 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
No Guns
The Secret Service doesn't need guns. Look at the bad record it has. Even with guns, we've lost more heads of state than any industrial nation I can think of. If somebody tries to shoot the president, the agents can stand in front of him. Whether they do so promptly or with slow deliberation will probably depend on the personality of the president. It's safer that way for everyone concerned.
How about early democracies?
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm
“The Saxons, who subdued Britain, as they enjoyed great liberty in their own country, obstinately retains that invaluable possession in their new settlement; and they imported into this island the same principles of independence, which they inherits from their ancestors. The chieftains, (for such they were, more than kings or princes,) who commanded them in those military expeditions, still possessed a very limited authority; and as the Saxons exterminated, rather than subdued the ancient inhabitants, they were, indeed, transplanted into a new territory, but preserved unaltered all their civil and military institutions. The language was pure Saxon; even the names of places, which often remain while the tongue entirely changes, were almost all affixed by the conquerors; the manners and customs were wholly German; and the same picture of a fierce and bold liberty, which is drawn by the masterly pen of Tacitus, will suit those founders of the English government. The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community.” --- 1 Hume, Appendix, 1.
The King today can snatch up anyone the King wishes on a whim.
There is a cause and effect going on.
I am non-violent. I do not solve problems with offensive violence. No one does. Violence is a problem.
Look at this insurance scam idea which caused the author much trouble:
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm
"At the Village Pizza shop, as they were sitting down to consume a pepperoni, Dorothy asked Jim, 'So what other inventions are you working on?" Jim replied, 'I've got a new idea, but it's really evolutionary. Literally REVOLUTIONARY.' 'Okay, Jim, which government are you planning to overthrow?,' she asked, playing along.
'All of them,' answered Jim."
If the reader reads all the links above and the reader isn't connecting the dots, then, I can elaborate.
During the early democracy in England the King was forced to allow Trial by Jury where any one 'legal' person could veto any prosecution and therefore any law. Then, during that time, a 'legal' person was someone who could pay the tax of Jury Duty and military duty if called upon (someone who also produced enough wealth to own land) and such a person was called a Freeholder. The principle being that anyone protected by these laws must prove his ability to protect these laws. Not her. The battle for recognizing free women as free came later - and it is still going on.
One of the laws of the land (not the Kings laws certainly) put a bounty upon the Kings killer. Think about that a moment while I elaborate on Jim Bell's revolution.
Jim Bell's revolution is merely a written observation of what already exists in modern finance. An example is the case of "Put Options" placed upon the Airline companies involved in 911 BEFORE 911 happened. Think of the term "Selling Short" and your brain may begin recognizing the principles invovled.
Jim Bell's revolution is here already in the form of encrypted (and therefore secure) information. An example is a program that you may buy and that program must be unlocked with a key. Many more examples exist in the revolution of communication. Think in terms of who controls the barriers. Who has the power to stop and start the flow of commerce? Does the King have that power exclusively?
I can elaborate more; however - the reader should read the links first.
And what would the world be without humor?
Moving right along, how about the technologically-challenged? "Can you set the clock on a VCR?" Hah! Gotcha! Trick question. Nobody uses a VCR anymore. We all have DVD players. So, if you answered either "no" or "yes" to the question, clearly that means you are non compos mentis. No brainee, no votee.
From:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/chartier/chartier79.html
Last edited on Sat Jun 23rd, 2007 12:24 pm by Joe Kelley