Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Property maintenance crackdown yields $131,000 fine

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... Yes, it does, but sometimes people forget. Sometimes people mistake opposites for each other, like thinking that the absence of a dollar is equivalent to
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 29, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave commented:
      > [DAVE: The term cash equates to money or equivalent.

      Yes, it does, but sometimes people forget. Sometimes people mistake
      opposites for each other, like thinking that the absence of a dollar is
      equivalent to a dollar. In mathematics, using "absolute numbers", it
      is! But in reality, it is not. Think back to what you might have
      thought the day you noticed the first clad coin mixed in with the silver
      coins in change handed to you. What was the money that day, the real
      thing, or a paper or metal token representing it? That day, did you
      feel that a given volume of copper-nickel was "equivalent" to more
      silver than it takes to make a finger ring? Do you feel it is today?

      > FRN's are considered money within a certain territory
      > and equivalent {in trade} elsewhere.

      What is it that victims of fraud "consider" before determining their
      victim status? This assumes that they eventually find out.

      > A
      > French franc is considered money within France and is traded as money
      > elsewhere because it has a certain value in exchange. Trading in
      > French
      > francs does not righteously place one within any jurisdiction of
      > France or its laws.]

      I wouldn't know that either way; never been there or read any French law
      like you have. In this next section, I marvel at your ability to
      channel the mind of government:

      > [Dave: The measure of a free society is the number of alternatives
      > available to achieve freedom. Government is about limitation and
      forcing one to
      > chose--ideally for government--only one choice. It's actually
      > illogical--for
      > without choice available, there is no choice. We see this type of
      > action
      > from government: "Oh you have choice. You can chose to trade in our
      > notes.
      > Yes, I admit they are everywhere and that we don't inform you of other
      > choice and yes, we don't make it convenient for other choice, and yes,
      > we
      > imply other choice is not legal and yes, we encourage our banking and
      > employer partners to only indicate same choice. But still we claim--
      > when you
      > pin us down--that you have choice." This behavior is called DECEPTION.
      > And
      > so it creates the ACTUALITY and the PERCEPTION of what he feels: As
      > choice
      > becomes less, one can imply nothing to one's action of exercising that
      > choice. For example: Many people sign-up to marriage licenses.
      > Ignorantly
      > they marry the state don't they? But why do they do so? Because they
      > have
      > been led to believe that there is not OTHER choice to be an honorable
      > member
      > of society. Is that their fault? Should they be held to same? But what
      > can
      > one say of the government who practices deception in this manner by
      > encouraging NO CHOICE disguised as choice?]

      It is everyone's own fault for believing whatever they believe. If not,
      they do not own their own minds, right? If this is the reality, then
      every time we meet a new person our first question would have to be,
      "does he still own his own mind, or did they already get to him?"

      Maybe things are so different than I experienced that it is indeed rare
      for someone to have his own thoughts anymore! Poor devils!

      > [Dave: Employment is "at will"; slavery is not.]

      That is not exactly true, friend.

      "Slavery implies involuntary servitude - a state of bondage; the
      ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the labor
      and services of one man for the benefit of another, and the absence of a
      legal right to the disposal of his own person, property, and services."
      [Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 542 (1896)]

      "Being non-redeemable but accepted as a claim on the public's goods and
      services it (the FRN) represents a 100% confiscation of the public's
      wealth without compensation." - Merrill Jenkins

      > [Dave: Why do people in the freedom movement stick-themselves to the
      > concept of presumption and adhesion?

      Because law and its principles are important to them?

      > It's one thing for some usurper on earth
      > to claim this; it's quite another to personally accept it as one's own
      > policy. Its defeated on face value: If adhesion is valid, then no
      > one could be held to anything--they would be adhered to a
      > predecessor adhesion.]

      This does not follow either. I have an adhesion contract on a prominent
      sign on my property. I would prefer that no one test its efficacy.

      > [Dave: Yes, you are proof and that's great. The person who perceives
      > he has
      > bars in his room might legitimately feel he is forced to remain in his
      > cell.
      > He is perhaps ignorant but most likely innocent. His action based on
      > such
      > ignorance should not largely be viewed as FULL choice. In order to
      > exercise
      > choice, one must be aware of such choice and not held against it's
      > disclosure. The greatest teacher the world has ever known defeated
      > this evil
      > promulgated as policy {for you} by government with one word:
      > Forgiveness]

      The problem with assuming that everyone is ignorant or blind or
      hallucinating their own bars is that dysfunctionality used to be a
      minority condition. You make it sound like it's normalcy today.
      Society has ways of dealing with and protecting those unable to protect
      themselves, like babies, the retarded, or the insane. Meanwhile, those
      adults who can read and write constitutions and statutes and contracts
      take advantage of the concept of written laws.

      > [Dave: Never loose the focus. You can't waive something for which you
      > perceive and believe--for right or wrong--that you weren't given full
      > choice-of to begin with. Don't believe in the wizard's soup.]

      If you are perceiving and believing wrong already, you've already lost
      your focus. What you call "the wizard's soup" is really just the
      English language. Many prefer to have nothing to do with it today, that
      I will readily admit! But the fact that lawyers and fliers need to use
      it will work a disadvantage on those who refuse to use it in

      I didn't write the rules, but I claim the right to hold those who did to


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.