 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Common Law example?
I am just now viewing that information. Thanks.
I stopped the video presentation when finding very contentious words spoken.
Canada cannot be found guilty of a criminal act upon a victim or victims.
Canada is a Legal Fiction.
The Church cannot be guilty of any thought or action.
The Church is, at most, a list of names of people who think and act in ways that are common to each other and thereby those people having those common thoughts and actions constitute their belonging in that group called a Church.
I've read and heard information on this ITCCS group and I like the idea; but there is a very serious error infecting many human brains (in my opinion) whereby THINGS are held responsible for the individual thoughts and actions of individual human beings.
When I read, or hear, words that sound like someone holding a THING accountable for the actions of individual people, then I hold the speaker, or the writer, accountable for those thoughts and actions.
Does that make sense?
Doug,
The concept of moral people defending the innocent is self explanatory.
The concept of holding "Church and State" responsible/accountable is a falsehood that ought to be refuted well enough to no longer be infecting the thinking of moral people.
I cannot get past this measure of that information while I listened to that YouTube video. I'd much rather offer thoughts on why I think that this particular falsehood is so damaging to human life on this planet.
To me it is that type of thinking that convinces victims of the need to enforce payments of earnings into an INVOLUNTARY FUND of enforced collections of earnings, or PURCHASING POWER, which is then a FUND used by people to keep filling up that FUND.
I may be wrong, and I'd like to know that I am wrong, but my guess is that the speaker in the YouTube video, if asked, would answer the following question with the following answer:
Question:
Are involuntary taxes necessary in order to protect the innocent from harm by criminals?
Answer:
Yes.
That type of thinking (a yes answer to that question) goes hand in hand with blaming THINGS for the actions of people - in my limited experience.
That type of thinking is expressed well in the introduction to my copy of The Prince by Nicoli Machiavelli:
Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual.
In other words the thinking, as far as I can tell, goes like this:
We (meaning me) must force them (meaning everyone but me) to pay us (meaning me) so as to keep them (meaning me) from perpetrating horrible violence upon the innocent.
Blame the innocent for being innocent as the person doing the blaming is willfully doing horrible things to the innocent, because there must be a method by which the criminal explains his or her actions to his or her self.
These are derivatives of Might makes Right doctrine, which are falsehoods, and they are obvious falsehoods as the thoughts driving the actions prove out to be thoughts that contradict actions.
Such as: Torture and murdering the children so as to save the children from torture and murder.
Pay your involuntary taxes so as to defend the payee from abject slavery?
Again, I could be wrong, as the person speaking may not answer the question about the supposed necessity of Involuntary Taxes with a yes answer.
Why am I so sure that the answer would be yes from that speaker?
I can as you, Doug, the same question. I can ask you and I can expect no answer.
I can hope, and I can even trust, that you will answer, and that you will answer honestly.
Question:
Are involuntary taxes necessary in order to protect the innocent from harm by criminals?