|Moderated by: Joe Kelley|
|The concept of "just following orders" is compared to "willful intent" in cases where there are victims of criminals.
The terms that may apply are:
In ethical terms, intention is widely felt to be the strongest basis for the attribution of personal responsibility for conduct and outcomes. By contrast, in tort law intention is a much less important ground of liability than negligence. This article analyses the meaning of intention in tort law and its relationship to other concepts such as voluntariness, recklessness, motive, and belief. It also discusses difficulties associated with proving intention and other mental states, and the idea of a general principle of tort liability for intention. The key to explaining the relatively minor role of mens rea in tort law is found to lie in the emphasis tort law gives to the interests of victims, and to social values, in constructing its concept of responsibility. This approach also helps to explain the greater importance of mens rea in criminal law.
Criminal intent. The state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994). However, for strict liability crimes, state of mind as to at least one element of the crime is irrelevant.
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary(menz-ray-ah) The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property. Compare: actus reus Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.
August 19, 2010, 5:19 pm
To condense the concept a few words may suffice.
No person can be guilty of willfully perpetrating a criminal act when the individual is unaware of the nature of crime.
This is contrary to the concept of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" since there can be no established willful intent to commit a crime if the will of the individual has no concept of crime.
The idea here is to point out the function of the Oath.
An Oath intends to establish a record of the measure of an individual concerning the individuals understanding of the nature of crime, so as to have that fact established in cases where the Oath taker does not abide by the Oath that the Oath taker takes voluntarily.
Imagine a Oath taker taking an Oath and then qualifying the Oath with the words Under Duress.
That is like crossing your fingers behind your back when you promise your friends that you won't tell on them?
To further clarify the importance of establishing foreknowledge, or to establish a "guilty mind" it can be understood that some people are born with parts of their brains missing, and these types of abnormal people can be called such things as narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths, nihilists, and criminally insane.
If the individual is operating under an operating system which is an insane mind, then the concept of crime as being something bad, wrong, immoral, or criminal is foreign to that individual, and their concept of torture could be, to them, akin to a normal person petting a dog. Therefore it is absurd to suggest that such a person has a guilty mind, it is not even possible.
So someone on the Monday meetup mentioned the process of qualifying someone to be in a position to take an Oath. Failing to accurately identify a narcissist who is getting ready to take an oath is worst than useless, worse than expecting a rabid dog to abide by an Oath, since the unqualified narcissist will then be LICENSED by that Oath to a position of false authority due to the fact that no one, or no process, properly measured the individual for qualifications to take an Oath, let alone follow one.
The other thing about Oaths concerns the verifications of authority in any case of dispute, as the saying goes "take me to your leader" and if there is no Oath then the buck stops at that individual who is acting upon their own authority and another saying comes to mind "opinions are just like assholes, everyone has one," so no Oath means no authority above the individual claim of authority by the individual claiming authority.
The Oath says, in point of fact, I am not the source of authority, because no man (alone) is the source of authority, man made authority is made through consent, which may be difficult, especially when dealing with narcissists who lie as if singing a happy song.
|In reply to the e-mail by Johnny B:
It is vital, and not just my opinion, that TERMS be defined by the user of TERMS, because many TERMS are now duplicitous, ambiguous, and often purposefully misleading.
That is a contentious word.
Another contentious word.
A Federation of Sovereign Constitutionally Limited Republics/Nations/States was created and did work under The Articles of Confederation.
Now, instead of a working Free Market Government design, there is now a single Monopoly Nation State, which is NOT a Federation.
The Voluntary Union of Sovereign Constitutionally Limited Republics/Nations/States was ended when the Central Banker Cabal (then calling themselves "Federalists") Consolidated the Union into an Involuntary Union.
One of the first test cases of that new Monopoly Nation State was called The Whiskey Rebellion; whereby Alexander Hamilton pushing his brainchild The National Debt sent his Strong Man Washington out into the former Constitutionally Limited States to round up slaves (conscripts) to then Invade the former Constitutionally Limited State of Pennsylvania, to crush a money competitor, and to stamp out the last vestiges of the Spirit of Liberty.
All one has to do is to compare Shays's Rebellion under The Articles of Confederation to The Whiskey Rebellion under The Constitution of the UNIONIZED former States, and clearly see the Usurpation in action.
Previous to making Slavery Legal Nationwide (The Con Con) each State was a competitor in the business of providing government to the many consumers who were tax payers. Tax payers could wander from State to State and their numbers of consumers making numerous consumer choices constituted the FORCE that FORCES the governors of each State to increase quality and lower costs to the consumers. It was a Free Market government experiment and it worked.
Why is this important?
The concept of gaining access to the Armory will not be an easy battle to win, just ask Daniel Shays in History.
I wrote the following on the National Liberty Alliance meetup page.
I do not now associate myself with either Masters of Slaves. My parents never did, they taught by example. I have never associated myself with Masters or Slaves. I never will. I will always find a way to separate myself from such nonsense. If that cannot be understood, then I see a serious problem. Clay (if I remember his name right) tried to help bring to light a serious error, an error I see too. If I were standing on a fluid foundation I'd welcome the generous help offered to inform me of my perilous position.
I can explain in detail here, where I have already done so here, again.
There is a highly productive (competitive) advantage for the Federation over the Republic form of government.
The FORCE that FORCES that highly competitive advantage is the FORCE of individual intelligent and moral choice.
The Republic, by design, is MONOPOLISTIC, meaning a precise meaning, and not having an ambiguous or fluid meaning, as a Republic enforces the end of competition as there can no longer be any challengers offering a competitive form of government. Once a Republic becomes one, it will last for as long as it can manage to destroy competition, and once it can no longer destroy competition, the Republic falls.
A Federation, on the other hand, is similarly, by not exactly, disposed of: indirectly.
A number of Republics join voluntarily into a Federation, therefore all but the very last Republic must fall, or secede, before the Federation falls.
If there remains to be two Republics, and those two Republics voluntarily associate into a Federation, then the Federation remains in FORCE.
Here is where John at the meetup could have listened and could have learned something valuable - perhaps.
Gerard, similarly, may have been able to listen, and learn.
The concept of divide and conquer, having the defenders divided up, made weaker, arguing among themselves, is not, I repeat NOT, the concept of division of POWER.
Divide and Conquer is OFFENSIVE FORCE applied upon targeted (innocent) victims by Masters seeking Slaves, or Masters of Slaves seeking to weaken the defensive POWER of the Slaves.
Division of DEFENSIVE FORCE, or "Separation of Powers," is NOT the same thing as Divide and Conquer (OFFENSIVE FORCE) whereby the voluntary sum total of volunteers find ways to keep their DEFENSIVE POWER divided into DEFENSIVE AUTONOMOUS INDEPENDENT SELF-SUFFICIENT, and COMPETITIVE (NOT ANTAGONISTIC), UNITS.
Where is this best seen as a competitive force for the preservation of DEFENSIVE POWER?
The American Revolutionary Army BEFORE the Monopolists infected that Voluntary Force with their Master/Slave DOGMA and their Master/Slave DICTATES and their Master/Slave ENSLAVEMENT of the Volunteers into CONSCRIPTS.
Washington Transforms the Army
In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.
His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused.
I have done my own research into how Military Formations work, in particular the German Air-force during World War II, and the work done by the American pilot named John Boyd.
The MYTH that the German Soldiers (airmen included) where robotic followers of orders placed into a rigid hierarchy is a false as any case where the actual point of fact was such that the method by which the German Military remained very effective was a method similar to a Free Market. The term meritocracy may help explain how such a METHOD, which may seem MAD, whereby the METHOD to the MADNESS was a METHOD by which the most effective among the members of the group were earning their way into leadership positions in the group.
In particular, the German airmen were led into battle not by the highest ranking German soldiers but by the soldiers who proved to be the most efficient, most effective, at that position of leadership.
The concept is not new, not earth shattering news, and in our own Military there is the case of John Boyd whose example of the same meritocracy might illustrate, or educate, those needing to know.
I suggest the following book to be read - please.
Returning to the concept of Republic VERSUS Federation there can be a relative comparison done, from many angles of view, as to how one works compared to the other one, in either Defense or Offense, and therefore in either Independence or Dependence.
An invading army of conscripts and mercenaries land in New York, New York as this army of Aggression seeks to enslave the so called Rebels and Insurgents, as the King wishes, so that these conscripts must obey, without question, those orders that please the King, and these mercenaries must obey those same orders if these mercenaries want to collect their own profits, their own pay, their own investments.
On the land where the English Invaders of War for the Profit of the Few, war that is aggressive, war that is paid for by the targeted victims called Rebels and Insurgents, and their families pay dearly too, on that land, of those free, the order of battle was MANEUVER WARFARE.
Did you read the book I offered as a book that you should read? Did you read the book titled BOYD?
You are now set to argue with me on this point?
The so called Rebels were Volunteers who Volunteered to stop farming, stop making a living, and instead of making those earnings, those profits, they banded together into Voluntary Defensive Military Bands, something that was still COMMON KNOWLEDGE among the Frontiersmen, Settlers, and something perfected through the HELP of the Native Population, whereby the ART OF WAR is a well sharpened knife, sharpened through use, sharpened through practice, sharpened through Trial and Error.
Try if you will to enslave soldiers and hire murderers for profit and try as you will to inspire them to TRUST each other in battle, try as you might to do so, you might find out how the concept of MIGHT MAKES RIGHT falls apart, even when your INVOLUNTARY forces outnumber (a larger MOB intending to RULE by aggressive force), tray as you MIGHT, to order those slaves and those mercenaries to FIGHT, those same conscripts and mercenaries may find their TOOLS and there METHODS unable to meet the competitive challenge of Volunteers fighting for Liberty.
As soon as the Assembled MASS of conscripts and mercenaries are ORDERLY FORMED into a band of marchers like a Marching Band in a parade, is as soon as the many divisions of divided autonomous units hiding in places of advantage, and cover, use their advantage to cut the Marching Band of Criminals down.
You may not see the point, but why not? Your eyes are fogged over, you are certainly not stupid.
A number of Constitutionally Limited States MIMIC, in point of fact, the concept of a Voluntary Army of Volunteers Volunteering to Defend Liberty against a larger Marching Band of Monopoly Driven Obedient Slaves who are "just following orders without question," as that MONOPOLY Driven Obedient Marching Band of Slaves being driven by those Masters is that Consolidated Government where instead of many Constitutionally Limited States (Republics themselves) Volunteering to be a Federation Defending Liberty, instead of that DIVIDING, there is instead an INVOLUNTARY association created in the form of a Monopoly of ONE so called Republic.
What kind of NEWS is this Joe guy selling?
It was not me who blew the initial whistle.
The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.
But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention.
That was in reference to the so called Con Con, which was not originally advertized as a Constitutional Convention, it was the Victorious Group (Nationalists/Monarchists/Slave Traders/Central Bankers) who wrote that false history.
During the so called ratification (Usurpation) those Founding Fathers on the side of Liberty (as opposed to the so called Founding Fathers working for England/Monarchy/Consolidation/and Monopoly Central Banking) spoke out, blowing the whistle as they were able to do, despite the effective efforts by the so called "Federalists" stirring up The Mob of Public Opinion with their "Federalist Papers" which turned out to be Campaign Promises to be quickly broken as soon as those same "Federalists" created and then commanded their version of Despotism.
Against the Con Con Con Job
Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.
That brings my effort here to offer a competitive viewpoint back to the principle of Dividing the Forces of Defense into Competitive/Independent/Voluntary/Units INSTEAD of Consolidating all the Competitive/Independent/Voluntary/Units into one Involuntary, single, non-competitive, monopoly, of ONE so called Republic.
A so called Republic of ONE that acts no different than any other Despotism, as it, this so called Republic sets to destroy all competition and it does so immediately upon become ONE FORCE that has ONE Duty, which is to Defend itself, and that is the only thing that it does, ever, each time it is tried.
A working Federation whereby the divided (separation of powers) autonomous units are working to prove to each other divided, autonomous units, which unit is more competitive compared to each other unit, as to how best Defend Liberty.
This is not my exclusive understanding based upon my own inventive, adaptive, mind.
Madison Turns his Coat from Red to Blue
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.
In that same book, where Madison turned his coat from Red to Blue there are these competitive words:
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
How could the Nationalists/Monarchs/Central Bankers manage to maintain their Fraud (central bank) and their Extortion Racket (direct taxation of all the victims in the former Federation) when the victims invent their own money in competition with the Fraud money produced by the fraudulent Federalists?
They (the so called "Federalists") could not maintain a Central Banking Monopoly if the Slaves invent ways to NOT BE SLAVES to a money fraud.
Making money at home (whiskey) had to be CRUSHED.
How did Hamilton and the Central Banking subsidiary of The Bank of England managed to CRUSH the money competitors in the former Federation of American Constitutionally Limited States?
Generalissimo Washington Rides Again
Hamilton unleashes the Dogs of War in the form of a CONSCRIPTED army of Slaves to then take that National Army of Aggression for Profit, invade a former Constitutionally Limited Republic of Pennsylvania, so as to collect a Tax on Whiskey payable in Gold?
George Mason was absolutely accurate in his warning concerning Direct Taxes being enforced by a Monopolistic National Despotism?
Out with the English Dogs of War collecting taxes for the Central Bank of England and in with the new Dogs of War collecting taxes for a subsidiary of the Central Bank of England?
And "we the people" are now regaining our Spirit of Liberty so as to support the same thing: A Monopolistic Nation State dominating former Constitutionally Limited Republics?
From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to lull us into security by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
Why would we be so stupid as to gain Liberty only to then give it up for a song and dance routine?
ADDITIONAL OFFERS OF OPINION
"For Plato and Aristotle, 'the good' was naturally not to be pursued
by the individual but by the polis."
I see a root falsehood in that sentence. I am not claiming that there are people who "believe" such lies, but many people allow their thinking to be driven by such lies, perhaps it is a form of insanity.
The root falsehood is such that the idea of creating a THING to be held accountable for the actions of individual people just so happens to be very convenient for those individuals who perpetrate the worst crimes beyond human imagination upon the largest numbers of people beyond accurate human calculation.
So the root falsehood just so happens to work very good at covering up the crimes of the worst human beings ever to disgrace the human gene pool, so my thinking is such that the connection between the root falsehood and the actual criminals themselves is not a coincidence.
Case in point:
In my copy of The Prince are these words written in the introduction:
"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."
Note: "...the aim of the state..."
A State is a Legal Fiction. Rather than listing all the people, all the individuals, each one, name by name, on a list, rather than that, there is a Legal Fiction used to identify all those people in that "State" in FACT.
So the use of that FACT, the use of that Legal Fiction is merely a convenience, an economic adaptation, a competitive way to convey meaning.
I can say California when I want to point toward all those people in California, and I don't have to list each name, so I use a Legal Fiction.
The root falsehood occurs when I blame a criminal invasion of another area where people live: blame is focused on that Legal Fiction, not on the actual criminals.
I can say, that the aim of California, was to destroy and enslave those people on that list of people who were once alive in Mexico, who are now all dead, or those who survived are now used as slaves by California.
No one in California, no one on the list of names, are held accountable, because California is responsible for murdering and enslaving all those innocent people.
How convenient can it get for those who profit from the aims of the State?
I do not sign onto the concept that the root falsehood just mentioned above is in any way a coincidence.
I recognize the fact that there are very evil people alive today, and very evil people alive throughout human history, whereby root falsehoods like the one just mentioned, are known to be falsehoods by those specific people on a list of people who have actual names, like, for example, Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.
The name just rolls off the tongue.
How about good ole' Fr. Heinrich Luitpold Himmler S.J.?
Competitive offers of "History"
Names alone are incapable of telling the fully disclosed accurate account of what actually was done by the will power of that specific name of that specific individual.
"Virtue and the good life were polis- rather than individual-oriented."
I see accurate perception in that sentence, a root of factually based meaning. I can explain, even though I do not think, and I do not believe, and I do not trust, that my competitive offer of my viewpoint will be listened to, or agreed upon.
The human species is created in such a form as to statistically recreate new individual examples of human beings whereby the individual is created with a human conscience; therefore the species is hard wired (figuratively) with the means to produce good life.
You can, of course, take or leave my offer of a competitive viewpoint concerning the sentence quoted.
"All this means that Plato's and Aristotle's thought was statist and elitist to the core, a statism which unfortunately permeated 'classical' (Greek and Roman) philosophy as well as heavily influencing Christian and medieval thought."
I see no reason to call criminals anything other than criminals, so your use of the root word State, to point toward criminals, and then call those criminals "statist" is non-competitive in my view. You help the criminals cover up their crimes, in my opinion, in each case where the criminals are pointed at, and the criminals are then called something other than criminals.
You can continue helping the criminals all you want, what business is it of mine?
"Classical 'natural law' philosophy therefore never arrived at the later elaboration, first in the Middle Ages and then in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, of the 'natural rights' of the individual which may not be invaded by man or by government."
I am not inspired to argue with your limited sources of historical information that you use to form your conclusions. I trust that you will not accept any alternative sources of information as being competitive sources of information; therefore there is no point in me offering competitive sources of information.
Getting past your versions of history that may, or most likely are not, based upon accurate history, I find the following words to be inspiring a competitive response from me to you, or to anyone else who may be reading our conversation (thankfully one that is not accelerating into character assassination):
"The arts are frowned on, and the life of the citizens was to be policed to suppress any dangerous thoughts or ideas that might come to the surface."
My response to that sentence is to offer in return a quote from a very valuable source of words.
We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood.
And the simple step of a simple courageous man is not to partake in falsehood, not to support false actions! Let THAT enter the world, let it even reign in the world - but not with my help. But writers and artists can achieve more: they can CONQUER FALSEHOOD! In the struggle with falsehood art always did win and it always does win! Openly, irrefutably for everyone! Falsehood can hold out against much in this world, but not against art.
Here, following, again is the root falsehood of holding a thing accountable for the actions of individual human beings:
"...of the state's positive law over the natural or divine order..."
I don't buy such nonsense; no thanks.
I'm not accusing anyone of "believing" such nonsense, I merely see the nonsense in the sentence, so I point it out, and I reject it.
"By the beginning of the seventeenth century, royal absolutism had emerged victorious all over Europe."
Again, no thanks, there were people, actual people, and those actual people managed to perpetrate very evil crimes by hiding their crimes behind false "good" reasons, or whatever, I'm not buying into the game of blaming the actual crimes done by the actual people on a nebulous entity, or thing, known as "absolutism," however I can entertain the idea that there was, and is, a person, or group of individuals, who invent, and reinvent, and then use, and then reuse, the concept of perpetrating crimes behind a false front known as Brand X (absolutism) or Brand Y (nihilism), so long as it works to accomplish the job (hide the criminals perpetrating the crime) the flavor of the false front, or the color of the false flag, is incidental.
The bodies still pile up even after the false flag is changed from red to blue and then back to red again.
"... state privilege..."
Here again there is the use of a Legal Fiction which is fine, so long as it is understood that there is no such THING, therefore a state cannot gain, or be given, or lose, or have taken away, any such thing as privilege, while, on the contrary, as a point of demonstrable fact, the actual people perpetrating crimes, and calling their crimes "privilege" happens in time and place, sometimes the victims of those crimes perpetrated by those criminals may actually be led to believe the lie too: believing that crimes are "privileges" taken by a thing known as a "state".
I don't believe such nonsense.
Criminals perpetrate crimes and they have a routine going whereby the criminals hide their crimes behind false fronts and false flags.
Which false fronts and which false flags work best; what qualities of the front or the flag are best to suit the purpose of hiding the crimes?
"...alleged necessity for piling up bullion in a country..."
I'm not so fast at discrediting the practice of collecting things into a central location if that is what you are doing with those words.
When criminals collect what they steal into a central location then the discredit is shared by the thieves who perpetrate crimes and by the victims for failing to defend against those crimes; there is no cause (in my view) to discredit the practice of collecting things into a central location.
In fact, mercantilism was all of these things; it was a comprehensive system of state building,state privilege, and what might be called 'state monopoly capitalism'.
If it is crime then I call it crime, I might call it "state monopoly capitalism" if I wanted to help the criminals hide their crimes.
"But state absolutism means that the state must and maintain allies among powerful groups in the economy, and it also provides a cockpit for lobbying for special privilege among such groups."
It, whatever name you want to parrot, or if you want to put an accurate name on it, is crime, and it is not a new human (criminal) invention, so I think I get the point.
"With SO MANY people that derive their “station in life” from the government in these times it is virtually impossible to get people to listen to these ideas, people dependent on the State will tune out because they do not what to be accused of being part of the problem."
Here is where the "government shut down" routine can be understood accurately instead of falsely. The criminals and their minions realize that their game is up. The minions, or slaves, or cooperators who cooperate in the process of perpetrating crimes upon their targeted victims, the victims who always are the people who produce anything worth stealing, find out (the minions find out), in real terms, that their "hosts" (victims) can no longer afford to be connected to the "parasites" (criminals and minions) and the realization comes in the form of a sudden shock whereby the well runs dry. The Natural Law known as the Law of Diminishing Returns sets in, as the number of criminals being incorporated into the crime group grow too numerous to feed upon the shrinking supply of victims (producers), and here at this time it may be a good idea for the remaining producers to wise up, and learn from that shocking realization that is being realized by those minions in that criminal group.
A producer certainly "feels the pain" but perhaps not in the same way as one of the minions may feel the sudden shock of having their gravy train come to a sudden halt.
The competitive, voluntary, producer continuously looks for competitive earning potential despite the sudden loss of a job, which is ongoing, as the competitive, voluntary, producer may be constantly looking for a better earning job, even while employment is currently producing income, so the shock is not sudden, and the shock is not devastating - there is no shock, it is business as usual within what still exists as "the animated contest of freedom."
For a member of the criminal minions, those not at the top of the criminal structure, the sudden loss of booty handed down from the more powerful criminals to the lesser powerful criminals leaves the minion, each one, leaves each minion, helpless, powerless, devastated, alone, in deed, because of the nature of the criminal organization; which is DEPENDENCY upon it (the criminals higher up), which is in turn a DEPENDENCY upon the independent (voluntary and competitive) producers.
Here, a person can say, is the HOST group, right here, and "it" produces though voluntary, free market (what remains of it in Liberty), competition: meaning that there is a list of names of INDEPENDENT producers working cooperatively and competitively (adaptively not antagonistically) in a free market to produce more today than was here yesterday, so there is an output which can be called surplus wealth, earnings, property, profits, or booty, depending upon word choices chosen to point out what now is where once there was nothing.
Here then is a criminal group, and "it" steals, meaning that there is a list of names of DEPENDENT criminals who DEPEND upon the HOST group, and who DEPEND upon the absolute necessity of the criminal group creating ever greater lies, ever greater threats, and ever greater destructive violence which is absolutely required in ORDER to maintain the connection between the criminal group and the HOST group: whereby the booty flows from the producers to the criminals and their minions.
So the most powerful criminals have figured out how to shock their minions into a frenzy of feeding upon each other and such things are exemplified with the current so called "government shut down" which can be called a "government shut down" if you happen to believe in such nonsense, while I call it what it is instead.
It is not a "government shut down" it is, in point of fact, a method by which the more powerful criminals set their minions one against the other, so as to reduce the numbers of minions being fed by their crime organization once the (natural) Law of Diminishing Returns sets in, in FACT, when the output of booty is not enough to feed the bloated numbers of criminals and minions.
From the Horses; Mouths?
I have been allowed to be the California State Common Law Grand Jury Organizer within the following group:
National Liberty Alliance State Organizer List
I attend the National Monday Meetups.
Last night was a typical effort to find agreement in principle and purpose.
My responses to last nights Meetup are offer to anyone who cares to know here:
Power Independence Blog Liberty Day Challenge
That is my Blog, which will be replaced by a new entry.
Here is a more permanent record:
Power Independence Forum National Liberty Alliance Topic
The concept is not only sound, it is legal, not arguably legal, it is legal in the true sense of the word, whereby law is a concept shared by people, throughout history, to be a voluntary association among volunteers who volunteer to find competitive methods of maintaining Liberty.
Liberty is a tough concept to convey to a well practiced lair, or a minion in the service of criminals.
Criminals know what Liberty is, and it is known by criminals as something to be feared, something that must be destroyed, if crime is going to pay well.
My suggestion offered to the Topic starter is to start learning more about ancient common law, which is not the FALSE Common Law which is a counterfeit version of the original.
Anyone who becomes confused about common law (the real thing which is synonymous with Liberty) is probably a victim of the efforts of criminals whereby criminals have produced many false versions of common law, so as to censor, block, crush, destroy, render powerless, the actual efforts of volunteers who volunteer to defend liberty in competitive ways that expend the least cost yet remain to be effective ways to defend Liberty.
I've found more than one source of information that serves to be a competitive example of evidence documented how common law (the original employment of Trial by Jury based upon sortition) became a false version, or a Usurpation, whereby the voluntary association became an Involuntary one.
Here is one:
Before 1066 all laws were local and enforced in the manorial, shire and hundred courts. Under the Normans, Royal Courts began to emerge from the King's Council (Curia Regis). These did not take over the jurisdiction of the local courts immediately, but over a long period of time the local courts lost jurisdiction over cases and thus lost income. A practice was started of sending judges around the country to hold assizes (or sittings) to hear cases locally. This enabled the judges, over a period of roughly 200 years, to take the best local laws and apply them throughout the land, thus creating law which was `common to the whole country ie, common law.
Originally the King's Council carried out the three functions of state, namely legislative, executive and judicial. It dealt with all cases in which the King had a direct interest, like breaches of the peace. Eventually the courts split off from the Council and formed the main common law courts. The Court of Exchequer, which dealt with the collection of revenues, was the first to separate, in the reign of Henry I (1100-1135). The Court of Common Pleas stayed in Westminster Hall to deal with disputes between individuals, while the King's Council travelled round the country. The Court of King's Bench separated sometime after 1230. Justices of the Peace (or magistrates) originated from a Royal Proclamation of 1195 creating 'Knights of the Peace' to assist the Sheriff in enforcing the law. They were later given judicial functions and dealt with minor crimes.
Note the dates.
The following is a very important work done by Lysander Spooner (a person living in America who was later called an Anarchist):
Trial by Jury
FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.
Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.
But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.
Note the date.
If you read the whole work done by Lysander Spooner you will be informed as to the methods by which the criminals retake control of Trial by Jury, turning a Voluntary Association into an Involuntary Association. Then you can see how free people are inspired to expend all the costs required to move their behinds from England to America, and they take with them the concept of Trial by Jury - based upon sortition.
Now, at this time, people have no place to run, and no place to hide, no place to go and start defending Liberty in a New World.
What does that leave?