in the colony of New Netherlands of which I have a 1650 copy in my possession.. Are you aware of these laws, and just ignore their impact, that included conscription of all male inhabitants and freemen? You speak from raw ignorance, my man. There are literally thousands of pages of them. They were regulations by colonial legislatures that "made regular" (well regulated) colonial, and then State Militia until 1903 when the Dick Law dissolved them all by 1908. Go learn your history before you look more misinformed. They are in all of the state archives to be read and researched..
Quote
Uh huh. I'll bet you even vote.
There is a saying, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." If this legally sanctioned myth is correct, then as far as I am concerned, this goes triple for office holders given authority and responsibility to uphold and enforce the laws. How can you uphold the Constitution if you don't understand what you are upholding?
The Constitution is to be read and understood in the light of the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Inherent in the right to Life, is the right to defend and protect it. Inherent in the right to Liberty, is the right to choose what tools, tactics, and techniques will be used to defend and protect one's Life.
United States Constitution, Amendment 2 states:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This very short sentence is packed with information, history, and context. I'll leave it to the reader to do the homework of reading the 107 page memorandum opinion for the attorney general found on the USDOJ web site and cited below. I have read it, and various other Liberty focused text, so I'll just sum up what the amendment means.
1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, just like the right of the people to engage in free speech, and right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.
2. The right to keep arms means the right to own and possess arms.
3. The right to bear arms means exactly that: The right to BEAR arms. The right to carry arms on or about one's person.
4. The militia referred to is citizens with their own arms, not members of the national guard of any state bearing the state's arms.
5. There are several reasons that the right to keep and bear is individual and essential.
5a. To kill tyrants.
5b. To kill invading armed forces.
5c. To defend one's life.
5d. To defend one's liberty.
5e. To defend one's property.
5f. To acquire food to stay alive.
I'll be using my own definition of tyrant to quickly portray the concept: A tyrant is a criminal who holds a State office and/or uses the office to make and use the law to make his criminal acts "lawful". Tyrants use law to take lives, liberties, and property.
This pdf file is a long read. It is 107 pages.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2004/08/31/op-olc-v028-p0126.pdf
Quote
Nope. Don't vote. You lose the bet. But I agree with your observation. The problem is the lack of a mechanism, authority, and access to all of the requisite, relevant, pertinent, vital, and necessary info we must possess to solve the constitutional crisis.
Quote
You don't vote. Good. We might be closer in thought than first glance showed.
The CONstitution IS the reason for the constitutional crisis.
https://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm*
*Lysander Spooner NO TREASON - THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY
Quote
Actually, I disagree with Spooned. The Constituti9n ought to be obeyed. It is much better to have an articulated document indicating civil government form and function. We haven't followed our Supreme law in over 170 years, so saying it doesn't work is like saying a marriage doesn't work when the spouse is messing around. Fix the broken marriage relationship first. Then deem if marriage is viable or not.
Quote
Will our discussion of our disagreement be civil or not?
I have about maybe six different angles of approach to the indoctrinated statists mind set. Note to self: Actually count them.
Since this is about my view of the CONstitution and your view of the Constitution, of which Spooner wrote about... Never mind. I only need Spooner's title: The CONstitution of no authority.
I will claim it has NO authority. I am assuming you are going to challenge my claim.
Where do you imagine the alleged authority of the CONstitution comes from?
Knowing how my discussions go when I use questions such as the previous sentence to drill down on believer's in the CONstitution, The very first question should not have been about civil discussion, but about discussion continuing after I present my points and questions.
Now where was I...
Where do you imagine the alleged authority of the CONstitution comes from?