Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Freedomrox on August 9, 2012 at 1:00am

Way to go Tara, but honestly don't let the Secretary of the Harper Valley PTA get to you. That is what spoiled children do, and he is not calling you an agent...in actuality, he is calling everyone an Agent. That's how they work, and that is on an emotional level. Don't allow it. 

Papa, (God rest his soul), always told me, "If you can't bedazzle them with brilliance...then , by God, Baffle them with Bullshit!"

That is what is being done now, instead of reason being employed, and serious deliberate discourse of a subject. Don't fall for it girl!

Permalink Reply by Freedomrox on August 9, 2012 at 1:11am

Again, as I replied to Harper Valley CIA I will post my views through the voice of a true "Man of Wisdom". I will state who later since I posted this on his CIA info blog. The case against the Constitution and not voting.

1. In the very nature of things, the act of voting could bind nobody but the actual voters. But owing to the property qualifications required, it is probable that, during the first twenty or thirty years under the Constitution, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or perhaps twentieth of the whole population (black and white, men, women, and minors) were permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting was concerned, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or twentieth of those then existing, could have incurred any obligation to support the Constitution.

At the present time, it is probable that not more than one-sixth of the whole population are permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting is concerned, the other five-sixths can have given no pledge that they will support the Constitution.

2. Of the one-sixth that are permitted to vote, probably not more than two-thirds (about one-ninth of the whole population) have usually voted. Many never vote at all. Many vote only once in two, three, five, or ten years, in periods of great excitement.

No one, by voting, can be said to pledge himself for any longer period than that for which he votes. If, for example, I vote for an officer who is to hold his office for only a year, I cannot be said to have thereby pledged myself to support the government beyond that term. Therefore, on the ground of actual voting, it probably cannot be said that more than one-ninth or one-eighth, of the whole population are usually under any pledge to support the Constitution.

3. It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to support the Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectly voluntary one on his part. Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a voluntary one on the part of any very large number of those who do vote. It is rather a measure of necessity imposed upon them by others, than one of their own choice. On this point I repeat what was said in a former number, viz.:

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
"Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.

"Therefore, a man's voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to be disturbed or injured by others."

As we can have no legal knowledge as to who votes from choice, and who from the necessity thus forced upon him, we can have no legal knowledge, as to any particular individual, that he voted from choice; or, consequently, that by voting, he consented, or pledged himself, to support the government. Legally speaking, therefore, the act of voting utterly fails to pledge any one to support the government. It utterly fails to prove that the government rests upon the voluntary support of anybody. On general principles of law and reason, it cannot be said that the government has any voluntary supporters at all, until it can be distinctly shown who its voluntary supporters are.

4. As taxation is made compulsory on all, whether they vote or not, a large proportion of those who vote, no doubt do so to prevent their own money being used against themselves; when, in fact, they would have gladly abstained from voting, if they could thereby have saved themselves from taxation alone, to say nothing of being saved from all the other usurpations and tyrannies of the government. To take a man's property without his consent, and then to infer his consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that property from being used to his injury, is a very insufficient proof of his consent to support the Constitution. It is, in fact, no proof at all. And as we can have no legal knowledge as to who the particular individuals are, if there are any, who are willing to be taxed for the sake of voting, we can have no legal knowledge that any particular individual consents to be taxed for the sake of voting; or, consequently, consents to support the Constitution.

5. At nearly all elections, votes are given for various candidates for the same office. Those who vote for the unsuccessful candidates cannot properly be said to have voted to sustain the Constitution. They may, with more reason, be supposed to have voted, not to support the Constitution, but specially to prevent the tyranny which they anticipate the successful candidate intends to practice upon them under color of the Constitution; and therefore may reasonably be supposed to have voted against the Constitution itself. This supposition is the more reasonable, inasmuch as such voting is the only mode allowed to them of expressing their dissent to the Constitution.

6. Many votes are usually given for candidates who have no prospect of success. Those who give such votes may reasonably be supposed to have voted as they did, with a special intention, not to support, but to obstruct the execution of, the Constitution; and, therefore, against the Constitution itself.

7. As all the different votes are given secretly (by secret ballot), there is no legal means of knowing, from the votes themselves, who votes for, and who votes against, the Constitution. Therefore, voting affords no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution. And where there can be no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution, it cannot legally be said that anybody supports it. It is clearly impossible to have any legal proof of the intentions of large numbers of men, where there can be no legal proof of the intentions of any particular one of them.

8. There being no legal proof of any man's intentions, in voting, we can only conjecture them. As a conjecture, it is probable, that a very large proportion of those who vote, do so on this principle, viz., that if, by voting, they could but get the government into their own hands (or that of their friends), and use its powers against their opponents, they would then willingly support the Constitution; but if their opponents are to have the power, and use it against them, then they would not willingly support the Constitution.

In short, men's voluntary support of the Constitution is doubtless, in most cases, wholly contingent upon the question whether, by means of the Constitution, they can make themselves masters, or are to be made slaves.

Such contingent consent as that is, in law and reason, no consent at all.

9. As everybody who supports the Constitution by voting (if there are any such) does so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid all personal responsibility for the acts of his agents or representatives, it cannot legally or reasonably be said that anybody at all supports the Constitution by voting. No man can reasonably or legally be said to do such a thing as assent to, or support, the Constitution, unless he does it openly, and in a way to make himself personally responsible for the acts of his agents, so long as they act within the limits of the power he delegates to them.

10. As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret governments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, the general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of such voting, only proves that there is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and, so far as necessary to accomplish their purposes, murder, the rest of the people. The simple fact of the existence of such a band does nothing towards proving that "the people of the United States," or any one of them, voluntarily supports the Constitution.

For all the reasons that have now been given, voting furnishes no legal evidence as to who the particular individuals are (if there are any), who voluntarily support the Constitution. It therefore furnishes no legal evidence that anybody supports it voluntarily.

So far, therefore, as voting is concerned, the Constitution, legally speaking, has no supporters at all.

And, as a matter of fact, there is not the slightest probability that the Constitution has a single bona fide supporter in the country. That is to say, there is not the slightest probability that there is a single man in the country, who both understands what the Constitution really is, and sincerely supports it for what it really is.

The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes – a large class, no doubt – each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is "a free government"; "a government of equal rights," "the best government on earth," and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.

Permalink Reply by Tara on August 9, 2012 at 2:06am

Hmm? Who wrote this

 

Permalink Reply by Freedomrox on August 9, 2012 at 2:11am

Tara, add me a friend and I will send an email. I have Harper Valley CIA stumped as well, if you notice...his thread shut down...

Permalink Reply by Tara on August 9, 2012 at 2:22am

I believe you already are me friend here but I'll send you a message via email with my email regardless :)

Permalink Reply by Michael Clair on August 9, 2012 at 2:28am

1A) You seem to think that by voting one thus bind yourself to the victor and system without the hope of speaking against it or participating in other movements. I hold that I can vote and should that fail to bring us to Liberty still participate in other options. Should a state, country or large group make a rise for Liberty for instance I'd happily help them get there or join. Me voting does not obligate me not to support Liberty the best way I see fit ever. In fact if anything it gives me more privledge as I tried fixing it from within the system every opprotunity given and it failed.

2A) Where do you get that 1/6th are allowed to vote? Perhaps only 1/6 are registered to vote? >24% of our population voted in the last one wich makes that about 1/4 of our population actually registered a vote last election. Very confused about this 1/6th stuff. Further under 2) you make more references to obligations. I read nothing about obligations nor do I take any oaths or pledges when I vote, simply cast the vote.

3A) Again, as for obligations due to voting see above. It only is an obligation if you see it as such. I see it as our last efforts to achieve Liberty with this system and or bring as many to the side of Liberty before a fall. It seems that a few of your quotes say exactly what I'm saying so this is all very confusing.

4A) I'm hardly agruing for the system of taxation we have now. I may have voted for Obama last time but only because I convinced myself that Peace could be achieved through him. Many have learned the folly of such thinking and are now ready to vote for Liberty. Further, your making a tie from taxation to allowing those to tax you because you voted? The taxes placed on us will be placed on all regardless of voting or not and voting against those who would engage in more war or such would be the only agruement against having to pay such, but that won't work anymore than claiming that you didn't vote and thus not obligated.

5A) I'm the only one that can say what I am supporting or not supporting. I'll support those who I feel understand Liberty and the parts of the constitution that currently are in line with such. For instance, Ron Paul or Gary will speak in the defense of the Bill of Rights, but against Obama care or NDAA.

6A) How in the world do you jump to the conclusion here that votes given for candiates you precieved as having no prospect of success with a special intention to not support the Constitution? Perhaps they vote as such to restore the Constiution to what it ought to be? Also that comment suggests you don't accept that voting for a candidate is not just to vote them into office.

7A) It was never suggested we track down those who voted and how by legal means or otherwise. The popular vote is given out and can be viewed for your district or anyone elses but no there is no way currently that I know of that will track down who voted how nor do I see a need for such. It should also be noted here that is has been a long while since the electorial college went against the people in their district and to do so would cause a huge stink right now. The Bush -Gore election should have been proof that we should swap away from that idiotic system but that is not a reason not to vote as currently your vote shall be counted and tallyed electorial college or no.

8A) It seems that your arguing that by not voting you are displaying to someone your approval/dissapproval of the constitution. Otherwise I see no reason to discuss if the act of voting validates the constiution or not. I hardly see that as proven or true at all. You can easily disagree with constitution currently, disagree with how the elected person handles the constitution and still maintain your stance on the consitution. All voting will do is show your support for whom you think would be a good defender of what you hold dear. I hold Liberty and Peace dear and thus will support any statesmen that also does as such and by voting shall not limit myself from participating in future indevours. Nor by not voting will it prove to anyone what my views are or remove their desire to take tax from me or other wise control me.

9A) Again I don't accept that voting implies support of the constitution, you have not provided proof that this is the case nor can you as I know I can vote one day without swearing an oath and join Texas in revolt the next. (in theory). Nor is support of the constitution or not relevant, we are asking for a vote for a person not a piece of paper.

10A) Supporting the Constitution or not via voting is a far to broad stroke, I hardly support all of it nor do I think most anyone that knows it supports all of it. I am talking about voting for Liberty, I don't require that I know the people that voted that way or not. I am not ashamed of my vote but anonymous voting helps prevent people controlling other people's vote. "Vote this way or I kill you, and I'll look at your name to see it this way." Now I'm not saying the voting system is perfect nor am I saying there won't be those who look to rig it. However, I also see no proof in national elections of mass rigging nor do I feel that not casting the vote for Liberty in the face of corruption is the answer. How shall we catch them faking votes if we don't give them the votes they have to fake?

To finalize. You may or may not like the consitituion but unless your under 18, still achieving citizenship, or a convicted felon you have a vote. This represents a large amount of our population (more than 1/6). Further while you may or may not like the constitution your still living in this country and when they make their little laws and taxes they will apply them to you, voted or not. Your vote cast does not obligate you any more or less to abide by a corrupt system with or without, simply if you did a simple thing to attempt to fix the corrupt system before it collapsed.

Permalink Reply by Freedomrox on August 9, 2012 at 3:03am

Thank you so very much for showing true ignorance, Mr. Harper. None of what you say has any validity at all. You admit you live in a corrupt system and then think a vote has any relevance at all? You, sir, are a fool and a tool!

You have just argued with only the first tenets of one of the greatest entreatise against the CONstitution and the reason for a change in Government functionality, and the non-foundations upon which it stands. It was called, "The Constitution of No Authority: by Lysander Spooner, published in 1880. If the CONstitution has no authority and none are bound by it, then why vote for a new master every term of years? Did you sign it? If so, then you are bound, but none I know of ever signed it, and have been held hostage in this country by threat of violence, imprisonment and slavery, as well as death, since 1783!

Do you own your house? ....OF COURSE NOT! The Govt. does, and proves it! Try not paying your property taxes and see how long you evade the wrath of the local, State, and Federal Govt.!

You vote for YOUR OWN SLAVERY KNAVE! So begone!

Permalink Reply by Michael Clair on August 9, 2012 at 8:11am

 I've long learned that while I may not be wise I am wiser than those who resort to insults when reasoning escapes them. Ya'll make great examples of why "not voting" is based in illogical arguements, keep it up.

Permalink Reply by Freedomrox on August 9, 2012 at 6:30pm

Definitions:

Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth.

Knave: an unprincipled, untrustworthy, or dishonest person

 Fool:a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.

 

Tool: anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose

 

Now, wherein lies the name-calling? Possibly an insult if it hits way too close to home, but not name-calling, and none disparaging, once shown to be accurate. If any of these were race baited in this PC world, then you may have a case Troy, but I do not see how using proper English can be censored...but of course, then the choice is up to you. I still call a spade a spade...by the way..that also is a tool, so maybe I didn't offend it's sensibilities as well. It is either free speech or it isn't.

Permalink Reply by Freedomrox on August 9, 2012 at 11:59pm

Yassuh, Masssuh!

Permalink Reply by Tara on August 9, 2012 at 1:36am

It's all good Troy, I'm ready for the onslaught to arrive soon. This time around the block I'm building up my hard shell to take the attacks ;) The newly grown appendage is alive and swinging, lol :))))))

Permalink Reply by Freedomrox on August 9, 2012 at 1:49am

Yet no one even takes the time to read, because of length I presume, the actual argument against the CONstitution and Voting, nor to comment.

Tara, keep it swinging, but ignore Harper Valley CIA

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page