 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
John,
I was a member of the John Birch Society until it was obvious to me that it was a top down organization.
The definitions of Anarchy and Democracy are contrived; they are useful to the people at The John Birch Society in demonizing anyone not agreeing to their way of seeing things.
It is much simpler to understand the concept of defense of Liberty as being a power employed voluntarily in avoiding crime.
That means that the power is used to avoid being victims as well as the power being used to avoid becoming that which the victims supposedly abhor which is to say that the power of defense is used in the avoidance of becoming criminals.
No left or right box to be placed into, and instead the idea is to accurately identify the difference between those who are, in demonstrable fact, innocent victims and those who are again demonstrated factually, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be criminals.
A seriously unfortunate effect of the willful demonizing of people who understand a competitive definition of democracy and of anarchy is such that those voices are not heard and compared to the MONOPOLY, Top Down, and Dictatorial viewpoint.
Which is the more accurate, higher quality, and lower cost definition of democracy or anarchy?
An anarchist will confess that it is wrong to claim that anarchy is life without rules while an anarchist will offer, voluntarily, instead of that error in judgment, an alternative definition whereby anarchy is life without false rulers.
There is a big difference.
Someone claiming that there is life without rules is obviously wrong. Gravity, for one of many examples, is a rule, and so far everyone follows that rule.
If someone claims that gravity is not a rule, then someone can offer a counter claim, and an anarchist is likely to reject the false claim by the false ruler.
In that way of thinking, life without false rulers, the anarchists are in line with those who wrote The Declaration of Independence.
The competitive definition of democracy, not the demonizing contrived one, and not the false definition, is the definition that merely claims that people rule themselves, and again that definition is in line with those who wrote The Declaration of Independence.
I see no point in me listening to the rest of this orientation video produced by the John Birch Society.
I understand the thinking behind a Democratic Federated Republic. The idea is to invent, create, and maintain a Free Market of Government. There are in this idea a number of Sovereign, Independent, Constitutionally limited Republics formed as defensive powers defending innocent human beings from large armies of roaming bands of criminals.
Then those many (in the case of the Confederated States under The Articles of Confederation there were 13 in number) constitutionally limited Republics form a Voluntary Defensive Association or Federation or Confederation. The idea was such that divided those constitutionally limited Republics would fall at the hands of The British Empire, one by one. The British Force was a Legal Money Monopoly Power then ruling the planet Earth, so those leaders in those constitutionally Limited Republics formed that voluntary defensive Federation as a means of gaining sufficient Defensive Power to defend against the very large Aggressive War for Profit POWER that did in fact invade and attempt to enslave all the people in all those constitutionally limited Republics. That was after the Declaration of Independence officially began an insurrection against the criminal rule of those criminals running that Central Banking Fraud.
The beauty of the design of a Democratic Federated Republic was realized during the time between 1776 and 1788 when those people actually drove off the invaders.
It worked as a defensive power.
Then an even greater power was realized during the events that became known as Shays’s Rebellion.
It was found out that the idea of Free Market Government works as the tax payers could shop for and find the best constitutionally limited Republic within the Voluntary Defensive Association. That POWER of consumer FORCE was then forcing the leaders in each constitutionally limited Republic to raise the quality of constitutionally limited government and lower the cost of those products, those States, those Sovereign States, those constitutionally limited Republics.
Or, having failed to keep up with the best of the best, failing to increase quality and lower costs, a State failing to do so, what happens?
If the leaders fail to provide what the tax payers demand, then the tax payers could freely migrate from one constitutionally limited government to another on the same continent, and there were 13 to choose from at the time.
It worked as advertised. The legal precedent under The Articles of Confederation was the events that became known as Shays's Rebellion, and I can offer much information on how that worked the way it worked.
If the people at the John Birch Society don’t know this then they are libel to fall for the song of the siren that turns us into beasts, whereby Free Market government is thrown out in favor of a Monopoly, or Consolidated, Un-Free, love it or leave it, obey without question, dictatorial, either you are with us or you are a terrorist, top down, false, threatening, and aggressively violent version of the true thing, where costs to the tax payers rises steadily, and benefits evaporate (such as freedom from crimes perpetrated by criminals with badges) as time marches by under legal Dictatorships, Consolidated Governments, or whatever false front hides the fact that it is a Central Banking Fraud covering an Extortion Tax Cabal.
I will link another person who understands this and I can quote words explaining how this Free Market Voluntary Association concept is intended, by design, to work.
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/sim/1403963037/2?o=9
“Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
“Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.”
Common among the people who employed Common Law in those days were the words Democratic Federated Republic, and the word Confederation, they had studied how Holland and Switzerland worked, as Free Market Voluntary Government powers.
This type of understanding is almost absent for some strange reason, and that absence is like an infection, and I tried to clue the people at the John Birch Society concerning this information, but they are a Top Down, Exclusive, and secretive Organization based upon my personal experience as a member.
I am working to get through this Jurist Orientation and it is troublesome for me to be in the position of finding so much room for competitive offers of reasonable improvement concerning the information in this Jurist Orientation Presentation.
I understand how deep the infections go, but I do not like being so alone in this regard; hence my trouble. If I can be shown where I am wrong then I ask many people to please do so, and not for lack of my own due diligence there are very few who are in a position to correct my errors.
I can offer many sources if asked, or if there is anything resembling a discussion of competitive perspectives employed in the effort to find the truth and discard thereby the identifiable falsehoods.