I really don't understand this comment since when one lives in a democracy or a republic,
ONE IS THE GOVERNMENT.
Is it paying taxes? The phrase is No taxation without representation, not just No taxation. The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation (the taxes were quite low, though ubiquitous), but always on the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, i.e. without representation for the colonists in British Parliament. In short, many in those colonies believed the lack of direct representation in the distant British Parliament was an illegal denial of their rights as Englishmen, and therefore laws taxing the colonists (the kind of law that affects the most individuals directly), and other laws applying only to the colonies, were unconstitutional.
Thyey don't call the state Taxachusetts for nothing
Also remember what Samuel Adams said, "Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." Meaning, you can rebel against that tyrant across the ocean, but not the tyrants who live next door. Or yourself if you vote and participate in the politcal process.
What is the alternative? Do you trust private industry to run the country? I know I certainly don't given how the lack of regulation and civic conscience has led to the current economic crisis.
In fact, if we get to it. Even though there is a democratic process, most of the politics are controlled by special interest groups. Take for example the Cato Institute which has been quite pivotal in changing the interpretation of the Second Amendment. It also has worked for eliminating disclosure requirements for those who contribute funds in support or opposition of ballot measures. One of the primary reasons the two groups cited was the high costs associated with disclosure requirements. At the time, these requirements were already weaker than those required for contributions to a candidate’s political campaign.
In their 1996 book No Mercy, University of Colorado Law School scholars Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado describe a shift in Cato's patron base over the years. "Early on," they wrote, "Cato's bills were largely paid by the Koch family of Wichita, Kansas. Today, most of its financial support from entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation."[1]
Cato's sponsors
In 2006 Cato raised approximately $612,000 from the following 26 corporate supporters:
* Altria (the report identifies Altria Corporate Services as the contributor)
* American Petroleum Institute
* Amerisure Companies
* Amgen
* Chicago Mercantile Exchange
* Comcast Corporation
* Consumer Electronic Association
* Ebay Inc
* ExxonMobil
* FedEx Corporation
* Freedom Communications
* General Motors
* Honda North America
* Korea International Trade Association
* Microsoft
* National Association of Software and Service Companies
* Pepco Holdings Inc.
* R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
* TimeWarner
* Toyota Motor Corporation
* UST Inc
* Verisign
* Verizon Communications
* Visa USA Inc
* Volkswagen of America
* Wal-Mart Stores
Foundation Support:
* Castle Rock Foundation (Formerly Coors Foundation)
* Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
* Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
* Earhart Foundation
* JM Foundation
* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
* Koch Family Foundations
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
My point is that the Cato Institute is not publicly funded. per it's own literature: "In order to maintain its independence, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding." Independence from what--public scrutiny? Cato lists its major corporate, foundation and individual financial supporters. However, it does not list the amount or the purpose of corporate or foundation contributions..
The Cato Institute is hardly unique. You can learn more abot who funds what at Sourcewatch, which is a lovely tool for finding out who is behind what in US politics. If you are suspicious about government, you should find out who is bankrolling whom.
You are going to be a slave to government if you allow yourself to remain ignorant of the political process and not participate in it. Even more of a slave to not verify the sources of your information.
Showing posts with label slave. Show all posts
Showing posts with label slave. Show all posts
12 October 2009
11 October 2009
More dumb comments...
You are a slave to governments
How do you figure that one? Is it because I live by society's laws and prefer to work within the system?
Change can come about through peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, not by violence, revolution and terrorism. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. If your argument is that the system is corrupt, perhaps you should be working to change that system.
Have you ever thought about nonviolent ways of dealing with what you perceive as tyranny? Is "resisting tyranny," or the "insurrection theory of the Second Amendment," just something that you parrot as a high-brow political justification for your love of guns, or have you ever given serious thought about what the ramifications of using guns for the purpose of fighting the government would be?
Maybe you haven't given some serious thought to resisting tyranny nonviolently through political action or civil disobedience. Instead you really love and welcome violence and the chance to harm or murder others. You would spend at least five minutes thinking about nonviolent alternatives to a violent insurrection if you took your moral obligations to your fellow man seriously.
My question is whether you are a nihilist or an anarchist?
You should realise that anarchism requires rules, as does any society, or it falls into nihilism. The difference between society at large and anarchism is that in anarchism, everybody knows the rules and agrees to live by them. This requires a great deal of responsibility.
You are a British Subject
Here you show your ignorance of British law.
The old passport says I am a British citizen. And I also have US citizenship by right of birth in the USA. I am hardly a "slave to governments" since I can choose where I live without let or hindrance.
The term British subject has at different times had different meanings. At common law, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the British Crown (and no other) was a British subject. This meant that to be a British subject, one simply had to be born in any territory under the sovereignty of the British Crown. When the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force, every person who was a British subject by virtue of a connection with the United Kingdom or one of her crown colonies (i.e. not the Dominions) became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
From 1949, the status of British subject was also known by the term Commonwealth citizen, and included any person who was:
* a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies;
* a citizen of any other Commonwealth country; or
* one of a limited number of "British subjects without citizenship".
The British Nationality Act 1981, every Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies became either a British Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen or British Overseas Citizen.
Although the term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition in the United Kingdom, and it is incorrect to describe a British citizen as a British subject, the concept of a "subject" is still recognised by the law, and the terms "the Queen's subjects", "Her Majesty's subjects", etc., continue to be used in British legal discourse.
How do you figure that one? Is it because I live by society's laws and prefer to work within the system?
Change can come about through peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, not by violence, revolution and terrorism. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. If your argument is that the system is corrupt, perhaps you should be working to change that system.
Have you ever thought about nonviolent ways of dealing with what you perceive as tyranny? Is "resisting tyranny," or the "insurrection theory of the Second Amendment," just something that you parrot as a high-brow political justification for your love of guns, or have you ever given serious thought about what the ramifications of using guns for the purpose of fighting the government would be?
Maybe you haven't given some serious thought to resisting tyranny nonviolently through political action or civil disobedience. Instead you really love and welcome violence and the chance to harm or murder others. You would spend at least five minutes thinking about nonviolent alternatives to a violent insurrection if you took your moral obligations to your fellow man seriously.
My question is whether you are a nihilist or an anarchist?
You should realise that anarchism requires rules, as does any society, or it falls into nihilism. The difference between society at large and anarchism is that in anarchism, everybody knows the rules and agrees to live by them. This requires a great deal of responsibility.
You are a British Subject
Here you show your ignorance of British law.
The old passport says I am a British citizen. And I also have US citizenship by right of birth in the USA. I am hardly a "slave to governments" since I can choose where I live without let or hindrance.
The term British subject has at different times had different meanings. At common law, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the British Crown (and no other) was a British subject. This meant that to be a British subject, one simply had to be born in any territory under the sovereignty of the British Crown. When the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force, every person who was a British subject by virtue of a connection with the United Kingdom or one of her crown colonies (i.e. not the Dominions) became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
From 1949, the status of British subject was also known by the term Commonwealth citizen, and included any person who was:
* a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies;
* a citizen of any other Commonwealth country; or
* one of a limited number of "British subjects without citizenship".
The British Nationality Act 1981, every Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies became either a British Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen or British Overseas Citizen.
Although the term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition in the United Kingdom, and it is incorrect to describe a British citizen as a British subject, the concept of a "subject" is still recognised by the law, and the terms "the Queen's subjects", "Her Majesty's subjects", etc., continue to be used in British legal discourse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
