|
|
|
|
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 101 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/29/2009 11:12:14 AM | ^^^No repeal - it went thru
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted
by the General Assembly on Thursday September 13, 2007.
The Declaration is the most comprehensive statement of the rights of indigenous peoples ever developed,
giving prominence to collective rights to a degree unprecedented in international human rights law.
The USA and Canada voted AGAINST it. 
Indigenous people are often amongst the most disadvantaged people in the world.
Europeans saw the same people as perhaps savages, but ones that could be “saved”
by being civilized and introduced to Christ.
Hence, many European Christian missionaries saw their goal as “civilizing the savages.”
Religious zealots helped to kill the native Indians, destroying their societies and beliefs.
Rights are filtered, interpreted, and then given out by those in power the world over.
Anyone that thinks Rights just exist like a neutral entity is naive and needs to study history a bit more | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/29/2009 4:19:51 PM | Oh boy...There are so many good posts here with stuff I'd like to comment on, that I don't know where to begin! Unfortunately, I don't even have the time to spare, so I'll just comment on one or two things before launching into my usual rant advocating unwritten (& therefore incorruptible) natural law.
The USA and Canada voted AGAINST it.
That was one of the things that first got me seriously looking for a better (more just) system of governance. To say I'm disgusted by the government of the land of my birth would be the understatement of all time!
One of the reasons I'm so passionately in favour of natural law is its simplicity and incorruptibility. The system wouldn't be flawless of course, because without perfect knowledge, unjust decisions will still be made, but as society learns and time goes on, it will become more and more just. (common law is mostly based on it, but is itself derived from a feudal system, so many of its "cherished" rulings and precedents cause injustice to continue longer than it would without the coding and precedents to carry forward) Most civil/commercial law is based on ancient Roman merchant law and that crap should have been burned centuries ago! There is no reason modern commercial law can't be based on natural law too, and we'd all be a damn sight better off if it was! Granted, most lawyers would be out of a job, but we'd all be better off without them anyway. Imagine a system where every rational human knows the law and doesn't need to fork over piles of his hard earned money to some modern day scribe/interpreter (of legalese) just to try vainly to get some justice. Imagine contracts being found fraudulent because the "nasty bits" were concealed in fine print or "clever" (legalese) wording (You would finally be able to fully understand every contract you signed without hiring a lawyer to assure you that you aren't being ripped off.) I could go on and on about the benefits of a natural law judicial system, but time is short & I'll have to go for a beer now....  | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/29/2009 6:15:25 PM | As far as the United Nations is concerned they're a bigoted bunch themselves, that are concerned with self engrandismement in my opinion. They have caused more trouble then good throughout the world. There is also a strong Anti-United States biais in the General Assembley.
@ Scorpio, the monarch has the power to dissolve parlament and call for new elections at anytime of his or her choosing. Therefore, the King or in our Case the Queen has considerable power. Even as the head of State the PM has to request to form a Government (mostly formality).
Diva, I didn't say it was right. Whenever dealing with the Federal Government one must be prepared for double dealing, backstabing, and drag out battle with them otherwise they will use the house rule to there advantage.
We should also say that Washington was a Farmer. Jefferson was a Farmer, builder, and I think lawyer.
Please excuse the misspellings I haven't been myself the past few days. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/29/2009 6:48:34 PM | Thomas Hobbes (1650's), John Locke (1680's) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1760's)
are seriously out of touch with modern society and the world map
There is a fundamental truth, that will out live us both! I recognize your thought , but let's be honest, nothing has changed. We live in the world that they explained!!What now enough talk let's do something about it!! | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/29/2009 7:18:15 PM | @ Nick
but let's be honest, nothing has changed
Until WE change, nothing will change.
enough talk let's do something about it!!
It's in the works, but every little bit helps, so don't wait to join a revolution; start one (it doesn't have to be violent, it can be as simple as recognizing that you are NOT a person, that you HAVE a person. If that sounds like a minor play on words, read a few of your statutory "laws" and note that they apply to persons, not to people (unless those people think they re some kind of person). Once you know who you truly are, you will have your rights (ALL of them) and your power at your disposal. After you have stood up to "Big Brother" and won, more will join. Not too long after that, you'll have your country back. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 106 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/30/2009 4:19:55 PM | ^^Me, myself and I are all people persons and each day we have extra disposable power available.
--who else likes to play with words, come join in the fun....lawyers excluded  | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/30/2009 10:54:43 PM | | So many of the statutes (probably all of them) start with or contain "All persons that..." when explaining who the statute applies to. When you stop being (any kind of) a person, you are no longer subject to the statute. It's very liberating, though it may get you tasered by a few cops who don't know the difference between the laws and the statutes they are charged with enforcing (they are supposed to know). That's why it's good to not be confrontational about it (by only asking questions in a polite & courteous manner) & to have a billing schedule in place. If you are ordered to do something, and comply with the order, you can issue a bill for the service! I recall the story of a guy who was told to rise for the judge in court by the bailiff. He asked the bailiff if that was an order. The bailiff said yes, so he stood up. He then presented the bailiff with an invoice for two thousand dollars. The confused bailiff took it to the judge, who asked him if he issued an order to stand. The bailiff said "yes", whereupon the judge asked if the man complied and again got an affirmative answer. He then handed the invoice back to the bailiff and told him "Then pay the man!" | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/1/2009 9:57:22 AM | Legally speaking, you and your legal person are two separate entities that only become one when you think you ARE the person and create what's called a "joinder" by identifying with it. It's a deceptive little trick of "legalese" that has made people chattel of the state without their ever suspecting it.
Look up the archaic definition of "person" and compare it to the modern one. Then guess which definition is deceptively used by the legislators and lawyers in your legal system. It doesn't hurt to check a few statutes and note that the definitions of a word can and in fact do change even within a single legislated "Act". For a better explanation and the legal implications, I suggest you watch this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7040453665540929835&ei=iSsmSdmYBZzaqAONq_TFBw&q=BURSTING+BUBBLES+OF+GOVERNMENT+DECEPTION# | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/1/2009 10:56:56 AM | Velvet,
in the ol' U.S. there is so much individuality and all with hatred for one thing or another, that it Knows NO bounds in solely limiting itself to one; race, culture,sexual orientation,gender, age, class,....
And we all are near the point of America not ever being able to be the "melting pot" again because we all are so da#n worried about being individuals, that we have forgotten what it is to be Americans and not worry about where our "family" came from in the past.
every American is a mutt of sorts,
and only a portion of the native americans-Indians- are even of any tribe completely.
See what the need of " singular multiculturalism" to has done to us! we are more and more becoming an overtly boiling pot with resentment of how ANY person, culture of origin,..... that is "different" from our singular self. and are on the brink of being wholely divided in to a myriad of little pfeifdoms, outright bias against anyone other than ourselves.
I wonder if the other up and coming countries are so worried about treating everyone "equal but seperate"
I hope everyone in the "united" States will someday" unite " with all the other " individuals" in the country,and just be Americans again.
Dale | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/2/2009 10:29:25 AM | Hey dukky
you wrote:
"Legally speaking, you and your legal person are two separate entities that only become one when you think you ARE the person and create what's called a "joinder" by identifying with it. It's a deceptive little trick of "legalese" that has made people chattel of the state without their ever suspecting it."
Can you point me to one, just one, cite where this has been legally upheld............
Not too much to ask.
Paul K | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 111 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/2/2009 10:46:30 AM | I was just thinking how much the economic condition of a country contributes
to the state of affairs concerning Rights within that country.
Poor people generally aren't lawyers, politicians or the decision makers unless
they violently revolt and use their temporary power to create rules which benefit them.
I really don't see any way to separate Power from Rights - they are intertwined | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/2/2009 11:19:53 AM | Hey water
you wrote:
"I was just thinking how much the economic condition of a country contributes
to the state of affairs concerning Rights within that country."
If that were true, then during the depression, the USA should have been overrun with crime, and become a police state..................
Why didn't it?
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/2/2009 2:01:33 PM | Can you point me to one, just one, cite where this has been legally upheld............
Not too much to ask.
Are you dumb enough to think that there is a court case on record for that? If there were, the jig would have been up and the government would be convicted of fraud.
Want to know if it's true? Try to surrender your birth certificate to the court and watch them scream bloody murder! The moment they accept it (which they won't do if they can help it), they become liable for the "legal person." That legal person is the citizen and the property of your (corporate) country and the one subject to all the statutes & regulations. It is also the entity that gets taxed and fined. It is the entity that owes big-time on the national debt. Lucky for them they got you to agree to accept all the liability for their property. By itself, it would be worthless, but YOU give it value by your agreement to be liable for its debts and expenses. To the extent that you think you ARE that person, you become chattel property of your government and therefore a slave by definition.
Statutory courts are themselves corporations (fictional persons). All they can deal with are other fictions (your legal "person" is just another corporation). The only way they can deal with a human being is if he thinks he's a corporate fiction. (unfortunately, that's exactly what most people "become" when they call themselves "persons." | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 114 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/2/2009 2:07:53 PM | ^^^Basic Human Rights suffered immensely during the Depression within the USA :
You would do well to study history a bit more - there were LOTS of riots in the USA in the Depression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots ( see the 1920's and 1930's )
http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html
-A man would be given subsistence pay if he went to a work camp
which meant he had to leave his family behind.
The amount was very minimal and not enough to live on.
Those that found work were white natives of the USA
The africans, hispanics and unskilled europeans immigrants were replaced by "" native workers""
States cut spending for black education in the negro schools of the south
Actual native americans, the Indians starved as they attempted to farm their mineral poor soil of the reservations
The New Deal did absolutely nothing for Rights and freedoms
- Roosevelt failed miserably in that area
Agricultural prices were artificially enhanced by destroying crops from farmers
and putting wide tracts of land out of use
Rights were basically put on hold during that time period in American history. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/2/2009 2:28:14 PM | Hey dukky
you wrote:
"Are you dumb enough to think that there is a court case on record for that? If there were, the jig would have been up and the government would be convicted of fraud.
Want to know if it's true? Try to surrender your birth certificate to the court and watch them scream bloody murder! The moment they accept it (which they won't do if they can help it), they become liable for the "legal person." That legal person is the citizen and the property of your (corporate) country and the one subject to all the statutes & regulations. It is also the entity that gets taxed and fined. It is the entity that owes big-time on the national debt."
To answer your first question, no, I am not stupid enought to think that there would be a case on point standing for what you say. That is because in order for there to be case on point, there has to have been a statute that was challenged in the first place. That leaves you in kind of a lurch, because I am willing to bet big money that there is no statute that would accomplish what you say will happen if I were to try to "turn in" my birth certificate............
I smell a conspiracy around here somewhere............. I am also willing to bet that you belive that the Fed. govt. has no real right to collect taxes too............
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/2/2009 3:41:48 PM |
I smell a conspiracy around here somewhere............. I am also willing to bet that you belive that the Fed. govt. has no real right to collect taxes too............
Yes there is a conspiracy...by the crooks who run our governments! (As you noted earlier, there are probably very few politicians who leave office poor.)
How much are you betting on the "right to tax" thing?...Well, whatever it was, you lost!...The government has every right to collect taxes from its citizens. I'd just like to point out that those who are not citizens and not residing in Canada (or US in your case) are not liable for taxes. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/2/2009 3:49:45 PM | Hi dukky
you wrote:
" I'd just like to point out that those who are not citizens and not residing in Canada (or US in your case) are not liable for taxes. "
HUH?? I know that there might be a point here somewhere, but why should someone who is not living a country or is not a resident of said country have any tax liability to that country? Unless they do business there, or what?
Paul K
I lost. Will a drink cover it? | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/2/2009 4:21:34 PM | Hey dukky
Does this look familiar?
"Think for a minute...What is the proper definition of income?...Profit by commerce. Commerce is buying AND selling (both, not one). When you work for wages, you are bartering (in a presumably even exchange of value) your labour in exchange for money. Who profits? Why should it be called income? Why should it be taxed?
In law, you do not owe tax on your allodial property. Isn't your labour your allodial property, or does the government own you?"
How then do you reconcile that statement with this one that you also made?
"How much are you betting on the "right to tax" thing?...Well, whatever it was, you lost!...The government has every right to collect taxes from its citizens."
Golly gee, it looks like I won that bet after all..................
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/2/2009 5:16:01 PM |
why should someone who is not living a country or is not a resident of said country have any tax liability to that country?
I was just stating the obvious. If you don't reside in and aren't a citizen of a country, we all know that the statutes of that country don't apply to you. Canada's laws have nothing to do with you (being an American n the US) because you are not in any way under Canada's jurisdiction. Again, I restate the obvious (but I have a devious reason for doing so...be patient.)
I lost. Will a drink cover it? Drinks cover everything...I'm easily bought off with them. In law, you do not owe tax on your allodial property. Isn't your labour your allodial property, or does the government own you?" How then do you reconcile that statement with this one that you also made? The government has every right to collect taxes from its citizens. it looks like I won that bet after all...
Not really.I suppose it could be argued that the government taxes you illegally, but that isn't really true because they changed the definition of income slightly in the various tax acts...deceptive, but "legal". The part that makes the statements look at odds with each other is your assumption that your labour is your property. It isn't! It is the property of your legal person, who can do nothing but take ALL your earnings as profit (for which it is liable for income tax) and pass what might be left over on to you as a "benefit" from your government.
Thanks for the drink...Have one on me.... | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/3/2009 11:25:41 AM | Hey dukky
Let me just tell you how it works in the good 'ol USA. Here, as in all countries that are governed by law, the govt. can collect taxes on WHATEVER property, or act, or service it passes a statute to do so. It makes no difference whether the property is allodial, colodial, or just plain dial soap........ If they pass a statute deeming it taxable, they will, and can, tax it. That is the cold hard truth. We may not like it, we may disagree with it, but the only way to get around it is to vote other politicians in, and CHANGE THE LAW.
I had a friend who lectured me long and hard on how to not pay taxes....... I hear from him every once in a while, when he gets time to write from prison................
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/4/2009 12:03:25 AM |
the only way to get around it is to vote other politicians in, and CHANGE THE LAW.
If that's what you believe, you are screwed and living under a tyranny! The federal government you have now is a corporation, so it doesn't matter if the prez is a democrat or a republican, they both work for the same company and won't change the CEO's policies. Have a look at this page & let me know what you think:
http://www.usavsus.info/ | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 122 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/4/2009 11:07:38 AM | The US government steals peoples Rights all the time !
A number of years ago GM had excellent affordable electric cars already built and on the market
GM introduced its new EV1 electric car at select Saturn dealerships in Los Angeles and San Diego in California,
and Phoenix and Tucson in Arizona, on December 5, 1996.
Several other cities were eventually added to the sales territory.
A reasonable price of $33,995 was initially assigned to the car .
Incredibly popular, effective, reasonable no-emission vehicles were viable and working well
Bush and his oil baron cronies CRUSHED this initiative because the oil companies got scared !
The government of the USA and major corporate America are genetically merged at the DNA level.
If General Motors went down in flames, bankrupt, dead, so would a section part of the US government.
Now the taxpayers are paying out their own wallets for GM to RE-develop electric cars again...wtf !!
Taxation without representation in 2009 - hellllloooo is this thing on ?, anyone listening ??
The Right of Free Enterprise, Market Competition, Capitalism, are all manipulated by
corporate America and it's hold on the American government . | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/5/2009 11:12:19 AM | Hey dukky
Just as a point of note, I did have that drink this weekend.........
As far as changing the law, that does and is working. In the area where I live in SoCal, there is a re-call petition going on to recall a plolitician who SIGNED a "no new taxes" pledge, but voted for new taxes anyway. The way the signature gathering is going, and the general air about the issue, he will be recalled. The former governor of California was recalled for that very reason, but the governor who took his place was/is no better.
Answer me this, why is it that whenever as strong, competent no-new-taxes-cut -our-taxes candidate runs, they always win? Simple, because people can see that they are paying way too much for what they are getting. The problem is that there are a lot of whackos in the no taxes arena that muck up the works, and the voting populace doesn't trust them, and lumps all the low taxes/no taxes people together, and doesn't vote for any of them.
I will allow you this much, and that is that the federal/state/local government game has gotten to the point where 100% of all politicians are on the take in one way or another, and while they may go in as working folks, they always come out wealthy. What is the answer? Simple. Strict adherance to the spirit and letter of the Constitution as it was written. It truly is an amazing document, and those who try to change it only try to change it for their own benefit.
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/5/2009 11:18:55 AM | Hey Scorpion
you wrote:
"Why didn't they just do the sane thing, garner their profits every week till they paid off the back taxes and have an accountant check the books periodically to make sure they weren't just cooking the books? If they were seriously worried, all they'd need is to have a trustworthy accountant on site, to take all the money, and record it properly in the accounts system. The brothel owners would probably have loved it, because he'd make their business run much smoother, and find lots of ways for the brothel to claim more expenses, and set up a quality investment portfolio for the workers for their retirement. Did they do that? Nope. When they took over the brothel, did they put another successful brothel owner in charge, who had successful experience of running a brothel? Not likely. Probably put a cop and a government official in charge, who knew nothing about working in a brothel, or working in a brothel, or running a successful business in the service industry."
The last sentence explains why the govt. can't get out of its own way. They have this need to MICRO-MANAGE everything, and show me one thing that they have micro managed well.....................
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/5/2009 1:30:41 PM | "Rights" are only enforced when it is politically correct to do so. Otherwise they are suspended. So it seems to me.
"Laws" are enforceable almost anytime...but, with money and influence, can be by-passed. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
