RSS

Fear Feeds the Police State

27 Nov

james spader from boston legal

james spader from boston legal (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The following video is an excerpt from the TV series “Boston Legal”.  It was produced in A.D. 2006.

There’s a profound lesson in this video:  The police state is not growing based on government’s aggression against its nation’s people; it’s growing based on the peoples’ apathy, indifference and cowardice.

The government doesn’t push around simply because it is powerful and assertive.  It pushes us around because most Americans are too apathetic, indifferent and cowardly to resist.

Our cowardice invites oppression.  Thus, we are the primary cause for the police state.  In the same sense that nature abhors a vacuum, society abhors an absence of courage.  A people who’ve lost the will to fight naturally attract a police state just as surely as sheep attract wolves.

video

00:05:15

 
32 Comments

Posted by on November 27, 2012 in Fascism, Police Abuse, Police State, Resistance, Values

 

Tags: , , ,

32 responses to “Fear Feeds the Police State

  1. Harry

    November 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

    I have been thinking about this for a long time. People rather not stand up for what is right if it will interfere with their ability to make a profit.

    So it shouldn’t be a surprise with get this system where we have gone wild for the merchant’s paradise that America has become.

    Negotiable instruments as currency. We rent our money from a private banking cartel. And God and His commandments relegated to the dust bin of history.

    How soon, you think, before we collapse and kill off the planet once and for all?!

     
    • Adask

      November 27, 2012 at 5:38 PM

      It is in mankind’s (or perhaps Satan’s) power to degrade the planet and make life difficult to the point of horrific. But I don’t see any force other than God as capable of “killing off the entire planet”.

      More, in a worst case scenario, millions, even billions may die. But some will survive and, if we haven’t yet seen “End Times” the cycle will begin again.

      In any case, how soon can we expect to see the stuff hit the fan? We all sense that we’re close and getting closer to a “moment” when things may suddenly go wrong in a way that’s catastrophic. But there’s an unpredictability and randomness in our increasingly fragile condition.

      For example, one unknown Tunisian street peddler set himself on fire in A.D. 2010 and, astonishingly, triggered the “Arab Spring” that toppled four middle-east governments and threatened thirteen more. The loss of the Mubarak government in Egypt (the cornerstone of the US-brokered middle-east “peace”) has put Israel in greater jeopardy and perhaps pushed the entire world closer to nuclear war. All of this was triggered by the suicide of a single, Arab street peddler who was so fed up with government oppression that he set himself on fire.

      When you consider how one man’s suicide triggered an enormous change in global politics, who knows what other seemingly insignificant event might trigger a global catastrophe? It might happen in the next six months. It might not happen for another six years. I can’t see how we can avoid a global catastrophe for another ten years.

      But the fact that such catastrophe might happen at any time and be triggered by some seemingly trivial event indicates that no mortal man is truly “in control”. All of us–even the rich and powerful–are conscious that we’re just holding on for dear life and hoping to survive what appears to be a coming calamity. Insofar as no mortal man, nation or government is truly “in control,” who might still be in control? The Good LORD.

      The lesson in all of this may be that it’s high time we started paying attention to the real “boss”.

      So, how soon before the stuff hits the fan? Maybe not soon enough. Maybe we’re destined to go through several years of the most difficult time mankind has faced since the time of Noah. Then–after considerable tribulation–then, we might seen an end to the corruption and wickedness we see today.

       
  2. PatriotOne

    November 27, 2012 at 9:59 PM

    The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, (or that the minority have a right to rule the majority(sic)), practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that – however bloody – can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.

    http://lysanderspooner.org/

     
  3. Anon4fun

    November 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM

    “The government doesn’t push around simply because it is powerful and assertive. It pushes us around because most Americans are too apathetic, indifferent and cowardly to resist.”

    In a word: disengaged. When you disengage from the contest for control of your government, the terrorists, who are trying to take its powers from you, win.

     
    • PatriotOne

      November 28, 2012 at 10:46 AM

      1) Could it be that people generally do not want to apply force upon one-another? Do any of us really want to fight?

      How can a (Wo)Man get GovCo to leave him alone? Can he ask kindly; “Mr. STATE OF ______ would you please stop demanding I purchase your permission to live in my home?”

      (STATE OF _____ is factually a man wearing a costume acting as if he is the STATE, this is fact because the STATE is nothing more than words on paper or an opinion and cannot do anything to any thing.)

      After asking kindly will the STATE OF _____ go away and leave the man alone? Or will the STATE OF _____ say “”I’M just doing my job”?

      How can a Man stop the STATE without pointing a gun at the ACTOR, having asked the STATE to go away – the STATE refusing.

      How can a man peacefully require the STATE to leave him alone?

      2) The people have been trained to believe that the fiction STATE is a real touch-smell-taste-see-hear’able thing. They have never been taught the truth that the STATE is a screen play animated by actors carrying guns.
      The people think that there should be someone to ensure no ‘sins’ are committed. Was gambling outlawed because of Christian values, or was gambling outlawed to ensure a monopoly on gambling? Which came first, the values or the monopoly?

      3) The people were told that “all Men are endowed by Their Creator…” even though the writers of that opinion held Men as SLAVES. Today in 2012 A.D. so called ‘Americans’ will demand that people migrate “LEGALLY”, as though there is an endowed ‘American’ that grants migrants permission to live free like an ‘American’.

      Why should any (Wo)Man need to seek permission to live in a free country? Which Man did God assign to choose who can and who cannot live at any place on earth? If the USA is the ‘land of the free’ why is every Man required to prove He has permission to be on the land?

      4) A child born today has no choice but to fight or submit. His father will show him how it is easier to pay off the thief than it is to resist the thief. The father implanting into his son his belief in the STATE.

       
      • pop de adam

        November 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

        You have pointed out some of the absurd premises and conflicted ideas of a person claiming to represent a people or state. I was reading some discourse on another website and while not exactly the same points you covered this fellow expressed how it is illogical that as a defendant the plaintiff was claiming jurisdiction based on presence in a state, boiling down it to: if the defendant is truely within the state the defendant should be standing either in or with the plaintiff. I thought an easier way to present this is that claims where the plaintiff/prosecutor present themselves representative of a state or people, they are in fact initiating a class action suit on behalf of the people against a defendant that is also to be included in the class that is making the claim. This to me seems irreconcilable that the plaintiff is attacking a member of the same class that initiates the action/claim.

         
    • Anon4fun

      November 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM

      “Could it be that people generally do not want to apply force upon one-another?”

      No, it could not, as the number of empires throughout history built by organized realists at the expense of disorganized fantasizers proves.

      “How can a man peacefully require the STATE to leave him alone?”

      The same way someone loitering on your property can peacefully require you to do the same. If you want the state to leave you alone, depart with all haste the territory over which the power served by the state – in this country, that’s We the People – is willing to use force to defend its claim of sovereignty. There could be some lingering obligations after you do this, but it’s the quickest way to help your cause.

       
  4. William

    November 28, 2012 at 8:20 AM

    “Cowardice invites oppression.”

    Yes, indeed.

     
    • Harry

      November 29, 2012 at 12:06 PM

      William – “Cowardice invites oppression.”

      I could not sleep last night thinking about that quote, how profound.

      All I could think about is having it engraved in Marble at the Capitol of every seat of government for all to see.

      Kudos to Alfred for sharing it with us!

      Harry

       
  5. James Barnes

    November 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

    That’s a great point. I believe I’ll use the information to put together a lawsuit and start at the state level. I will be acting in the capacity of one of the people and not a citizen of the United States Inc, and use the information learned in my now 6 years of the study of Constitutional Law and American Jurisprudence and as the court will be mine as the sovereign filing and prosecuting the suit. court. the person and suit of the sovereign. See Bill Thorntons work on Youtube for more info, also Carl Millers work on there holds a lot of water, if you have the ability to reason after being intentionally brain damaged by the government mind control school system. Suits for treason all the way from the courts to the president are well and all around deserved and can be easily proven through their acts. All that is needed is two witnesses to the dame overt act. Sheesh, Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court are doing it in the full view of the entire country. Wouldn’t take a genius to put it together and crucify them either. The only other thing if they don’t act honorably is armed revolution as we are at the same exact point now that the colonist were at when they wrote the Declaration of independence. Communism is active and openly being practiced in America and most people are too stupid to even know it!, or don’t give a crap because they profit from it. Can you say, Got my Obama phone!!! I won’t leave America and I will fight for her as I swore to do so when I joined the service against the real domestic enemies now in offices of power across my dying country.

    EXPCITE TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

    PART I – CRIMES

    CHAPTER 115 – TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

    TEXT Sec. 2381. Treason

    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war

    against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and

    comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason

    and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five

    years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and

    shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    SOURCE (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Sept. 13, 1994, Pub. L.

    103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(2)(J), 108 Stat. 2148.)

    Mind you in 2011 someone repealed the death part obviously because, they know they are committing treason and they also know people are waking up at a staggering pace because of their criminal and treasonous acts. The president cannot detain people without warrant on his say so because he has no authority to change the rules called the Constitution without we the peoples ok. TREASON. The Supreme Court saying it is ok for him to do this is TREASON, as they are bound by the Constitution. Any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law from it’s enactment, see Marbury V. Madison. They make a law that says they can arrest or invade homes without following the lawful due process requirements as established by The Supreme Law of the Land, NULL and VOID according to Marbury V. Madison (1803) which still stands as case site precedent to this day. Any criminal trying to abduct you under this null and void law should be and deserves to be shot for the criminal he is even wearing a badge and a gun as he stands in the place of the wrongdoer. The fact it is easily provable with all of their constructive fraud of our trustees and their warring against the United States of America in fact is giving aid and comfort to our enemies in the breaking down of our laws and country.
    A reckoning is coming and it will not be long now, the signs are there and the more criminal they act the more people they wake up….
    Freedom is all it’s about in the words of a great man murdered by the government. William Cooper

     
  6. Anon4fun

    November 28, 2012 at 10:15 PM

    James Barnes:

    Since treason is only against the States, and you are not one of those, your lawsuits will be thrown out for lack of standing.

    PatriotOne:

    I answered this question already. The answer was, if you want the state to leave you alone, then get yourself outside its jurisdiction. Aside from that, you could try a revolution and replace it with anarchy. You would have to entertain the mercenaries of the local warlord now and then, but at least it won’t be the state. No third option occurs to me at the moment.

     
    • pop de adam

      November 29, 2012 at 9:30 AM

      -Anon

      “your lawsuits will be thrown out for lack of standing.”, I at one point was attempting to remove some of the obscurity to the use of the word: “constitution”. I found the definition for “constitutor” as: “One who undertakes to assume the debt of another”, as this seemed vague as to any expressed agreement to anyone without the document as parties and signatories, I tried a different tact. If I attempt to disassemble the word I come to the parts as “con” and “stitution”. Anyone who has made chile “con” carne has made in the english language chile “with” meat. So “con” likely means “with”. What of this other part called “stitution”? We have these other words: substitution(to stand in for), prostitution(in favor of standing), institution(not standing) and constitution(with standing). so what might the answer be for “stitution” I found this using google:

      Latin: standing, to stay, to make firm, fixed; cause to stand, to put, to place, to put in place; to stand still.

      So “constitution” might mean “with standing”. What does this mean to anyone without it? Without any express consent nothing to anyone, it might mean something if you are a state included in and signatory to it. Implied consent still requires consent, who gets to make this implication and to what extent? Two people in an exchange might argue the conditions that are not explicitly explained. They have standing, one or the other is asking for relief or restoration of a wrong or of some right violated. I might argue that either of these two parties can assert express or implicit agreements, but also not think that some third party proper in asserting an implied agreement.

      In another idea concerning implicit consent and voting:

      Suppose there is some pet law that we either agree or disagree with. To be legitamate a law requires 2/3 of the votes to pass, and it does. In my attempt to defeat said law, I make this other law the antithesis of the original law, suppose it only garners the support of 1/2 of the voters. While not getting the requisite 2/3 to become law, could it be argued that the original law is null also as it no longer enjoys 2/3 support either? A catch-22?

      I believe it is all gobbledegook meant to decieve and manipulate. What is done with “implicit” consent after it is asserted? There is often an attempt to transmute it to “express” consent, as if it were actual consent. I find this a devious concept as only parties to an exchange can assert what its implication are or should be. A state bears neither the burdens or the benefits of a consentual exchange and so should not have any standing, What it takes from one it bestows on another, so if by its own assertion that all are to be included within in it, it cannot be “harmed”,”damaged” or “suffer injury”.

      You claim being in a “state” grants consent to a “states” jurisdiction, If I am in the “state” how is it this “state” can stand apart and attack a member of the “state” without the very same “state”. This is very much like contracting with oneself, this is circular logic and it doesn’t work. If I break the contract can I sue myself? What if I decline to make the complaint, is justice served? Can I be both the complaintant and the defendant? If it went either way the burdens and benefits would negate eachother as they go to the same party in the end. It doesn’t make sense to me.

      -pop

       
    • Flatwood

      December 17, 2012 at 10:53 PM

      Per > …your lawsuits will be thrown out for lack of standing.
      He,James, says the “Court WILL BE HIS Court.” SO, how will HIS case be thrown out?

       
  7. Cody

    November 29, 2012 at 2:04 AM

    There’s no guv’ment, like…NO guv’ment!

     
    • Flatwood

      December 17, 2012 at 10:54 PM

      There’s no guv’ment, like…NO guv’ment!

      RIGHT !!!

       
  8. Anon4fun

    November 29, 2012 at 1:05 PM

    pop:

    The word “statute” comes from the same root. So con-stitution could be read as: (establish) law with. The consent you give by being in the territory over which a sovereign (authority of law) has jurisdiction (power of law) is like the consent you give by being on property of which someone has ownership. This is a simpler way to look at it.

    Who claims the sovereign political right over the land of America? No individual does this. Therefore, it is not a function of individual sovereignty. Nor is it a function of individual consent. It essentially reduces to force. The People, i.e. that entity with a single voice in the legislature, is the source of the law in America. There is no better definition of political sovereignty, despite the fact that the People’s authority itself derives from its constituent individuals according to a higher sovereignty which transcends politics: “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights… to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” This entity, the source of the law in America, wields the power of the state and considers you to have constructively consented to its claim of sovereignty by your presence in its domain, even if you don’t in fact consent.

     
    • PatriotOne

      November 29, 2012 at 1:19 PM

      ‘Consent’ to WHO? A gang of men and women wearing costumes playing roles such as President-Judge-Persecutor, these ACTORS claiming authority within a screen play called USA, and requiring every Man on earth to also PLAY, being convinced to PLAY at the barrel of a gun?
      “It essentially reduces to force.” <- BINGO
      I disagree that 'cowardice' has anything to do with Mans refusal to act. Why would a reasoned Man stand up while the remainder of Man watches him get shot?
      Simply being left alone and free is not an option when faced with 1000k government employees wanting a paycheck. A paycheck achieved without producing any sellable, revenue producing, product.
      Could I simply sell hotdogs on the corner without purchasing 15 permits? If I was to try might I be arrested and forced to fight unlimited funded GovCo ACTORS/ATTACKERS? Where are my freedom seeking defenders?
      Being a coward has ZERO to do with my oppression. The People have been trained to believe GovCo is for good no matter the bullet delivering the goods.

       
      • pop de adam

        November 29, 2012 at 1:54 PM

        Reminds me of this nugget: If services the government offers were of value they wouldn’t be offered on a compulsory basis.

         
    • pop de adam

      November 29, 2012 at 2:52 PM

      Anon-

      “The word “statute” comes from the same root.”

      “The consent you give by being in the territory over which a sovereign (authority of law) has jurisdiction (power of law) is like the consent you give by being on property of which someone has ownership.”

      In order to become a member of a nation, people give an oath alliegience to it, in this nations early creation the monarch was disposed of, so the only one an oath could be given to is the government. Even today who can be required to give an oath to government? Its officers, agents and employees of course, they may be required to. If documents such as the DOI and constitution are the law of the land, all laws and offices are precipitated from it. As an analogy: I give an oath to preserve and protect the secrets of the Order of Well Wiped Asses, it would be foolish of me to think these rules extend to other political bodies such as The Rotary, Knights of Columbus or the Boy Scouts, each of these likely have their own oath, laws, rules and regulations to uphold. With this logic it becomes easier to realize the laws precipitated by the Constitution are to be upheld by those who have given an oath to do so, I reject that it is to be enforced upon those without this political body. Statutes should be governing the conduct and behaviors of these officers and agents and not as items for them to enforce upon others.

      At one point in most of our lives, usually public schools, they attempt to condition us unwashed masses to accept and repeat a “Pledge of Allegience” every day for most of our school years. It is never legally binding on minors, and likely only binding upon military inductees. But it shows how delicate their position is, deceit is resorted to. Patriotism and Nationalism are quite similar but not exactly the same as loving your country, the land that it is distinct from whatever political bodies arise upon it. If you enjoy the concept of citizenship relish it, some of us think it nearly a claim of ownership over people.

      “The consent you give by being in the territory”

      I think you might want to study the difference between states and territories they are in some ways similar, but not synonomous. Also consider the difference between consent and presence at a geophysical location.

      ” It essentially reduces to force.”

      This right here shows if you subscribe to the groupthink going on, there is little hope for the individual you when this cult turns on you, of course you likely have already surrendered yourself to it. What ever it wishes is how you will accept it? It may not even realize what it is doing is good or evil, logical or illogical, reasonable or unreasonable. I’d rather endure the vagueness of violent anarchy than accept the stark proposition proposed above, mindless conformity and ever increasing regimentation.

       
      • PatriotOne

        November 29, 2012 at 4:27 PM

        “The consent you give by being in the territory” ??? Who(s) (is) territory?

        Which Man has granted Himself the ability to RULE any territory? Which Men can grant any other Man the ability to RULE any territory-STATE- acre?

        I am always amazed how so-called ‘Americans’ will demand that a Mexican Man seek the permission of an ‘American’ to live free like an ‘American’? The simple act of begging, commonly referred to as ‘LEGAL IMMIGRATION’, eliminates freedom entirely.

        Now; all things being equal, If the ‘American’ demands that the Mexican achieve LEGAL permission, the ‘American’ must demand that the ‘American’ also achieve LEGAL permission. Can the ‘American’ define SLAVERY?

        SLAVERY is not lynching, better described as assault and battery, possibly leading to murder.

        SLAVERY is when a Man is forced to purchase permission to sustain his life whether or not he wants his life sustained. The black ‘American’ slave purchased permission by laboring. He had zero money in His pocket to hand over to the persecutors and judges and police and councils and governors and presidents like the money in the pockets of todays black AND white ‘American’ SLAVES. The kidnapped black Man labored for His forced purchase.

        Can any of us convince our neighbor that He, by getting a drivers license, has purchased permission to sustain His life? Could we then convince Him to stand beside us to eliminate the license? Could any of us convince a JUDGE-PERSECUTOR-POLICE as easily as we can convince our neighbor?

        Corpus delecti? Witnesses with first hand knowledge? Fact v Opinion? SLAVERY v Freedom?

        Alfred, for me, is the original Anti-Shyster. Marc Stevens, among others, is on the front lines fighting. They are fighting a 1000k manned army commonly referred to as GOVERNMENT -> http://marcstevens.net/articles/owning-an-irs-lawyer-2.html

         
  9. Anon4fun

    November 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM

    pop de adam: >>In order to become a member of a nation, people give an oath alliegience to it

    Only when you originated somewhere else and so are presumed to have had other loyalties.

    >>I think you might want to study the difference between states and territories they are in some ways similar, but not synonomous.

    This use of “territory” goes back thousands of years. Nitpick fail.

    >>This right here shows if you subscribe to the groupthink going on, there is little hope for the individual you when this cult turns on you, of course you likely have already surrendered yourself to it.

    I subscribe to national sovereignty, as opposed to the billionaire-sponsored internationalism of communism and anarcho-capitalism. Your ad hominem attacks are from a boilerplate shortlist of anarcho-spam that was already wearing thin a few years ago, so I’m going to take your accusations of cult membership and groupthink as an attempt at humor.

    PatriotOne: >>”The consent you give by being in the territory” ??? Who(s) (is) territory?

    “As a citizen, I know the Government of that State to be republican; and my short definition of such a Government is, one constructed on this principle, that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people.”

    — James Wilson, majority Justice, Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

    The supreme power he’s talking about is political, specifically law-making, power: i.e. jurisdiction. His “body of the people” is more commonly know as the body politic. This is the entity that makes the laws and points the guns to uphold them in this country. We the People say it’s our territory that you are voluntarily taking up space on, and the house rules are what we say they are. Just like the house rules at Joe’s Billiards are what Joe says they are. He’s got a gun too, so be advised to not try any anarchy there either.

    >>Which Man has granted Himself the ability to RULE any territory?

    Which man has granted himself the ability to deny another man the ability to rule his own territory? You sound like a property rights denier.

    >>I am always amazed how so-called ‘Americans’ will demand that a Mexican Man seek the permission of an ‘American’ to live free like an ‘American’? The simple act of begging, commonly referred to as ‘LEGAL IMMIGRATION’, eliminates freedom entirely.

    Nice tearjerker for the internationalist “open borders” position. I’ll put an ad in a few border town newspapers that anyone who can make it to your place is welcome to stay.

     
    • PatriotOne

      November 29, 2012 at 7:40 PM

      How about answering this A4f (below):

      Every one of your above replies requires a MASTER v SLAVE relationship. No thing you said allows for freedom.

      Property rights are SIMPLY, I have made a home in a place, If you LEAVE ME ALONE i am free from you, if you take my home you have stolen from me, if I do not stop you I would be accepting you as my master.

      It seems you A4f want me to explain every detail of every thing that ever happens on earth.

      SIMPLY LEAVE ME ALONE. I do not have to submit to any fiction BODY POLITIC to be free. All I need is for you to leave me alone and I leave you alone, together we are free from each other, if our neighbors do the same together we are free. Freedom is that simple.

      For you to demand a “republican” form of SLAVERY is absurd and contrary to any rights belonging a Man, if Man is to have rights at all.

      The Constitution formed a government that is supposed to keep it-self off of the People. The Constitution was not formed to place a government upon the People.

      STOP LIEING TO ME – I AM SO F’N TIRED OF THE LIARS AND THIEVES

      A4f, you describe SLAVERY and call it freedom. It is (&&*&^$^%$%*& like you that have turned this country into a shit hole…

      Q: Where can I find a free Man in the USA

       
    • pop de adam

      November 30, 2012 at 12:59 PM

      Anon-

      “Nice tearjerker for the internationalist “open borders” position. I’ll put an ad in a few border town newspapers that anyone who can make it to your place is welcome to stay.”

      Here you seem to wish that whatever home or property are inviolable to foriegners and or mexicans and offer PatriotOne to put his money where his mouth is, yet further up in your response you seem to either accept or applaud the concept that it is fine that a body politic be able to do the same. I think what PatriotOne was saying is there is no one should be able to whimsicaly occupy or take posession of your property regardless as to whether it is a mexican or a government. At the same time so long as there is no harm, who cares what this mexican does, If they are a thief or murderer it doesn’t matter if these people are americans or mexicans, if they are breaking a substatial law hold them to it, just stop the with the laws that are essentially victimless and only serve to bind people. As much as immigration legislation is meant to keep some out, the opposite side of it is to keep someone in. So long as the fiction of nationalities are kept up it will always be good cover for other nefarious works. An example: Securing the majority of a population in order to label them as “taxpayers”. We can quietly stay here with no SSN, but for everyone but the most studious to do anything of any substance they really wish you would use this SSN, they offer it for “free” after all. If you wish to leave you need this passport, and on the application form they want a…SSN. It can be argued that if you really wish to not have the two connected, they then proceed to threaten the applicant with a $500 fine. Who attempts to enforce this fine? Not the State department, they pass you off to the IRS.

      This is depressing, have a better day.

      -pop

       
  10. Anon4fun

    November 30, 2012 at 2:01 PM

    PatriotOne: >>Q: Where can I find a free Man in the USA

    Free men are everywhere. It depends on what you mean. If you mean completely free, no one in society is completely free. Living and working with people involves putting other concerns ahead of one’s own. This is why those who would see modern society collapse – and a return to the low-population good ol’ days before the unwashed masses got hold of industrial production, cheap energy, and the right to vote – are so busy pushing narcissism and the pleasure principle.

    pop de adam: >>If they are a thief or murderer it doesn’t matter if these people are americans or mexicans, if they are breaking a substatial law hold them to it, just stop the with the laws that are essentially victimless and only serve to bind people.

    Do you consider trespassing to be a victimless act?

     
    • PatriotOne

      November 30, 2012 at 3:07 PM

      “”Free men are everywhere.”” how can you say ← and then say -> “”It depends on what you mean.”” and then say -> “”If you mean completely free, no one in society is completely free.”” A simple RESPONSIVE answer would be nice.

      A4f your circular ‘logic’ amazes me. Are there 1000k forms of freedom?

      Freedom is nothing more than being left alone. Please do not pervert freedom A4f. If a man says hello to you as you pass-by walking down the street, there is NOT a trespass upon either’s freedom. It does not require either to put the others concerns above their own (see next “”…””).

      ”'”Living and working with people involves putting other concerns ahead of one’s own.”” <- here you describe sacrifice as a condition to associate. Is sacrifice the same as freedom?

      “”and the right to vote””, no such right exist. All people that vote MUST seek permission to vote, rights are natural and do not exist by permission. STOP PERVERTING LIFE

      “”are so busy pushing narcissism and the pleasure principle.”” YOU A4f are seeking to enforce these. Your “Republican” form of SLAVERY requires it. If it didn't your self sucking mind would not allow you to write such circular BS.

      Why even ask this question? “”Do you consider trespassing to be a victimless act?”” Are you too f'n stupid to answer it yourself? Try Corpus delecti A4f. The word 'trespass' implies there IS a victim.

      A4l you are a worthless troll. You exist only to piss people off. You are exactly as a government employee, thinking you are doing good, not recognizing the theft you are imposing.

      You don't know, and you don't know that you don't know. OR you do know and ^^^^^^^^.

      I have linked two videos 'here' but you A4l have not commented about them. Why not? Are you capable?

      I am happy that Alfred does not ban you. Examples of the idiots in the world are needed for the free Man to maintain an informed defense. If the world was without sob'z like you the free Man would simply be left alone.

       
    • pop de adam

      November 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM

      “Do you consider trespassing to be a victimless act?”

      Trespassing, let us consider this, here are some micro-managed opinions that are only my own, any others are purely of and from others:

      Overtly camping on someones front lawn, yes.

      Trampling the petunias in the flower bed, yes.

      Walking on the grass that been posted “Stay off the grass”, yes.

      Trashing a farmers fields and crops while there was a perfectly good service road available, yes.

      Hiking in the wilderness and accidently passing over someones private property, technically yes in practice no.

      None of these would I use to justify blowing someone away with a shotgun or the like. All these are offenses but only the ones that include actual damage seem proper to me to pursue. In fact the injury would be primary to me and the trespassing either secondary or incidental. In order for myself to justify lethal force upon a trespasser I think I would need to be experiencing mortal immediate danger to me, my family or guests. The trespasser would need to be aggressively and unpredictably violent.

      I live in a rather rural area and take no offense from children playing and not recognizing property lines or trespassing, I as a child was one of them. If a baseball flies through the picture window I do think it proper the owner should be made whole again.

       
      • PatriotOne

        November 30, 2012 at 4:31 PM

        Would cruel and unusual punishment apply?

        The tresspasser should peacefully repair the damages, the trespassed should also be respectful when seeking compensation.

        Only when the trespasser or trespassed refuses to be respectful should a court be brought into the cause of action.

        But this post is about government actors and not about people generally.

        Government actors are supposed to possess a bona fide warrant before entering or seizing any property, as per the Oath Of Office required before assuming duties.

         

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s