No Treason response
Mitch
Section I:
It seems Spooner would apply the Constitution to the people of that
time only, and probably o the States which accept it, but that each
person born later would have to formally accept it.
I don't see that -- it's simply not feasible, since not accepting the
Constitution would mean forcing those people out of the country, as
they would refuse to be bound by the common agreement.
The purpose of creating useful agencies of government is to get things
done which cannot be done with less. That means cooperation and an
investment of time or money or effort toward a goal.
You cannot have that fairly applied if the people are not fully bound
to participate in the system.
People mnay object to that, in the sense that they don't necessarily
want to be a participant in the system. That's fine, but the
Constitution attempts to define being a participant as being a person
of this domain -- a person enjoying the benefits of the system should
be one of those expected to contribute.
And then, of course, you have to have someone (the Supreme Court, in
most cases) judge whether the expectations really are fair expectations
to require of people. Taxation and social obligations and all, taken
together -- and the decision always comes out vastly in favor of the
huge benefits of the collaboration. That is, it is perceived that
people within the system have created a large set of major benefits,
and that partaking obligates those people to rights and
responsibilities. It has to be decided, because there is a real
investment already here -- you can't just have it all for free, and you
don't get to build obligations for others just out of personal belief.
It is true that the Constitution alone does not create a perpetual
corporation. Did you know that the Constitution is formally accepted by
each and every new Congress? It has to be, because those are new
representatives and everyone knows that they aren't bound by the
previous agreement.
As they accept the Constitution, they also represent their States and
constituents in accepting the responsibilities for the people of the
state.
I know what your objection has to be to this -- how can anyone pretend
to have the right to do this? And it's hard to answer that -- except
that there are so many benefits to those individuals that it's hard to
claim there is a problem. After all, the prime reasons to object -- the
removal of freedom from exploring, from trying new things, from
explaining oneself to others, from having your own religious beliefs --
those were founding concepts.
Frosty
Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:42:42 GMT, and Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> vomited
forth this bit of wisdom :
>Okay, a quick response, whether relevant to our other discussion or not:
>
>Section I:
>It seems Spooner would apply the Constitution to the people of that
>time only, and probably to the States which accept it, but that each
>person born later would have to formally accept it.
>I don't see that -- it's simply not feasible, since not accepting the
>Constitution would mean forcing those people out of the country, as
>they would refuse to be bound by the common agreement.
Why would these new people need to be forced out of the country?
All that would have to happen is these new people would have the
option, upon reaching an age of consent, to opt in or out of the
obligation to be governed by this document.
You mention below:
>"It is true that the Constitution alone does not create a perpetual
>corporation."
Yes, I know this. And apparently Congress knows this too (see your
words below)
It seems the only ones who don't know it are the American people, and
they, by their tacit agreement bind themselves to it.
> Did you know that the Constitution is formally accepted by
>each and every new Congress? It has to be, because those are new
>representatives and everyone knows that they aren't bound by the
>previous agreement.
Right. New representatives. And so by not raising a timely objection
to the assumption that we, whom they represent, are not bound by any
perpetual contract, give up our right to do so.
Yet, I wonder what might happen were we to do so after the next
Congressional election. Must one go before that body and proclaim ones
sovereignty?
Seems rather bass-akwards to me.
>As they accept the Constitution, they also represent their States and
>constituents in accepting the responsibilities for the people of the
>state.
>
Where is this procedure written down?
When did I agree or how can I opt out?
>The purpose of creating useful agencies of government is to get things
>done which cannot be done with less.
The real purpose of creating these agencies is to wrest power from the
many and place it the hands of the few.
>That means cooperation and an
>investment of time or money or effort toward a goal.
>You cannot have that fairly applied if the people are not fully bound
>to participate in the system.
It is not "fairly" applied now!
And in a free market there are very few (if any) tasks which cannot be
maintained by the private sector.
>
>People may object to that, in the sense that they don't necessarily
>want to be a participant in the system. That's fine, but the
>Constitution attempts to define being a participant as being a person
>of this domain -- a person enjoying the benefits of the system should
>be one of those expected to contribute.
The Const. creates the fictitious "person" of the state.
It doesn't bind the people. It binds the government.
>
>And then, of course, you have to have someone (the Supreme Court, in
>most cases) judge whether the expectations really are fair expectations
>to require of people. Taxation and social obligations and all, taken
>together -- and the decision always comes out vastly in favor of the
>huge benefits of the collaboration. That is, it is perceived that
>people within the system have created a large set of major benefits,
>and that partaking obligates those people to rights and
>responsibilities. It has to be decided, because there is a real
>investment already here -- you can't just have it all for free, and you
>don't get to build obligations for others just out of personal belief.
I'm not sure what any of this means.
>It is true that the Constitution alone does not create a perpetual
>corporation. Did you know that the Constitution is formally accepted by
>each and every new Congress? It has to be, because those are new
>representatives and everyone knows that they aren't bound by the
>previous agreement.
>As they accept the Constitution, they also represent their States and
>constituents in accepting the responsibilities for the people of the
>state.
>
>I know what your objection has to be to this -- how can anyone pretend
>to have the right to do this? And it's hard to answer that -- except
>that there are so many benefits to those individuals that it's hard to
>claim there is a problem.
Which individuals?