Bitcoin Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

"They got you by the balls!"

Never liked Carlin until very late in his life when he became extrmeely political.

Just goes to show its never to late to educate the sheeple.

Good Man.

Carlin was wrong. They do not own us any more than King George did. We fight with whatever we have to be free. Crypto-currency is a bloodless revolution.  We're not fighting the government, for we are the government. We fight the corporate criminals that are beyond the reach of the law makers we entrusted. The criminals are too smart, but we are smarter and will defeat them. They try to buy our politicians, but they do not buy the will of the people. It's karma.

He contradicts himself at about 1 minute in.  Says that "they" own the congress and senate and then says that "they" spend billions lobbying the congress and the senate. Why lobby something you already own?

David Icke does this conspiracy stuff much better.

It's not a contradiction. Owning is synonymous with controlling it with constant lobbying.

Ok, then end the wars, drug prohibition, and corporate privilege. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Centralized power breeds corruption. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you're able to free yourself.

He told the audience that they too were "owned" by these mythical supermen he is raving about.  

Seriously, watch David Icke and see a real professional expand a conspiracy theory.  You'll never waste time on the likes of Carlin again.

It's not a conspiracy theory, in the same way that "there is no evidence of god(s)" is not a conspiracy theory even though many religious individuals believe otherwise. You're just a member of the Statism religion and blind to this truth, is all.

So the government is your voice. So everything the government does is your voice. You support Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the IRS not recognizing civil unions. Your voice is for bailouts, tax breaks, government subsidies. Your voice is for corporatism, eminent domain, drug laws.

Most people like some stuff on that list. Democratic government is a series of messy compromises so on most issues, there will be a sizeable constituency in support of the government position.

There is no compromise when it comes to freedom.

You can be for freedom and on either sides of issues like Iraq, eminent domain, drug laws, Libya, Afghanistan and civil unions.

No, you cannot. Freedom requires a government to follow its own laws. Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan occupations are unconstitutional. Federal drug laws are unconstitutional. Marriage legislation on a federal level is unconstitutional. All of this is the Federal government stepping out of bounds. If a government can compromise on its own limits, it has none. There is no freedom in this case.

That's your opinion of what your constitution means.  There are other opinions.  The very fact that you are allowed to voice an opinion means you are free.  Can you imagine a Syrian being able to make the post you just made?  No - he would be castrated and then beaten to death.  That is why we use the word "free" to describe you and "oppressed" to describe Syrians.

It's a very objective interpretation. The fact that we cannot agree on the constitution means this country is doomed. We will collapse like every other nation that has no principles. Regulating and admonishing life by mere and ever-changing whims is not my idea of liberty especially when a vote can be bought for no cost at all.

Once a right is taken it will not be easily reinstated. Gradually the smallest government will become the largest if there are no limits. A totalitarian regime is inevitable and is already here in our case.

No, when I own my own life and everything it produces will I consider myself truly free. Rights are not provisioned. They are inherent. I either own myself or not at all. There is no compromise.

Everyone thinks their own interpretation of their constitution is objective.

You really have no idea what a totalitarian regime would be like if you think the US is one.

Rights are legal constructs.  To say they are inherent means that they are written in the stars or something and that everyone agrees what they are and what they mean.  If you believe that, you have to provide an explanation why the majority of Americans don't agree with you.  Are they blind?

I don't have to provide an explanation. I believe I am entitled to my life and everything I produce. What makes their claim to my life greater? To hell with that.

Tell me why you have the right to regulate and admonish my life? The burden is on you.  I laid claim to this body and my breath when I emerged from the womb. It was by my own will I chose to consume food, drink and walk. If I cannot own it, I will rather die before you take one cent from me!

I am in control of this life! I can end it if I so chose! The claim is entirely mine! Not yours, not the poors, not god's nor societies! Mine and only mine!

If you think you are so entitled to me, then you should be able to abuse me to your whim when my body is lying on the ground without a deliberate movement!

In the end, I am in control! This is my life!

You are a part of the society whose constitution you want implemented in your way.  That affects the other people in that society.  If you are harmless you can spout any opinions you want and no-one cares.  But on things like tax, war, social policy, your's is just one opinion among many and if you can't be bothered explaining your views you can't complain if they are ignored.

Look, forget about the argument on views and rights. The fact is a society based on whims and a perception with no limits will inevitably end. Rights cannot be reinstated once taken. This government will collapse in revolution because of a lack of principle and what you are advocating.

Hawker's position is that society already voted your rights away, so you better have a damn good reason and convince everyone that you deserve them back!

He also rests on the assumption that denying people myself is affecting them as if they own me by default. It's incredulous.

You live is a spectacularly rich country with more freedom than 90% of the world's population.  Do you really think the US will be the first rich free society to collapse?

You can do as you please.  I already said that :)

What you can't do is tell other people how they should live.  You have your view on how to interpret the US constitution.  If your view is enforced, that affects how other people live.  And there are other opinions.  Your view is just one of many and if you want yours adopted, you do need to justify it.

I don't live to compete nor compare. I don't live to be greater than the 90% or not to be in the bottom. I live to achieve what I deem my happiness and to achieve it for others. I know the US won't be the first to collapse but I know it had a lot of potential in its inception unlike any nation before it: A decentralized land of sovereign entities. A grand of example of competition on a political scale; true choice on how one can live his life but this has long vanished into a shell this nation once was.

I will feel a loss once its entirely gone. There's no telling if there will ever be anything like this country again.

Let's see what happens when I don't pay property taxes.

That's the thing: I don't want to tell others how to live. It's mostly them telling me to pay for their wars and healthcare. I just don't want to be a slave. However, telling everyone to do everything voluntarily and at a state level is apparently coercive?

Do you believe there should be a border and a defence force?

That should be up to the individual states who have borders. It's not a federal issue.

So if your state has voted for having a border and a defence force you are ok with it.

I would be against it. Immigrants only add economic benefit unless they only come to feed off entitlements. In a constitutional America, I would just move to another state if I didn't like the law.

Correct me if I am wrong but ALL US states support the idea of a border and a defence force.  Where are you going to move to?

There will be a good portion of the populace that won't, we can band together and change a state to one without border restrictions. If we can't even do that much, we're not a significant movement and thus not notable. The defense forces must have eliminated all issues with our borders in your case.

At least you know where you stand.  There is nothing to stop you all moving to Arizona right now and having the border dismantled.  That won't happen - there is no American constituency for that.

http://freestateproject.org/

The closest thing we have to what I have stated.

: ) Also, thank you, Hawker.

You're such a fucking hypocrite! That's exactly what you do when you threaten to put people in jail for not funding your wars!

With respect, I don't have any wars.  You must be mixing me up with someone else.

You said "we" are the government. Why are you not also accountable for their wars? Sounds like "we" are the government only when it is convenient for your rationalizations.

Nice idea.  I love New Hampshire in summer :)


I don't think I said "we" as I am not American.

What I said is that if you want to implement your interpretation of the US constitution, that affects other people and you need to justify it to them.  

Do you not agree with that?  

I want to implement nothing.

I merely object to the idea that a piece of paper, written and signed by men long dead, to which I never agreed, should be binding upon me.

Its a bit like being born rich or poor.  In an ideal world, you'd get to choose first but sadly, you pop out and are lumbered with your skin colour, nationality, culture and a lot of other stuff.

Look on the bright side...there are worse places to have been born that the US.

Collectivist terms. How ironic.

"Look on the bright side...there are worse plights to have been born into than slavery."

Still not a justification for slavery.

Being born in a rich free county makes you feel that you are as badly off as the people shipped to the plantations and worked to death.

Are you asking for pity?

Do they not teach analogies in your public school system?

Comparing being born rich and free with being born a slave is a very bad analogy. 

Bullshit, on both counts.


I was merely trying to get through to you that


is not a justification for binding me to some dead men's signature, any more than


is a justification for slavery.

You are American.  On a global standard, you are born rich and free.  Instead of comparing yourself to a slave, why not count your blessings?

"You are a house slave. On a plantation standard, you are born rich and free.  Instead of comparing yourself to a field slave, why not count your blessing?"

Still not a justification for slavery. How many times do we have to go through this?

Endlessly.  You are obsessed with being like a slave.  I happen to think that slavery was very unpleasant and you trivialise it by comparing your good fortune with the misery of slaves. 

You are not a slave.  Your life is not remotely like that of a slave.  Stop being so immature. 

It's. A fucking. Analogy.

"... count your blessings" is to levels of freedom

as

"... count your blessings" is to levels of slavery

Neither one is a justification for the grievances inflicted upon the relatively better off.

edit... a simpler analogy in the hope that you can wrap your head around it...

BitterTea, the relatively wealthy, relatively free United States Citizen is to the average human being on the planet

as

the house slave, the relatively taken care of, relatively free slave is to the average slave

Nowhere in there am I saying that BitterTea == slave

It fails as an analogy and frankly its insulting to try to ask for pity in such silly terms.  For all I know you have real problems that I would sympathise with.  But I don't see being born American as a reason for pity.  You have no reason to compare yourself to a house slave, field slave or any other kind of person who wasn't born in freedom.

No, it doesn't, and you can change that fact no matter how hard you wish it to be.

You are American.  Born free in the richest country in the world and you can't change that fact no matter how hard you wish.

How is my relative freedom relevant to the question of whether I should be bound to a document to which I never agreed?

The "should" has no real place in that sentence.  Its the nature of life that you can't choose where you are born into.  Just like you can't help it if you acquire eye colour from your parents, you can't help but acquire nationality from the circumstances of your birth. 

You make this too easy!

Why should some people be born into the bondage of slavery? because people like you allow it

Why should all people be born into the bondage of nation-states? because people like you allow it

The legal system you are born into can't be changed.  You can improve it by, for example, abolishing slavery.  But you can't decide "The legal system didn't apply to me."  It does.

Why? Says who?


So, those who despise slavery must work within the system that created, supports, and profits from slavery... in order to end slavery? Think about this idea for more than a few seconds.


I'm not saying it doesn't. It does because if I act otherwise, I will be murdered and my murderers will be celebrated. I am saying "nobody should be bound by a contract to which they did not agree".

That's exactly how slavery was abolished in most countries.  People worked within the system and changed it.  The US is not going away and I doubt you want to leave your country so I suggest you accept that any change has to be done on the basis of persuading people its a good idea.

Being part of a society as a result of being born into it is not a contract.  It no different from inheriting hair colour.  If you have some idea as to how people could change that fact, I'd be interested to read it.  

Define "the system".


*facepalm*

You say my analogies fail...

You are so fucking brainwashed.

It's funny, but I was going to write about this Carlin bit right when I ran into this post earlier. Atlas and I seem to be on the same wavelength, but with inverse phasing and opposing direction.

Either he's not Atlas, or Atlas has improved in his ability to communicate in a very short time.

Acknowledging reality is the first step to changing it.  Its interesting that you give up when I ask you to suggest an alternative to accepting that your nationality and citizenship something you are born into; you give up and retreat into ad hominem.

Carlin would point out that he is not describing today's world eloquently, as today he is dead.

the alternative is forcing authority to acknowledge your human rights as a free sovereign flesh and blood man or woman.

you are contracted onto the "Citizen Ship".

your parents contracted you onto it by using their own "Guardian Ship" over you and application for a birth certificate and a social insurance/security number/card, which is voluntary (read the legislation), and you took it over in your teens because you have never disputed it (Maxims of Law in the context of presumption, which states "He who does not deny, admits." and "A presumption will stand good until the contrary is proved.".

so, remove those presumptions, thus removing their presumed authority over you. You are sovereign and the supreme authority over youself, your property, and who you are guardian over.

"... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..." - Declaration of Independence

revoke, rescind, and disolve all contracts (consent) with the state if you want to be free.

and remember some other consent-related Maxims of Law:

• He who is silent appears to consent.
• No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent.
• Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.
• Consent makes the law: the terms of a contract, lawful in its purpose, constitute the law as between the parties.
• To him consenting no injury is done.
• He who consents cannot receive an injury.
• Consent removes or obviates a mistake.
• He who mistakes is not considered as consenting.
• Every consent involves a submission; but a mere submission does not necessarily involve consent.
• The contract makes the law.
• Agreements give the law to the contract.
• They who consent to an act, and they who do it, shall be visited with equal punishment.
• Acting and consenting parties are liable to the same punishment.
• What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent.
• It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it.

otherwise, bow to the Kings, kiss their feet, do what they tell you when they tell you, pay what they tell when they tell you, and never complain about it, because you agreed to it all, and most of all, enjoy your enslavement.

Bind, you are kidding yourself.  There has never and will never be a legal system where you can opt out of obeying the law.

I understand your stance on things.

I simply disagree.

What binds us to those statutes ?

Give me something ... anything other than, "because big bad men with guns said so", or "thats what you are supposed to do", or "because thats how it is".

I can not accept those.

There has to be something somewhere stating we must give up our rights and freedom for benefits and privilages, especially when the very law you worship is lying when it says all the stuff to the contrary.

The only possible excuse is that our entire existance is a complete illusion, that we truly have no freedom or liberty at all, its a huge Matrix of lies and deceipt meant only to give us the appearance of freedom and liberty, and we are no different than the slaves and subjects of old.

I refuse to accept that without anything ... even one line of writing somewhere canceling out the declaration of independance, the constitution/bill of rights, the maixims of law, the universal declaration of human rights, etc.

That's like saying "I never agreed to the law of gravity.  There has to be something somewhere that says I gave up my right to fly."

As humans, we are born into societies and and if we do something that harms the society, it will defend itself.  In the example of the guy without car insurance, he ended up paying his fine.  Opting out is not available as a choice in court.

Two different meanings of the word law. Human laws (created), despite having the same name, are fundamentally different than laws of nature (discovered).


"As slaves, we are born into slavery and and if we do something that harms the slaveowner, he will defend himself. In the example of the slave who ran away, he ended up getting whipped. Opting out is not available as a choice on the plantation."

Hawker fails to grasp the concept of analogy in 3, 2, 1...

Its not an analogy bittertea - its real life.  The guy thought that he could opt out of the requirement to pay car insurance.  The law thought otherwise.  Guess who won?

The slave thought that he could opt out of the requirement to work for free. The law thought otherwise. Guess who won?

Yup.  I'm off to Turkey for a long weekend and while I'm being given a massage in the hotel, I will be thinking of you slaving away in the cotton fields.  You poor boy - I do hope you master doesn't whip you too much when he finds out you have been wasting his time posting on Internet forums.

Either Hawker likes being a slave, or he is somehow benefitted by society giving him privileges (goods or services) which he acquired with little or any effort. If on the other hand his effort starts to exceed the benefits received, I'll bet he'd start complaining, or find a way to use the law to even the score (voting/lobbying).

"As soon as the injured classes have recovered their political rights, their first thought is not to abolish plunder (this would suppose them to possess enlightenment, which they cannot have), but to organize against the other classes, and to their own detriment, a system of reprisals—as if it was necessary, before the reign of justice arrives, that all should undergo a cruel retribution—some for their iniquity and some for their ignorance.

It would be impossible, therefore, to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this—the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder." -- Frederic Bastiat.