Comment: Subject to higher quality and lower cost

(See in situ)

Subject to higher quality and lower cost

Here is this:
"However, it is worth noting that the slavery issue was not created in 1787 it was only acknowledged as valid property rights that already had jury determinations behind it."

Before that there was this:

Antifederalist No. 15


This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman's Journal; (Or, The North-America Intelligencer?)

The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.

They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.

The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes-the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) -- would be doubled or trebled. The liberty of the press is not stipulated for,and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury.

The owners of people, criminals, saw the writing on the way with Shays's Rebellion, since the people in Vermont were not willing to return runaway slaves. The people in Rhode Island similarly disposed, as were those people in Pennsylvania.

So this happened:

"The "dirty compromise" of the Convention was taking shape. The South Carolina delegation would support the commerce clause if New England would support a prohibition on export taxes and a protection for the slave trade. This understanding solidified during the next two weeks."

If a jury is stacked with people who claim to own people (criminals) then the victims are victims of juries stacked with people who claim to own people.

"One may not challenge the slave owner out of fear and ignorance and then silence is consent."

I do not know what that means.

What do you mean by silence is consent?

If I can effectively defend an innocent victim with a loud forceful shout of the word NO when a criminal begins to get busy inflicting injury on an innocent victim, and I know this, then my silence can be understood as willful consent.

1. I shout and the criminal stops, runs, whatever, and I know that will happen.

2. I know that my shouting will stop the criminal yet I do not shout, and the criminal perpetrates the crime.

What do you mean by challenge a slave owner (criminal) out of fear and ignorance?

Do you own someone? If you do I can ask if you could explain what that means, and then I won't be ignorant concerning what you say when asked a question.

Do I need someone to tell my that owning people is a false claim?

Control is a more accurate word. So I can ask someone why they chain someone up. Why they whip someone when someone is not doing productive work. Is that about as useful as asking why someone lies?

What is a challenge to a slave owner?

The slave fears the slave owner because slaves tend to be hanging from trees?

Why master, why do you hang so many people from trees?

"Well it is for your own good of course."

I am having some trouble understanding those words:

"One may not challenge the slave owner out of fear and ignorance and then silence is consent."

Perhaps you mean that someone incapable of challenging a criminal because someone is overcome with fear, and overcome with ignorance as to how to challenge a criminal, and then that same one may be falsely accused of consenting to criminal injury of victims because someone is silent, so fearful, and so ignorant, that someone does not so much as whisper "no" in their sleep?

"One may challenge but acknowledge the validity of their own slavery without knowing they did it."

That sentence is similarly difficult to understand. One can challenge, or not challenge, and that can happen either way. I see no way to acknowledge the validity of their own slavery. What is the meaning of the word validity? A slave is a victim and if a victim validates whatever was victimization, then it is no longer victimization according to them, such as what, Stockholm Syndrome?

Take someone, literally control them, kidnap, chain up, render powerless to proceed on their own will, then keep them long enough to break their will, then that is called validation?

"One may challenge but acknowledge the validity of their own slavery without knowing they did it."

Did what?

1. They challenged, they knew they did it, they challenged someone, perhaps they challenged a criminal.

2. They acknowledge the validity of their own slavery without knowing they did it?

Is that Stockholm Syndrome? That past is forgotten and now I love my chains?

Those who love their chains pay people to improve the chains when the chains break. That is not slavery. That is not crime. That is people loving chains and paying people to improve the chains when the chains break.

Another may challenge and restore their freedom. All of these scenarios happened.

People perpetrate crimes, sure, and some people figure out how to avoid it. Slavery is a good thing to avoid, from the slaves point of view. Slavery is happy days for those who love it? Why would a slave think in terms of restoring freedom? How about thinking about crime prevention instead? Here are those criminals, here are a few ways to avoid them, spread the word, and a few less slaves may be the result.

"Any set of parties can implement government(s) how they see fit and even that capacity acknowledges this fact in their law."

I'm not sure what that means either. If criminals are roaming, and victims are piling up, or victims are finding themselves in chains, being whipped, working very hard for the privilege of being whipped, and a set of parties can implement government, how they see fit, then what exactly is implemented while the criminals are roaming, and the victims are piling up, and victims are finding their way into these work parties?

"Other People had and will always have their own power to institute (or not) government(s) but the Golden Rule is forever playing itself out so that those people that accept unlawful laws only get the divine inspiration that they have wished upon others."

To me that is the logical result of the idea I get from the term The Golden Rule. If someone wants to be a slave then someone will enslave other people, as violence inspires more violence, just like a liar will lie with an obvious result that the lies will blow back, so a liar must want to be lied to, that is how things work.

Do onto others and what can be expected to be done unto you?

"If one believes they can force the rules of a contractual capacity onto others who are not party to the agreement or not under that capacity then they will receive the divine inspiration that will shape their nature to bring that."

Call it "force the rules of a contractual capacity onto others" and if it is merely crime, then why call it something other than crime?

If someone wants to be a criminal, wants to perpetrate crimes, then it is not that tough to figure out that the victims may be easier to enslave if the criminal lies about it, disarming the victim, luring the victim into a false sense of security. Is that shape shaping up? And what can be expected with the criminal lies so as to enslave victims? The criminal is soon unable to tell the truth, know the truth, see the truth, and the criminal is then enslaved by his own lies?

"Others who seek consistency in law without prejudice will enable the divine inspiration to access the divine protections of law."

Accurately accounting for the difference between the criminals and the victims may help?

"So the tender laws never claimed applicability to the People party to that contract and it never claimed applicability to anyone other than those who operate inside its capacity. So there never was any claims of monopoly over tender except for THAT contractual entity."

According to your personal accounting efforts?

But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.

Hamilton knew the score. In order to enforce a Central Banking Monopoly there had to be a demand created for the ONE money. No competitors allowed.

Why do you think Washington went into Pennsylvania?

I have a Conference Call to attend. I can return to this welcome reply.