RSS

Category Archives: "this state" vs The State

A Great (Good?) Debate? II


[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

Yesterday, I published Part I of this “Great Debate” between Colin and myself at https://adask.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/a-great-good-debate/

Here’s Part II:

 

Adask (original comment)

This distinction may be important since, so far as I know, it’s logically impossible to prove a negative statement. For example, I can’t actually prove that I’m not in Washington DC right now.

So, if I were to base some line of courtroom defense on my claim that I’m [not] in Washington, DC, technically, I may not be able to prove that negative statement. Therefore my claim might be dismissed by the court.

 

Colin’s reply:

Yes you can. If you prove that you’re currently in New York, or Atlanta, or Dallas, or San Francisco, or any place that’s geographically outside of the borders of Washington, DC, then you’ve proven that you aren’t in Washington, DC. Because there’s no secret definition of “Washington DC” that somehow includes the rest of the country.

I assume you meant “not” in DC, based on your previous writing, so I added it—let me know if I’m wrong.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , ,

A Great (Good?) Debate?


[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

A man named “Colin” has recently taken an interest in this blog.  He’s reportedly graduated from one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, was briefly licensed to practice law, but has dropped out of the profession.

He is generally critical of the ideas and conclusions that I promote on this blog. The result has been a kind of “great debate” between Colin and myself and many of this blogs readers.  His comments are intelligent and articulate and have added enormous interest to the blog.  

Here’s an except from one of his recent comments. His comment was much longer.  But I need some sleep, so I’ll have to reply to the remainder of his comments later today.

The following begins with one of my earlier remarks in a previous comment, followed by a question from Colin, followed by my current comment:

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , ,

The Essential Struggle


Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jeffe...

Image via Wikipedia

As seen in our “Declaration of Independence,” this country started with the principles that 1) “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”; and 2) “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”.  The first principle elevated all men from the status of subjects to the status of individual sovereigns.  The second principle declared that the purpose of government was to secure each individual man’s rights of sovereignty, and reduced government from the status of master to the status of public servants.

These two principles had never before been seen in an earthly government and are the foundation for the “republican form of government” guaranteed in our federal and State constitutions as well as “American exceptionalism”.

In A.D. 1793, the Supreme Court declared in Chisholm vs Georgia that the American people were “sovereigns without subjects”.   “Sovereigns“–plural.  Not one sovereign (as in a monarchy); a multitude of sovereigns.  Given that that case was decided just four years after the adoption of the Constitution, the Supreme Court had to know what the status of the American people was.  There’s no mistake.  This nation was conceived on the idea that every man (and woman) was an individual sovereign.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , ,

Animal Homelands?


How many times have you heard the people described as “livestock on the global plantation”?  We tend to dismiss such descriptions as metaphorical–but maybe there’s more truth to them than most would suspect.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Slaughtering “this state” with Universal Health Care?


Passing the Obama health care bill was almost impossible.  In fact, the bill wouldn’t have been enacted except for prior passage of the “Slaughter Rule” (reportedly named after Congresswoman “Louise Slaughter” rather than a congressional desire to “slaughter” the American people).  The Slaughter Rule was passed in early March in order to allow Congressmen (who are all up for reelection this November) to vote to enact the health care bill without actually voting on that health care bill itself.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 29, 2010 in "this state" vs The State, Health Care

 

Do you Believe in “this state”?


“As ye believe, so be it.”  “As ye believe, so shall it be done to you.”  So sayeth the Lord (and so sez “this state”)

“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” Joshua 24:15

“Choose this day who you will believe—for that is who you will serve.”  Alfred Adask

I’ve understood for several years that all “belief” is based on second-hand information and therefore hearsay.  For example, when I was a child, I “believed” in Santa Clause.  Why?  I had no “knowledge” (direct, first-hand experience) of Santa Clause.  I’d never seen him enter my home or deposit presents or slide up or down a chimney.  But my “mommy” told me Santa was real and therefore, I believed.

Read the rest of this entry »