 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
http://www.dailypaul.com/333624/genuine-authority#comment-3560400
There are a few heinous falsehoods currently locking up the minds of people who ought to know better and one has to do with the idea of an absolute, all affecting, never ceasing, ubiquitous condition.
So I ask if you think the principle of agreement is absolute?
"But what about when one is not in agreement with another one?"
If the principle is applied to only the problem of defending the innocent victims from the guilty criminals, and that means that the principle is not applied to economic problems, or trading with fellow NON-criminals, then you, and anyone else, agrees to disagree.
If the principle of agreement is strictly applied only to a case in time and place where disagreement is forced upon an innocent victim by a guilty criminal, then that is, in fact, the definition of a crime.
A victim is not a victim if the victim agrees (without fraud or violent coercion) with whatever the criminal is going to do to a real victim. Here then is the agreement at work concerning when, where, and how, someone can independently, with will power, decide, on their own volition, voluntarily, to allow another individual to do something in time and place, which means, specifically, that we are not speaking about sand, rocks, water, and we are not speaking about insects, fish, animals, birds, and we are not speaking about children, insane, or other non-functioning, or not yet developed, people, whose power of will is, again, not functioning as an independent power of will capable of moral choices.
Someone paying someone else to cause injury to the so called employer is said to be a masochist. Someone agreeing, with malice aforethought, to be a victim, in this sense is not a victim. Is someone wanting injury done to themselves a normal functioning example of life as a human being, or is it a byproduct of genetic or environmental disagreements with nature?
What is Stockholm Syndrome? What makes cult worshipers drink the cool-aid?
If someone agrees to be a victim of a lie, for example, and the first lie turns out to be a command for the victim to believe every other lie, no matter how outrageous the next lie is, and the next, and the next, then is there any hope for someone who agreed to the first lie?
The pen is mightier than the sword for many reasons, and for the same reason Matthew: 7:12 works both ways. A lie can inspire an army of good people to perpetrate heinous crimes against humanity. Doing evil onto others will inspire others to do evil unto you: blowback.
"Then I suppose that the non-agression principle should come into effect. Hence your "do onto others" seems appropriate."
My hope is that more and more people see the connection you appear to be making in this thought process. It is reasonable as a matter of demonstrable fact.
"But that is not what law of today does."
Which law?
1.
Moral Law (see Matthew: 7:12 and trail by jury, rule by law)
2.
Criminals making laws (see law of the jungle, might makes right, survival of the fittest criminal, the rat race, business as usual, central banking fraud and the business cycle, rule by man)
If you are speaking about 2 above then why call it law?
If criminals are obeying criminal made laws then they can call what they do laws, but why are you calling what the criminals fraudulently call laws those same false words?
"Law of today binds us into a state sanctioned aggression principle when we are not in agreement even though there may be no one harmed by our action."
Are you suffering from some kind of Stockholm Syndrome that inspires you to drink the cool-aid and share the culpability associated with all the criminal acts done by the criminals who take over government?
If so then that is a neat trick performed by those criminals as they gather more victims into their flock of cult worshipers.
"I have to read the magna carta again it has been some time..."
Please consider reading Trial by Jury instead, since the Magna Carta was a criminal document written and enforced by criminals who were forced to give up some of their criminal power, but that was a very temporary truce, and the power given up by the criminals (who take over governments) was soon taken back through fraud, threat of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence upon the innocent.
The return to rule by criminals was facilitated, in part, with the creation of false, or counterfeit, versions of common law, trial by jury, and a reinvigorated effort to invest in what is euphemistically called summary justice, or Equity Court, or Exchequer Court, or Admiralty Court, which is nothing but a means by which the false debt is collected as victims pay the extortion payments through those false courts.
"If governments today abided by your given example: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, then there would be a lot of cops and legislatures and judges and prosecutors in cages here and elsewhere."
I do not agree, and if I were on a real jury, in any case, I'd try to find a better way to offer remedy instead of punishment.