This is all down to socialism

[Elwar]

Yes, but he wouldn't be able to force them to take the pay and step out.

The United States is set up under common law. But with the IRS tax, and the Obama welfare, the people are almost forced to accept the pay.

They say that they want to force you to pay for the sick (moral attack if you don't want), but to face the truth, all is about creating big pool of money for those unable to provide values to others to leech. Why should I be forced to pay money to the health issues of my amish gay smoking pot&drinking booze while playing poker in a dry town friend? Do you want me to restack him even? I don't get it... And how do you think it sustainable? Shall my friend be forced (reconditioned) to not drink, smoke and gamble? would be better for him anyway  .

Perhaps you don't understand what I am saying. And perhaps I don't understand what you mean.

Nobody is forced to pay the IRS. All people who remain ignorant might be forced to pay the IRS. Remaining in ignorance is not a requirement. That's what the links I referenced are about - and other things, like freedom to smoke or not to smoke.

The common law of the United States offers, maybe, a hundred times the freedom that the people are exercising. The people would like to have the freedoms. But they simply don't know how to do it. Start by reviewing the links I entered.

The fact that the current law has been superseded by the concept of precedent has erased just about anything in the Constitution.  If someone were to put the pieces together that (for example) found that the third Amendment actually disallows eminent domain for building military bases, the fact that it has been done for hundreds of years would mean that a precedent has been set and that it is now legal. Even if it is un-Constitutional.

And the fact that the law has been superseded by the concept of precedent comes down to the fact that the people with the power and the guns have deemed it so. No amount of pointing at the Constitution can change that.

The Constitution was created to justify giving power to a new group of people...or more accurately, minimizing the resistance due to the thought that the new people in charge will be more fair in their use of that power than their predecessors.

[BADecker]

Yes, but he wouldn't be able to force them to take the pay and step out.

The United States is set up under common law. But with the IRS tax, and the Obama welfare, the people are almost forced to accept the pay.

They say that they want to force you to pay for the sick (moral attack if you don't want), but to face the truth, all is about creating big pool of money for those unable to provide values to others to leech. Why should I be forced to pay money to the health issues of my amish gay smoking pot&drinking booze while playing poker in a dry town friend? Do you want me to restack him even? I don't get it... And how do you think it sustainable? Shall my friend be forced (reconditioned) to not drink, smoke and gamble? would be better for him anyway  .

Perhaps you don't understand what I am saying. And perhaps I don't understand what you mean.

Nobody is forced to pay the IRS. All people who remain ignorant might be forced to pay the IRS. Remaining in ignorance is not a requirement. That's what the links I referenced are about - and other things, like freedom to smoke or not to smoke.

The common law of the United States offers, maybe, a hundred times the freedom that the people are exercising. The people would like to have the freedoms. But they simply don't know how to do it. Start by reviewing the links I entered.

The fact that the current law has been superseded by the concept of precedent has erased just about anything in the Constitution.  If someone were to put the pieces together that (for example) found that the third Amendment actually disallows eminent domain for building military bases, the fact that it has been done for hundreds of years would mean that a precedent has been set and that it is now legal. Even if it is un-Constitutional.

And the fact that the law has been superseded by the concept of precedent comes down to the fact that the people with the power and the guns have deemed it so. No amount of pointing at the Constitution can change that.

The Constitution was created to justify giving power to a new group of people...or more accurately, minimizing the resistance due to the thought that the new people in charge will be more fair in their use of that power than their predecessors.

Only the civil section of law has been influenced in a strong way by precedent. The fact that new precedent can be set that overturns old precedent shows that precedent isn't as important as one might think.

The old is just as strong as it ever was. All government officials are required to take the Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution has two parts: 1) the civil part; 2) the common law part, which supersedes the civil part.

The only effective precedent against common law is the precedent of ignorance among the people. This ignorance precedent has been propagated and promoted by certain puppet government people, and by their string pullers. Yet, the original common law is there for anyone to use. That's why the jury nullification issue is receiving a lot of attention these days.

To see the school training in civics that we are missing (because government is trying to push us entirely into civil law), don't just peruse, but rather absorb everything at http://1215.org/. And when you have understood a reasonable amount of it, go here http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw and here http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da for some of the best practical application of it - common law.



EDIT: Don't misunderstand about common law. There is a common law in the civil part of government. This is what precedent is. There is also, original common law. This is the common law of the people. It is NOT precedent law, even though the results of using it can change over time.

The people's common law makes us all kings and queens with regard to our property. Fourteenth Amendment people are subject to civil law, and are subject to the knowledgeable common law wielder. Which one do you want to be?

[username18333]

:  an economic system with limited socialist characteristics that is effected by gradual state action and typically includes public ownership of major industries and remedial measures to benefit the working class

(Emphasis mine.)

Often, what is being referred to as “socialism” above is actually state socialism.

Anarchist communism is a form of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favour of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs.

(Emphasis mine.)

And, there are incompatible, anarchist alternatives.

[username18333]

A lot of countries today could be structured better.

[BADecker]

Anarchist communism is a form of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favour of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs.

(Emphasis mine.)

And, there are incompatible, anarchist alternatives.

If you are living alone, without anyone else influencing your life at all, not even to the extent of ever seeing anyone else, do you have a State? Isn't your State your informal state of mind?

If you are living with other people in "a horizontal network of voluntary associations," don't you personally have two States? One is the State of your voluntary association. The other is the network of associations.

Isn't a State really a written down, or otherwise recorded, set of rules - even laws - regarding associations, especially when those rules include things and operations that are not natural?

For example, the border between two adjacent counties (States) is often an immaterial one. There is no visible natural landmark that would tell you that a border is there. The border is determined by surveys. The surveys are written down so that we can keep accurate records of the things that we would forget otherwise. This makes the State artificial. It is a State of Mind when someone reads the record.

[username18333]

Anarchist communism is a form of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favour of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs.

(Emphasis mine.)

And, there are incompatible, anarchist alternatives.

If you are living alone, without anyone else influencing your life at all, not even to the extent of ever seeing anyone else, do you have a State? Isn't your State your informal state of mind?

If you are living with other people in "a horizontal network of voluntary associations," don't you personally have two States? One is the State of your voluntary association. The other is the network of associations.

Isn't a State really a written down, or otherwise recorded, set of rules - even laws - regarding associations, especially when those rules include things and operations that are not natural?

For example, the border between two adjacent counties (States) is often an immaterial one. There is no visible natural landmark that would tell you that a border is there. The border is determined by surveys. The surveys are written down so that we can keep accurate records of the things that we would forget otherwise. This makes the State artificial. It is a State of Mind when someone reads the record.

First, it is necessary to indicate what kind of authority anarchism challenges. While it is customary for some opponents of anarchism to assert that anarchists oppose all kinds of authority, the reality of the situation is more complex. While anarchists have, on occasion, stated their opposition to "all authority" a closer reading quickly shows that anarchists reject only one specific form of authority, what we tend to call hierarchy (see section H.4 for more details). This can be seen when Bakunin stated that "the principle of authority" was the "eminently theological, metaphysical and political idea that the masses, always incapable of governing themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which in one way or another, is imposed from above." [Marxism, Freedom and the State, p. 33]

(Underling mine.)

Within anarchism, a “State” is a non-optional hierarchy.

[BADecker]

Anarchist communism is a form of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favour of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs.

(Emphasis mine.)

And, there are incompatible, anarchist alternatives.

If you are living alone, without anyone else influencing your life at all, not even to the extent of ever seeing anyone else, do you have a State? Isn't your State your informal state of mind?

If you are living with other people in "a horizontal network of voluntary associations," don't you personally have two States? One is the State of your voluntary association. The other is the network of associations.

Isn't a State really a written down, or otherwise recorded, set of rules - even laws - regarding associations, especially when those rules include things and operations that are not natural?

For example, the border between two adjacent counties (States) is often an immaterial one. There is no visible natural landmark that would tell you that a border is there. The border is determined by surveys. The surveys are written down so that we can keep accurate records of the things that we would forget otherwise. This makes the State artificial. It is a State of Mind when someone reads the record.

(Underling mine.)

Within anarchism, a “State” is a non-optional hierarchy.

Any time you have an association of people, you have a State. Even if you live alone, and there are no other people that you EVER come into contact with, you are a State. The only time the State dies is when all people die.

[Elwar]

The people's common law makes us all kings and queens with regard to our property. Fourteenth Amendment people are subject to civil law, and are subject to the knowledgeable common law wielder. Which one do you want to be?

Trying to claim sovereignty by using the system is futile and can only buy you time. Power is the only thing that can make kings and queens.

[username18333]

Anarchist communism is a form of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favour of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs.

(Emphasis mine.)

And, there are incompatible, anarchist alternatives.

If you are living alone, without anyone else influencing your life at all, not even to the extent of ever seeing anyone else, do you have a State? Isn't your State your informal state of mind?

If you are living with other people in "a horizontal network of voluntary associations," don't you personally have two States? One is the State of your voluntary association. The other is the network of associations.

Isn't a State really a written down, or otherwise recorded, set of rules - even laws - regarding associations, especially when those rules include things and operations that are not natural?

For example, the border between two adjacent counties (States) is often an immaterial one. There is no visible natural landmark that would tell you that a border is there. The border is determined by surveys. The surveys are written down so that we can keep accurate records of the things that we would forget otherwise. This makes the State artificial. It is a State of Mind when someone reads the record.

First, it is necessary to indicate what kind of authority anarchism challenges. While it is customary for some opponents of anarchism to assert that anarchists oppose all kinds of authority, the reality of the situation is more complex. While anarchists have, on occasion, stated their opposition to "all authority" a closer reading quickly shows that anarchists reject only one specific form of authority, what we tend to call hierarchy (see section H.4 for more details). This can be seen when Bakunin stated that "the principle of authority" was the "eminently theological, metaphysical and political idea that the masses, always incapable of governing themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which in one way or another, is imposed from above." [Marxism, Freedom and the State, p. 33]

(Underling mine.)

Within anarchism, a “State” is a non-optional hierarchy.

Any time you have an association of people, you have a State. Even if you live alone, and there are no other people that you EVER come into contact with, you are a State. The only time the State dies is when all people die.

However, as is the case with groups of friends, one does not, necessarily, have a “non-optional hierarchy” (that is, a hierarchy wherein one “must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke . . . imposed from above” [Marxism…]). A yoke imposed upon oneself by oneself does not hail “from above” (Marxism…), whether it is imposed for the sake of a “common good” or one's “own good.”

[BADecker]

Anarchist communism is a form of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favour of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs.

(Emphasis mine.)

And, there are incompatible, anarchist alternatives.

If you are living alone, without anyone else influencing your life at all, not even to the extent of ever seeing anyone else, do you have a State? Isn't your State your informal state of mind?

If you are living with other people in "a horizontal network of voluntary associations," don't you personally have two States? One is the State of your voluntary association. The other is the network of associations.

Isn't a State really a written down, or otherwise recorded, set of rules - even laws - regarding associations, especially when those rules include things and operations that are not natural?

For example, the border between two adjacent counties (States) is often an immaterial one. There is no visible natural landmark that would tell you that a border is there. The border is determined by surveys. The surveys are written down so that we can keep accurate records of the things that we would forget otherwise. This makes the State artificial. It is a State of Mind when someone reads the record.

First, it is necessary to indicate what kind of authority anarchism challenges. While it is customary for some opponents of anarchism to assert that anarchists oppose all kinds of authority, the reality of the situation is more complex. While anarchists have, on occasion, stated their opposition to "all authority" a closer reading quickly shows that anarchists reject only one specific form of authority, what we tend to call hierarchy (see section H.4 for more details). This can be seen when Bakunin stated that "the principle of authority" was the "eminently theological, metaphysical and political idea that the masses, always incapable of governing themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which in one way or another, is imposed from above." [Marxism, Freedom and the State, p. 33]

(Underling mine.)

Within anarchism, a “State” is a non-optional hierarchy.

Any time you have an association of people, you have a State. Even if you live alone, and there are no other people that you EVER come into contact with, you are a State. The only time the State dies is when all people die.

However, as is the case with groups of friends, one does not, necessarily, have a “non-optional hierarchy” (that is, a hierarchy wherein one “must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke . . . imposed from above” [Marxism…]). A yoke imposed upon oneself by oneself does not hail “from above” (Marxism…), whether it is imposed for the sake of a “common good” or one's “own good.”

I would agree.

In the United States, either you are one of the people - those who are above the government - or you are a citizen - a 14th Amendment citizen, under the government as a slave with certain strongly enforced privileges, but essentially no rights.

Personally, I would rather be a "people" (which word is singular as well as plural) than a citizen. As a people, I am subject to harm and damage laws rather than all the stupid, picky, little laws that the nation and the States want to impose - like driving laws and taxes, etc.

[DhaniBoy]

socialism is understood that considers all of the ownership of this world is shared ownership, no private rights exist in socialism, private ownership is taboo in socialism, so it will be very difficult to understand socialism to have privacy.

This understanding is very difficult to be applied to the idea of democracy, the idea of democracy is still recognizes that there is privacy on the individual person, but between democracy and socialism have in common one considers that the voice of the people is the voice of god ... 

[lamaze]

-snip-
Power is the only thing that can make kings and queens.

I couldnt agree more.

[BADecker]

-snip-
Power is the only thing that can make kings and queens.

I couldnt agree more.

If we use the Constitution and the courts the right way, we have the power of kings and queens.

Did you know that the courts are open 24/7? Did you know that you can sue the off-hours magistrate if he doesn't come to your aid at your request any time of day or night?

Knowledge is power. Find out how to use the court as your court. If you are wronged, make a claim against the wrong-doer in court. If you are being sued, but you know that you are innocent, convert the suit into a counterclaim for wrongful claim against you.

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."



By the way, "Power is the only thing that can make kings and queens" belongs to Elwar. But I agree.

[Balthazar]

socialism is understood that considers all of the ownership of this world is shared ownership, no private rights exist in socialism, private ownership is taboo in socialism, so it will be very difficult to understand socialism to have privacy.

I have no idea what are you reading but individual ownership is consistent with socialism since Marx wrote that post-capitalist society would entail the rebuilding of associated social individual ownership.

This understanding is very difficult to be applied to the idea of democracy, the idea of democracy is still recognizes that there is privacy on the individual person, but between democracy and socialism have in common one considers that the voice of the people is the voice of god ...  

Both socialism and liberalism are democratic philosophies.

[Gronthaing]

socialism is understood that considers all of the ownership of this world is shared ownership, no private rights exist in socialism, private ownership is taboo in socialism, so it will be very difficult to understand socialism to have privacy.

This understanding is very difficult to be applied to the idea of democracy, the idea of democracy is still recognizes that there is privacy on the individual person, but between democracy and socialism have in common one considers that the voice of the people is the voice of god ...  

A lot of confusion there. As the previous user said, you can have personal property in socialism and you can most certainly have privacy. What you can't have is private ownership of the means of production. Workers would own and manage their work places. And production would be directed for consumption, and not for gaining profit. In this sense, socialism isn't incompatible with democracy but simply a different way to run a society, while trying to minimize inequality.

[My Name Was Taken]

socialism is understood that considers all of the ownership of this world is shared ownership, no private rights exist in socialism, private ownership is taboo in socialism, so it will be very difficult to understand socialism to have privacy.

This understanding is very difficult to be applied to the idea of democracy, the idea of democracy is still recognizes that there is privacy on the individual person, but between democracy and socialism have in common one considers that the voice of the people is the voice of god ...  

A lot of confusion there. As the previous user said, you can have personal property in socialism and you can most certainly have privacy. What you can't have is private ownership of the means of production. Workers would own and manage their work places. And production would be directed for consumption, and not for gaining profit. In this sense, socialism isn't incompatible with democracy but simply a different way to run a society, while trying to minimize inequality.

I agree with your assessment, but I think the reason you don't see strong state socialism in a strong democracy is that the state is too corrupted in such a situation. Those with power are seldom (if ever) in the same boat with the people they make the rules for, but with state socialism this disparity is even less tolerable since the the point of the system is to share the means of production much more equitably than ever happens.

[Gronthaing]

I agree with your assessment, but I think the reason you don't see strong state socialism in a strong democracy is that the state is too corrupted in such a situation. Those with power are seldom (if ever) in the same boat with the people they make the rules for, but with state socialism this disparity is even less tolerable since the the point of the system is to share the means of production much more equitably than ever happens.

I sort of agree. If you look at the Soviet Union for example, it was pretty far from what a socialist society is supposed to be. Workers had no control over means of production, or much of anything else really. It was more of a totalitarian state. But you have to remember there are several ways to achieve socialism, not just through state socialism. Libertarian socialism for example, specifically rejects the idea of using existing state structures to achieve socialism, tries to avoid large concentrations of power, and instead focuses on more direct forms of democracy.

[BADecker]

I agree with your assessment, but I think the reason you don't see strong state socialism in a strong democracy is that the state is too corrupted in such a situation. Those with power are seldom (if ever) in the same boat with the people they make the rules for, but with state socialism this disparity is even less tolerable since the the point of the system is to share the means of production much more equitably than ever happens.

I sort of agree. If you look at the Soviet Union for example, it was pretty far from what a socialist society is supposed to be. Workers had no control over means of production, or much of anything else really. It was more of a totalitarian state. But you have to remember there are several ways to achieve socialism, not just through state socialism. Libertarian socialism for example, specifically rejects the idea of using existing state structures to achieve socialism, tries to avoid large concentrations of power, and instead focuses on more direct forms of democracy.

Democracy IS a large concentration of power. Democracy is where the 51% or more rule over the 49% or less. At least they think that they do. What happens is that there is a small group that promotes a so-called democracy vote in such a way that benefits the small group over everyone else.

Formal - big "L" - Libertarianism might promote anything. But TRUE libertarianism - small "l" - promotes the simple common law of the people. This common law is, "Complete freedom as long as you harm no-one or damage his property." The only exception is that there may be completely voluntary associations formed, and inside those associations there may be some form of " association government" that is not entirely libertarian, but it is always voluntary.

[username18333]

I agree with your assessment, but I think the reason you don't see strong state socialism in a strong democracy is that the state is too corrupted in such a situation. Those with power are seldom (if ever) in the same boat with the people they make the rules for, but with state socialism this disparity is even less tolerable since the the point of the system is to share the means of production much more equitably than ever happens.

I sort of agree. If you look at the Soviet Union for example, it was pretty far from what a socialist society is supposed to be. Workers had no control over means of production, or much of anything else really. It was more of a totalitarian state. But you have to remember there are several ways to achieve socialism, not just through state socialism. Libertarian socialism for example, specifically rejects the idea of using existing state structures to achieve socialism, tries to avoid large concentrations of power, and instead focuses on more direct forms of democracy.

Democracy IS a large concentration of power. Democracy is where the 51% or more rule over the 49% or less. At least they think that they do. What happens is that there is a small group that promotes a so-called democracy vote in such a way that benefits the small group over everyone else.

Formal - big "L" - Libertarianism might promote anything. But TRUE libertarianism - small "l" - promotes the simple common law of the people. This common law is, "Complete freedom as long as you harm no-one or damage his property." The only exception is that there may be completely voluntary associations formed, and inside those associations there may be some form of " association government" that is not entirely libertarian, but it is always voluntary.

Romanticism about "harm" and "property" will not surmount those ills most often attributed thereto: there is no harm without tyranny, and only a despot may retain property.

[Balthazar]

Try socialist soda:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2F9SckkeM4