JQP says move holocaust discussion
Billy Beck
NOTANAZ...@DDDwinternet.com (MikeŽSchneidre;) wrote:
>In article <3586C8...@gte.com>, Rob Robertson <rr...@gte.com> wrote:
>
>>Mike@Schneidrr; wrote:
>>
>><snip to tragedy/comedy routine>
>>
>>> As I said once before: I know who my enemies are, and they all vote.
>>
>> I vote, Mike. I've voted Libertarian whenever I could, and I will
>>continue to do so. If *that* is how you determine who you're enemies
>>are, you might as well pack up and move to PI ASAP.
> Fine. Now you get to go re-read Beck's last words on the subject.
>
> My rights are not subject to your approval.
...and it should never be forgotten that this is precisely the
implication of "democracy" and voting.
Billy
VRWC fronteer - sigdiv
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Billy Beck
j...@inxpress.net wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>>
>> NOTANAZ...@DDDwinternet.com (MikeŽSchneidre;) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3586C8...@gte.com>, Rob Robertson <rr...@gte.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Mike@Schneidrr; wrote:
>> >>
>> >><snip to tragedy/comedy routine>
>> >>
>> >>> As I said once before: I know who my enemies are, and they all vote.
>> >>
>> >> I vote, Mike. I've voted Libertarian whenever I could, and I will
>> >>continue to do so. If *that* is how you determine who you're enemies
>> >>are, you might as well pack up and move to PI ASAP.
>>
>> > Fine. Now you get to go re-read Beck's last words on the subject.
>> >
>> > My rights are not subject to your approval.
>>
>> ...and it should never be forgotten that this is precisely the
>> implication of "democracy" and voting.
>Good reason to include the whitewater ng in the header,
>so that the Nazi pukes can fuck up another newsgroup.
New subject header, and please observe that my previous post only
went out to this group. That means, of course, that if the Nazi pukes
have anything to do with it, they were already here.
To the point: it is *far past* the time when individualists
*withdraw* their sanction of this government, JQ. There is no more
currently prominent exponant of "democracy" than the regime currently
in power and attributing every move it makes to "the American people".
*That* is the premise which must be refuted, person by singular
person, in order to make clear that our lives (yours and mine, for two
examples) are not subject to the whims of a Field Marshal Rodham, and
that our imprimaturs are not available to the chisling antics of her
cardboard excuse for a husband.
This is a matter of authentic principle, and there is no more
appropriate time or place for its exposition.
To the group: Stop voting. Do it *now*: *this* year. Do it out
loud: tell everyone *why* you will not vote.
Gary Cruse
In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) celebrated this divine
banquet of the brain :
> This is a matter of authentic principle, and there is no more
>appropriate time or place for its exposition.
>
> To the group: Stop voting. Do it *now*: *this* year. Do it out
>loud: tell everyone *why* you will not vote.
No thanks, mate. If I don't vote, I am giving up my
voice in determining how the country will be governed.
Since I have to live with the consequences of
majority rule, giving up any say in what that rule
will be is not in my best interest.
Life isn't perfect. Refusing to participate in it
because of that is letting the perfect drive out
the good.
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
A Rush Limbaugh Featured Site
Say What? :
We have only one person to blame, and that's each other.
-- Barry Beck, New York Ranger, on who started a fight furing a hockey game
MikeŽSchneidre;
>In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) celebrated this divine
>banquet of the brain :
>
>
>> This is a matter of authentic principle, and there is no more
>>appropriate time or place for its exposition.
>>
>> To the group: Stop voting. Do it *now*: *this* year. Do it out
>>loud: tell everyone *why* you will not vote.
>
> No thanks, mate. If I don't vote, I am giving up my
>voice in determining how the country will be governed.
You think you have one now?
http://www.copi.com/VoteScam/TOC.HTM
--
Email: Replace everything before the @ with "mike1" and delete any CAPS.
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
In article <Chuck Ferree>, chu...@rio.com wrote:
>Carol, you are clear enough for me to understand your intent, which is to
>express denial of proven historical facts. I have personally interviewed
>at least two dozen survivors of Auschwitz. Two live in my city.
===> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz/images/burning-pit.jpg
Gary Cruse
In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
NOTANAZ...@DDDwinternet.com (MikeŽSchneidre;) celebrated
this divine banquet of the brain :
>In article <6m7ib5$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, gcr...@att.net wrote:
>
>>In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
>>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) celebrated this divine
>>banquet of the brain :
>>
>>
>>> This is a matter of authentic principle, and there is no more
>>>appropriate time or place for its exposition.
>>>
>>> To the group: Stop voting. Do it *now*: *this* year. Do it out
>>>loud: tell everyone *why* you will not vote.
>>
>> No thanks, mate. If I don't vote, I am giving up my
>>voice in determining how the country will be governed.
>
>
> You think you have one now?
Yes, Mike. Something, no matter how
infinitesmal, is greater than nothing.
BTW, my Janus 20 fund, along with
the Nasdaq, made up today all the
loss it took yesterday. Life is good.
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
A Rush Limbaugh Featured Site
Say What? :
Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.
-- Marion Barry, Mayor, Washington, D.C.
MikeŽSchneidre;
>In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
>NOTANAZ...@DDDwinternet.com (MikeŽSchneidre;) celebrated
>this divine banquet of the brain :
>
>>In article <6m7ib5$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, gcr...@att.net wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
>>>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) celebrated this divine
>>>banquet of the brain :
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is a matter of authentic principle, and there is no more
>>>>appropriate time or place for its exposition.
>>>>
>>>> To the group: Stop voting. Do it *now*: *this* year. Do it out
>>>>loud: tell everyone *why* you will not vote.
>>>
>>> No thanks, mate. If I don't vote, I am giving up my
>>>voice in determining how the country will be governed.
>>
>>
>> You think you have one now?
>
> Yes, Mike. Something, no matter how
> infinitesmal, is greater than nothing.
> BTW, my Janus 20 fund, along with
> the Nasdaq, made up today all the
> loss it took yesterday. Life is good.
Good for you.
"Don't worry. Be happy."
Slade Farney would never think of stuffing *you* into a gas chamber.
Billy Beck
NOTANAZ...@DDDwinternet.com (MikeŽSchneidre;) wrote:
>In article <6m7nqh$g...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, gcr...@att.net wrote:
>>> You think you have one now?
>>
>> Yes, Mike. Something, no matter how
>> infinitesmal, is greater than nothing.
>> BTW, my Janus 20 fund, along with
>> the Nasdaq, made up today all the
>> loss it took yesterday. Life is good.
> Good for you.
>
> "Don't worry. Be happy."
> Slade Farney would never think of stuffing *you* into a gas chamber.
...even if he had a 51% majority with which to offer the
justification to Scott Erb.
I'm never happy with this judgement of someone who I respect,
Gary, but you're being foolish about this.
Max Kennedy
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 04:56:26 GMT, gcr...@vrwc.org (Gary Cruse) wrote:
>...is letting the perfect drive out the good.
A thought well put.
Max Kennedy
Rob Robertson
> appropriate time or place for its exposition.
>
> To the group: Stop voting. Do it *now*: *this* year. Do it out
> loud: tell everyone *why* you will not vote.
What a bunch of loony rot. If *noone* voted for *anybody* in '96,
Clinton still would have won with two votes (his vote, and another
he stuffed in the ballot box when noone was looking) and he would
have crowed about yet another mandate from the people. Not voting
accomplishes absolutely nothing when there is no examination of
*the root source* of authority, what to do with it, and why.
'Freedom' may be inherent in Man, but the expression of Liberty
in our lives has come at the cost of blood, and sweat, and the
intellectual struggle of generations of lovers of Freedom braced
against the relentless tide of tyranny and oppression.
Freedom is a direction, and the path extends back to the Magna Carta,
the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the American Revolution, and it
continues to this this very day, right into this very newsgroup. The
idea that representative democracy should be abondoned simply
because it has been corrupted by traitors is foolish, and in my
view it is *exactly* what I would wish for if I were bent on global
domination.
It's ineffective to sit in the audience and heckle the choir; the
truly insidious plan is to *join* the choir, then sing off-key! This
is what I see happening today. The usurpers have attached themselves
to everything that we hold in esteem in the hopes that, in our disgust,
we choose to dismantle the one true light of Freedom in this crazy world;
the U.S. Constitution.
It's short-sighted and foolish to believe that we can magically jump
to an anarchistic utopia when the majority around us have no clue as
to what freedom even means, let alone from whence it derives or why
it is precious. You would create a vacuum for tyranny to come pouring
in, and then we get to hear you *really* squeal about your rights
being trampled.
There is much ground-work to be laid before we can even *think*
about living the anarchist's dream. That requires rationality,
and unfortunately we are surrounded by soulless weasels who would
gladly, mindlessly, eat your eyes out of your sockets before they
realize that when they're done with dinner, they are each others
dessert.
> Billy
>
> VRWC fronteer - sigdiv
> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
_
Rob Robertson
Gary Cruse
In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, Rob Robertson
<rr...@gte.com> celebrated this divine banquet of the brain :
>
> It's short-sighted and foolish to believe that we can magically jump
>to an anarchistic utopia when the majority around us have no clue as
>to what freedom even means, let alone from whence it derives or why
>it is precious. You would create a vacuum for tyranny to come pouring
>in, and then we get to hear you *really* squeal about your rights
>being trampled.
>
> There is much ground-work to be laid before we can even *think*
>about living the anarchist's dream. That requires rationality,
>and unfortunately we are surrounded by soulless weasels who would
>gladly, mindlessly, eat your eyes out of your sockets before they
>realize that when they're done with dinner, they are each others
>dessert.
>
I can't improve on this.
To Billy Beck:
We are all majorities of one. Let us hang
together where we can in ridding ourselves of the
Clintonist rot, and disagree where we must without
dissolving back into isolated defenders of our
own unique versions of living a just life.
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
A Rush Limbaugh Featured Site
Say What? :
He didn't say that. He was reading what was given to him in a speech.
-- Richard Darman, director of OMB, explaining why President Bush wasn't following up on his campaign pledge that there would be no loss of wetlands
Billy Beck
Rob Robertson <rr...@gte.com> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> To the point: it is *far past* the time when individualists
>> *withdraw* their sanction of this government, JQ. There is no more
>> currently prominent exponant of "democracy" than the regime currently
>> in power and attributing every move it makes to "the American people".
>> *That* is the premise which must be refuted, person by singular
>> person, in order to make clear that our lives (yours and mine, for two
>> examples) are not subject to the whims of a Field Marshal Rodham, and
>> that our imprimaturs are not available to the chisling antics of her
>> cardboard excuse for a husband.
>>
>> This is a matter of authentic principle, and there is no more
>> appropriate time or place for its exposition.
>>
>> To the group: Stop voting. Do it *now*: *this* year. Do it out
>> loud: tell everyone *why* you will not vote.
>
> What a bunch of loony rot.
(eyebrows)
Why, Rob Robertson. How... *passionate*.
>If *noone* voted for *anybody* in '96,
>Clinton still would have won with two votes (his vote, and another
>he stuffed in the ballot box when noone was looking) and he would
>have crowed about yet another mandate from the people.
And the *lie* would be a lot more clear, wouldn't it, then?
What's your point? Would you care to imply that The Lying Bastard
wouldn't be able to get away with such a thing because the manifest
absurdity of it would be evident even to the least politically aware
Sterno bum in the street? If *so*... then what does *that* mean?
Could it possibly mean that the very *premise* of "representative
democracy" is *bullshit* from the ground up?... that the very
existence of *dissent* - even if it were "polled" on every policy
question arising in, say, the legislature (which, as we all know,
never happens) - is disposed of at "law" (i.e. - by force), a fact
which flatly contradicts the idea of "representation"?
Tell me what you're getting at.
>Not voting accomplishes absolutely nothing when there is no
>examination of *the root source* of authority, what to do with it,
>and why.
Voting accomplishes absolutely nothing when an "authority"
properly examined, rationally validated, and exercised in the voice of
conviction is nonetheless overwhelmed by nothing but numbers.
Example: if the question of whether or not to put Jews to death
came to referendum tomorrow, would you cast a ballot? Suppose you
did, and voted no. Suppose the result came down with a majority
assent, and the program of murder was instituted. What of your
"authority" *then*? What did you "accomplish"?
Try to think about this very carefully, Rob, because there are
*principles* at work here. That is: there are concepts which are
*true*, the validity of which does not change with substitution of
particulars in the example.
The proper answer to the question is that the matter of the Jews'
*right* to their lives is immutably closed without resort to majority
opinion. It is not *open* to that sort of examination. To even
submit the matter to a vote represents a grievous assault on the very
idea of rights. The very same assault is present in submitting one's
"authority" to the disposal of "representatives" who, in fact, in no
way "represent" you at Washington. (If you think they do, I'm telling
you that you're wrong. If they happen to prevail in a matter in a way
which is agreeable to you, it's the merest chance occurrance, a fact
which is proven in the very *first* instance when a policy decision is
taken *against* your values, when your *dissent*, premised on the
"authority" of your own rational conviction, is rendered *invalid* by
force.)
Now, you could, if you wanted to, submit your "authority" to such
dubious "representation", but you have no right to subject your
*neighbors'* values to it. *That* is the premise (I think) of
Schneider's "enemies" remark. Personally, between you and me, I won't
characterize it quite that way, because I like you.
But I'm begging you to stop it, man.
I would never sanction such a thing against *you*.
> 'Freedom' may be inherent in Man, but the expression of Liberty
>in our lives has come at the cost of blood, and sweat, and the
>intellectual struggle of generations of lovers of Freedom braced
>against the relentless tide of tyranny and oppression.
Swell. I've noticed how well it's been going. (Aside from the
obvious abominations reeking out of Pennsylvania Avenue, I would
perhaps suggest that the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 was better
suited to the script for a way-off-Broadway musical of brief duration
than a "brace against the relentless tide", etc. ...all of which is
of a piece with pointing out that if you think The Lying Bastard is a
bad deal, wait'll you see the *next* one. *Mark my words.*)
Look: we've had rank leeches right here in this group crowing
about how they "outnumber" people like you and me, baring their fangs
right out loud in celebration of the fact that "the intellectual
struggle" has been reduced to gang warfare.
Somehow, you don't strike me as the gang type.
> Freedom is a direction, and the path extends back to the Magna Carta,
>the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the American Revolution, and it
>continues to this this very day, right into this very newsgroup. The
>idea that representative democracy should be abondoned simply
>because it has been corrupted by traitors is foolish,...
It could not *be* "corrupted" if it didn't *exist*.
>...and in my view it is *exactly* what I would wish for if I were bent on
>global domination.
Why?
> It's ineffective to sit in the audience and heckle the choir; the
>truly insidious plan is to *join* the choir, then sing off-key! This
>is what I see happening today. The usurpers have attached themselves
>to everything that we hold in esteem in the hopes that, in our disgust,
>we choose to dismantle the one true light of Freedom in this crazy world;
>the U.S. Constitution.
For god's sake, Rob: they are *using* the "constitution". It's
their *tool of choice*. Further, I should not have to point out the
defects of such a premise for liberty to a man who knows where and
what Framingham Green is.
> It's short-sighted and foolish to believe that we can magically jump
>to an anarchistic utopia...
("SLOWLY I turned... STEP by step!...INCH by inch..!!")
*Hey*, you. You're talking to the single most adept proponant of
*reality* in this group. I would very much appreciate it if you'd lay
off that ridiculous "utopia" crap.
Thanxeversomuch.
>...when the majority around us have no clue as
>to what freedom even means, let alone from whence it derives or why
>it is precious.
That's their problem. Let 'em figure it out.
>You would create a vacuum for tyranny to come pouring
>in...
Nonsense. To begin with, it's already *here*, pal.
> There is much ground-work to be laid before we can even *think*
>about living the anarchist's dream. That requires rationality,
>and unfortunately we are surrounded by soulless weasels who would
>gladly, mindlessly, eat your eyes out of your sockets before they
>realize that when they're done with dinner, they are each others
>dessert.
That's right.
So why are you so intent on taking up their premise?
Billy Beck
gcr...@vrwc.org (Gary Cruse) wrote:
> To Billy Beck:
>
> We are all majorities of one. Let us hang
>together where we can in ridding ourselves of the
>Clintonist rot, and disagree where we must without
>dissolving back into isolated defenders of our
>own unique versions of living a just life.
Check your premise, Gary. We *are* "isolated defenders", etc.
Don't let the fact that we most-often agree on the validity of a "just
life" (evidenced in the peaceful, cooperative, conduct of our daily
productive affairs) confuse you into believing that such a thing is
subject to collective approval. If *you* were the only one on the
entire planet who arrived at a rational ethics and politics, and chose
to conduct your life on those principles, you would yet be *correct*:
your *right* to your conduct would yet be in accord with *reality*,
and the only contingent factor would be your *integrity*, i.e.; the
*courage* of your conviction in your pursuit.
phil...@geocities.com
Billy Beck wrote:
>Rob Robertson <rr...@gte.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > It's ineffective to sit in the audience and heckle the choir; the
> >truly insidious plan is to *join* the choir, then sing off-key! This
> >is what I see happening today. The usurpers have attached themselves
> >to everything that we hold in esteem in the hopes that, in our
> >disgust, we choose to dismantle the one true light of Freedom in this
> >crazy world; the U.S. Constitution.
>
> For god's sake, Rob: they are *using* the "constitution". It's
> their *tool of choice*....
Spot on, Billy.
--------------
The Constitution of No Authority --Lysander Spooner
<http://www.math.ku.dk/~buhl/Library/Classics.html>
The "Constitutional" Delusion
<http://www.buildfreedom.com/diradv.htm>
Not Worth the Paper it was Written On
<http://home.onestop.net/nomad/worthless_constitution.html>
Discourse on Voluntary Servitude---Éttiene de la Boétie
<http://www.math.ku.dk/~buhl/Library/Classics.html>
--------------
The Great Voting Hoax!
<http://www.mind-trek.com/writ-dtf/votehoax/index.htm>
Vote Fraud in America
<http://www.hoffman-info.com/dolecalif.html>
MikeÝSchñeider
In article <3587DB...@gte.com>, Rob Robertson <rr...@gte.com> wrote:
Beck wrote: Stop voting. Do it *now*: *this* year. Do it out
>> loud: tell everyone *why* you will not vote.
>
> What a bunch of loony rot. If *noone* voted for *anybody* in '96,
>Clinton still would have won with two votes (his vote, and another
Rob, Clinton would have won no matter *how* many people voted for *whom*.
http://www.copi.com/VoteScam/TOC.HTM
As long as you continue to WASTE YOUR TIME slogging to the polls, you
not only grant your sanction to the whole immoral sordid process, but you
advertize to those in charge that you're blind to their *game*, and will
keep playing for as long as they like.
It's only when you stop playing the game, that you can organize your
thoughts free of the worthless clutter of pragmatic partisan politics, and
*see* what's going on: Your liberty was stolen from you at the very moment
that it was decided (by them) that your rights were subject to mass
approval. When you step into a voting booth, you essentially sign your
signature on the dotted line, agreeing to it, and the outcome.
*Shrug*.
MikeÝSchñeider
>Freedom is a direction, and the path extends back to the Magna Carta--
The Magna Carta? Uh-huh.....
From: "Choronzon Christ" <choronzo...@hotmail.com>
Subject: White Man's Ghost Dance
Constitutionalists may loathe lawyers, but they outdo them in their
reverence for Law.
Once upon a time, there was a fair land called England.
All the English were free men and most of them were serfs. All the English
were self-governing in counties run by sheriffs appointed by kings, the
descendants of a foreign conqueror. England alone enjoyed the Common Law,
handed down by Moses, and dating from 1215 A.D. Secured by the Common Law,
all men's property was inviolable, and it all belonged to the king. The
Common Law, also known as Natural Law and God's Law, only restricted
conduct that harmed the person or property of another, such as swearing,
fornicating, possessing weapons in the royal forests, converting to
Judaism, and dreaming that the king had died. There was complete religious
freedom, i.e., Roman Catholicism was the state church, attendance at
services was compulsory, and heretics were executed. As perfect, as
unchangeable as the Common Law always was, it got even better when free
and prosperous Englishmen fleeing persecution and poverty brought it to
America. They repaired there, as Garrison Keillor quipped, to enjoy less
freedom than they had in England.
As fantasy, this Common Law England would never find a publisher: it's not
nearly as believable as Narnia or Never-Never Land. You don't even have to
know any real law or history to notice that it's nonsense. But as myth, it
appeals to increasingly frustrated conservatives, libertarians,
fundamentalists, and conspiracy theorists -- "Constitutionalists" -- with
an urgent transrational need to believe that the world was once the way
they want it to be. The deeper allure of Constitutionalism is that it
purports to be not only history which explains, but technique which
controls. Resentful and suspicious, Constitutionalists are sure that
conniving judges, legislators, and lawyers switched their own false law
for the real law when the people weren't looking. But the real law, the
Common Law, lives still, for it is deathless; it is God, Nature, and
Reason all rolled up in one. Although Constitutionalists loathe lawyers,
they outdo them in their reverence for Law, their solemn obeisance to what
Oliver Wendell Holmes mocked as a "brooding omnipresence in the sky."
Constitutionalists look upon law as the word-magic of lawyer-necromancers
who draw their wizardly powers from grimoires, from books of magic spells
they have selfishly withheld from the people. Constitutionalists have
extracted from these books -- from judicial opinions, from the
Constitution, from legal dictionaries, from the Bible, from what-have-you
-- white magic with which to confound the dark powers of legislation,
equity, and common sense. Never mind what words like "Sovereign Citizen"
or "Lawful Money" mean -- what does "abracadabra" mean? -- it's what they
do that counts. Unfortunately, Constitutionalist words don't do anything
but lose court cases and invite sanctions. Constitutionalism is the white
man's version of the Ghost Dance. Believing you are invulnerable to
bullets puts you in more, not less, danger of being shot.
Jutting out of the wreckage called Constitutionalism are a few more
elevated piles, such as "Common Law" and "Magna Carta." These are, if in
no better repair than the rest of the ruins, at least of respectable
antiquity. Back when little was known of English legal history -- when
history as a discipline scarcely existed -- ingenious jurists like Selden,
Coke, and Hale manipulated these hoary myths to win some limited victories
over royal absolutism and arbitrariness. Even if Constitutionalists were
juridical Jack Kennedys and not, as they are, Dan Quayles, the conditions
for getting away with pious lying about these parts of the past no longer
obtain. Good history does not necessarily overthrow legal orthodoxy, but
by now bad history never does. So unprincipled are judges and lawyers that
they will even tell the truth if it serves their interests. Consider, for
instance, the unscrupulous way in which they might point out what the
Magna Carta actually says and what the Common Law actually is.
Constitutionalists revere the Magna Carta, but if they were to read it,
they'd be baffled. Expecting to find, as libertarian Constitutionalist Ken
Krawchuck says, "many of the rights we still enjoy today,"1 they'd find
themselves adrift in an alien, feudal world of "aids," "wardship,"
"scutage," "knight service," "reliefs," "wainage," "castle guard,"
"socage," "burgage," and other arcana even medievalists toil to
comprehend.
The Magna Carta -- extorted from King John by a few dozen rebellious
barons in 1215, a dead letter within three months, voided by England's
feudal overlord, the pope -- did almost nothing for almost all of
England's two million people. It confirmed or created privileges for
churchmen and barons, occasionally for knights, and in only two instances
for "free men." Most Englishmen were villeins, not freemen. And as
historian Sidney Painter has written, "Whenever provisions of the Charter
seem to benefit the ordinary man, a close examination will show that it is
his lord's pocketbook that is the real cause of concern." It was only a
question of who would do the fleecing.
The Great Charter has nothing to say about free speech, unreasonable
searches and seizures, self-incrimination, the right to bear arms, free
exercise of religion, obligation of contracts, ex post facto laws, bills
of attainder, petition and assembly, the obligation of contracts,
excessive bail, right to counsel, cruel and unusual punishment, indictment
by grand jury, etc., etc. Far from forbidding even involuntary servitude,
it presupposes it (chs. 17, 20, 23). Far from forbidding the establishment
of religion, it confirms it in its very first provision (ch. 1).
The real Magna Carta was not even remotely libertarian in content. Modern
libertarian notions such as self-ownership, laissez faire , greatest equal
liberty, the nightwatchman (minimal) state, even private property itself
would have bewildered the signatories of the Magna Carta. They understood
liberties, not liberty; privileges, not property. The free market was a
concept of the far future: "markets" were times and places where the
government authorized buying and selling. Property rights were derivative
and relative -- except for the king, nobody owned anything "allodially"
(absolutely). Rather, title (ownership) was relative to other claims, and
in theory always subordinate to the king. Constitutionalists disparage
legislation, but that's all the Magna Carta ever was, amendable and
repealable like any other statute. By 1992, only three of its 63
provisions were still on the books.
In the guise of declaring custom, Magna Carta changed the law, violating
what Constitutionalists consider the Common Law. They cherish the county,
for instance, to which the sheriff was answerable (they suppose), but the
Charter forbade sheriffs and other local officials from hearing the pleas
of the Crown (ch. 24). It is as if the U.S. president issued an executive
order that felonies should be tried only in federal courts!
As for this Common Law (cue the angelic chorus here), just what is it
anyway? The term has at least a half dozen meanings. It might refer to
English law as distinguished from the civil-law systems of Europe. It
might be "law" as distinguished from "equity," i.e., the law of the royal
courts at Westminster distinguished from certain distinct doctrines and
remedies administered by another royal appointee, the Chancellor. It might
refer to judge-made rather than statutory law. Perhaps most often it
referred to the law "common" to all Englishmen, the national law as
opposed to the varied local law enforced by manor and hundred courts,
borough courts, and courts leet. Ironically, if there was ever a trace of
truth to the Constitutionalist dogma that the people in juries "judged the
facts and the law," it was in the local courts outside the Common Law. And
it was the law of these courts with which ordinary Englishmen were most
familiar and which, as Julius Goebel has shown, most heavily influenced
colonial American law.
As if "Common Law" were not a phrase already overburdened with meanings,
Constitutionalists load on even more. They equate Common Law with Natural
Law, with Natural Reason, with Christianity, and even with (as Krawchuck
says) "common sense." His example is common-law marriage: "If a guy and
girl live together for seven years, they're married; it's the common law.
It's plain common sense."2 It's neither. Mere cohabitation never married a
couple in England or America. There was apparently no such thing as
nonceremonial "common law" marriage in England at all. In America, a
"common law" marriage required, not just shacking up, but an agreement to
marry and a public reputation as being married. As for "common sense," why
seven years? Why not six years and eleven months? Why not five years? A
lot of legally solemnized marriages don't last that long these days. Since
when was common sense so dogmatic?
Constitutionalists say that the Common Law is based on litigation over
property (more precisely, real property -- land -- although as their
generalities go this one is not too far wrong). Under Common Law, real
property descended to the oldest male -- except in Kent, where partible
inheritence among male issue obtained, with the proviso that the youngest
son inherited the household. Nowhere did it descend to a female if there
lived a male heir, however remote the relationship. Why is primogeniture
common sense everywhere in England except Kent? Or consider the Common Law
doctrine that in marriage, husband and wife become legally one person --
and that person is the husband. If this is common sense, so is the Holy
Trinity, a kindred doctrine. It implies that wives have no property
rights, which was very close to their legal situation in England and
colonial America. But libertarian it is not.
Krawchuck has an illustrious predecessor: England's first Stuart king,
James I. In 1607, the king announced that he would join his judges on the
bench. Common Law, he had heard, was "Natural Reason" -- as Krawchuck
would say, common sense -- and he had as much Natural Reason as anybody!
Gently but firmly, Sir Edward Coke corrected His Majesty. It was true that
the Common Law was based on Natural Reason, but it was not identical with
it. To expound "the Artificial Reason of the Law" required experts:
judges.
There was never any such Manichean (or Tolkienesque) war of good with evil
-- of the Common Law against the equity and the conciliar courts -- as the
Constitutionalists believe. Over the centuries there was jurisdictional
jostling, ideological antagonism between jurists trained in different
legal traditions, and political conflict over the scope of the royal
prerogative and thus of the power of the prerogative courts, but these
were not battles in a holy war. Some of it was little more than
competition for business. Some settled down into a rough division of
functions. Litigants did not take sides; they exploited the confusion.
Thus a plaintiff might bring an action in equity to take advantage of its
"English bill" procedure providing for pre-trial discovery of evidence --
and then introduce that evidence in a common-law action where the court
could not have secured that evidence itself. The vast majority of
Englishmen had nothing to do with these elite machinations.
It's absurd to say, as Constitutionalists do, that equity was a summary
proceeding in which defendants had no rights. On the contrary, from at
least the Elizabethan period, equity was condemned for being too
cumbersome and slow. Instead of oral testimony, for instance, depositions
were taken, reduced to writing, and submitted to the court. Enormous
quantities of paperwork piled up. Anybody who thinks equity proceeded
summarily should reread Bleak House . If Constitutionalists are correct
that courts of equity are tyrannical, colonial Americans would never have
set them up, and the Constitution would never have countenanced them. In
fact, by the eighteenth century, there were homegrown chancery courts in
New York, South Carolina, and other colonies; elsewhere, "Common Law"
courts exercised equity jurisdiction. And the Constitution the
Constitutionalists would rather revere than read expressly assigned equity
jurisdiction to the federal judiciary (Art. III, 02(1); Am. XI).
Which brings us up to the Constitutionalist contention that the
Constitution is part of the inherited and immemorial Common Law. This
poses obvious logical difficulties. If Equity is not Common Law, but the
Constitution includes Equity, how can the Constitution be Common Law? If
Americans (once rid of British tyranny) enjoyed the Common Law in its
plenitude, why did they take the trouble to adopt the Constitution? And
then the Bill of Rights? How is it possible to improve upon perfection --
over and over again? In the fairy tale, the king had twelve beautiful
daughters, each more lovely than all the rest. Constitutionalism has the
Common Law, the Magna Carta, and the Constitution, each replete with every
excellence of the others, and then some. The Constitution of 1787 does not
even mention the Common Law (although it mentions Equity) -- perhaps out
of modesty, a virtue the Common Law necessarily possesses, since it
possesses them all. And then some.
In Egyptian mythology, the god Osiris was slain by his brother Set, and
his dismembered pieces were scattered far and wide. But these parts could
no more die than could immortal Osiris, although, dispersed and hidden,
they were separately impotent. Once his limbs were retrieved and
reassembled, mighty Osiris rose from the dead and vanquished the forces of
evil. That's how Constitutionalists regard the Common Law. Now that their
treasure-hunt has turned up the missing pieces, all Americans have to do,
according to the Oklahoma Freedom Council, is get it all together and "the
country would be free overnight." And they all lived happily ever after.
The tragedy of Constitutionalism is that it hopes to evoke by its magic an
idealized imagined earlier version of the very form of society -- our own
-- that was the first to banish magic from the world. With growing
commerce came calculation, quantification, and the distinction of "is"
from "ought." Myth is timeless, but when it comes to the performance of
contracts, "time is of the essence." Money is merely a generally accepted
medium of exchange, not some sacred "substance"; whether it's gold,
silver, tobacco, or paper is a matter of convenience. Law is any
application for the official use of coercion that succeeds. The proprietor
or trader is indifferent to whether his invocation of the law against a
thief, a trespasser, a business rival, or a communist revolutionary owed
its effectiveness to immemorial custom, legislation, the Ten Commandments,
or a well-placed bribe. Myth and magic are merely tactics to try on those
who believe in them. Judges don't believe in Constitutionalism and neither
do very many other people.
Nor ever will. Constitutionalism combines the worst features of
superstition and reality without the attractions of either. Like real law,
it's dull as dirt; unlike real law, it doesn't work. Like superstition,
it's inconsistent, irrational, obscurantist, and ineffectual, but it
entirely lacks the poetry and pageantry that often enliven myth and
religion. Very few people espouse belief-systems this complicated and
crackbrained unless, as with Catholicism or Mormonism, they grow up in
them. We seem to be in prime time, sad to say, for cults both old and new,
but not this one. It isn't even tax-deductible.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
M Soja
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 11:04:48 -0400, -<[ Rob Robertson ]>- posted:
> What a bunch of loony rot. If *noone* voted for *anybody* in '96,
>Clinton still would have won with two votes (his vote, and another
>he stuffed in the ballot box when noone was looking) and he would
>have crowed about yet another mandate from the people. Not voting
>accomplishes absolutely nothing when there is no examination of
>*the root source* of authority, what to do with it, and why.
You're cookin' today, Rob, and I appreciate it, but I'm afraid I'm
'voting' with Billy on this one.
If everyone stood and stared as lone Bill C went and stuffed his two
ballots in that box, even he would know his mandate was worth less
than the ballot printing costs that he himself would have had to pony
up to gin the election.
A marvelous exchange.
Billy Beck
ms...@javanet.com (M Soja) wrote:
>If everyone stood and stared as lone Bill C went and stuffed his two
>ballots in that box...
(elbow in the ribs)
"HA! Hey! Get of load of *that* guy! Who the hell does he
think *he* is?"
(Get it, Rob?)
M Soja
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 04:11:04 GMT, -<[ Billy Beck ]>- posted:
>ms...@javanet.com (M Soja) wrote:
>>If everyone stood and stared as lone Bill C went and stuffed his two
>>ballots in that box...
> (elbow in the ribs)
Of course, I doubt if there's even a high school in the country where
the students are hip enough NOT to vote for a prez and vice-p. There
are always going to be enough of the kind of people who crave the
elitism that embraces getting themselves elected to positions of
"caring" able to convince another sizeable portion to sanction their
ambition. The best you can hope for is to hollow out an enclave of
individuals like yourself, and hope that, like the Branch Davidians,
you don't attract the notice of the stupid body president (which
probably wouldn't happen as who wants to live in a compound?)
Billy Beck
ms...@javanet.com (M Soja) wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 04:11:04 GMT, -<[ Billy Beck ]>- posted:
>
>>ms...@javanet.com (M Soja) wrote:
>
>>>If everyone stood and stared as lone Bill C went and stuffed his two
>>>ballots in that box...
>
>> (elbow in the ribs)
>
>Of course, I doubt if there's even a high school in the country where
>the students are hip enough NOT to vote for a prez and vice-p.
Have you noted the MTV "Rock The Vote" campaigns in recent years?
"Feel The Power", they urge. <yawn> One could hardly conjure
deliberately a more craven appeal to the gang instinct. It's been
something that I especially resent, however, for its gratuitous
appearance. After all; it's not as if ordinary official
indoctrination efforts aren't knocking themselves out with programming
and, aside from appalling but earnest ignorance, I see no reason for
MTV to get involved.
>There are always going to be enough of the kind of people who crave the
>elitism that embraces getting themselves elected to positions of
>"caring" able to convince another sizeable portion to sanction their
>ambition.
True enough. And, there will always be *more* of them as the
evidence of success in the endeavor lays rot at the foundations of
culture and leaves insects to the ascent. Observe the pie-eyed
infatuation with a "glamour" that could leave Hollywood stars feeling
inadequate and wishing they'd had what it takes to make it in national
politics.
>The best you can hope for is to hollow out an enclave of
>individuals like yourself, and hope that, like the Branch Davidians,
>you don't attract the notice of the stupid body president (which
>probably wouldn't happen as who wants to live in a compound?)
Too late. We live in one now.
Didja see Schneider's National ID Card post?
How many people here ever figured that sort of thing to be coming
as a natural logical extension of the very existence of a driver's
license?
Go read "The Dark Thread" at my website.
It's not for nothing that I went to jail in the mid-80's for
burning my driver's license and taking the plates off my car. Some
people thought I was crazy... as if I gave a damn.
MikeŽSchneidre:
In article <35a9bb9c...@news.newsguy.com>, ms...@javanet.com (M
Soja) wrote:
>I doubt if there's even a high school in the country where
>the students are hip enough NOT to vote for a prez and vice-p. There
>are always going to be enough of the kind of people who crave the
>elitism that embraces getting themselves elected to positions of
>"caring" able to convince another sizeable portion to sanction their
>ambition....
I learned all I ever needed to know about the *nature* of politics
while watching the elections for student council back in college. All the
rot, mendacity, corruption and ass-licking sycophantic toadyism in
microcosm.
"Well, let's see: There was Dougy, Richy, Mickey and other assorted
members of the Hitler Youth...."
-- Animal House.
Nazis, anti-semites, Jew-haters & their moronic dupes for your killfiles:
To...@morph.ef.net, t...@pacificnet.net, mikhaelfr@my, Ji...@spamfree.net,
sfa...@hotmail.com, SkyW...@public-action.com, hyperreal-anon-remailer,
wmcg...@cybercom.net, com...@webaccess.net, ir...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu,
asm...@mail.telepac.pt, i...@usaor.net, mp...@nis.net, rgp...@earthlink.net
archie...@greenapple.com, @stillinbusiness.com, whit...@mindspring.com
doc_tavish@, bill...@anonymity.com, judg...@proof.com, abaron.demon.co.uk
hor...@hotmailed.com, deb...@aol.com
Max Kennedy
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:57:02 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>gcr...@vrwc.org (Gary Cruse) wrote:
>
>> To Billy Beck:
>>
>> We are all majorities of one. Let us hang
>>together where we can in ridding ourselves of the
>>Clintonist rot, and disagree where we must without
>>dissolving back into isolated defenders of our
>>own unique versions of living a just life.
There is some good stuff being posted here over ideals in a debate only I cared
to enter at one time.
Max Kennedy
Max Kennedy
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 02:10:14 GMT, ms...@javanet.com (M Soja) wrote:
>If everyone stood and stared as lone Bill C went and stuffed his two
>ballots in that box, even he would know his mandate was worth less
>than the ballot printing costs that he himself would have had to pony
>up to gin the election.
For some odd reason, I note many countries where tyrants rule without
"mandates".
Mandates are not what causes a government to exist, or cease to exist, and
democracies rarely fall into anarchy, they tend to fall into dictatorships.
If you wonder why laws like murder, spying, bribery, fraud and theft are not
being upheld, while BJ's and adultery are investigated, it is to *make* you
disgusted with government. By giving up government, those who are murdering,
spying, bribing, defrauding, and thieving will no longer have anything to fear,
for it will no longer be illegal, and no organized opposition will exist.
Max Kennedy
MikeŽSchneidre:
In article <358a1510....@news.iglou.com>, mken...@REMOVEiglou.COM
(Max Kennedy) wrote:
Yeah?
Try stealing Beck's Malibu after you've looked over your shoulder to be
sure the cops aren't around.
--
Nazis, anti-semites, Jew-haters & their moronic dupes for your killfiles:
To...@morph.ef.net, t...@pacificnet.net, mikhaelfr@my, Ji...@spamfree.net,
sfa...@hotmail.com, SkyW...@public-action.com, hyperreal-anon-remailer,
wmcg...@cybercom.net, com...@webaccess.net, ir...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu,
asm...@mail.telepac.pt, i...@usaor.net, mp...@nis.net, rgp...@earthlink.net
archie...@greenapple.com, @stillinbusiness.com, whit...@mindspring.com
doc_tavish@, bill...@anonymity.com, judg...@proof.com, abaron.demon.co.uk
hor...@hotmailed.com, deb...@aol.com, Jew...@spam.mindspring
Rob Robertson
Max Kennedy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 02:10:14 GMT, ms...@javanet.com (M Soja) wrote:
>
> >If everyone stood and stared as lone Bill C went and stuffed his two
> >ballots in that box, even he would know his mandate was worth less
> >than the ballot printing costs that he himself would have had to pony
> >up to gin the election.
>
> For some odd reason, I note many countries where tyrants rule without
> "mandates".
>
> Mandates are not what causes a government to exist, or cease to exist, and
> democracies rarely fall into anarchy, they tend to fall into dictatorships.
>
> If you wonder why laws like murder, spying, bribery, fraud and theft are not
> being upheld, while BJ's and adultery are investigated, it is to *make* you
> disgusted with government. By giving up government, those who are murdering,
> spying, bribing, defrauding, and thieving will no longer have anything to fear,
> for it will no longer be illegal, and no organized opposition will exist.
Nice argument, Max, one I've been touting for a while now. Unfortunately,
those who are <fill in the blank> *already* have nothing to fear. We have
seen a mother holding her infant child get her head blown off by a sniper
at two hundred yards, and even an *involuntary manslaughter* charge against
the killer is dropped because of a make-believe Federal Supremacy Clause.
We watched a building full of men, women, and children *burned to the ground*,
*live on television*, *ON PATRIOT'S DAY!*, as tanks criss-cross in front of
the fiery carnage.
We've seen the infamous 'gun-in-hand' photo that also shows a pristine
white shirtsleeve, and the lack of reponse from the mainstream media on
that, as well as their non-response to the forged note finding and the
Knowlton/Clarke addendum to the Starr report.
We heard eye-witness statements *live* describing something streaking
through the sky immediately before TWA 800 blew up, and then we got to
watch a CIA cartoon clumsily try to explain it all away.
What more is it going to take, Max? The press is silent, and with a
few notable exceptions, the entire Federal government has done nothing
but waste time with ridiculous 'hide-the-evidence' hearings while the
Liar In Chief continues to sell us out to a nation that wants nothing
less than the complete destruction of freedom.
'Disgust with government'? It's working, and there is no organized
opposition. It's against the law.
> Max Kennedy
_
Rob Robertson
Billy Beck
"We outnumber you. We're winning. Life is good."
(a recent anonymous post to the Whitewater group)
"The Party itself, diluted by the great influxes of the 20's, had
changed in the style of its leadership and now contained a rank and
file who had regularly, so far at least, acted as reliable voting
fodder for the secretaries imposed by Stalin's Secretariat.
On the face of it, the opposition could well have argued that
Stalin's control of, and claim to represent, the Party was based on no
higher sanction than success in packing the Party Congress, that in
fact he had no real claim to be regarded as the genuine succession.
But the oppositionists themselves had used similar methods in their
day, and had never criticized them until a more skilled operator
turned the weapon against them."
(Robert Conquest, "The Great Terror", 1990, Oxford University
Press, p. 114)
Carol A. Valentine
In article <mike1OOO-190...@ppp-66-125.dialup.winternet.com>,
mike...@DDDwinternet.com (MikeŽSchneidre:) wrote:
> --
> Nazis, anti-semites, Jew-haters, moronic dupes to killfile. Regular Updates.
<snip>
I have just clipped a section of your sig file. In it, you publicly
identify me as a Nazi, anti-Semite and Jew-hater. These words are
vicious, defamatory, and made without a shred of supporting evidence.
Through DejaNews, I learn you have further disseminated at least 55 copies
of this slander to unknown readership throughout the world on Usenet.
Legal remedies are available to me and I will not hesitate to use them as
required to protect my personal and professional reputation from your
malice. I demand that you issue a public retraction in all public areas
and to all individuals to whom you have disseminated this slander.
--
===
Carol A. Valentine
President, Public Action, Inc.
Visit the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum
"In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a
revolutionary act." --attr. George Orwell