----- Original Message ----
From: ejt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 5:39:53 PM
Subject: [LibertarianEnterprise] Re: Think about this:
Bill,
My comments interposed between your own below:
Sorry, Boyd's right on this one. It's the old, "You were born in
the USA, so you have a social contract with the government!"
argument.
You may be right, and you may be wrong, depending upon the
context of the argument.
Firstly, the Constitution isn't a contract. A contract is a
voluntary agreement explicitly drawn between two individuals
>spelling out what each of them is to do and what penalties exist for
failure to comply with its terms. The Constitution is therefore not
a contract, since no one living has ever signed it, nor came under
the rule of the government it establishes voluntarily -- with the
exception of immigrants.
Yes, and no.
In the purely legal sense, it =is= a contract. Virtually any
constitution - in the conventional sense - is a document providing
definitions, and describing limits, which men and their offspring,
are bound to abide.
In the otherwise sense, it is a waste of time, and paper.
Or are you suggesting that since immigrants willfully and
intentionally agreed to be bound by the Constitution that they are
the only ones responsible for the actions of government?
I would never suggest any such thing!
However, to be entirely fair to said immigrants, the USC =is=
the prima facie item which they knew of, and which drove them to seek
to live here, have as it does, certain 'guarantees. ' And, that remark
is evidenced by the number of illegal aliens seeking residence here,
as in the main, if working while being alien was cause to be
shot-on-sight, there would not be an 'illegal alien problem.'
You need to remember what the Constitution was intended to be: a
description of the minimal powers granted to the Federal Government.
It most assuredly does not spell out any kind of voluntary agreement
between government and the governed.
This is beginning to sound like consensual sex ...
Most importantly, it should be noted what the Constutiton is today:
an apocryphal, irrelevant piece of paper in a museum. It is
interesting only as a reminder to future generations that government
cannot be limited.
Well, yes, and no.
Enforcement depends upon the people themselves.
If they don't care, or are too timid? Then shit happens.
This is more the case of: Who acts first, and what happens to
them, being as it is, predicated upon the self-preservation theorem.
T. Jefferson had it right, I will consider, with his remarks to the
effect of 'a revolution every 20 (or so) years,' acting as purgative
for the body politic.
As I've stated previously - in another discussion, someplace
else - perceived pain is =THE= definition that determines action. If
what is happening doesn't bother you directly, then you won't doing
much, or anything at all.
That is simple human nature.
By the argument you state below, any human being living under any
government anywhere in the world is totally responsible for the
actions of that government.
Well, they are, plain and simple, IF they agree with what's
happen under that government.
Again, I will presume that if something bad is happening, and
those people are fully aware of that something - but do not a thing
(turn a blind eye to) - then by their own inaction, they are are
condoning the bad thing by the simple expedient of that inaction.
But again, this has everything to with human nature and
self-preservation, and the idea of who is going to do something first.
I've had this whole "social contract" argument come up so often than
I'm frankly irritated at it. Just because by accident of birth I
happened to be born in a specific geographic area does not make me
accountable for the government of that area. I never agreed to what
this government does. In fact, I specifically and categorically
reject and object to every action taken by government since I've
been cogniscent of what government is.
I have no argument with your holdings above. However, as I
stated previously, what we have is =what is= and it has - by virtue
of legal standing - been validated by the inactions of the citizens.
To wit: If a cop willfully murders citizens daily, and the citizens
do not a thing in response, then after a period of time - by dint of
the law itself and the matter of practice - those murders are a
legality which cannot be challenged, except by legislative means.
Classic case of the above: The POTUS have been penning
illegal orders for at least 180 years, and the citizens have done not
a bloody damned thing to remove those slimy bastards from office.
An accident of birth does not make one accountable for the actions
of government in that geographic area.
Again: Yes, and no.
If one agrees with the status quo, then one is - of necessity
- accountable.
By your argument, the Jews of Nazi Germany were responsible for
their own slaughter during the Holocaust.
They were, plain and simple. They allowed what happened,
without lifting a finger.
The only exception to that, was the Warsaw ghetto uprising,
where gallant men and not a few women rose to the challenge.
After all, they lived in Germany, and Hitler's government acted on
their behalf. It's the Jews' own damned fault that they got rounded
up, carted off the concentration camps and massacred. It was their
government acting on their behalf, right?
Exactly.
That might sound mean and despicable, but it =is= the truth
of the matter.
It is =THE= prima facie piece of evidence exposed during the
NOLA disarmament of the citizens.
No one shot a single bloody cop or uniformed government
jackboot during the whole affair.
So, in effect, those citizens got exactly what they deserved.
They =ALLOWED= what happened: Not a single shot was fired -
save those by the criminals. Maybe the criminals should be the only
ones armed ... ?
And =IT= will be the pattern used again and again in the
coming days and years to come, right here in the good old USA.
Either you willfully face deadly force with deadly force, or you don't.
Your choice. If you don't, then you deserve =virtually
everything= that comes your way, including your own miserable death.
Why else do you suppose that JPFO exists today?
They mean to say that if you are armed to fend off the
tyrants - big and small - that said tyrants will either think twice
and then some, or amass an overwhelming force against each citizen
they intent to harm. But then? That will expose them in a critical
way, acting as the harbinger for all others to witness.
Bill Stone
ET
--
It is a fine thing to face machine guns for immortality and a medal,
but isn't it a fine thing, too, to face calumny, injustice and
loneliness for the truth which makes men free?
- H. L. Mencken
