On that subject, there is a similarity between hardline libertarians of Josf’s stripe, and Communists of Stalin’s - they claim that their policies are for the benefit of all people, while simultaneously denying the people any input over those policies. In short, both reject democracy in favor of rule by an elite, unaccountable, intellectual vanguard.
Non-hardline libertarians like myself instead favor democratic rule, in the belief that if libertarian ideas are actually superior to the alternatives, they will win out in the marketplace of ideas, and eventually win elections. If that never happens, it is libertarianism which has failed, not the people.
I thought Jsof’s point was that The People had been denied a voice by The Enemy because the Constitution was illegally drafted and ratified and so on. But you’ve been staring into this particular abyss far longer than I care to, so I’m perfectly happy to go with your interpretation. Incidentally, is there a trick to it? Am I supposed to ignore every third word?
One more time on the meaning of federal for those who are on the other side where their divided and opposite meaning for federal is not the same as the meaning offered again by John Adams, and again by John Adams, and again by John Adams:
Side A (voluntary federation side):
Side B has their definition for federal too.
The topic concerns Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule: clearly there is a division concerning the meaning of the word federal in context of the divisions along Rule of Law (federal defenders) and Criminal Rule (British criminals indicted as criminals in a Declaration of Independence: the first American, defensive, federal statute/document/declaration/public notice/ or whichever word you care to use to label a Declaration of Independence).
UltraVires offers:
I volunteered to be a jurist in a trial in California so that case constitutes my case. If you are speaking about any other trial by jury case then speak about a specific one so as to avoid connecting me personally to it.
Two examples:
In the first case above dated 1778 the jurors pass a sentence that can be read out for anyone caring to know how the whole country spoke through those representatives in that jury of volunteers.
In the second case dated 1788 Chief Justice M’Kean offered to the court words that are pertinent to this topic and this question offered by UltraVires.
And:
And:
The whole country is represented by the randomly selected (vetted as to competency through voir dire) and those trial jurors (not Grand Jurors) determine fact and law; not a judge.
In my case where I was a juror in California the judge told the jurors that the jurors were only trusted with determining facts pertinent to the case, and the law was not to be judged by the jurors: a clear violation of the law of the land. Despite the clear violation of the law of the land perpetrated by the judge in California, in the jury trial where I offered my voluntary participation as a jurist, the jurors judged the law because that is a part of natural laws. Natural laws become obvious when natural laws work in nature.
So the land mine type question set by the opposition is:
UltraVires offers:
My [modern California] “trial by jury according to the common law” differed from the example cases offered and linked above (Respublica versus Shaffer 1778, and Respublica versus Carlisle 1778] as to the information offered by the judges. In my (California example) the judge offered false information, and in the Respublica versus Carlisle 1788 case the Chief Justice offered true information.
If there is a specific robbery case in California concerning UltraVires then said case can be offered. What is common practice today is something called plea bargaining. That process is described well enough by Gerry Spence in the following link and quote:
Those words in the link above prove the truth of the warnings offered by the true federalists (when the word federal means what John Adams said it means) when the federalists like George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee debated the good versus bad of federation versus Consolidated Nation State, where a legal fiction brings about a corporate fraud that is used to usurp the law of the land: trial by jury according to the common law.
I already quoted the warning by George Mason, just recently on this page, and I can quote again a similar warning by Richard Henry Lee (6th President of The United States of America in Congress Assembled), and I can later quote similar warnings of other federalists (falsely called antis) offering similar warnings of the fraudulent process by which the law of the land is usurped as criminals employ a commonly understandable fiction.
Before 1787 and the push to consolidate the states into one nation state the word federal was used by John Adams to mean a voluntary mutual defense association and said federal union was at an end when one party attacks the other parties.
After 1787 the meaning of the word federal was altered by those who covertly pushed to consolidate the states into one nation state.
The words of Richard Henry Lee adds to the words of others as the meaning of the word changed.
The confusion of meanings of words was warned about earlier in the following link and quote:
It’s not clear to me that Josf is pro-elitism (very little of his thesis is clear to me at ALL). I kinda had the impression he feels some critical “i” wasn’t dotted or some vital “t” wasn’t crossed in the late 1700s, therefore the U.S. doesn’t actually exist.
The “moral people” he refers to are just him, and people who agree with him about minarchist, unchangeable government. Anyone who endorses, say, democratic elections, or self-determination, is part of The Enemy. In other words, the vast majority of Americans support his so-called Criminal Rule, though he allows that this is due to deception.
You just need to have a lot of similar conversation with a series of hardcore libertarians off and on for years. Josf’s version is harder to understand by virtue of the stilted phrasing (‘competitive’, etc) scattershot approach, and argument by way of quoting someone describing an unrelated topic, but the core ideas are all too familiar.
Really? I could be wrong (perhaps assuming incorrectly that he’s yet another voluntary-society hyperlibertarian), but it all seems obvious - he’s describing all these rules for what constitutes a legitimate government, and they’re mostly things that only hyperlibertarians believe. Thus, only hyperlibertarian governments are legitimate. That’s why they obsess over the Articles of Confederation, ‘perpetual union’, and the like - the people can’t be allowed to vote on the sort of government they’d like to have, or for representatives who’ll do the same, because there’s a (very good) chance that they won’t be interested in a hyperlibertarian state. Instead of a democratic process, the law must come from quasi-divine prophets - the Founding Fathers - who created what they think was a libertarian, voluntary society* - which should never have been allowed to change, by anyone.
They’re wrong, though. The states were far more tyrannical than the modern federal government. Massachusetts had mandatory church attendance, and taxes paid to churches, for example - until 1833. Others restricted the vote to property owners, permitted slavery, outlawed blasphemy, and on and on. For some reason I’ve never been able to understand, these libertarians seem to believe that only national governments can be tyrannical.
Is the tie-in to Matthew 7:12 another hyperlibertarian thing? “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”-I don’t see the connection, except in terms so broad they can be applied to just about any political philosophy.
I remain undivided as far as my subjective opinions reach you?
You do not know which side I am on?
The topic is Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule.
The division clearly seen in the evidence provided is between those who understand a voluntary association ends when aggressors attack and on the other side are those who have a different understanding of the meaning of federation.
When aggressors attack (as the British attacked: thereby ending the federal, voluntary, association) the federation ended between the people in the independent Colonies in America and the British Monarchy.
Which side am I on? You have no clue?
You feel as if my viewpoint concerns typographical errors in the paper work?
How is it that anyone can manage to misunderstand the clearly expressed English words offered by John Adams as the term federal is explained well enough? I don’t know, I can ask: but if the words of John Adams can be clearly misunderstood then there is little hope that my questions can be understood.
The sides are clearly spelled out as a voluntary federal association on one side, and aggressors who attack victims targeted by the aggressors on the other side.
The example spoken about by John Adams is the example where people in America are voluntarily associated with people in Britain and that voluntary association ends when the people in America are aggressively attacked by people who travel all the way from Britain to attack those people in America.
Far from a question concerning typographical errors the Division (true federal, voluntary, association, and false federal, consolidated nation state dictatorship where attackers routinely attack defenders) along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule was, is, and always will be clear and present dangers facing every individual connected to the false federal consolidated nation state people.
Not long ago a force of aggressors were sent on a mission to supposedly collect a tax on a gun. That is a form of due process if any form of due process having no moral limit is considerable as “due process.”
That was not a question of failing to dot an I or cross a t.
That is another clash documenting Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule.
Yet another example, and the divisions are not a question of typographical errors on pieces of paper. Why are former members of the United States of America military forces clashing with so called FEDS?
This sentence has no meaning in English. Its component parts may, but as a whole this is just gibberish. Have you considered that your message might be more persuasive if people could understand it?
That exactly accords with a definition of “a country formed of separate states”.
Yeah, it’s “a country formed of separate states”.
Yep, that’s the right to trial by a jury of one’s peers, exactly as we have today.
“The whole country” is only represented by federal juries.
You are correct that only a jury can make a finding of fact in criminal cases (unless the defendant opts for a bench trial, in jurisdictions where that is an option). This is the heart of the trial-by-jury system.
You have that right, sure. I’d agree that judges shouldn’t try to dissuade juries from considering jury nullification, but I’ll also allow that jury nullification has resulted in some really awful things (like acquitting white murderers of black folks).
Making the US a unitary state like France was never an option, and still isn’t.
What you’re doing is taking heated political rhetoric, then injecting your own politics on top of it. It’s the equivalent of claiming that JFK was a Communist by citing George Wallace.
This is a prime example - Lee is using a parade-of-horribles as a rhetorical device to oppose the Constitution. But here’s the thing - what he’s warning about never happened. All civil cases aren’t drawn into federal courts; and federal courts don’t “extensively interfere” with the internal police of the states.
You keep quoting warnings, and political rhetoric, but what you haven’t done is establish that any of these warnings came true. Warnings are cheap - I can quote plenty of people in 1980 who warned that Ronald Reagan would start a nuclear war - that doesn’t mean that he did!
He used it to mean “a country formed of separate states”.
Nope.
Nope. Remember, a federation is “a country formed of separate states”. “Federal” is thus shorthand to refer to the country, as opposed to the states. Washington D.C. is, indeed, a federal city, created for the government of the country, and not the governments of the states.
Two side once again are spelled out well enough for anyone capable of discerning language.
Side A is offered by John Adams.
Side B is offered by the opposition (once again):
Side B above offers no message contained in the words quoted that concern the nature of the formation of “separate states.” Is the nature of the formation of a federal union a voluntary association or an involuntary association?
Side A offers words that concern the nature of the formation and the nature of what causes the formation to end. It is a voluntary association for mutual defense when it is a federal union, and when members of the former federal union attack members of the former federal union the union is no longer federal.
As to the questions, statements, accusations, land mines, concerning the capacity to understand meaning through language, those changing the subject from what the subject is to the subject of comprehending language are those who further divide the whole into greater divisions.
Side A explains the nature of the association as a voluntary association and when members of the former association attack members of the former association the attackers (breaking the peace) are accurately accountable as the cause causing the end of the formation known as a federal union.
Side B makes no distinction as to the nature of the association for reasons that only side B knows, or confesses.
Side A explains, in English, the nature of the association.
Once again:
If someone alive today cannot read, comprehend, and understand the nature of the federal union as explained in the quote above, then perhaps someone can reword the intended message in words that can be understood by the reader. I can easily find and offer authors of words, in English, where the voluntary versus involuntary meaning is offered in the words offered in English. Then those who still can’t read plain English can blame those authors for failing to write a coherently?
The two sides (divisions) along Rule of Law versus Criminal (Tyrannical) Rule are clearly expressed in English (not by me) for anyone caring to participate in the subject matter of the Topic; whereby the subject matter of the Topic is not me personally.
I don’t think anyone has one. I for one can’t figure out what your side is.
What is the difference between a federation, and whatever the US has now? And please don’t cut and paste another swathe of something or other that doesn’t explain anything.
In your own words, in one or two sentences, what is it about the current US government that makes it a rule of criminals instead of a rule of law?
One or two sentences. Don’t try to explain why you think it, just say what it is.
