Comment: Four Words: Law of Monopoly Contracts

(See in situ)


Four Words: Law of Monopoly Contracts

Observe the below...

"Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute has proposed a citizen's dividend of about $1000/month as a way of placing social goods "In Our Hands" despite his preference for totally private distribution of social goods. Of the practicality of his citizen's dividend proposal, he writes: "The projected costs of the current system and of the Plan cross in 2011. By 2020, the Plan would cost $549 billion less than a continuation of the current system—again, projecting no increase whatsoever in the percentage of people making $50,000 or more. This statement does not take transition costs into account—but, on the other hand, a system that promises to cost half a trillion dollars less than the current system per year by 2020 leaves a lot of wiggle room for dealing with transition costs."

Indeed, he argues for not only the political practicality of a proposal such as his, but for its 10-year inevitability given the current trends of the welfare state."

I don't agree with this - AT ALL - and I think most would believe a LARGER welfare/war state would only make our problems much much worse.

Secondly, there is one pressing hurdle to making any of this work.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property00/jurisdiction/conflic...

The "Law" of Abridged contracts states that no man shall be forced into a contract he/she did not consent to or acknowledge.

It is quite explicit that the Federal Government wishes to either scam us, force us, or deceive us into an unwitting contract with a foreign corporation where we never signed over our consent.

This of course would be the Federal Reserve.

In addition to the taxation-based force system of the Federal Reserve, it presumes we want to:

"Pay" out half our wealth and wages to take care of ailing welfare recipients to the point of $1000 a month.....including all of their Medicaid insurance costs and expenses.

"Are obliged" to pay for completely useless, non-sensical Federal Government agencies like the EPA, FDA and AMA that tell us like children what to do with our own bodies.

Are "forced" to pay for the construction of Roads, Cities, Bridges, and huge pork-barrel projects by the Federal Government....when we could do away with all of this in one pen-stroke, by giving the state councils the authority to decide their OWN budgets & pay for their own toll/bus and policing services!!!

Have a "gun" pointed to our head in order to pay for the social education/indoctrination of the Public School system.....Which itself is a fraud apparently, that extorts willing "students" for billions of dollars in de-facto brainwashing classes....with the promise of a better job as a willing "corporate slave" from which they can extort the rest of their interest backed school loans like a dictator would!

On top of this, the "School Loans" program is far from optional!! It is discriminatory, authoritative and downright Nazi in how it forces conformity.

I don't wish to conform to a fraud. The US Government and Department of Education appear to be flat-faced, bold & willing frauds. Those who wish to buy into these frauds can go do so.

The rest of us should be free of the corrupt, non-sensical contracts of the Department of Education, Department of Agriculture and Troopers association....as well as the alphabet agencies.

They should have no jurisdiction in our cities, nor towns. They should all be forced out, the EPA downsized in power, and extreme criminal penalties put on corporations which hire illegal aliens & force pollution on the rest of us.

I'll tell you where pollution comes from: The Military Complex racket. 80% of pollution it seems, comes from coal industries...mining and the offices of Lockheed Martin in Pennsylvania. In PA alone, nearly 50% of everyone's savings is dumped into the Military Defense industry. Anyone who thinks this is sustainable is at a folly!

Shutting this racket down, would mean criminal penalties across the board for these people. Including criminal penalties for the EPA as far as I'm concerned by a Grand Jury. This is a complete and total joke.

For people to agree to a "contract", citizens have to agree to have a contract between each other. No one enters a legally binding contract unless they assign a statement of fact + evidence, appear in person and sign their signature. So far our entire legal system has been going the opposite way.

There is no "contract" needed if people respect each other's land, property and/or but out of their lives. Therefore why is the author advocating for a contract that would rule over others? Who wants to rule over others? We need less government, not more of it.

Is the author in favor of totaltarianism? To have contracts which you and everyone else must abide by, that is the definition of totaltarianism. How about we just have "private contracts" between "private parties" and leave the government out of it. Those who break the law as in British Petroleum, will be ruthlessly hunted & prosecuted by the courts. Not some fake mafia President.

Those who violate the law and rights of others, will face severe penalties. Police departments will cede their authority to a "natural" contract given to a free man if we actually follow the code here. There will be no unlawful, unrecognized contracts in our very city schools which are chartered by military doctrines. The Federal Reserve would have its charter revoked over every city municipality, in order for any sort of agreement to work.

http://teamlaw.net Indeed, there is no such thing as a "MUTUALLY AGREED TO" contract. By definition all parties must be informed, and the US citizens have been asleep. They were not informed. The contract is thereby revoked. It can NOT work to want to take care of every person or business & subsidize them under a "Liberty" banner. Libertarians who evoke this are no longer in line with freedom. We can not police what everyone does. If they want to "take" care of each other via private contracts, that is the role of Cities and Churches or non-profits. I don't agree with all their points: My point is, who decided that the Federal Government gets to weigh in on all contracts made in the USA? Who?