Opt out of 'the system'; declare yourself a Human

Sorry I was referring to the bit about printing your name.

Try telling that to a copper who has been on a weekend course educating them on new powers to get rid of those pesky protesters and 'graphers!

Well I'd like to see evidence of the courses saying this but on the wider point most laws will be misinterpreted regardless of how well they’re written. It is for this reason we have courts and the common law system. I don’t know of any cases yet whereby this law has been evoked to arrest a photographer.

Okay, i'll bite. What 'real threats'????

Threats such as the large number of databases that have been found to be either illegal or unnecessary; the inability of the government to keep data private; the expenses scandal; the actual proven abuse of anti terrorism laws etc etc.




[edit on 23-6-2009 by Mike_A]

The only scenario that I would attempt to use this "human" vs "strawman" technique follows.

The US and UK have tightened down on its citizens so much that facism is yardstick behind.

The NWO in form of the UN declares all citizens of any nation in the world free to join the one world government. Peeps from both countries jump out of the frying pan, totaly uncharacteristic but conditioning prevails, into the fire of the NWO.

I would declare myself a free man on the land and select neither option using one of these methods. Then be labeled a terrorist and hunted..most likely.

I agree with all of the points listed besides the money system.

MONEY is one of the greatest inventions. Ancient at that.

Why?

It is an advanced system of bartering.

There are three people. A farmer, a carpenter, and an electrician.

Farmer needs some the carpenter, the carpenter needs the electrician, and the electrician needs the farmer.

In "pure bartering system", these men are going to have a hard time getting their goods.

With money, once the system starts rolling (which it is obviously doing today), each skill might be worth one coin. This way, they can just give each other these coins and get the skills they need.

What essentially is happening with these coins is that they are giving someone nothing in return for something...but then that person can use that coin and do the same thing.

You are going to be like "Well no poop!"...but money is not a bad thing. Yes there are flaws to the system.

Guess what? If we had a pure bartering system, the people who are currently unemployed would still be poor. Why? Well, unless they had their own farm, their skills are not needed. I am not calling anyone not important or not skillful, but their talents just are not needed - or they do not know how to "market" them.

Money or not - there is always an economy. That economy can go up and down.

By the way, paper money has very little to do with how things truly operate...it is the trillions of dollars that are stored digitally...

Doesn't matter how much they "print" - all that matters is whether the numbers in the computers fit with what is happening in the world.

What it looks like to me is that the government is trying a new game. Kinda what some of you are saying...just eliminate it all. Well, thats what they are essentially doing. They are saying WHATEVER to these numbers in the computers and just adding to them. Switching some negatives to positives here and there.

While the "debt" is going up - they are seeing if it actually matters. I think it does.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

You are quite right.

The only effective means to retract your contribution is to live
at a subsistence level on land that has very low taxes, and
start a commune where you barter services between members.

Otherwise they will tax every time labor or goods change hands
like leech on your backside til the day you go in the box.

Some tax is reasonable, but have taxes on taxes.

We get taxed after we are dead.

We are about to be taxed for our CO2 footprint.

The price of a set of tires is almost 80% tax due to the
hidden layers of taxation as it moves from raw material
to the rim on your car. This is true of most things and
some things like beer and cigarettes it is even worse.

Until ppl are angry enough to withdraw from society and cut off
their sharecropper labor to the parasites running the game,
they will be what keeps them rich as they keep sucking the life
out of what little is left of what used to be the USA.

A leech will continue to be a leech because that is its nature.

Some of these communities have sprung up around the US
and it speaks to the mythical Galt's Gulch in Ayn Rand's book.

While I do not agree with all she wrote, but withdrawing from
the game as much as possible is the only way to not be so
greatly victimized by the game.

Recently Maryland decided to raise taxes on its millionaires
massively and a full one-third of them left the state.

1/3 of millionaires bust a move

This is just the beginning, and it will progressively get worse.

At some point they will start leaving the country.

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist


I agree that paper money is useful instead of two people trading a cow for a screwdriver, or other tangible commodities, but the whole point with money is that it's controlled by useless, bottom feeding banks who serve no good to society whatsoever. They perpetuate debt on people by creating digital money out of thin air (fractional reserve banking).

My proposal would be to eliminate ALL banks and if you wanted £20k worth of paper to buy a car for example, then all you need to do is pay a one off service / administration charge of say 5% and that's it; no interest charges, no penalties, etc. This would also ensure that you can actually afford to pay back that debt with more stringent and regulated credit checks instead of giving mortgages to MacDonalds workers for $500k houses, which is what happened 6 years ago that started all the economic collapse. They then wrapped up these debts into other AAA ratings products to hide the fact they were bad debts. This (the collapse) was engineered because they were making a fortune off commissions and default payments knowing they held an ace card by getting tax payers to pay twice so banks didn't collapse; what a load of BS

The lack of interest charges would then facilitate a more truer value of the paper, rather than false debt with can only be paid by creating even more false Fiat money.

In the UK, they got scared when people started a bank run on Northern Rock. God forbid if all account holders demanded their money at the same time as they would be exposed by the very fact that they actually don't hold any true value of money or gold in their vaults and it all just exists in their made-up digital banking World.

reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety


The idea behind a bank isn't necessarily a bad one...

What do you think about having tighter regulations?

We all know the "geniuses" that run them were giving out so much credit to people that they knew couldn't pay them back.

If the banks don't do that - then I do not see the problem with them? Not only do you get your loans, you get interest on saved money (even if it is almost nothing for most of us poor folk!), and the banks get to keep money flowing while your savings is still there.

Not to mention the amount of jobs involved with banks.

They need to be regulated to ensure practical usage of them though. While I doubt they can conquer the world, they can sure make it fall - which does make them "rule" everything I guess.

This credit crisis is a major problem in America. Credit itself is not bad, but it is the people who issue it and the idiots who use it when they will never have enough money to pay it back.

When it comes to the political spectrum, I am in the middle...and this is one reason why. These things need to be regulated, because economically, the whole country is losing when this crap happens. Yes the banks might get a few extra payments based on charges, but after a bit - they get nothing back from these people.

Do you still think banks are bad if they were regulated? This is how "I" see it...if wrong, please persuade me.

edit - One thing to add...I *think* the banks have all that money, but it would be crazy to store it all in one bank. Keep in mind branches that allow you access to anyone in the country. You think a 5/3 bank will keep enough money in ALL of its locations for ALL of its customers? Or even a fraction?

[edit on 25-6-2009 by FritosBBQTwist]

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist


Regulation is corrupt to the core. In the UK, they hired an ex bank CEO for the FSA, so there was a massive conflict of interest!

Look at America where they don't regulate the FED (and the BoE in UK), as there are too many off-balance sheet transactions to justify. Do you think an impartial regulator would be allowed to expose these hidden funds and gross mismanagement?



I think calling debtors idiots is unfair, as they are duped into the system they want to create to enslave people with debt.

Finally, you say "I *think* the banks have all that money" - no they don't!!!!!! It's all a façade of invisible money that doesn't exist...full stop.

This topic has been bandied about for some time...I agree with much of what has been said but I'm not sure simply a verbal declaration to "opt out" will be so effective in this day and age.

Interestingly to me, I'm always reminded by the strong and significance difference between "humans" and mere "people" in Frank Herbert's Dune when I come across these theories.