"The philosophy I am referring to is the idea or belief that the system was designed to be corrupt from the beginning, which is false."
Here is where the incpulpatory evidence can either prove the case, to any reasonable person, beyond a reasonable doubt, or the Think Tank turns out to be more like a Stink Tank.
Those who stink of crime are those who invent, produce, and then maintain their involuntary associations upon their targeted subjects, and I can add that their targeted subjects are often innocent of any wrongdoing since their targeted subjects are often happy enough to go on living their lives as free people working within strictly voluntary associations.
Don't tread on me. (a warning of sorts)
So how does a targeted subject who would be very happy to exist, for their entire lives, within a strictly voluntary association, know, how does one IN Liberty know when one IN Liberty is being targeted by one of those stinky types?
Those stinky types arrive at the door with an offer you can't refuse.
Is that difficult to know?
No thanks, Mr. Stinky, I prefer voluntary associations, and no amount of magic produced by you will hide the fact that your offer is subject to disagreement. Your offer is disagreement, and in no way can I agree to it, so be on your way.
But you won't go, will you?
You will send your criminals you invest in with your payments to your Cabal, and they will have their way with me at your pleasure, in ways that disgust me, growing more stinky by the minute.
OK, so you go back under your rock, and you send employees to do your dirty work, not you, of course not you, so I never actually face the source of my trouble, the trouble you purchase with your stinky involuntary association investments that pay off, pay you, so many benefits, while it lasts, at least until it is your turn to be on the wrong end of the stick you make.
Once we may end up in the same fox hole, perhaps it is unlikely, but not totally impossible, once your invention, your investments, your creations, your Involuntary Associations bite the hands, your hands, that feed it, stupidly, ignorantly, or willingly, knowingly, and therefore very evil on your part, whatever, once in the same hole, under that same rock, of your making, but on the wrong end of the stick by then, you and I, thick as thieves at that point, we are then on the same side, and what a surprise to one of us, you, while I've been here all along, at least knowing the the stick has no good side.
Please take your stinky stick and point it as someone else, I'm not your willing subject.
Oh, but you and your army say otherwise, I'm sure I'll get to that while I continue reading more from the book of Falsehoods.
This was on a new page:
What else is there in this book of Falsehoods?
"Monarchies can be very benevolent, leaving its people alone, the government type isn't the problem."
I'll be damned if you didn't take that right out of The Prince or Morals and Dogma, but I'll be damned anyway because of your kind, and your ways, and your means, so, perhaps, you are making this up on the fly, with no need of references.
Your kind think alike, act alike, and it is actually very predictable, monopolistic to be precise.
"Also the point of the post is not to seek the legitimacy of the court, but to use the system as it's already designed, corrupt or not. There are still certain things they cannot say or do, without exposing the corruption or lies."
Ahhhh, excuse me, I'm raising my hand off in the corner of this dicatation going on here, wave, wave, wave, yes me over here, the one not signing onto all this falsehood, here, here, pick me, here, over here.
Ahhhhh, so you won't listen, sure, I get that, but I'll speak anyway, so long as your Involuntary Association Routines have not yet run their predictable course, censoring all but the ONE voice, "they" in this case is you, precisely you, so you can either explain who "they" are, and then arrive at you, or you can go on spewing the lies.
"The fact its been united AS a single power, could work in our favor. Depending on the the cases they take, we can force their hand."
That type of duplicity only works in the minds of the insane, or the criminals, I don't know, what to call them without offense, how about in the minds of bureaucrats, will that tone down the offense to a manageable level?
The bureaucrat, that being you at this point, can't at one moment divorce themselves from voluntary association as you did in the beginning of your reply, and then moments later join back into the voluntary association, and expect to earn any credit of any authority over anything honorable or honest.
Either you are one of the enforcers of Involuntary Association, I know them to be criminals, but you can don the label of bureaucrat, if you prefer to hide behind that false front, you will still be a criminal doing what all criminals do, with or without the bureaucrat hat, wear it, as you claim to wear it, call it anything you wish, but you call it, you join in on the fun, and profit, or whatever reasons you dream up to join it, this Involuntary Association, you join it, one minute, and that is what you do, and then the next minute we are somehow on the same side?
What did you say?
You were the one who wrote this:
You discredit actual factual reporting of the facts, and for the moment I can be left out of that blast if destruction of your invention, and the targets of your aggressive falsehoods can be aimed at George Mason, Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, and Robert Yates. They are dead, so you dishonor their legacy, fine, I can take the hit, since they are dead. So your words twist my reporting of facts into a nebulous "philosophy," and your claim is that said "philosophy" is, in your word "false."
So, therefore, as far as I am concerned, I have lost credibility, sure, and rightly so, excepting that it is not "philosophy" it is National Debt if "it" can be summed up in two words.
It, National Debt, is not "philosophy" and it is as false as the actual movement of power flowing from those who produce anything worth stealing, flowing perpetually, or for at least a few centuries, to those who steal by way of false things.
So, you attack the facts, and I get in the way, the facts are what they are, and I am who I am, and you do what you do, with more of the same lies that prop up the crime of the past two centuries, and then you write this:
This Think Tank now really stinks to High Heaven.
You expect company in your self imposed Involuntary Association built upon the lies that were told over 200 years ago, and the lies you tell now?
It is not really, seriously, possible for you to expect company is it?
What you will do is, based upon your confessions right here, is routine, you will force your targets to obey, because that is your way, and if you have company, fellows who abide by the same lack of rules, saying one thing one minute, and then the opposite things the next, whatever works to get whatever pleases you, then that honor among your group of thieves only lasts as long as there are ready victims who produce anything worth stealing, and then suddenly, we are all happy campers in the same fox hole?
"Evil or not, we will work in the current system to fix the problem."
Your system is crime made legal, there are no boundaries to it, other than whatever you invent for the moment, that is your system as you confessed in the initial response right here:
Of course your version of "we" will work within the System, there is no boundary to it, and that is the design of it, despite the Bill of Rights added to it, it is boundless by anything other that the will of any criminal happening upon it, to be used at their exclusive pleasure, upon anyone foolish enough to pay the extortion fees.
"The founders knew it could be taken over, and did what they could to leave the system as open as possible for reclamation."
Delusions? Confessions? What are those words, when already you dismiss, with slight of hand, the words of Patrick Henry, George Mason, Luther Martin, and Robert Yates, to name only four people, there at the time, and what were these people, conspiracy theorists, terrorists, rabble, rebels, what, if not people constituting that group called founders?
"Many of the founders themselves were anarchists and did not want the Constitution ratified."
Name one anarchist. This is the false labeling routine so common among the criminals, I mean bureaucrats, and the proof of such a routine is easy to see, if anyone cares to look, as those who were for Criminal Government called themselves Federalists and those who were for a Democratic Federated Republic, or Confederation, were labeled by the Federalists as Anti-Federalits, which was a bold faced lie.
For those who may want to get out of the Stink Tank and breath some, and find out what the founders wanted, here is a good source:
"These are the anarchists I was referring to, I said today, but i meant the full duration of our nation."
Names, an actual person, exemplifying who you mean to target with your prejudice, may help in communicating the facts, if that is your goal, to communicate the facts.
"The specific problem I was referring to with anarchists, is that the whole concept is unfeasible."
Cutting that off at that sentence it can be accurately identified that there is a tactic used often, as if routine, by the, the, the, what is the word I am looking for, the bureaucrats, yea, that is the nicer word, that word will do well, I suppose, even though the word is a False Front, I'll use the word so as to be nicer, so these bureaucrats routinely create a Man of Straw, and that Man of Straw, being their creation, is created by them as a very weak fellow, a Man made of Straw, very weak person indeed, so that, the idea here, the routine here, is to then have the POWER to destroy, just kill, ruin, tear apart, this poor excuse for a man.
So the bureaucrat, the Involuntary Association type, like pornography you know it when you see it, does this routine, get it?
They create this poor, weak, defenseless, Man of Straw, and then the bureaucrat tears that poor thing to shreds.
Neat trick huh?
"I agree with the majority of founders who said we need a limited support structure to act as a threat to ward off others."
I am not a Man of Straw. I can volunteer to be one of the anarchists, so long as I get to define what is, or is not anarchism. I can defend against any misconceptions concerning the quote above.
I am warding off attacks being invented by "others" at this time and I will call this other person a bureaucrat because I am trying to be nice about my defense against falsehoods that are invented by bureaucrats, and used by bureaucrats, and bureaucrats aid, and abet, lend moral support to, and lend material support to fellow bureaucrats who create those falsehood so as to create a working Involuntary Association; wasn't it Ron Paul who spoke of malinvestments?
Whenever there are a bunch of these bureaucrats working to create an Involuntary Association there will always be, without exception, a person, and then another person, and then anther person who constitutes the subjects of, or the targets of, or those who do not volunteer to be in, these Involuntary Associations created by these bureaucrats. Take this person I'm dealing with now, or take Alexander Hamilton who was dealt with by Robert Yates and Luther Martin, and defend against these examples of bureaucrats with the hidden attacks hidden behind benevolent offers of nebulous benefits, defend against such attacks which did occur, do occur, and will occur, were documented then, are documented now, as my defense against attacks are now being documented right here in these words.
It is said that the truth will set you free, but bureaucrats do not stop at mere false words. Bureaucrats do not stop at merely constructing a Man of Straw to tear down figuratively. What they are after, in fact, demonstrated by their actions, not by their words, what they will get, if there is no defense against them, is anything produced by their targets, anything worth stealing. They do not stop at Fraud, the move to Threats of Violence, and then they move to Violence to get what pleases them.
"Anarchy is like Marxism, if everyone agrees to do it, it would work, but it's just not feasible, because it allows the corrupt to gain control of others to easily, but that's a whole different discussion."
Wow, this is like the lead up to a bad joke. I have not read ahead, but I think what happens next is the apology for aggressive violence as the aggressor justifies his attack upon the innocent victim who just happens to have something worth stealing.
Wait for it...
"However, the point was not to ponder the legitimacy of it all, but simply answer if the government would acknowledge an individual right of secession."
Now that was anti-climatic.
I think this bureaucrat wanna-be is a very poor candidate, perhaps he ought to rethink some on his words published earlier:
There is hope.