6 votes

About time for a new declaration of independence.

If the government is shut down and still collecting taxes isn't that taxation without representation?

If a group emits bills of credit, and passes them off as a representation of wealth, isn't that counterfeit?

If nobody objects to the harm done, and the foriegn policy never changes, then aren't we all responsible for the countless innocent deaths all over the world and therefore don't we share responsibility for creating future enemies who are enraged by the death of their family member at the hands of a person from halfway around the globe?

If we print more money at a rate much quicker than the rate of more products produced and distribute it to certain groups first(banks, corporations, lobbyists, goverenment officials etc) wont they have an unfair advantage by utilizing the money prior to its taking effect on the function of the economy(i.e inflation), and wont it lead to a money which loses buying power over time?

If one saves in dollars and the government destroys the purchasing power of money by arbitrarily creating new money isn't that a tax and therefore theft?

If people give up their rights to liberty, privacy, habeas corpus, association, self defense, due process and even life can they truly be called free? And how can the surrender of those rights help defeat an enemy who we create more of with each second around the globe through collateral damage? Even if it did defeat them hypothetically, for what would we unfree things unfit for the name people be fighting other than our master's amusement?

If there is a central bank, price floors/ceilings, subsidies etc. how can this be called a free market?

If neither party gives the good of what they claim to bring to the table(dems-social liberty and reps- economic liberty) and instead both continue us down a path of dependence, sacrifice, debt and imperialism then aren't theyreally one party acting like two to deceive the public so that their agenda is furthered no matter what?

If we never fix our problems then who will? If we don't take action and adapt our government to serve us again then the fact that we are prisoners rather than free men will soon stare many of us in the face while our neighbors thank their diety that its not their type of people that are being rounded up and made an example out of this time.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I gave it a shot a while back...

http://www.dailypaul.com/188593/the-re-declaration-of-indepe...

But it needs a little work and a few updates!

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

And the government...

never served us. That is not what government was or is.
The government is not some kind of management company-never has been, never will be.

Distinction between government and tyranny.

Is government serves its moral purpose as the entity with the monopoly on the use of force. A tyranny exists when the entity posing as a government and having the monopoly of force rejects its moral purpose and abdicates its responsibility.

A government's moral purpose is to protect rights, provide a court system, provide for the protection of its territory from foreign invaders and be an objective third party to settle disputes between two or more parties.

There is no government on the face of the earth, it is all tyranny but making the distinction helps to see that government has an actual purpose in society; it also goes to show that a monopoly on force is going to occur in any society and that it is the people who make up the society's job to establish and keep their government from becoming a tyrannical state.

This is very important, please consider the following

This is where understanding civics comes into play:
You are not describing government, but you are describing governmental propaganda, most likely because it has been crammed down your throat since you were a child.

Consider the following:

Even if you had it your way, and the men that occupied every office in the land were completely benevolent they still...
1. Have no obligation to you.
2. Can harm you with impunity.
3. Claim the power to manage your daily affairs, even if your affairs do not involve them and do not harm another.

Ask yourself these questions,
"Does the legislature or its army of men have any duty to me personally?" No.
"if a law maker votes for a law that harms me, can i sue him?" No.
"Am I legally obligated to obey their statutes?"Yes.
--"If i disobey, will i be punished?" Yes.
----"If i resist their punishment, what will they do to me?"
You will do what they say, when they say it, and they will take what they want, when they want it.
Government GOVERNS you. It claims total power over you. That power in and of itself is by definition tyrannical. Without this power, the entity loses its ability to govern you and therefor ceases to be government.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Government is not the services they pay for and own (infrastructure, fire departments, schools, COURTS, etc...)
Government is a militant entity that occupies society in order to achieve its own ends, whatever they may be.
That is the origin of government and the purpose of government.
Government is composed of the legislature and the army of men they employ to enforce their will.
Governments compete with one another for the resources of this planet, and they consider society a resource.

Many people forget that the origin of courts and the origin of government are completely separate. Courts can be, once were, and ought to be completely separate from government. Although, whenever a government has gotten control over a society, it takes control over that society's court system.

Thoughts??? I hope you enjoyed that.

.

What of this has been government propaganda?

Civics deals with how governments use power. I am discussing the issue of what seperates a government from tyranny and it is a civics topic, since the difference is in how they use their monopoly on power. Governments use the monopoly morally and tyrannys use them with no respect for morals whatsoever. A moral government respects rights. Any entity with a monopoly on the use of force that does not respect rights is a tyranny and not a government.

Who said anything about benevolent office holders? Not me. Don't know why you would say that's my way.

""Am I legally obligated to obey their statutes?"Yes."
This is a point that is important, legality. What entity etablishes laws? Do laws serve a purpose? What entity enforces laws?
Since you answered your own questions ill answer mine for you. Government establishes laws. Laws serve the purpose of setting boundaries for acceptable behavior between two or more parties. A combination of law enforcement(police, sheriffs), court system and prison system.

"Government GOVERNS you. It claims total power over you. That power in and of itself is by definition tyrannical. Without this power, the entity loses its ability to govern you and therefor ceases to be government."
Governments must respect rights and therefore cannot claim total control over anyone, a government can only intervene when one party's rights are undermined, threatened or taken away by anothers that is the essential difference between tyranny and government. The similarity is the monopoly on the use of force. The difference is in the exercizing of that force, i it exercizes the force to uphold rights it is a govenment if it use force to trample even one person's rights it is a tyranny totally.

"Government is a militant entity that occupies society in order to achieve its own ends, whatever they may be.
That is the origin of government and the purpose of government."
Funny, i thought orgin means where how and when something began, not what somebody claims it is... Also if i have this correct you say the purpose of government is to 'achieve its own ends, whatever they may be.' An then you claim to have stated the government's purpose? Everythings purpose is to achieve its own end, whatever it may be. Have i just explained the purpose of everything?

So courts are seperate from government, what enforced a court's decision? I a court's decision wasn't supported by a governing body what purpose would it serve in protecting people from fraud and the like when nobody can be forced to come before court, or if upon losin a case one could disregaurd the verdict and go to a different courthouse.

Do you advocate no government? If so what is your proposed method of dealing with criminals and maintaining rights for the wrongfully accused? What happens when two people with legitimate arguments hire two different private police firms to go after the other and take back what they feel was wrongfully taken? What is your answer for keeping a monopoly on the use of force from developing? What entity will enforce the policy to keep a competitive market for the use of force?

Okay, we can do it like this

#1 you are creating a clever distinction. I am for that and I get it.

#2 "What of this has been propaganda?"
*Your unsupported assertion that"Governments use the monopoly morally"
Again, this appears just you trying to reconcile specific programming.

#3 "A moral government respects rights"
*okay, says you.

#4 "Governments must respect rights and therefore cannot claim total control over anyone,
*okay, says you
a government can only intervene when one party's rights are undermined, threatened or taken away by anothers
*okay, says you
that is the essential difference between tyranny and government."
*okay, says you
#5 "The similarity is the monopoly on the use of force"
*I understand your fabricated distinction perfectly.
#6 "i thought orgin means where how and when something began"
*Me too.
#7 "Everythings purpose is to achieve its own end"
*My car's purpose is to achieve my ends...my employees purpose are to achieve my ends. When my company is hired, it's purposes is to achieve my customer's ends.
#9 "So courts are seperate from government"
* try reading the paragraph again.
#10 "Laws serve the purpose of setting boundaries for acceptable behavior between two or more parties."
* Sometimes they do, and sometimes they serve the purpose of extracting wealth from society. And sometimes they serve the purpose of harming political enemies. And sometimes...ad infinitum. But they are always an expression of the will of the legislature and you are bound by them.
#12 "I a court's decision wasn't supported by a governing body"
* Your lack of experience with the judiciary really shows here. I'll answer it once you reread my bit on courts and don't jump to errant conclusions about what I said.
#11 "Do you advocate no government"
* I have many things that I advocate that may interest you, none of which you mentioned in your straw man diatribe.

As far as I can tell you have fabricated a distinction where none existed before. Normally the word tyranny is used to describe how a government uses its power. However, you are using that word as a way to label the governing body itself when it is being tyrannical, as in, it is no longer a government it is a tyranny. Good on you.

I saw that you avoided the major legal points i raised by creating your own definitions. Very creative, but not legally recognized or acknowledged. Try rereading my bit about the courts again, you might get it the second time.

No matter how hard you wish it wasn't this way (and me too)regardless how government uses its power:
Government has no obligation to you.
Government can harm you with impunity.
Government claims the right to control your behavior even when it does not involve them and does not harm another.

Out of curiosity, you have made your idea very clear about what "government" cannot do, what is your idea about what "government" would be doing?
And by the way, I agree with your overall sentiment, even though I am using the same vernacular. All governments on earth (that I am aware of) are exercising tyrannical power.

2 parties does not mean...

2 different agendas.
They would more accurately be called factions. As in, two competing groups of people vying for control.

"V" for Vendetta

That time will soon come.

Yep

And it would be simple, just replace the words "King and He" with "Government and They", Done. All the grievances are the exact same.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.