4 > Discussions; Public Archive
PS
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote ---Dale, no, it’s not like saying that at all.
It’s clear you’re irrational, so I won’t bother to respond any further.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: May 15 13:31 ---You calling me irrational because I won't accept your edicts as truth. I find that very sad and very funny at the same time.
You "won't bother to respond any further" is something I am quite used to seeing from cowards. Cowards that don't like my questions exposing their BullShit as the BullShit it is. Cowards suffering from the Cognitive Dissonance my questions trigger.
➽ We govern ourselves, and are not ruled at all.
To govern is to control. To rule is to control.
You contradicted yourself in one sentence, and you call me irrational.
➽ That’s WHY we establish a government to rule ourselves.
"We [...] are not ruled at all." "We establish a government to rule ourselves."
You contradicted yourself in two sentences, and you call me irrational.
➽ They established an agnostic government in which all participate.
Government: A system of control by rulers.
Slavery: A system of control by rulers.
Government: Where the rulers rule and the not-rulers obey.
In both cases, the rulers and the not-rulers are participating.
In both cases, this IS exactly the same.
With foreknowledge that you are invoking your fifth amendment right to refuse to incriminate yourself, I'll continue by using your previous proclamations already on the record as answers to the questions.
Fourth inquiry:
Who, specifically, is this "We"?
➽ “we” is literally in the first sentence of the Constitution.
➽ It’s we “the people”, which means all of us.
The "We" of "We the People" in the CONstitution is a collective of about, IIRC 4 million at that time.
A collective is NOT a single entity. Assuming and/or pretending otherwise is a error in thought on your part.
The writers of the CONstitution purport to be the voice of a collective of 4 million humans. This purported voice of 4 million is reified into, and treated as if, a singular entity. It is not a singular entity.
There is NO verifiable record of any of those 4 million humans specifically authorizing the writers of the CONstitution to write as the 4 million humans. Nor for the 320 million presently living, years after the 4 million have turned to dust.
Knowing full well that you can not provide verifiable proof that the individuals of either the collective of 4 million or the collective of 320 have specifically given authority for the writers of the CONstitution to act as their agents, I still demand you provide 4 million and 320 million verifiable proofs of the CONstitution 's writers authority to act as agents for every single one of the human collective erroneously called "We".
This purporting to speak for me was done 170 years before I was born. So I simply could NOT be a part of that collective of humans. Ergo: The writers simply could NOT be writing as if representing me.
Second inquiry:
What, specifically, do you mean by "government"?
Since you chose to ignore this question and since you did not leave enough clues in the record, I'll supply the answer.
Government is merely a reified mental construct, a concept treated as if it has physical existence treated no differently than Santa Claus. Government is an “artificial person.” Government is a “legal fiction.” Government, does not exist absent its constituent members, be they officers, employees, or elected officials.
Distilling the above: Government is merely men and women called government. If by some miracle, every single officer, employee, or elected official quit or resigned at the same time, Government would cease to exist.
Setting aside your failure to prove I am part of this "we", I will assume arguendo, that I am part of this "We."
I will also assume arguendo that your claim is true for the purpose of reductio ad absurdum.
➽ That’s WHY we establish a government to rule ourselves.
Better yet, since this "We" is a reification of a collective of many into an entity of one, "We" means "me" for the purpose of reductio ad absurdum.
That’s why I establish a government to rule myself.
So in this ruling of myself, I promulgate this rule to myself:
I am required to pay my legal fiction artificial person some money called taxes.
And elsewhere I have ruled that LEO's can use escalating force against me, up to and including killing me for refusing to obey myself if I resist being put in a cage as I have ruled to be done when I refuse to obey myself.
Didja ever think about this:
If it's consent of the governed, then why do those governing need men with guns to make those consenting obey?
synapticsparks⚿info/dialog/index.php?topic=901.0
Change ⚿ to . to fix the munged address.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version