 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
It occurs to me that there is a moment at which an old concept is left behind in favor of an improved one during comparative analysis, and resistance against the process is an example of that process, as resistance to improvement in accurate perception becomes outdated.
That conceptualization occurred while viewing this:
Go to What is the Process of Reason.
Note:
Same link under Rule of Relation the image of concentric circles, or encompassed 3 dimensional spheres (looking with an imaginary third dimension), could have an outer layer called Distrust or even Criminal; whereby the (false) anarchists, or "Anarchists," Nihilists, Ungodly, or whichever specific viewpoint of those in that group from their own viewpoint or from a viewpoint within the inner layers, are labeling those in the outer layer, as in "within law" and "without law," and those in the outer layer are not "worthy" of trust by reasoning done regardless of which individual is applying, or failing to apply, reason.
Those outside of "The Box of Lawful conduct," so to speak, reason their way outside of Trust, as well as those inside the "Box of Law" trusting that those outside are to be distrusted as to their possible false claims of being inside said "Box of Law."
Here is where the term Anarchism shows up as either/or inside or outside said Box. If reading Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, and Lysander Spooner, all said to be Anarchists, leave the reader distrustful of their offers of voluntary knowledge, then my own judgment is such that said reader who distrusts those writers are the ones to be distrusted because of that expressed opinion, and a presumption of innocence from that point, upon that discovery of that distrust, the concept of willful intent could be discovered through further discovery of viewpoint through voluntary questioning (not forced confessions or demands made "under duress," threat or involuntary association forced upon the subject by the subjector of those questions).
In other words the sphere outside of the Trust sphere is the involuntary association sphere. Those who confess, honestly, that they are in that sphere are those who can be known as criminals, those who know they are forcing upon innocent people involuntary associations, and they are not inspired to hide the fact. Those who do not confess, those who hide the fact, also being criminals, enforce involuntary associations, upon the innocent, covertly. Those who enforce involuntary associations upon innocent people may also include those who are of a belief that they are helping their targets of enforcing involuntary associations may be considered by some, me in particular, as being misdirected people, suffering from false ideas, as if to say that a person can be helped by causing them injury: "In order to save them, I have to kill them. In order to free them, I have to enslave them." On and on.
Outside Sphere:
Criminals
1.
Willful Overt Criminals (Illegal Criminals)
Those who know they are destructive to life, consumers of life, and their enforcement of involuntary associations upon the innocent are overt acts done out in the open, nothing to hide, and there is no effort to falsely justify open, honest, crime, where the criminals takes what the criminal wants from the targeted victims honestly, consuming innocent victims for fun and profit. This group does not invent, create, and maintain Misled Agents of Willful Criminals.
2.
Willful Covert Criminals (Legal Criminals)
Those who know they are destructive to life, consumers of life, where their enforcement of involuntary associations upon the innocent victims are covert acts hidden behind false communications targeting the innocent victims which include the creation of Misled Agents of Willful Criminals who are led by those false communications produced by Willful Covert Criminals. The Willful Covert Criminals gain the lions share of fun and profits as the innocent victims are consumed, while the Misled Agents of Willful Criminals are kept alive only so long as they continue to serve the Willful Covert Criminals, and if a Misled Agent of Willful Criminals fails to obey (without question) the false communications, then a Misled Agent of Willful Criminals may then be targeted and consumed by Willful Covert or Willful Overt Criminals or the former Misled Agent of Willful Criminals may become either/or a Willful Covert or Willful Overt Criminal.
3.
Mislead Agents of Willful Criminals
Those who claim to be saving their innocent victims by enforcing involuntary associations upon their innocent victims so as to help, save, preserve, secure, benefit, their innocent victims fails. The misled, misdirected, enforcers of involuntary associations upon innocent victims consume those innocent victims, despite the honest goal of trying to help them. Despite all such false efforts to save them, the victims are consumed instead. The misled criminals may actually be consuming themselves as they view their own lives as complete failures, since the misled criminals can never reach their goal of saving their innocent victims as every attempt to save their innocent victims by consuming their innocent victims results in complete failure. Misled criminals (not for personal, exclusive profit) consume themselves due to their failure to realize that they are mislead. Misled Agents of Willful Criminals may also be those who are led by Willful Overt Criminals, and Willful Covert Criminals to consume other Willful Overt Criminals and Willful Overt Criminals.
Leadership within the outer sphere is inevitably those who consume the most by overt or covert means, and here is where it becomes obvious that the greatest power to consume life is FALSEHOOD, since the Willful Covert Criminals have leverage, advantage, or POWER, over Willful Overt Criminals.
Note:
Would the idea of a "thin blue line" be a small sphere in between the Trust Sphere and the outer Distrust Sphere, and in that Sphere is the violence common among criminals destroying other criminals for dominance over the supply of innocent victims?
When all hell brakes loose, with a prime example being the Pol Pot (financed by The Dollar Hegemony) reign of Willful Covert Crime in Cambodia, there is not longer an Trust other than the Trust that everyone, everywhere, will destroy everyone else, everywhere, or, in other words, the logical, reasonable, result of Might Making Right, or do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you, or Civilized Cannibalism, or any other words describing human life without The Golden Rule, or doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, or whatever words convey the realization that human life depends upon the POWER of honesty, and the POWER of trusting in the innocence of human existence. When all hell brakes loose, the illustration is then such that the outer (criminal) sphere consumes all the spheres inside of it.
Go to the Illustration labeled What is Law.
Relinking the link here
Early identification of lawful human existence is recorded as being Divine Law, as if human life at the beginning was such that it was common knowledge that the source of lawful human existence was not one human being having exclusive power over other human beings whereby the exclusive individual dictated what was or was not law upon those who had to obey those dictates without question, whereby failure to obey dictates by man upon man would result in some men enslaving, and consuming other men.
That can be understood as a move from Cannibalism, or Might making Right, to something better, something less destructive to human life.
The source of the power of law is then understandable as a mutual agreement to understand that the power of law does not originate from one man or from one group of men who then enforce their will upon everyone else, one group of men enslaving another group, recognized as being wrong, and recognizing that the source of the power of law was not inside man, because the obvious results of experience when one man, or one group make such claims of having the power to dictate law involuntarily.
So the emergence of the concept of law being a voluntary association arrives as an idea that is outside of human capacity to invent Law, so it is instead a concept of the human capacity to discover law.
Law by man upon man is destructive, so where can man find law?
Enter stage left (or right) the discovery of law.
What in ancient history is recorded as the discovery of law once it is abundantly clear that law cannot be the willful enforcement of one man, or one group, involuntarily overpowering the will of another man, or another group or men (and women of course)?
Early identification, or discovery, of The Rule of Law, was called Divine Law, and it matters not to me what other attributes are discovered by those doing the discovering at that time.
Law POWER (voluntary association) wears a white robe and has a beard, for example, is not the point.
The point, the focus, at this point is to point out that Rule of Law, or The Golden Rule, or Liberty, or no longer falling for the lie that Might makes Right, can be called Divine Law because it is a discovery that is outside of the confines of one individual person, or one group of individual people, themselves internally.
So that is the point of stating that Divine Law supersedes, or is more powerful than, the inferior, the less life sustaining, scientific law, which is the next layer inside the illustration of concentric spheres.
This is not that tough to understand for me because I've been working on this for a long time. Since I am such a simple person, however, being of no significant measure of higher intelligence, me being just an average Joe, I can relate the information that is complex, and I can offer it is a simple form.
Divine Law removes the inevitable errors of human perception, no longer can a claim of scientific discovery be used by a man or a group of men to be the source of power that justifies enslavement.
See?
An example could be a group of people who agree that no man can claim to have justified powers to enslave other men are cooperating, trusting each other, making life better and less miserably, raising standards of living, and lower costs of living, without many criminals consuming victims, without the high costs of defense against many criminals, without criminals consuming the innocent, and then as time goes by in this situation, there is a claim made by someone who claims to have power over other men, but a claim of divine power is false if Divine power has already be discovered as being outside of man, and a claim of scientifically justified power that gives one man, or one group of men, power over another man, or another group of men, scientifically justifying the enslavement and the consuming of the innocent, is still that same problem of having to nullify the previous existence of a discovery that no man can justify the consuming (cannibalism) of another man.
However, as can be easily proven with the scientific method, and human reason, human logic, the claim of "right" to enforce "might" (cannibalism with or without the false claim of cannibalism being civilized) mathematically proves to be unsustainable.
If it is right for the mightier to consume the less mighty then the logical result of that mode of operation is ubiquitous distrust of the mighty among us, as those less mighty must, logically, defend against the threat of being consumed by the obviously measurable few who are measurably consuming the most or largest number of victims, or, failing to defend (to become more mighty) results in being consumed. The obvious result of that mode of operation forced upon everyone by everyone else is the rapidly accelerating destruction of everyone until there are only two people left, and at that point either those two had better wise up, and they had better be male and female, or the human species ends when that Might makes Right Mode of behavior is used by one of the last two human beings as that one consumes the second to last one.
The discovery of voluntary association, or Liberty, as a Divine Law first, is therefore rediscovered by the true employment of The Scientific Method.
That covers those two concentric spheres.
There is listed in the link offered by Frank at UCADIA another layer (not illustrated as a sphere) called Edict.
Here again is both Divine Law and Scientific Law reinforcing the understanding that the Might of sound, true, leadership is recognizable by the many as the many are apt to elect wise/knowledgeable/trustworthy/experienced/and proven to be capable, or response-able, honest, account-able, powerfully productive, and powerfully defensive, intelligent, resourceful, maintainers of voluntary associations despite emerging problems. Those leaders among the many are then offered a measure of trust so long as those leaders prove to be worthy of trust in offering, in return, a suggested mode of specific, but voluntary, behavior, in the form of an Edict.
If an Edict is counter to Scientific Law, then that is one obvious test as to the validity of said Edict. If an Edict passes the test of Scientific Law but fails to pass the test of Divine Law, then there is a problem. If and Edit fails Scientific Law and Divine Law, there is a problem.
Are those who offer leaders the power to offer Edicts incapable of refusing to obey an Edict if said Edict opposes either, or, or both Scientific and Divine Law?
Note: Scientific Law can be understood as Natural Law (in my opinion)
The Declaration of Independence can be said to be an Edict, for example, whereby this particular Edict is in harmony with both Scientific Law and Divine Law.
The Constitution of The United States, being an Edict that claims that slavery is legal, and an Edict that claims that it is against the Law to resist Might making Right, then this example of an Edict is counter to both Scientific (Natural) Law and Divine Law, as proven by such actions as The Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation and subsequent kidnapping of slaves (conscription) into an Aggressive Army of Invaders for fun and profit, to crush money competitors in Pennsylvania, and the Alien and Sedition Acts and the subsequent kidnapping and injury of innocent people whose only "crime" was to report the facts that expose the crime perpetrated by the dictators who stole the power of moral law.
According to the Edict known as The Constitution those who wrote The Declaration of Independence, and all those following those offers of wise leadership, were criminals that must be punished or killed if they dared to question the demand for punishment.
I don't know how anyone can fail to see that obvious contradiction unless said person who fails to see that obvious contradiction is either willfully refusing to admit the obvious or is suffering from very destructive falsehoods (see Mislead Agents of Willful Criminals above).
Custom or Ceremony over time is the next layer within the confines of Edict.
There in those words are the misled people who have been lead to believe that Common Law is only one thing.
Common Law is both genuine and counterfeit, and failure to understand the difference here is a very serious part of being led into the group that are Misled Agents of Willful (Covert) Criminals. Just as the so called "Federalists" where in fact the Willful Covert Criminals behind the Usurpation of The Declaration of Independence so has Common Law been counterfeited from the original form into the Willful Covert Criminal form.
So beware.
Here are two sources of information on that Usurpation.
Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner
That is a report on the 13th Century employment of common law as a Custom or Ceremony that included Trial by Jury which was then based upon Sortition. Sortion (random selection) is the force of willful abuse of hand picking, or paying for, or commercializing, jurors NULLIFIED. In other words the use of random selection NULLIFIES the power to STACK THE JURY in favor of Rule by Man. So Sortition (used by Greeks in ancient Athens as far as I know at this time) is one Custom or Ceremony carried over from 500 BCE (BC) into 1200 CE (AD).
Here is where Frank at UCADIA offers information on the Usurpation of Trial by Jury and Common Law:
UCADIA/Positive Law/Common Law
Canon 2974 Common Law is an inequality system of law created by King Henry VIII and Venetian advisers in 1548 upon the complete remodeling ofthe Executive, Legislature and Judiciary Branches of Rule in England whereby the private Guild (Livery) of Judges and Notaries (from which the private Bar Associations were spawned) was granted royal warrant to convert judicial assemblies into their private courts (cautio) and for the rulings and judgments of the private Guild to take precedence over ancient customs of Anglo-Saxon law and rights, except those needed to make the law still technically function.
common” comes from 15th Century Latin communis meaning "to entrust, commit to a burden, public duty, service or obligation". The word was created from the combination of two (2) ancient pre-Vatican Latin words com / comitto = "to entrust, commit" and munis = "burden, public duty, service or obligation". Hence Common Law literally means “voluntary enslavement” or simply “lawful slavery”.
Think twice before employing the words Common Law, please, it may be better to use the words Scientific Law or Natural Law, and as explained above it may be a good idea to maintain the concept of Divine Law if for no other reason that Scientific Law or Natural Law does, in fact, support Divine Law (the opposite of the Might makes Right ongoing fraud).
Note: No definition provided for the word "culpable" in What is Due Process.
Culpability appears to have something to do with malice having not been established while action is accurately accountable to the accused.
Examining a "cause" or "affidavit" (or examining a solemn or sacred oath of testimony concerning fact) is required in due process (no "just kidding" or "my fingers where crossed" or "I don't remember what I said the accused did").
No definition offered for the meaning of the word transgression.
Returning to:
Restore Law
Moving to Trusts, Estates, Funds, and Corporations.
In the section What is title?
There is the use of the word equitable and I am very confused on the word equitable for reasons that can be offered at length.
I found the following definition:
Equitable Action
an action which may be brought for the purpose of restraining the threatened infliction of wrongs or injuries, and the prevention of threatened illegal action; case in which payment of money damages will not be adequate compensation
That is much more specific to a defensive use of force compared to my understanding of the term equity as I understand equity to be merely a voluntary agreement that is intending to avoid error during the voluntary agreement, such that no one volunteering to agree is "taken to the cleaners" in any measurable way, so that the end result is equity, fairness, liberty, justice, as being the precise, exact, opposite of iniquity.
Over many years, it seems, the word equity has been used in a word of specific meaning in context to law enforcement?
So I have my understanding of the meaning of the word Equity, which is based upon the work done by Josiah Warren in Equitable Commerce:
Equitable Commerce
UCADIA referencing Law Powers has a different definition that the one I use, where my use is derived from Equitable Commerce.
There is yet again another definition and it is a definition used in the following context:
Fitts
In that context the word is used as Equity Markets which means, as far as I can tell, a use of Legal Purchasing Power to finance processes that result in the production of valuable things, and therefore the concept of "equity" is the measure of how much those who have the finances are able to take as a percentage of the value being produced. In other words if there is only 10 units of actual value (equity) before the new use of the Legal Money is invested into creating more units of actual value, and if by the end of a period of time there is now 20 units of value, and those investors take all 10 units of new value, then that amount being taken is in that way called "Equity."
In Real Estate the word Equity is used as a word that intends to covey the accurate measure of how many units of legal money can be kept by the seller of a property after the seller of a property receives the sale price payment from the buyer, and then the seller pays off any costs owed by the seller (such as the mortgage), and that "profit" by the seller is considered as "Equity" in Real Estate Markets.
My confusion results from my use of the word Equity to mean the opposite of Iniquity, and if the word I use is unusable, because other people think the word means "profit" of some kind, then I am left with a confusion as to what word works when my intention is to convey, or communicate, or offer, a desire to focus attention on that which is the opposite of iniquity.
Liberty works as a word that is the opposite of iniquity, however Equity as a word that works as the opposite of iniquity, to me, is more fitting because the subject matter often leaves Politics behind (the psychological realm) and then there is an actual accounting to be done in the Economic (or commerce, or physical) realm.
So Economic Liberty, to me, is the same as saying Equitable Commerce, and I suppose that could be along the lines of defense by everyone against anyone being taken to the cleaners by anyone? Would that be a negative way to look at something that could just as easily be seen as a positive, especially when considering how mutually beneficial it is to cooperate compared to how mutually destructive it is to be antagonistic?
Next up is What is a Fund?
No definition provided for hypothecation.
Here is one taken from a Web source:
HYPOTHECATION, civil law. This term is used principally in the civil law; it is defined to be a right which a creditor has over a thing belonging to another, and which consists in the power to cause it to be sold, in order to be paid his claim out of the proceeds.
I have a very hard time with that because that appears to assume that a Lender is in some way FREE FROM LIABILITIES associated with risks involved in the practice of Purchasing Power Transfers. Why is the one who transfers the power to the other in any way less responsible for any losses resulting from that decision to transfer that power compared to the person who receives that transfer of power?
The obvious reason for all this type of nonsense is the Legal Money Monopoly, created through deceit, threat, and aggressive violence, is thereby able to destroy any competition in purchasing power transfers.
If there was competition, instead of monopoly, there would be a Market Force (many free choices among those choosing better from worse) that works to increase the quality of purchasing power transfers, and lowering the costs of the same products, processes, services, etc.
Instead of one money having only one source, where the one source can make money so scarce as to inspire people to pay any price to gain access to one unit of the ONE LEGAL MONEY, or starve for failing to do so, there would be instead, many offers by many competitive money suppliers, each finding the best investments, where the most productivity is found, and instead of money (purchasing power) scarcity, there would be a measurable increase reaching for abundance, as more power is used to create more power, instead of scarce power controlled by the few who use that power to steal from producers, and then invest that stolen power in the necessary work required to steal more power from the producers of power.
I am still stuck on What is a Fund?
There is a help in this confusion of mine in the form of a definition of the word Certificate:
From 14th Century Latin certificare meaning literally "to give permission, suffer in dispute/contention". From Latin certo = "to contend, settle, dispute, to settle by combat" and facio= "to give permission / to experience, suffer (troubles)". In modern legal terms, "a document containing a certified statement, or evidencing ownership or debt".
So the FUND appears to be the creation of a claim of ownership by a legal fiction known as a bank?
"Bank then issues its own Paper as guarantee for Payments of debts or exchange for lawful money."
So what is lawful money?
Why would I want a bank note, for anything, including as a exchange for my labor, or if I am selling something I will write for someone, or in exchange for something I make for sale, if instead of a bank note I can get something I can measure as being as valuable as that which I am selling. Why would I want a bank note? Why would I want lawful money for that matter?
Why would I want anything other than measurable value that is as valuable as that which I offer in exchange?
Where does the need, or want of, or desire for, a bank note, or legal money originate?
I do not demand any of it, so who does?
Who demands bank notes, or lawful money, so as to then inspire someone else to produce bank notes, or lawful money?
I don't, so who does?
Where is this person, or this group of people, who desire the production of bank notes, and lawful money, and can they answer the question of why, why do you want those things produced? What is the reasoning behind the production of those bank notes, and that legal money?
Next is the Will an Testament of the Estate. I was speaking with someone and I offered my understanding of having a Testament whereby there is produce a record of Stewardship and in that record a human being declares to anyone claiming anything that the human being is independent, not owned by anyone else, so the idea here is an individual Declaration of Independence written by, produced by, and employed by an individual human being.
Such a thing as this could be a few words on a piece of paper such as "I do not agree that any other human being owns me."
I don't need to confess any religious beliefs, all I need to do is to declare my independence from false Gods claiming ownership of me, when those false Gods, who are merely human beings, are contacting me and making false demands upon me, based upon lies that somehow they own me, and that somehow I have in any way agreed to such nonsense.
If you are merely another human being, then you do not own me, if you are in fact God, then you don't need to prove that you own me, so your claims are in fact inculpatory evidence proving the fact that you are not God, and therefore you do not own me.
A personal testament to me is a personal Declaration of Independence.