 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2858263 :
In post: Abortion: The Great Divide - What should be the position of the next Liberty Presidential Candidate? Why?
In reply to comment: Morality and Liberty (see in situ)
Problems
Submitted by Josf on Fri, 12/07/2012 - 16:11. Permalink
"Is it a problem that non tax payers vote?"
The problem is that the culture has grown up in a world were crime is legal. Whey you say tax payers, for example, do you mean victims or investors?
I say "tax payers" with quotes, because the taxes are not taxing people, the taxes are stealing from victims or, in cases where the transfer of earnings is voluntary, the taxes are not taxing those people, instead, the taxes are investments.
Person A versus Person B versus Person C as follows.
A says: "If the money I earned goes to someone who then murders babies in wombs, or babies in wombs living in a church in Waco, then I will not send any more of my earnings to murderers, since that makes me an accomplice, aiding and abetting, lending moral and material support to enemies of all that is good."
Person A is a victim if Person A is forced to pay those taxes or pay taxes of a different nature, such as being forced to go to the Gulag, be raped, beaten, or murdered, or just spending "time out" of Liberty watching television, who knows, the sign says Obey, or Pay, and there is fine print that says "without question".
Person B, on the other hand, knows better morally, internally, in what is left of human conscience, but any outward communication that may signal to other people that questions are being asked internally, may, fearfully, and terribly, cause that person tons of stress, so internal power is spent destroying the internal power to judge right from wrong, so Person B goes along to get along, reading from the script, each new day, without question.
Person C, yet again altogether different, pretends to pay taxes, while keeping two sets of books, one set of books to remain in business, to balance the income and costs, while knowing the nature of the game, to do unto other people before they have a chance to do unto me, and so the idea is to cheat, steal, and that is an investment, pretending to pay taxes, while creating and employing every conceivable loop hole, and at the same time promoting the concept of forcing other people, less inclined to "join em", to pay "their fair share" or else.
Your question again:
"Is it a problem that non tax payers vote?"
In the legal crime world, the world we live in, the world we were born into, the concept of tax is a synonym for the concept of extortion. If victims of extortion vote, what are they voting for, exactly? More victimization? The lesser of two evils?
If from cradle to grave a person like Ben Bernanke, a typical welfare mama, or papa, who knows these days, but typical welfare baby, anyway, draining the productive capacity of those who actually produce, do not pay taxes, they are on the receiving end of the extortion racket, so they don't pay taxes, but do they vote?
Does Ben Bernanke and any lesser well paid welfare babies vote?
Is that your question?
"Is it a problem that non tax payers vote?"
People who don't work for dollars, but are paid in some way, somewhere, in America, avoiding any transfers of earnings by never allowing the hooks of The Dollar Hegemony to sink in, votes?
Does that person vote? Is that the question?
What do you mean by voting? Do you mean spending an afternoon punching a hole in a card that will not be counted? Is that what you mean?
I'm not buying the premise of the question - at all.
"Is it a problem that non tax payers vote?"
If you can offer up an example of what you mean by the term non tax payer, a person with a name, then it can be understood better what your question intends to answer - with an accurate answer.
I think the problem is expressed this way:
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
The Criminals have taken over, so the problem is not enemies foreign and domestic, so much as the enemies are between our own ears.
Like this:
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
There is no tax paying, it is all fraud, extortion, or criminals making risky investments that pay well.
There is no voting either, it is all fraud, extortion, or criminals making risky investments that pay well.
___________________________________________
"So...how do We The People emulate, nurture, and encourage any good behavior? "
According to Ben Franklin and his letter to T. Paine, prosperity was not the answer, but the answer lay in religion
___________________________________________
If natural human thinking and actions are synonymous with almost every religion, then why is there two words for the same thing?
If Ben Franklin or you, or anyone, views a person doing bad things and your conclusion is that the person needs religion, then you mean something specific, not just a word, you don't mean that the word religion is tattooed on the errant individuals forehead, or that his name is removed and a new name, this religion name, is put in place of his old name. You mean specific things common to people who mean the same specific things, moral things, such as your Gold Rules ideas, such as the moral things written in the scriptures you believe.
If the moral things are the same moral things, then they are the same moral things, no matter what name is used to communicate the moral things.
Christian Religion, the moral things, were the thoughts and actions employed by many of those so called Founding Fathers, the honest ones, and counterfeit versions of moral things, like campaign promises told in The Federalist Papers, to be broken of course, were falsely claimed, moral things falsified, by people in that same group called Founding Fathers, so confusing thoughts and deeds with names, such as Christianity, is risky, in my opinion.
We have gone over this before, since Christianity was the false front cover story for such things as the Crusades and the Inquisition; which are hardly well representative of moral things.
"So your words in conjunction with those offered by Franklin may be the reason the Bible was removed from schools so as to create a society lacking in morals…part of the farming scheme of the rats for profit?"
What do you think the Prison System is in this country? They are farming criminals. Those who don't fit into K1 through K12, for example, have to be indoctrinated in some manner, or else what?
What happens if people aren't "governed" to think immorally?
Might stops making right?
This:
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Heaven forbid?
As to your conversations with other people whereby you and the other person are speaking as if the National Level Crime Spree is legitimate in any sense of the word: I don't do that, so it has nothing to do with me, so I'll be a wet blanket in that party you are having with that person.
"Are you saying that it is none of anyone’s business and people should direct their power toward their own families and not the plight of the unborn?"
Not at all. I'm not the one dictating to other people what they can do with their power since I know better. People have power, and one of the powers people have is the power to employ their power - without my help.
Government is often confused with crime made legal, I don't do that, so you think I do, every single time. Why?
I don't.
I think government is the method by which people effectively avoid being victims AND avoid being criminals.
I think that murder is murder and if I had the power to help other people then I'd help them avoid becoming murdered and becoming murderers, so had I that POWER to help them govern that way, would I hold back?
No.
I'd help them self-govern a way to avoid being murdered or being murderers.
Why would I not do so, if it were in my power to do so?
Your question again:
"Are you saying that it is none of anyone’s business and people should direct their power toward their own families and not the plight of the unborn?"
I thought you knew me better than that by now, but old prejudices persist?
Nice, very nice, link to Ron Paul - thanks a million - that link it is a precious idea well communicated by Ron Paul.
So, if you are moral, human, a person with a conscience, then the deliberate, willful, murder of babies is a self-governing thing first, then a family thing, then a religious thing, why would there ever be a demand for a city ordinance, let alone a state law, let alone a supposed "National" law, or a Global Law?
Murder is wrong.
Is that a problem unique to babies?
No, this is an upside down world where fraud is legal.
Slavery was made legal in 1788.
Torture is legal.
Mass murder for lower gas prices is legal.
So the baby murder legal thing is thrown in too.
Sure.
Why is that confusing at all?
The "owners" of the "free world" are very evil criminals.
They may actually eat babies like Alex Jones reports.
Welcome to Earth?
Is it better to go back to sleep?
Cities are larger legal entities, that never should exist, except IN Liberty. What happens when they go bad?
You could have a Bad City contrasted with a Good City, if a Good City existed, but they don't, because the criminals took over at the TOP in 1788.
Crap rolls down hill.
It isn't any business of the Federal Employees to dabble in local murders, of babies, or Churches full of people in Waco, they are hired to deal with very large criminal armies and if they can't do that right then fire them.
Then you have a State, or mini-Democratic Federal Government, where the State is employed to secure Liberty against large armies of criminals, and if one State isn't big enough to fend off the very large army of criminals, then maybe 13 Separate States can manage to throw out the largest criminal army on the planet, that actually happened under The Articles of Confederation.
Why is it a concern of anyone hired at the State level or even the Federal level, or even the World level, if a single woman is somehow convinced that it is a good idea to murder a baby?
It is not, so then, whose job is it to help govern the actions of women who are being led down a very destructive path through life?
Not my job?
Who has that job?
The individual connected in some way to that pending abortion has that job, so make a license yourself, make an oath yourself, pray on your own volition, get up, go to that woman, and see if you can help her govern her own actions better than murdering babies.
How is that confused with this:
"Are you saying that it is none of anyone’s business and people should direct their power toward their own families and not the plight of the unborn?"
The State or The Federal Government can't think or do anything, those who currently counterfeit a State or a Federal Government murder babies for fun and profit, so what do you think the percent likely hood chance is of those people at the State and Federal Level of counterfeit government, what is the chance that they will stop murdering babies for fun and profit if you ask nicely for them to please stop WHILE you give them every calorie of your POWER that you earn that you cannot hide from them?
Null
"IMO What Ron Paul is saying is that any life not worth protecting will soon be yours."
Common sense, sure, I get that too, it isn't about pushing babies in front of you on the conveyor going into the meat grinder, so as to buy another day of terrible and miserable life on earth, it is about life being precious enough to preserve and reproduce, to increase the quality and lower the cost, for eternity.
I thought we covered this, but maybe not, as my view is such that there is a willful effort by those in POWER to destroy the will to live in their victims, this is hand and hand in harmony with destroying POWER so that the victims do not have the POWER to resist. A basic human POWER is to preserve the species, to ensure that human life goes on, and that common sense is being eroded, being destroyed, on purpose.
Depression probably hits women more than men because women are designed better at nurturing babies, which is a stronger POWER to preserve human life, compared to men. So...the effort to destroy that drive, in many ways, very scientifically perfected methods, to destroy that drive to live as individuals, and that drive to perpetuate the species, probably hits women much harder than men.
It is not natural, it is man-made, criminal man made, unnatural destruction of the will to live, and the will to perpetuate the species. It is easy to see once you know how it works.
So...absent that Legal Crime culture, all those lies, and all that torture, and all that murder, for 200 years, at least, absent that, would it not make sense that more people would care a little more if someone they knew was contemplating the murder of a baby?
No?
Let's dress the kids that we didn't abort up in uniforms and see if they can lower our gas prices?
"The abortion issue is an issue because it is meant to be an issue because it is another slippery slope whereby life and individualism is snuffed out, thus the snuffing of Liberty."
If it is a counterfeit or "Federal" issue (note the quotes), then it is a diversion. The actual problem is baby murder, so that exists, but to make any connection between the criminals running the "Federal" government and any intent to act morally is a grave error on your part, in my opinion.
Ron Paul is the exception, not the rule.
"Thus, liberty is dependent upon protecting life while it is that same jeopardizing of liberty resulting in despotism that causes the demise of life."
It is not a concern for the specialists hired to overpower large armies of criminals, or The Federal Government, which did exist under The Articles of Confederation.
Now there is a Consolidated Government or Legal Crime Cabal, and it is past time to be accurate with words - in my opinion.
—
Joe