Strong democracy or strong constitution ?

[wealthy$]

i really believe in strong constitution.

[1714827171]

1714827171

[1714827171]

1714827171

[1714827171]

1714827171

[countryfree]

i really believe in strong constitution.

Frankly, I'd be happy to believe in that, but when I see some islamists who think life would be a dream if everything was regulated according to the Koran, I wonder: how do you guarantee the constitution is a good one?

[Mobius]

I don't think this is really an either/or type question. The constitution is usually constructed and agreed upon in a democratic fashion. Once the people agree to the constitution it is generally more difficult to change then it is "normal" laws. The constitution is always able to be changed if enough of the people want it changed.

TL;DR - democracy = constitution

[catlinhappy]

i will even prafare strong constitution and a free and fair election and a good government

[some1]

I'm for strong constitution but only if it is a good one.
I mean, look at european union constitution, it is just shit: not ment for guarantee people's rights but only to annihilate democracy.

The real questions shoud be:
How is done a good constitution?
Which countries have a good constitution?

[btcusury]

Strong slavery version A or strong slavery version B?

You have presented a false dichotomy... see here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=732610.0

[Balthazar]

[X] Constitutionally-enforced democracy

[xcapator]

I prefer a political system with strong democracy. The beauty of democracy is: you can stand in front of a billion tons giant iron complex working machine, stare at it and criticize it and claim for a change of it, or at least we can scream at it

[username18333]

I believe in a virtuous anti-government that wholly consists of an authoritarian anarchist, like we have with the imperial government.

[btcusury]

virtuous authoritarian anarchist

You couldn't come up with a more oxymoronic idea than that if you tried.

[BADecker]

Democracy is wrong. It is rule by the majority. If you are in the 49% who doesn't like what the 51% voted into place, do you want to be forced to do it? That's what democracy is. Get rid of it.

Rather, enact common law all over. Common law says, do anything you want, anything at all, as long as you don't:
1. Harm other people;
2. Damage their property;
3. Break a contract that you signed into with full understanding.

Who cares about what a constitution or other document says? As law as common law as stated above is the basis for all of it, freedom will abound.

In the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., that's the basis of law - the common law. The reason we don't see it is that the governments of these nations have tried and hidden it from the people. It's time for the people to wake up.

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html = Angela Stark's Talkshoe.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw = TrustInAllLaw snippets of Karl's audios.

http://www.broadmind.org/ = Karl's main page.

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/ = Karl's United Kingdom page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da = Craig Lynch's snippets page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAHRzuiOA&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D = Ten great Youtube videos, might be the best introduction to Karl.

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tc = Karl's Talkshoe site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iua56K4Mysk = Karl Lentz - The Brian Bonar Incident - YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdHLHWS4gPE = Lentz-Sense - don't be a More~On - YouTube.


Other Info

http://voidjudgments.com/ = The Secret is most judgments are Void on their face and not merely voidable.

http://educationcenter2000.com/Trinsey-v-Paglario.htm = Trinsey v. Pagliaro - Attorneys cannot "speak" in common law trials if the one who is bringing the suit orders it. Holding from Trinsey v. Pagliaro: "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness."

[jaysabi]

Democracy is wrong. It is rule by the majority. If you are in the 49% who doesn't like what the 51% voted into place, do you want to be forced to do it? That's what democracy is. Get rid of it.

Rather, enact common law all over. Common law says, do anything you want, anything at all, as long as you don't:
1. Harm other people;
2. Damage their property;
3. Break a contract that you signed into with full understanding.

Who cares about what a constitution or other document says? As law as common law as stated above is the basis for all of it, freedom will abound.

In the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., that's the basis of law - the common law. The reason we don't see it is that the governments of these nations have tried and hidden it from the people. It's time for the people to wake up.

I agree with this very much. Democracy is touted as the fairest form of government, but I don't think that any form of government that allows the rights of an individual to be taken away at the behest of the majority, just for the sake of it being a more popular position, can possibly be regarded as "fair." A fair government protects the rights of everyone, at all times. Your life, liberty, and property should not be taken from you involuntarily, and the only legitimate function of government is to make sure that those three things aren't.

[BADecker]

From http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm :

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. (NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.)

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. (NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.)

[BADecker]

From http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm :

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. (NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.)

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. (NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.)

The point is, in the United States, we have a Constitution that provides a Republic form of government. The only thing that holds people back from exercising their rights is, they don't know how to exercise the laws of a republic... THE COMMON LAW. Start at the above website. Then learn the way Karl Lentz does it.

http://www.broadmind.org/

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html

[username18333]

virtuous authoritarian anarchist

You couldn't come up with a more oxymoronic idea than that if you tried.

See the reply below for an elucidation of "authoritarian anarchism."

Democracy is wrong. It is rule by the majority. If you are in the 49% who doesn't like what the 51% voted into place, do you want to be forced to do it? That's what democracy is. Get rid of it.

Rather, enact common law all over. Common law says, do anything you want, anything at all, as long as you don't:
1. Harm other people;
2. Damage their property;
3. Break a contract that you signed into with full understanding.

Who cares about what a constitution or other document says? As law as common law as stated above is the basis for all of it, freedom will abound.

In the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., that's the basis of law - the common law. The reason we don't see it is that the governments of these nations have tried and hidden it from the people. It's time for the people to wake up.

I agree with this very much. Democracy is touted as the fairest form of government, but I don't think that any form of government that allows the rights of an individual to be taken away at the behest of the majority, just for the sake of it being a more popular position, can possibly be regarded as "fair." A fair government protects the rights of everyone, at all times. Your life, liberty, and property should not be taken from you involuntarily, and the only legitimate function of government is to make sure that those three things aren't.

"The only legitimate function of government is the enhanced crucifixion [authoritarian] of those that hold government to have a legitimate function [anarchist]."

That's an example of more fundamentalist authoritarian anarchism.


Satirically, it may be termed "the collection of taxes for the execution of taxpayers." However, it's formally "the imposition of pseudo-anarchy via authoritarianism."

[btcusury]

See the reply below for an elucidation of "authoritarian anarchism."

"The only legitimate function of government is the enhanced crucifixion [authoritarian] of those that hold government to have a legitimate function [anarchist]."

That's an example of more fundamentalist authoritarian anarchism.

Satirically, it may be termed "the collection of taxes for the execution of taxpayers." However, it's formally "the imposition of pseudo-anarchy via authoritarianism."

That makes very little sense, but what you appear to be saying is that anarchy can be imposed using the existing mechanism of authoritarian violence... which is exactly like the Orwellian idea that "War is Peace".

Democracy is wrong. It is rule by the majority. If you are in the 49% who doesn't like what the 51% voted into place, do you want to be forced to do it? That's what democracy is. Get rid of it.

That's assuming that the supposed representatives of the majority actually are representing the interests of the majority... which is obviously untrue. The "news" media presents an illusion of choice between millionaire scumbag #1 and millionaire douchebag #2, while largely ignoring 3rd party candidates that are clearly much more honest. Dictatorships are more honest in that they don't put on a big show to make it seem as if they were chosen by the masses.

In the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., that's the basis of law - the common law. The reason we don't see it is that the governments of these nations have tried and hidden it from the people. It's time for the people to wake up.

Common law is still man-made law. Learn about Natural Law for a purely logical basis to moral behavior.

[username18333]

See the reply below for an elucidation of "authoritarian anarchism."

"The only legitimate function of government is the enhanced crucifixion [authoritarian] of those that hold government to have a legitimate function [anarchist]."

That's an example of more fundamentalist authoritarian anarchism.

Satirically, it may be termed "the collection of taxes for the execution of taxpayers." However, it's formally "the imposition of pseudo-anarchy via authoritarianism."

That makes very little sense, but what you appear to be saying is that anarchy can be imposed using the existing mechanism of authoritarian violence... which is exactly like the Orwellian idea that "War is Peace".

Democracy is wrong. It is rule by the majority. If you are in the 49% who doesn't like what the 51% voted into place, do you want to be forced to do it? That's what democracy is. Get rid of it.

That's assuming that the supposed representatives of the majority actually are representing the interests of the majority... which is obviously untrue. The "news" media presents an illusion of choice between millionaire scumbag #1 and millionaire douchebag #2, while largely ignoring 3rd party candidates that are clearly much more honest. Dictatorships are more honest in that they don't put on a big show to make it seem as if they were chosen by the masses.

In the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., that's the basis of law - the common law. The reason we don't see it is that the governments of these nations have tried and hidden it from the people. It's time for the people to wake up.

Common law is still man-made law. Learn about Natural Law for a purely logical basis to moral behavior.

(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)

A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.

[BADecker]

If the law among people was simply, harm no-one and don't damage the property of anyone. Other than that you were entirely free. That would be about as free as a nation could get.

The two things that government would be needed for would be to enforce the above when necessary, and to protect from foreign nations that might attack.

When you REALLY understand what the Constitution of/for The United States of America is all about, you will see that it does this exact thing.

There is one major problem with all this. It's obvious from the way all of you post, that you don't realize the freedom you have with the Constitution. If you had realized it, you would have said these things already, long ago.

To start learning about how to make freedom in America work for you, study this:

http://1215.org/indexe.html

[username18333]

If the law among people was simply, harm no-one and don't damage the property of anyone. Other than that you were entirely free. That would be about as free as a nation could get.

The two things that government would be needed for would be to enforce the above when necessary, and to protect from foreign nations that might attack.

When you REALLY understand what the Constitution of/for The United States of America is all about, you will see that it does this exact thing.

There is one major problem with all this. It's obvious from the way all of you post, that you don't realize the freedom you have with the Constitution. If you had realized it, you would have said these things already, long ago.

To start learning about how to make freedom in America work for you, study this:

http://1215.org/indexe.html

"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

Authoritarian anarchism teaches men, by its authoritarianism, how to dwell among without will of state.

[cutesakura]

I prefer a strong democracy with general pamilihan fair, honest, free and confidential, with the above principles emapat expected to create a democratic system that truly impartial to the interests of the people, instead of democracy is only concerned with the interests of groups and parties, let alone personal interests. ..