It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"Who is John Galt?"

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 12:18 AM
reply to post by seethelight
Then how do you explain the facts? Ayn Rand's novels have hit the nail on the head, decades ahead of the actual occurence. While I don't agree with her philosophy 100%, I believe in the individual. The man/woman who has an idea and is willing to run with it. Damn the topedoes and full speed ahead.
That has been the secret of the economic success of this country. Innovators are willing to say "screw the system," and forge ahead. Some are successful, some are not. The Tucker was an innovative automobile, years ahead of it's time. It failed because it didn't fit the Detroit norm.
But for every Tucker, there have been a hundred, no, a million successes.
Rand says "think outside the box." "Do what you love, and you will never work another day in your life."
step outside the mainstream idea of what work is. Want to be a blacksmith? Build a forge and start learning.
Want to be an organic farmer, or just a farmer? Get some land and start planting vegetables. Get some books and study. Learn about what it is you want to do, and step out and do it! If you want to get off the grid, then do so! But above all, believe in yourself and your abilities.

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 12:42 AM
reply to post by Janky Red

Janky, thanks for your very considered reply and you have given me much to think about and discuss. It is interesting you speak to the duality of humans and yet declare this duality is never black and white. The whole color analogy becomes a flawed analogy and forgive me if my inference is incorrect but I am assuming that if our duality is never black and white then it is more some shade of gray. Gray, of course, is a mixture of black and white and there is irony in reducing duality to oneness.

I am, however, astounded at your beautiful thinking and poetic communication, and I most wholeheartedly agree that "the genius of this nation is that it accounts for these polar opposites, strength is achieved by these two forces pressing against each other." Well said, Janky. Whether our efforts are futile or not, only we, in the end, can come to that conclusion, separately and as individuals do.

Regarding your thoughts on objectivism I first must confess that I don't understand what is meant by "ISM", could you clarify this for me please? That said, I will tell you that I have always found a sort of pretentiousness to calling oneself an "objectivist". Given our biological constructs and our reliance upon sensory perception it is clear that we are not "objective" and are to a large degree, inherently "subjective". We are not omniscient and we can not ever "know" the cup from all angles at all times.

However, we are not entirely "subjective" either. Before the first boat was ever built I am presuming that someone, somewhere saw a piece of wood floating on water and was able to imagine a boat built of wood that could carry that person across the water. That is objective thought. We can quibble to what degree there was subjectivity to that thought but there was an objectivity to it that led to rowing and sailing boats and then to steamships and nuclear powered subs!

You are correct when you say that inactivity is an action as well and indeed, under the law, we often find ourselves liable to laws through our own tacit agreement, even without our knowledge of that agreement! You are also correct to point out that the polarity of extremes regarding capital do indeed border on theology. Plunder is plunder and when one plunders in the name of capitalism they have blasphemed the theology of capitalism as they have done nothing more than plunder! I am a romantic at heart, and do believe there are both Captains of Industry and Robber Barons. It is why ethics are so crucial to society.

It is the problem of ethics and today's culture mired in an ethical world where everything is just a shade of gray that leads me to your amusing example of Paris Hilton. I agree, her fame is hard to understand, but that we have as a society willingly and knowingly or unknowingly and tacitly gone into agreement that ethics are a luxury and vary from specialty to specialty that has led to this bemusing phenomenon of talentless icons. The hero is exalted briefly then torn down into a tragic hero felled by his or own hubris.

The mythic hero, however, is an iconic figure who not only acted in his or own best interest, but was wise enough to understand that interest included everyone else! This, I believe, is what would be called "enlightened self interest", the ability to consider our actions and how those actions affect everyone else. Easier said than done, but that accomplishment is what makes us heroic, not wealth or fame, but the accomplishment of our deeds.

I will wait for your response, but thank you for yours thus far.

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Jean Paul you gave a very astute and good overview regarding the power of taxation in the United States and also the 16th amendment.

I for one haven't dug that deep into everything behind taxation and it was a good read along with some good information that I will be looking deeper into.

I believe the number one thing Americans can do, is make a big push locally and at the State level to reign in the power of the central government and bring most of the power back to the states.

There has been a large swing and consolidation of power by the Federal Government, due largely to the "New Deal" legislation, but could be traced back to the end of the Civil War with acts such as the Reconciliation Act.

Cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland shows where the Court invoked the Necessary and Proper clause in the Constitution, effectively giving the US Congress the ability to create entities as it sees fit, regardless of enumerated powers specifically laid out in the Constitution.

This quote by Chief Justice Marshall says it all "The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the U.S. government to execute its powers under the Constitution."

One of the first people in our created nation that basically said the States have nothing over the Federal government and what it wants to do.

While I see the necessity to have a Federal government, especially a strong one during the infant years of our Nation, I do not see why now, with a strong foundation we need to have so much power consolidated in it.

I would like to see us act locally, but think nationally in regards to what we can change, before things were to ever get truly ugly. I say truly ugly, because I think a lot of people that are banging the drums of revolution do not fully understand what the implications of such an action would bring.

No longer are we a Nation that is naturally protected from invasion due to the sheer vastness of the Great Ocean (Pacific) and the Atlantic. Yet, people think that driving forward towards some sort of bloody revolution will resolve all our troubles and lollipops will be handed out in the end. Sadly, that is not how it works. We are not computer game pixels that can be reset or turned off when we are losing, nor do we re-spawn when we get killed. War is war and if people think that the United States Federal (Imperialist) government isn't going to fight tooth and nail to retain power, then they have been sadly fooled and lead down a dark path.

Given that, we as a people of this nation need to do what you are talking about. Collectively use the power of the individual to bring about a firestorm of change due to the sheer unwillingness to partake in a government that has overstepped its bounds for A LONG TIME (For all you people out there that think this is because of President Obama.....get over it. It started before that and it is just coming to a head).

Many people have rolled over and feel they are powerless to take on things like the massive entity known as the IRS. We are not. Although we cannot legally not pay taxes (how is that for an ultra-double negative
), we can use our intuition, ingenuity and drive that we as a people have always held to drive the forces back through legislation, protest, and just plain not rolling over dead because it is hard.

Guess what, life is hard, no matter how much the government coddles us and cradles us. It is time to start standing up and making tough choices. Ones that will be unpopular and possibly uncomfortable, but where are we now? I would say a vast amount of people are already uncomfortable and personally having to make tough choices, why shouldn't our government have to do the same?

Again, I ramble and I am all over the map. I have been unable as of late to stay focused, forgive me.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 12:31 AM

I hope I can wade in here, with the like of the outright eloquency, of the commenters here. I have my work cutout for me.

So here goes.

As for the OP. Was I the one that you were talking about-wink wink.

1) Black Markets. In the latter day USSR, the only thing that kept that country floating was the Black Market. I had an uncle, that through our government, had many dealings over there. I do not know what his purposes were to this day, but that is not the discussion here. He stated once he packed chewing gum and blue jeans to use as a bartering system. When fiat currency becomes worthless, what do you use? And our dollar is on the verge of worthless. I still do not understand its ability to remain afloat, with the severe liquidity(by this I mean the quantity of dollars compared to assets of a given value-what is the existing quantity[in dollars] that exist today) problems that are inherent right now.

I have been bartering for quite some time now. Did some remodeling for some dental work recently.

2) Local foods and supplies. Safer and keeps the money local.

3) If you are called to jury duty attempt to avoid your basic cases and try to get onto juries of cases that you disagree with on the basis of laws that should not be law. Also, in this respect, argue and fight all cases against yourself to the fullest of your ability. I have already been in one such case and the person was found not guilty-12 votes, no waffling by my fellow jurors there. We also wrote into the record that the case should not have been brought in the first place. Written into the court record on the ballot sheet.

4) Drop out to the extent you can in your life, in regards to the business of government. This is in no way means not vote. Talk to the people you plan on voting for and tell them(do not ask), that you will expect them to follow the Constitution and that you will keep an eye on their record.

This one is probably the least power that we have because just as we had seen in the New Jersey race, the FIX is in the political arena by the two headed monster(the repub backing the dem-NO COLLUSION HERE, JUST WALK AWAY).

5) One I am not sure of yet. Bog down the system of government. This technique is currently being used to destroy the medical field due to the overburden of hospitals to the fact they are required to cover the costs of anyone not able to pay. I myself have used this service and was not required to pay. I did go to a hospital(Catholic Hospital) that provided the service as a charity, so I do not feel quite so guilty of being a freeloader. If it is required by the government of a private company, should they not reimburse the private entity for their requirements.

Their are numerous other ideas, but I believe the BM is our best bet. You would be amazed how many BM's are popping up all over the US. I guess when people realize the gov is there as a tyrranical system, it is inevitable.
As for the rest of the commenters. Someone should quit trying to derail and divide. Your actions are becoming monotonous.

Janky, I swear, either you or I, are starting to see eye to eye or maybe I am changing my views. Always nice to see you on threads nowadays.

As for the rest of you, I will let the OP cuss and discuss your comments but threads like these need to continue. Love to see all of the eloquent and knowledgeable discussion taking place.

OP, I have not read ANY of Rand's books and probably never will. I do not like to read most of the viewpoints or stories of authors of the past. I feel I may be missing a gene that allows me even to digest most of what they try to espouse. I use to read a lot of sci fi and numerous other forms of fiction but I have stopped that altogether. Historical record and the like is my current forte. Our current predicament in the human condition, is too much of a distraction I guess.

As for the collectivistic or individualistic aspects of the discussion; I am sure most of you may think I am a Anarchist at heart, but you would be wrong. The closest you may come to, is an exact copy of an amalgamation of our country's forefathers.

Individualistic freedom and responsibility. If you are not responsible enough to Champion your Freedoms, you are not destined or entitled to those Freedoms.

Freedom is not a choice, it is a RESPONSIBILITY.

This goes to the total takeover of everything in our country by the gov.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:25 PM
reply to post by ownbestenemy

I think you are correct that we should do what we can locally and on a state level to reign in the federal government, but doing so politically seems to be a difficult proposition. What should we do, keep electing politicians to do this? I think Thomas Jefferson was right on the money when he said:

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."

~Thomas Jefferson~

There have been a few posters in this thread who have insisted that Ayn Rand and even her fictional character John Galt, sought to impose a "ruling elite" upon the people. However, this is entirely untrue, what Rand and certainly Galt advocated was the freedom to govern oneself. I believe the insistence that Rand or Galt was advocating fascism is nothing more than they accusing them of their own crimes.

I think there are many people across the world who do not at all advocate self government and believe with a passion that people are not capable of self government. These people will do all they can to lobby for and ensure an expanding government that would do all they can to reign in the freedoms of the people. It is for this reason that I question the plausibility of affecting change towards more personal freedom by way of representation. Although, I am not entirely sure this is what you are getting at.

It seems to me that turning to a government to ensure freedom is as silly as attempting to domesticate lions, tigers and bears...oh my! Freedom is not granted it is taken, and this is what we must do. We must take back our freedoms, not by attempting to legislate them or enforce them, (a paradox if there ever was one.), but simply by being free. We are fortunate enough to have, in the U.S. a Constitution that serves as the Supreme Law of the Land, and can be an effective leash on an ambitious government.

I stand with you firmly in warning of imprudent calls to arms and violent revolutions in this current age where a push for a one world government has created a global army in the guise of the U.N., and global economic agencies such as the IMF and other institutions, that would surely do all they could to quell any armed revolution. That said, there comes a time in any march towards freedom when diplomacy no longer works and other options must be considered. However, I have said it before and I will say it again, now is not the time for an armed revolution!

There are just too many options available to us before even considering such violence in the name of freedom. First, allow me to address your assertion that we can take on the IRS however, that we can not evade taxation. It is true, if we are to have a government at all, and I believe we do need a limited and effective government, then taxes are necessary. However, people should only pay the taxes they owe! If one has been made liable for a tax then they are subject to the revenue laws that would enforce such taxation.

The big question is, in regards to this so called "Personal Income Tax", are YOU liable for that tax and subject to the Internal Revenue Code? Are YOU? How could you possibly know until you've read the Code for yourself and even then, given the ambiguity of the text, the circumlocution of definitions, and the disordered chronology of sections, how can YOU or I or anyone actually understand what the hell this tax code is about? Of course, we are all presumed to know the law, and expected to do our due diligence in knowing any particular law.

So, how many of We the People have truly done their due diligence in coming to understand the Internal Revenue Code and this so called "Personal Income Tax"? How many of YOU were taught to file a valid tax return in a public school by a teacher who relies upon taxation in order to get paid? For those of YOU who were taught to file a valid tax return in this manner, how many of you pointedly asked your teacher what was the subject of the tax?

How many of YOU have declared that; "as a taxpayer I have rights"? How many of YOU are even aware that the term "taxpayer" has been statutorily defined? How many of YOU are aware there is actually a taxpayers bill of rights? When one compares the "taxpayers bill of rights" to the actual Bill of Rights found in the Constitution, it should be extremely clear that as a "taxpayer" that you don't have rights, and it is not being a "taxpayer" that gives you rights at all.

Again, if You or I owe a tax, then We should pay that tax, but how many people are paying taxes they don't even owe? Would you pay your landlord for 13 months of rent each year, or more correctly 16 to 18 months of rent each year? Wouldn't such a notion strike you as ludicrous and if your land lord came knocking on your door in January demanding back rent and you show him the receipts that prove you paid each month of the previous year, and then your landlord informs you that that is for only 12 months and you are required to pay 16 months rent each year, wouldn't you think your land lord insane?

I use the term land lord because very few people own their own homes outright. Meaning, most people who are "homeowners" finance a loan through a bank to "buy" that home and do not own that home until the entirety of the loan is paid. Thus, even "homeowners" tend to have landlords. Imagine being charged for a pound and a quarter for a pound of beef. Imagine being charged for 15 gallons of gas for only 10 gallons. Who would tolerate such nonsense? Yet, We the People have tolerated a tax code none of us understand, and those who have made the attempt to understand it and have surmised from this effort that they were never liable for a tax to begin with, get labeled as "tax protesters" rather than being recognized for being the sane people they are.

Indeed, those who have tried to rely upon the court system to challenge the jurisdiction of the tax collectors are often threatened with psychiatric evaluation, simply because they had the audacity to read the tax code and failed to find anywhere in that code where they had been made liable for a tax. Instead of showing through incontrovertible evidence they are liable, the government will rely upon fallacious arguments to bully these "tax protesters" into submission.


posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:25 PM
reply to post by ownbestenemy

There are just too many pieces of legislation on "the books" loaded with an excess of verbiage that make it far too cumbersome and impractical for the average person to read, let alone understand. Yet, if it is law, then it must be understood, because laws are useless when they can not be understood. Why is it our elected Representatives and Senators engage in such burdensome verbosity in legislation? Is it because they are attempting to create legislation easily understood? I don't think so.

More importantly than understanding these poorly written pieces of legislation, is to understand the law. The law is simple and not at all cumbersome or complex. If someone is being charged with a crime then this means that there is a victim. If a victim can not be found then there is no crime. In an earlier post, ownbestenemy, you presumed that I would agree with you that prostitution is not a crime. Your presumption was correct. If both parties of this prostitution have entered into a contract of sex in exchange for money then there is no victim, and any arguments to the contrary are really just fallacious arguments attempting to invent a victim where one does not exist.

There is much we can do as individuals to rebuke an ambitious government that attempts to pretend there are victims without presenting any real victim, and endisnighe has offered some great suggestions in that regard. So, I will end my reply to you, ownbestenemy, and continue with a reply to endisnighe. Before doing so, I urge you to continue posting here and making your suggestions as your suggestion of micro loans was a brilliant one, and I have no doubt you have much more to add to this important discussion.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by endisnighe

Thanks for joining this thread, endisnighe. I knew you would have some great suggestions and points to be made. As to your question, no it was not you who led me down the path of advocating a violent revolution, although I am fairly certain it was a poster in one of the threads you created, but not at all you who led me down that path. Your outrage and disgust with an out of control government is justified and I am all for your very vocal outrage and support it fully.

Your suggestion of bartering, I think, is an excellent one and one that We the People can easily do without causing too much harm or heartache to our prosperity. There are many people who do barter in today's economy and it has always been a valid way of doing business.

Local foods and supplies is yet another great example of how we as individuals can take control of this economy and affect a greater good. Just one example of reliance on locality versus a corporate shipping of goods, is in locally pollinated honey. I used to tend bar to make a living and in that position found an opportunity to share many "old wives tales" in terms of healing and health care. Many of my customers would complain of allergies during certain seasons, and I would always recommend trying locally pollinated honey to help. Without fail, every customer who took my advice would come back elated with the news that their allergies had been reigned in and they are no longer suffering from the misery of the symptoms that pharmaceuticals were never able to help them with. The local pollen in the honey allowed them to build up a resistance to the pollens that were causing such grief.

I can't thank you enough for your advice to accepting the honor of jury duty and to use that honor to rebuke an out of control legislature. What you have suggested is often referred to as jury nullification which has become a pejorative amongst judges, prosecutors and many lawyers, but it is they who invented that term and it is not a fitting term for what is the right of a jury to do. If the legislation is bogus to begin with and only seeks to make "criminals" out of people where no victim can be found, then it would be right and just for a jury to refuse to convict. This is the primary purpose to ensuring that those who are charged with a crime have the right to a trial by jury.

Your advice of dropping out to the extent one can without abdicating any power is also great advice and you are right on the money by upholding a responsibility to vote while acknowledging it is the very least one can do to ensure freedom. Too many people attempt to frame freedom as having the ability to vote for representation. This is foolish and just isn't true. Indeed, voting is not even a right but is a privilege granted those who are citizens of a state or country by the government. Freedom has nothing to do with it, it is merely a mechanism by which people choose government officials. That said, it is a mechanism that should be used and to the fullest extent, which ain't much.

Bogging down the system is also a great way of reigning in an out of control government and one doesn't have to do this maliciously. Too many people are too willing to simply pay the fine that comes with a traffic ticket or parking ticket rather than fight it in court. It is understandable as many local and state legislatures are attempting to make fighting a minor infractions such as this too cost prohibitive, but then this is where knowing the law we are all presumed to know becomes paramount.

Government has relied upon expedience to gain the unseemly power it has. It is more expedient to simply pay a fine or even accept a "plea bargain" rather than fight the charges against a person. However, when government becomes more and more intrusive, increasingly arrogant about that intrusiveness and shows the callous disregard for the people as the U.S. on not just a federal level but state and local as well, then it should be clear that what was once expedient is no longer so.

As to your assertion that you will most likely never read any of Ayn Rand's work, there is no need, and this thread is not a Ayn Rand fan club or memorial to her or John Galt. I used Galt as a fictional example of a man who dared to be free and had the audacity to reject parasitism and collectivism in favor of individualism and liberty. You, in many ways, are much like John Galt, and I knew your presence in this thread would be worthwhile.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:23 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

EDIT TO ADD: Welcome to the discussion Endisnighe! Great to see more ideas generated. It is too bad though that most people just want to come here and not really address what is asked, but rather engage in fallacious arguments not even pertaining to the real issue. Again, welcome.

My clarity on regards to legislation was lackluster. I am going to grab the coattails of what Endisnighe said in regards to seeking out the people that are running for office and telling them what you expect.

It is a precarious conundrum, the way the system works. On one hand, We the People feel our voices should be heard and followed but in all reality, that is not how it works. We put forth representatives either from our local areas or at the State level who, for the most part are trying to serve a vast population, whom all have different wants/needs and desires. I believe to this day it is the best system when it is done right. Like all things in the world, everything looks fantastic on paper, but in action, ambiguity and real life kick in and muddle up the prospects.

When I worked in retail for a small sporting goods company, we engaged in bartering all the time. If we needed say, shelving units built, we would offer deep discounts, 'free' goods or hockey/golfing lessons in exchange.

To answer your questions in regards to taxes...I cannot answer. Not even my father, who is an accountant of many years can even answer that question. He has given up on being current on the tax code due to the sheer complexity and dubiousness of it all.

I am hung over and aching so I will leave with this small amount while I try to pry my brain from my body

[edit on 1-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 11:19 PM
reply to post by ownbestenemy

Many of the questions I ask in regards to the tax code seem to be unanswerable. If ever there was evidence to the illegitimacy of legislation it would have to be that. It was many years ago that it first occurred to me when going to a a tax accountant to "file my taxes" on my behalf, that it I realized upon this tax accountant telling me that all he needed was my signature and "we were good to go", exactly what it was I was signing.

How many people sign this "valid tax return" without even realizing what they are signing? How many are aware that they are signing that they swear under penalty of perjury that all the above is true and correct? I had not realized it until this particular moment, and it struck me like a lead hammer. I asked the tax accountant why I was signing under penalty of perjury that all the above was true and correct if I didn't know that.

The accountant was dumbfounded and asked me what I meant. I pointed out to him that I had no idea what the tax code was about and if I did I would not be paying him to do "my taxes" for me. He laughed that sort of laugh that experts love to laugh when they are confronted with such obvious ignorance and explained that I was signing that everything I reported was true. I responded by asking him if he was sure that was true. He answered some what huffily that of course he was sure. I asked him then why it just didn't say that instead of saying that all of the above was true and correct. He looked at me silently. I continued and asked, why am I not signing a contract that states that all I have reported is true and correct and instead signing a contract that states everything in this contract is true and correct.

This tax accountant started to get very agitated and accused me of playing semantics with him. I in turn got agitated and accused he and the writers of this contract of playing semantics with me. He got angry and I was astounded. I pointed out to him that perjury was a very serious offense. He then asked me if I had lied about the earnings I reported. I answered no, I have not lied. He then said that I had nothing to worry about and told me to sign the return. I asked him if he would be willing to sign a sworn affidavit swearing to the fact that this contract only required my signature under penalty of perjury to ensure that I was being truthful about the amount of earnings I reported and he refused. I asked him why he wouldn't sign such and affidavit and he answered because he didn't have to.

I asked this accountant if I had to sign this return. His response surprised me because when he answered his eyes shifted away from my gaze and his voice got quiet and he said that if I wanted it to be counted as a valid tax return that I would have to sign it. I asked him to clarify what he meant by "valid tax return" and he evaded my question by pointing out to me that if I did not file a return then I would be guilty of failure to file a tax return. I said in response; "So then, I am required by law to file a tax return?" He answered yes. I asked him if I was required by law then why did they need my signature? He again accused me of playing semantics with him and got more evasive as he pointed out that because of the nature of my employment and that because taxes were deducted from my check every week, I did not owe any taxes and would be getting a refund by filing.

I asked a few more pointed questions before he finally erupted with rage and insisted he would not get into a Constitutional debate with me. I was floored, because I had never once brought up the Constitution...not once. Since that time I have had the opportunity to ask several lawyers about this issue. If those lawyers were not specialized on the subject they would always tell me so and that I would have to ask a tax attorney. When discussing the issue with tax attorneys it took very little time before, and mind you, never at any point would I bring up the Constitution, they would insist they were not interested in having a Constitutional debate with me.

Several conversations with tax accountants always got this response as well. What became clear in all these conversations was the wide variance of assertions made by these experts. All seemed to agree that I was definitely liable for the tax and subject to the law, but when it got down to specifics of this law, some would point to one section of the code where another would point to a different section of the code.

I would rather read a good book or even a bad one before reading tax code, but at some point after all this clear prevarication, it became clear I was going to have to read the IRC for myself if I really wanted to understand it. Strangely, after several attempts at reading that damned piece of legislation I began to understand why all these experts couldn't agree on which section of the code actually made me liable for a tax. They don't understand it either!

How We the People have gotten to a point where we so readily accept "experts" who no more understand the Code than we do as the authority on this issue is beyond me, but this is what we have done. Shame on us all! How is it that when facing a judge and a prosecutor we are expected to know the law, but when questioning a law we are expected to trust the experts? Of course, we know the answer to that, don't we? Who is John Galt?

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 12:45 AM
I think that your experience in dealing with the accountant and your trying to further increase your understanding by going to 'experts', goes to show just exactly how, to use the term, cluster-*ucked everything has become.

No longer does one know when they are or are not within the bounds of the law. Legislation has no transparency or straightforwardness to it. Bring up the health care legislation drafts. One will find that there are more cross-references to other pieces of legislation. Lawyers and politicians know that the more complicated they make their job seem, the more wool they will be able to pull over our eyes.

Essentially I believe we are living in the famous story, The Emperor's New Clothes. Only we are the emperor. We are so caught up in our lives, within our small lot in life that we do not see that the tailors (our representatives) have been sewing us legislation and policies that are nothing but thin air. We accept it because it makes us feel good and important. We do not see the up front lies that are presented to us, because frankly, we do not want to see them.

The sooner we start to realize that our representatives are not the experts, but we are, the better things will get. Instead of allowing our politicians just glaze over laws by adding more laws to the books, we should demand an explanation and concrete reasoning on just exactly why it should be law.

As Endisnighe said, follow through on your civic duty and attend jury duty. If I have my understanding correct and I believe you put out the term, Jury Nullification is a term that judges, States, prosecutors and politicians hate with a passion.

What the legal system wants us to believe, is that the Judge is the father figure who is shaking his finger at you and is the justice bearer, but indeed that Judge is not. That judge is there to ensure decorum is maintained, that certain tactics are not employed upon the witnesses who are testified and to ensure a timely case is presented.

It is the jury who has the duty first to look at the law. What law has been broken? Is the law even valid or has it been applied correctly? It is here where people can make a huge impact upon government through indirect means.

So you ask, who is John Galt? Just as others have said it, I will repeat it. You are John Galt. I am John Galt. The populace that wishes to dare take on an ever repressive system that doesn't promote freedom, but rather seeks ways to control it.

Alas I fear though that the People are just not willing to do what is necessary to wrestle back their freedoms. They are not willing to sacrifice their way of life in hopes of a better life. Most will say "Why fix what isn't broken?", when in fact it is broken. They just do not want to see.

Bread and circus..............

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in