 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
What about organized crime? What about organized crime under the color of law?
What warrants action by someone in time and place to act in defense against malicious aggression?
What if the malicious aggressors are constituted by an agreement made by each individual, each individual promises on their honor to aid and abet their fellow malicious aggressors? Each individual constitutes an organized unit of malicious aggressors who put themselves into bondage by that voluntary agreement to aid each other so as to reach the goal of malicious aggression. Is it treason to opt-out of that group once you join it voluntarily?
What if the cost of failing to be maliciously aggressive is to have your individual body turned out of the protection of the maliciously aggressive group, and turned instead into the targeted victim group? Is that treason?
What if the original definition of treason is an errant will applied to an errant act that disturbs the peace of any individual who vows solemnly to avoid that malicious will and avoid that aggressive act, someone who keeps his promise to avoid those malicious thoughts and those harmful acts? So - in that case - the treasonous criminal is the one who willfully, with malice aforethought, aggressively attacks an innocent individual, and in that individual case, that individual attacker disturbs the peace that is founded upon simple concepts such as to do unto others as one would have others do unto one's self. Is that treason instead of the other definition of treason explained previously?
There, then, are two working definitions of treason.
One definition of treason could work for each individual that constitutes a collection of individuals whose will follows the action that is strictly defensive, and the willful offenders are thereby accurately accountable as those guilty of treason by their willful, malicious, aggression.
Everything in that definition is strictly voluntary as each individual can, at will, remain within that lawful conduct, doing only onto others as each individual would have others do to themselves. Those who don’t agree, go outside that law, and those outlaws commit that treason when they specifically, and with malice aforethought, do onto others what they would avoid at all cost having that same thing done to themselves. The outlaws, outside that law, cut each other’s throats because that is what they choose to do regularly.
A few things are voluntary in the other definition such as when the individual chooses to make a victim out of an innocent individual; of course, the victim does not volunteer to be one. That definition of treason is also voluntary when an individual chooses to join that organized group of willful consumers of innocent victims; assuming of course that the volunteer has any idea as to what is being joined. Once an individual joins that group - voluntarily or by extortion - it is treason to unjoin it.
"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors." Proverbs 1
“If treason or felony be committed, and one hath just cause of suspicion, this is a good cause, a warrant in law, for any man to arrest the person suspected, but he must shew certainly the cause of his suspicion be just or lawful, shall be determined by the justices in an action of false imprisonment brought by the party grieved, or upon an habeas corpus, &c.”
British Liberties, or the Free-born Subject’s Inheritance
Printed by H.Woodfall and W. Strahan, 1766’’
“Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime.”
Englishman’s Right
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A BARRISTER at LAW AND A JURYMAN
Printed in the Year MDCCLXIII. (1762)
I looked into Treason in America by Anton Chaitkin and found these warnings:
{Treason in America: from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman}
“The weakness in this book, and to me it’s a considerable one, is the idolization of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.”
I have read my fill of the works that originate from the members of The Cult of Might Makes Right. It is the same basic concepts regurgitated, rationalized, apologized, excused, etc. Am I wrong in that case?