Socialist I Am Calling You Out!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Absolutely John Paul.

You hit the nail on the head.

We can not sit by and idly wait for our "legislators" to "legislate" yet even more "rights" for us.

Our rights are GOD given and IN-alienable.
They cannot be tampered with, but the only way that we, as citizens, can take back these rights that are our birthrite, is through the concept of Jury Nullification.

And armed resistance will simply NOT work.
We are horribly outgunned and the loss of life would be utterly pointless and play right into the hands of TPTB.

Star for sure...
Great Comment!!!

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Janky Red

 

We, as citizens, have final veto power over all laws.

Not one single person can go to jail unless a jury of their peers deem it so.

Jury Nullification is the common law right of the juror to judge the LAW as well as the PERSON.

You see... Judges play this little sneaky game with jurors by making them take an oath, but taking an oath to be on a jury is LUDICROUS.

A juror can vote however they wish and they CAN NOT be held accountable for their vote....
So.... What in the world is this "oath" for, other than to try and convince a juror that they have a duty to uphold laws that they do not have a duty to uphold.

We also have the power to bring lawsuits against any other enemies foreign and domestic and these lawsuits are judged by, once again, a jury of citizens.

Very interesting presentation of an idea...

I need to soak in that perspective and read it a couple of more times...

So you are opposed to building false parameters which entails the act of judgment or
just the ultimate futility of the oath and the judgement process, which is ultimately subject to human opinion?

It would be cool if you could distill the logic behind why you have this opinion.

Thanks

reply to post by Janky Red


Okay, sorry. I'll let them speak for themselves. I just got a little excited, it being a party and all, and I too happen to be a big fan of jury nullification. I do appreciate your efforts in this grand ball known as politicl debate. Truly, if we are to have government, then we must find some reasonable way to agree to agree. I would hope that agreement would begin with total respect for the individual Rights of all. I also think the O.P. made a very valid point in that if socialism is so valid, then why does it need the force of government to institute it?

In a free society, both capitalism and socialism can work side by side, not through government intervention, but by government staying out of the equation and those communities that wish to live communally will do so, and those communities that would rather compete will do so. There is no need to elect politicians to decide for us which system to go by, and each person can vote with their proverbial feet, and if they do not want to partake in a capitalist system they can live in a more socialist system where that socialism is not enforced through taxation but survives by the voluntary nature of its public, and the capitalist system need no government regulation as the public will live by the principle of caveat emptor, and "vote" with their purchases.

This will leave government free to do what it has been mandated to do by Constitution, and need not burden the public with excessive taxation.

reply to post by Josephus23


Thank you my friend, Janky was right to call me on my proclivity to speak for others, but I couldn't resist, as I truly recognized the value of your suggestion.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by hawkiye

 

There is only one definition of free markets. That is they are free of government intervention, and people are free to choose period. Just because people want to try and redefine the term to bolster thier false argument does not make it true. And as you point out that happens a lot

Free market means free to choose? But no one is free to choose, you can't choose to invest in torturing innocent people.. That being said, it is regulated, always was regulated, and will always be regulated..

You can't have a free market without government intervention.. because that would create chaos.. Government will always be there to govern, it has one job to do, and if it doesn't do it, it might as well not exist..

They are to govern every aspect of the country, where governance is needed.. That includes the market..

No you're just repeating media BS, there have been plenty of free markets in history and they weren't chaos they worked rather well. You can't have a free market "WITH" government intervention. If there is intervention the market is not free. it is a lie to perpetuate government control that intervention is needed or thier will be chaos STUDY SOME HISTORY PLEASE. Free markets are proven to work well.

Free Markets

Their are free markets today they are called the underground or black market and they are multi billion businesses some of them. This is the problem with why you can't have an intelligent conversation with so many socialist. They insist on redefining terms to thier own wrong beliefs.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Okay, sorry. I'll let them speak for themselves. I just got a little excited, it being a party and all, and I too happen to be a big fan of jury nullification. I do appreciate your efforts in this grand ball known as politicl debate. Truly, if we are to have government, then we must find some reasonable way to agree to agree. I would hope that agreement would begin with total respect for the individual Rights of all. I also think the O.P. made a very valid point in that if socialism is so valid, then why does it need the force of government to institute it?

In a free society, both capitalism and socialism can work side by side, not through government intervention, but by government staying out of the equation and those communities that wish to live communally will do so, and those communities that would rather compete will do so. There is no need to elect politicians to decide for us which system to go by, and each person can vote with their proverbial feet, and if they do not want to partake in a capitalist system they can live in a more socialist system where that socialism is not enforced through taxation but survives by the voluntary nature of its public, and the capitalist system need no government regulation as the public will live by the principle of caveat emptor, and "vote" with their purchases.

This will leave government free to do what it has been mandated to do by Constitution, and need not burden the public with excessive taxation.

No worries, have fun

So lets say JPZ, you have America the exact way you envision it favorably.

You would not allow for any governmental restrictions or over sight over the nation, from stem to stern, categorically?

if so

IS this based upon core belief, belief in function or both maybe???

What I am trying to do is get a more defined picture...

I think I have marred this thread with enough of my opinion for the time being, I would rather hear some expansion, if you wouldn't mind indulging me.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by hawkiye

 

While I do tend to agree with you on one aspect...
That my idea of a citizenry learning the laws to overturn the system is more of a pipe dream than a probability; however, it could work.

And I will tell right now exactly how it could work, and it only takes two words. (in two different sets)

The first two words are:

1) JURY NULLIFICATION

And the second two words that not only can, but will save America are:

2) NOT GUILTY.

Cheers. Thanks for the reply.

Well i appreciate your optimism I used to share it however the problem is the jurors have no idea they are not even in an article III courtroom much less that they have every right to nullify. And I have been trying to educate folks on it for many years but few are listening. More are today but it is still not enough. Most people still think the economy is going to recover and things will be back to normal by summer...

That is why it never changes. We are a nation of druged out brainwashed sheeple, who don't even know our neighbors enough to know who to trust in bad times. After over 20 years in the trenches I see no other course but complete meltdown barring some unknown miracle. I would love for someone to talk me down...

[edit on 8-5-2010 by hawkiye]

reply to post by Janky Red


I am saying that legislation is only law when it is designed to protect the Right of the Individual. I am saying that if an action causes no harm to another then that action is done by Right. I would offer a qualification in that self defense, defense of others in eminent danger, or defense of ones property is a Right as well. If legislation is passed and enforced that operates outside of this scope of jurisdiction, it is not law and should not be given the force of law, but rejected as an affront to freedom.

Therefore, if those who passionately believe a socialist system is the best way to live, then this is a system they will cooperate together to achieve. They need not plunder those unwilling to live in such a system and can live communally, much like the Native Americans did prior to the invasion of Europeans. There was no burden of taxation and plunder that came with their model, just willing cooperation.

Conversely, those who passionately believe in capitalism need not impose thier beliefs on those communes, and need not the cooperation of people who do not want to participate in such an economic system, and they certainly don't need government to allow for massive competition, a free and unregulated market, and frankly, they don't even need the government to establish a standard currency by which to make the exchange.

I belive that by restricting government in this regard, each person can live closer to their own beliefs withought placing any burden on others and their beliefs.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It's definitely all good. I am more than grateful.

As you might remember from our past encounters, I get a bit worked up and every once in a while I open mouth and insert foot...


It helps to have clear headed thinkers, like yourself, who understand my point and present it in a succinct fashion, minus my very obvious bias.

I thank you, greatly, for furthering the Hegelian dialect regarding this issue so that we can refine the idea down to its most presentable and easily understood form.

Cheers.

Originally posted by hawkiye
This is bullsh!t!

On this we can certainly agree... Hope you enjoy your Fascism, because that's exactly what you want for this country... Now if I could just figure out a way to get the left wing nuts and the right wing nuts to march off a cliff...

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

It's definitely all good. I am more than grateful.

As you might remember from our past encounters, I get a bit worked up and every once in a while I open mouth and insert foot...

It helps to have clear headed thinkers, like yourself, who understand my point and present it in a succinct fashion, minus my very obvious bias.

I thank you, greatly, for furthering the Hegelian dialect regarding this issue so that we can refine the idea down to its most presentable and easily understood form.

Cheers.

I agree, JPZ is very skilled

and thanks for taking the time to lay it out for me, I respect and see the merit
of your POV

two thumbs up

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Facism is a political philosophy, movement or regime that exhalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

www.merriam-webster.com...

I don't see anything about the O.P.'s ideas that come anywhere near this definition.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Janky Red

 

I am saying that legislation is only law when it is designed to protect the Right of the Individual. I am saying that if an causes no harm to another then that action is done by Right. I would offer a qualification in that self defense, defense of others in eminent danger, or defense of ones property is a Right as well. If legislation is passed and enforced that operates outside of this scope of jurisdiction, it is not law and should not be given the force of law, but rejected as an affront to freedom.

Therefore, if those who passionately believe a socialist system is the best way to live, then this is a system they will cooperate together to achieve. They need not plunder those unwilling to live in such a system and can live communally, much like the Native Americans did prior to the invasion of Europeans. There was no burden of taxation and plunder that came with their model, just willing cooperation.

Conversely, those who passionately believe in capitalism need not impose thier beliefs on those communes, and need not the cooperation of people who do not want to participate in such an economic system, and they certainly don't need government to allow for massive competition, a free and unregulated market, and frankly, they don't even need the government to establish a standard currency by which to make the exchange.

I belive that by restricting government in this regard, each person can live closer to their own beliefs withought placing any burden on others and their beliefs.

WOW

That is a very awesome way of seeing it, for whatever reason the justification and the logic combined always provides so much depth to ideas. It is very pure as you put it
and I cannot fault anyone for seeing it this way. It is very nice to see into a whole other take on reality and it makes a whole lot of sense. Your idea on currency is very
interesting I was able to interoperate how that would work even though I have never
entertained the idea before.

May I ask have you always had this specific view? or has it expanded or contracted
with time?

Many of the ideas presented in here are very alien to my perspective, just because
I have yet to discover them, not because of ideas themselves.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by VintageEnvy

 

If there was indeed a real fire like your scenario eludes to, then I could go in and yell fire. So, I choose yell fire to be more efficient in getting people out of there. I have no idea what your talking about at this point.

Of course you don't, because you do not want to have to accept the responsibility for the damage you cause. The yelling fire in a crowded theater analogy is not used to make clear that freedom of speech is not freedom of speech, but rather to make clear that there are real consequences to your actions. If, as you claim, if you ran into a crowded theater that was on fire, and simply yelled fire, the ensuing panic could easily cause more damage, than if you were to simply stay outside and pray for them. If you truly can not understand this, then you are precisely one of those people the O.P. is calling out.

Ok, how about this scenario:
You go into a theater
You yell "Fire"
Everybody rushes to the exits, but things don't get out of hand, and nobody gets hurt.
Is you yelling fire protected by freedom of speech?

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

First off, I never advocate forcing socialism down any nation's throat. In order to become a socialist nation, elect socialists. If you live in a socialist nation and do not like the leadership, vote them out. It's as simple as that.

You say you do not beleive in force then say if i dont like the leadership vote them out. Let me ask you what gives the mob the right to vote themselves control over me and my stuff?

That said I do believe that the individual citizen is not exempt from rules or regulations simply for the fact that they did not vote for a candidate or disagree with a political stance. Passive and active resistance to law are also reserved for special circumstances.

Again you contradict your assertion that you do not advocate force. If the mob votes takes my stuff against my will how is that anything but force? Again I ask where does the mob get the right to vote itself control over my labor and substance just because it has a majority? As long as I am not harming anyone how is it that any group majority or not has any right to my stuff? Normally when a group decides to take someone's property or money against thier will by force they are called a gang of criminal thugs. How is that any different then a gang of my fellow citizens taking my property against my will they are not entitled too?

If a capitalistic system worked the way you describe, I would be all for it. However you fail to take into account that human beings step on each other to get ahead. This leads to all kinds of problems, like the ones that brought about the current crisis.

I do not fail to take anything into account. What you describe is the very essence of socialism/fascism where one group of humans steps on another group because they imagine being a majority gives them some magical right to steal the property of others. If you do not have the right as individuals to take my stuff as it would be considered stealing. How does a group of individuals who do not have the right to steal suddenly get that right as a collective? The only answer is by force simply because they can being a majority and having government guns and force to bare, it is nothing more then theft!

I will say OP, your equating socialism with fascism is insulting to the people of the United Kingdom, we are socialists and our greatest hour was fighting fascism, we know there is a huge difference

They are two sides to the same coin. They both steal the property of others against thier will by force and take control of the means of production. One tyrant hundreds of miles away is no different then hundreds of tyrants one mile away!

I believe in democracies and republics. In fact I believe they are the only system of government that can bring liberty and I would never wish to live in anything else. Socialism needs to be a democratic selection not forced on anyone.

Democracies and republics are incompatible. Free Republics have a standard of rights that is not up for a vote. In Democracies everything is up for a vote allowing the majority to act as a mob of thugs oppressing the minority. History has proven it time and again and it is repeating itself. The loss of freedom and rights in the UK and the US due to the votes of the mob is alarming.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by hawkiye]

Originally posted by Janky Red
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Janky Red

WOW

That is a very awesome way of seeing it, for whatever reason the justification and the logic combined always provides so much depth to ideas. It is very pure as you put it
and I cannot fault anyone for seeing it this way. It is very nice to see into a whole other take on reality and it makes a whole lot of sense. Your idea on currency is very
interesting I was able to interoperate how that would work even though I have never
entertained the idea before.

May I ask have you always had this specific view? or has it expanded or contracted
with time?

Many of the ideas presented in here are very alien to my perspective, just because
I have yet to discover them, not because of ideas themselves.

I started a thread related to this you might be interested to read it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 8-5-2010 by hawkiye]

[edit on 8-5-2010 by hawkiye]

reply to post by Janky Red


As a child, I had dreams of being the greatest actor, director and playwright to ever grace the stage. I was enamored with method acting, particularly Stanislavski's method, and dreamed of living and studying in Russia, to develop my craft. Russian literature has always captivated me, and I, in my youth believed socialism or even communism made sense. I thought it made sense, because in my self centered belief that I was the center of the universe, it made sense that others should house, clothe and feed me, while I worked on becoming a great artist.

My freshman year in college, having all ready read The Communist Manifesto, tackled Marx's Das Kapital. This is a long and tedious tome, (though not nearly as long and tedious as Kan'ts Critique of Pure Reason, of which I also tackled that year), and it took much effort to figure out what the hell this guy was talking about. Much reading and rereading over passages. There was a particular passage, and I am parphrasing, but Marx was describing how to implement a communist society in a capitalist society. What Marx suggested was that in order to defeat the capitalist society it is necessary to undermine their currency, because a one on one situation can't be beat.

Of course, I am paraphrasing, but this was my take on what he said, and given that interpretation, what I took it to mean was that capitalism was a better system and Marx knew it and was admitting it with this passage. He, as I interpreted it, was saying the only way to fix a capitalist system was to break it first, so that it appeared as if it wasn't working. He further admitted that a one on one situation is best.

Given that, I gradually rejected socialist and communist ideals, while I attempted to read Adam Smiths even more tedious book A Wealth of Nations. I had all ready read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead in high school, but revisited that book, and Atlas Shrugged, and read much of her philosophical essays, which had a huge influence on my own path. It has taken me time to distill it all, but above all, I have always had a strong belief in Natural Law, and the freedom of all. I have come to understand that economic systems, if they have validity, do not need government in order to function, and that if government can be restricted, then freedom has a much better chance of flourishing.

reply to post by debunky


First of all, it was not I that introduced the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote into this thread, it was VintageEnvy, and I simply responded to it. I did so, because first of all, I did not think that poster understood the meaning of this quote, and was presenting it as if arbitrary rules are imposed on the freedom of speech, and therefore freedom of speech is not freedom of speech. This is a gross misinterpretaition of Holmes meaning, and the principle behind this quote is that no one has the right to harm others, and freedom of speech does not mean one can incite riots, nor can they slander another person, as such an action causes harm to others.

If you understand the principle of cause no harm to others that is not self defense, defense of others, or defense of property, then you should be able to answer your own question. The yelling fire in a crowded theater is not an arbitrary hypothetical, it is a metaphor to describe harmful actions, not protected as a right.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by belial259

Originally posted by hawkiye
Oh please do tell us what country of paradise you live in so we can look at the facts of that country and see of they measure up to your description.

The Commonwealth of Australia.

Closer to our own time is Australia. It has only been a short time since the government of Australia has forced the people to give up over 650,000 guns that were destroyed at a cost of more than $500 million dollars. After the first year homicides increased by 3.4%, assaults jumped to 8.5%, and armed robberies went up 45%. Homicides by firearms have jumped an alarming 300% while studies over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in crime when the people retained their right to bear arms.

doylepruitt.com...