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

Acceptable level of interference of government in your life?

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    Eric,WhoRU?? sent this to me and I read it from top to bottom. Some of the questions are Socratic in nature, but, it did not seem like they were intended to
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 19, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      Eric,WhoRU?? sent this to me and I read it from top to bottom. Some of the questions are Socratic in nature, but, it did not seem like they were intended to lead us to a conclusion which I like. It seems more like his questions are designed to cause us to look within ourselves for our own answers. I like the way he thinks, so, I’m forwarding it on to you:

       

      Hi Group [to join Eric’s Yahoo group email: whoru-subscribe@yahoogroups.com] ,

       

      I will renew my weekly talk show on Talkshoe next Monday, February 21, 2011. The time will be 8 PM Central the call-in number is (724) 444-7444. The pin number is 27767.

       

      The URL is www.talkshoe.com

       

      This seems to be universal agreement that the United States of America is a big mess. Everyone seems to agree that something needs to be done about this, and there are a lot of ideas out there but nobody seems to know exactly what needs to be done. I'm going to postulate several questions to indicate why it is that we have this problem and that it is virtually impossible to actually resolve it.

       

      There seems to be reversal agreement that we need less government interference in our lives; a reduction in taxes; and since various changes to our monetary system.

       

      I would like for each of you who read this to formulate and write down your answer to the following questions So here are the questions:

       

      1. What would it be that would constitute the proper and acceptable level of interference of government in your life?

       

      2. Is it proper for the government to be able to require you to pay taxes, to be inoculated, to attend government schools, to get permission from the government to repair a light switch in your house, to get a license from the government in order to practice a profession?

       

      3. Where does the government get the authority to impose these requirements?

       

      4. Can you identify within yourself a separation of your intellectual aspect and your physical aspect?

       

      5. Can you sense a physical connection between your intellectual aspects and your physical aspect?

       

      6. What is your name? Is there any manner of connection between your physical entity and your name? Is there any manner of connection between your intellectual entity and your name?

       

      7. Does the government have authority to require you to have a name? Does the government have authority to require you to have a true legal name? Does the government have authority to require you to have a positive ID?

       

      8. Do you consider yourself to be free? What is it that constitutes freedom, in your opinion? Who is it that just to decide what it is that constitutes freedom?

       

      9. In your opinion what is the acceptable level of taxation that the government can impose upon you? Does the government have any proper authority to require you to reveal to the government how much money you have?

       

      10. What is the purpose of public education? Who gets to decide this?

       

      11. What is the purpose of government? Who gets to decide this?

       

      12. Do you have any naturally imbued authority to require anyone to conform to your answers to any of the above questions? Do any of your friends family coworkers neighbors have any in individually imbued authority to acquire any went to conform to their answers to any of the above questions?

       

      13. Can two or more individuals combine their non-existing authority to require others to conform to their druthers in order to create authority to require others to conform?

       

      14. As you and no other individual has any naturally imbued authority to require others to conform to your druthers how could it possibly be that you or any number of your friends coworkers neighbors or family members can combine their non-existing authority in order to require others to conform?

       

      15. Do you recognize that the previous several questions are addressing the issue of voting?

       

      Please consider the following statement:

       

      "How many men would it take to properly and democratically vote the panties off of an unwilling woman?"

       

      16. Isn't it true that no matter how many men were to vote the panties off of an unwilling woman it would still be the crime of rape?

       

      17. Do you agree that in order for us to solve the problems we face in our society that we must come to an agreement as to how these problems should be resolved, and that in order for this to be successful there must be universal, 100% agreement as to how these problems will be resolved?

       

      18. As I am confident that all of you will all agree that no matter how many men might agree to vote the panties off of an unwilling woman that they have no authority to enforce such a vote, so how is there any difference between voting the panties off of an unwilling woman and voting money out of your pocket?

       

      19. Is not clear from the previous questions that voting is a criminal act?

       

      Many times in the recorded history of man has human civilization gone through the exact same problems that we are at this time struggling to resolve? How many times in the previous history of man have those involved attempted to resolve the problems the same way we are trying to resolve it at this time, using the same failed reasoning that has been set forth above in the questions that I have presented?

       

      Can it ever be reasonably expected that there will be universal 100% agreement as to what it is that will constitute the acceptable level of interference of government in our lives or the exceptional level of taxation that should be imposed on us?

       

      Does this not establish that if we are to ever resolve the problems facing humankind that we must come up with a different means? A different solution? A solution that is based on an absolute rather than the whimsy of politicians or voters who have no individual authority to require anyone to do anything?

       

      I expect that there will be universal agreement that 2+2 equals four, or that 3x5 equals 15, or that water is wet and fire hot and that French vanilla ice cream is the tastiest flavor of all. Oh, dry sense of some disagreement of the last statement? There are those who actually do not agree that French vanilla ice cream and the tastiest flavor of all? Well at least there is agreement on everything else, so that constitutes a 80% agreement and certainly no one can complain that being required to eat French vanilla ice cream is going to hurt them so therefore let it be decreed that the preceding ordinances passed!

       

      In order for us humans to devise a societal organization there will not be involved into the mess we currently suffer under the society we demonize must be based on Fundamental, Basic, Natural Principles.

       

      So what is it that constitutes Fundamental Basic Natural Principles? Fundamental Basic Natural Principles dictate that government cannot be properly imbued with any more authority than the authority naturally imbued into any one single individual man by nature. That is, as I have no naturally imbued authority to require you to conform, and as you have no naturally imbued authority to require me to conform it is therefore impossible for us to combine our nonexisting authority in order to require others to conform!

       

      THE MONETARY SYSTEM AND THE FUNDING OF GOVERNMENT

       

      It seems to be fairly universally agreed that the reason why we are having monetary problems is because we're using a money system has no actual value because we use paper money that is not backed by gold or silver.

       

      In determining what will work best as a medium of exchange, money, it is imperative that we consider the natural organization of the society. In the agrarian society that existed in this country when the Constitution was adopted the general population was able to acquire the land needed to grow their food by simply homesteading the land. They did not have to pay any money for the land. The land was free for the taking all they were required to do was improve the land, build a house on the land and it became their's.

       

      The vast majority of the population at that time were farmers. They were required to be farmers whether they liked it or not because they had to grow their own food. Food was not shipped in by 18 wheeler refrigerated trucks, grown hundreds and thousands of miles away. That is not the case in 2011.

       

      In 2011 for the past hundred or more years we have had refrigeration of food. Refrigeration of food enables high a density populations such as exist in New York Chicago San Diego Los Angeles and hundreds of other cities throughout this land. The millions of people who have congregated themselves in the suburban communities do not and cannot grow their own food. Neither can they acquire the homes that they live in simply by homesteading. Due to the very nature of modern human society these millions of people who live in the suburban communities will acquire their homes by taking out a mortgage, and interest-bearing mortgage.

       

      Due to the nature of gold and silver the lending of gold and silver money will always be owned by private lenders, by private bankers. There is no reasonable way that any government can claim to be the owner of all gold and silver. There is a widely misunderstood belief that the Constitution of the United States provides that the government of the United States will issue gold and silver money. This is not true. Go read the Constitution for yourself, there is nothing in the Constitution this suggests that the government of the United States will issue any whatever issue means. The Constitution of the United States merely assigns to Congress the authority to design the money the goal is over money it does not provide or even suggest that the government of the United States shall or has the ability to issue money or to put it into circulation. The gold and silver the money that was used at the beginning of this country was not brought into circulation by the government.

       

      We currently have between 70 and 80 million interest-bearing mortgage loans in the United States. If we were operating under a gold and silver money system all of these loans would be owned by private lenders, by private bankers. With all of these the 7D2 80 million mortgage holders paying interest on their gold and silver money they borrowed how long would it be before the private lenders became the owners of all the gold and silver the entire society on the entire planet? What with the mortgage holders they used to pay the interest or even the principal other mortgage loans? How long would it be before the private lenders of gold and silver became the owners of all the houses and everything else including the Bowers?

       

      Gold and silver money will not work well in a society where food is refrigerated. So what is the solution here to eliminate the refrigeration affiliated? I don't think so!

       

      Get it straight! Gold and silver rule not work well as money in a society where food is refrigerated and where use of electricity is prevalent.

       

      There are many misconceptions about the operation of the Federal Reserve system, paper money, and where the fault lies for our economic monetary problems. The vast majority of our economic monetary problems are caused not by the Federal Reserve but by the Congress of the United States.

       

      The Constitution of the United States has at least two very serious defects. The first is the provision in the Constitution allowing the Congress of the United States to borrow Money on the credit of the United States. The second defect is the absence of the Constitution of any detailed explanation of the authority of the jury in a court trial. I am convinced that the latter is the most serious of the defect.

       

      It is widely believed that the paper money brought into circulation through the Federal Reserve is nothing but worthless unbacked paper, this is only partially true. If the money were actually worthless no one would accept it. Why don't you try spending Monopoly money out of a Monopoly game at the grocery store? Because you know it won't work at the grocery store. That it only works in Monopoly game because all the players in the game accept it as having value in the game but you can't take that Monopoly money from the game and taken to the grocery store and purchased food or anything else because it's worthless at the grocery store. Federal reserve notes are not worthless if they were they would not be accepted at the grocery store anywhere else.

       

      As there is no gold and silver backing Federal Reserve Notes where does the value of the Federal Reserve Notes come from? Some will responded by saying the Federal Reserve Notes only work because we are required to accept them and because we don't have any other choice. Although there may be some truth to that there's much more to it:

       

      What we actually have in the United States is two separate monetary systems operating at the same time. With one operating to fund the federal government and another operating to fund the private sector. The problem is both of these monetary systems are using the exact same identical money. The money that is created by the Federal Reserve for the use of the federal government is totally 100% worthless unbacked fiat paper money. However this is not at all true in regard to the paper money created by the Federal Reserve to fund the private sector money system.

       

      The money created to fund a private sector is backed by the productivity of the private sector borrower, whether that borrower be an individual or a business. The private sector borrowers create value through their human productivity this human productivity is what imbues the value into the paper money created by the Federal Reserve for the private sector. When properly understood this exactly the means by which gold and silver coins is a given value.

       

      We humans don't actually want the money whether the money is gold and silver or paper, what we humans actually want is one we can get for the money.

       

      I will be talking about today these matters on my show.

       

      Cheers,

       

      I'm Eric,WhoRU??

       

      Phone Contact: 720-675-7230

      Best times to call: 8:30 am-9:00 pm MST

      Bear's Pages: www.irsterminator.com www.legalbears.com www.legalbearsblog.com

      www.irslienthumper.com www.irslevythumper.com www.irs-armory.com www.freedivorceforms.net

      www.cantheydothat.com (a free lien evaluation) www.trafficrocketblog.com Send an email to:

      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com to join Tips & Tricks for Court Group

       

    • dave
      I answered some.ha ha Eric,WhoRU?? sent this to me and I read it from top to bottom. Some of the questions are Socratic in nature, but, it did not seem like
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 19, 2011
      • 0 Attachment

        I answered some…ha ha

         

        From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Legalbear
        Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 8:21 PM
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: ewrbn@...
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Acceptable level of interference of government in your life?

         

         

        Eric,WhoRU?? sent this to me and I read it from top to bottom. Some of the questions are Socratic in nature, but, it did not seem like they were intended to lead us to a conclusion which I like. It seems more like his questions are designed to cause us to look within ourselves for our own answers. I like the way he thinks, so, I’m forwarding it on to you:

         

        Hi Group [to join Eric’s Yahoo group email: whoru-subscribe@yahoogroups.com] ,

         

        I will renew my weekly talk show on Talkshoe next Monday, February 21, 2011. The time will be 8 PM Central the call-in number is (724) 444-7444. The pin number is 27767.

         

        The URL is www.talkshoe.com

         

        This seems to be universal agreement that the United States of America is a big mess. Everyone seems to agree that something needs to be done about this, and there are a lot of ideas out there but nobody seems to know exactly what needs to be done. I'm going to postulate several questions to indicate why it is that we have this problem and that it is virtually impossible to actually resolve it.

         

        There seems to be reversal agreement that we need less government interference in our lives; a reduction in taxes; and since various changes to our monetary system.

         

        I would like for each of you who read this to formulate and write down your answer to the following questions So here are the questions:

         

        1. What would it be that would constitute the proper and acceptable level of interference of government in your life?

         120% ….I love self abuse.

        2. Is it proper for the government to be able to require you to pay taxes, to be inoculated, to attend government schools, to get permission from the government to repair a light switch in your house, to get a license from the government in order to practice a profession?

         Yes, I want to be inoculated with a vaccine….said vaccine would require me to pay taxes, repair a light switch etc.

        3. Where does the government get the authority to impose these requirements?

        .

        4. Can you identify within yourself a separation of your intellectual aspect and your physical aspect?

         Yes….when I look at a good Playboy centerfold.

        5. Can you sense a physical connection between your intellectual aspects and your physical aspect?

         See above….

        6. What is your name? Is there any manner of connection between your physical entity and your name? Is there any manner of connection between your intellectual entity and your name?

         Only in my mind

        7. Does the government have authority to require you to have a name? Does the government have authority to require you to have a true legal name? Does the government have authority to require you to have a positive ID?

         I want to know, “What is a negative ID?”

        8. Do you consider yourself to be free? What is it that constitutes freedom, in your opinion? Who is it that just to decide what it is that constitutes freedom?

         I’m cheap but not free.

        9. In your opinion what is the acceptable level of taxation that the government can impose upon you? Does the government have any proper authority to require you to reveal to the government how much money you have?

         Sure….there is no money anyway….so what difference does it make?

        10. What is the purpose of public education? Who gets to decide this?

         For people to conduct surveys.

        11. What is the purpose of government?

        There isn’t any….that’s the joke!

        Who gets to decide this?

        The other joke …called politicians and voters.

         12. Do you have any naturally imbued authority to require anyone to conform to your answers to any of the above questions? Do any of your friends family coworkers neighbors have any in individually imbued authority to acquire any went to conform to their answers to any of the above questions?

        Yes….all of us have shotguns.

         

        13. Can two or more individuals combine their non-existing authority to require others to conform to their druthers in order to create authority to require others to conform?

         Sure….its called MARRIAGE and the “others” are children.

        14. As you and no other individual has any naturally imbued authority to require others to conform to your druthers how could it possibly be that you or any number of your friends coworkers neighbors or family members can combine their non-existing authority in order to require others to conform?

        Maybe not imbued…but how about inbred?

         

        15. Do you recognize that the previous several questions are addressing the issue of voting?

         

        Please consider the following statement:

         

        "How many men would it take to properly and democratically vote the panties off of an unwilling woman?"

         Maybe none….some women are just that way.

        16. Isn't it true that no matter how many men were to vote the panties off of an unwilling woman it would still be the crime of rape?

         Actually if non-consensual it is rape…not necessarily the crime of rape. Crimes are an invention of written law.

        17. Do you agree that in order for us to solve the problems we face in our society that we must come to an agreement as to how these problems should be resolved, and that in order for this to be successful there must be universal, 100% agreement as to how these problems will be resolved?

         Anyone who doesn’t agree with me…I shoot.

        18. As I am confident that all of you will all agree that no matter how many men might agree to vote the panties off of an unwilling woman that they have no authority to enforce such a vote, so how is there any difference between voting the panties off of an unwilling woman and voting money out of your pocket?

         Where are all these men?

        19. Is not clear from the previous questions that voting is a criminal act?

         A crime is an invention of written law…and voting is typically IN written law…so unless the voting is made illegal in written law, it is not a crime. What you are driving at is what happens IF someone is deprived of something by virtue of voting….which in a free society can’t happen…because people said deprived could always leave that society.

      • Jake
        ... of interference of government in your life? -0- None. ... to be inoculated, to attend government schools, to get permission from the government to repair
        Message 3 of 7 , Feb 21, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          My responses to the questions posed:

             > 1. What would it be that would constitute the proper and acceptable level of interference of government in your life?

          -0-  None.

             > 2. Is it proper for the government to be able to require you to pay taxes, to be inoculated, to attend government schools, to get permission from the government to repair a light switch in your house, to get a license from the government in order to practice a profession?

          To pay taxes lawfully imposed, yes; to be inoculated, no; to attend gov't. schools, no; to get gov't. permission to repair a light switch in my house or to get a license to practice a profession, it depends on the level of knowledge / skill needed to make the repair / for the profession.

          For example, although my background is in mechanical engineering, I've been an independent contractor in several varied fields for over 20 years & I've done a LOT of construction related work - residential & commercial, new, remodel, fire & water damage repair.  Building, electrical, plumbing, etc. codes exist for a reason & I have no problem with people being required to follow them.  Same goes for the licensing of certain professions.  

          Two houses come to mind right off - one required $33,000 worth of repairs & the other needed to have the entire foundation done over.  In both cases the building codes were not followed & for some reason a building inspector didn't catch the violations.  And something as simple as a light switch installed improperly can cause a fire that burns a house to the ground.

          Considering the State as the body of citizens, the State most assuredly has the right & even the duty to set certain standards & license certain professions, when it comes to public safety.  That would include building codes & electricians, traffic codes & bus drivers, hospitals & medical doctors, etc.

             > 3. Where does the government get the authority to impose these requirements?

          From the people.  Either because they elected representatives to make laws / regulations, or they didn't object to those being made. 

             > 4. Can you identify within yourself a separation of your intellectual aspect and your physical aspect?

          Sure - if the question means what I think it does - e.g., I know how to do things I'm no longer physically able to do.

             > 5. Can you sense a physical connection between your intellectual aspects and your physical aspect?

          The question doesn't make sense.

             > 6.  Is there any manner of connection between your physical entity and your name? Is there any manner of connection between your intellectual entity and your name?

          Somewhat - in the B-blical sense that an individual's name (usually) identified one or more of his / her characteristics.

             > 7. Does the government have authority to require you to have a name? Does the government have authority to require you to have a true legal name? Does the government have authority to require you to have a positive ID?

          To have a name in a certain form, no; to require that you can positively identify yourself, in certain situations yes.  For example, if you run a red light & slam into a vehicle I own, the law should require you to identify yourself - applies to any situation where someone injures another or damages their property.  But a certain type of ID with SSN required to get on an airplane or enter a public building, etc., no (I have a case in federal court on that issue now).

          8. Do you consider yourself to be free? What is it that constitutes freedom, in your opinion? Who is it that just to decide what it is that constitutes freedom?

          1st question - not completely.  2nd question - to be able to live where one chooses, work in whatever profession one chooses, read, write & speak whatever you want, etc. - as long as your actions don't injure others or damage their property.  3rd question - the people.

             > 9. In your opinion what is the acceptable level of taxation that the government can impose upon you? Does the government have any proper authority to require you to reveal to the government how much money you have?

          1st question - none.  People's activities can be taxed & I would say not more than 10% of their "profit or gain", but the people themselves cannot be taxed.  In other words, a corporation can be taxed for the "mere privilege of existing" but people can't be, although profits they make from business activity can.  Simply put, as long as people want services from gov't., they're going to have to be willing to pay for them & then the only question is how to do it fairly & equitably.

          2nd question - no.

             > 10. What is the purpose of public education? Who gets to decide this?

          1st question - in theory, to better the society as a whole by making education available to all people, regardless of their ability to pay for it.  2nd question - the people. 

             > 11. What is the purpose of government? Who gets to decide this?

          2nd question - the people. 1st question, to provide things & services the people (collectively) want but are unable to provide for themselves (individually) - i.e., build highways, provide fire departments, etc. & to protect their rights.  Perhaps best defined in the Declaration of Independence:

               "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

             > 12. Do you have any naturally imbued authority to require anyone to conform to your answers to any of the above questions? Do any of your friends family coworkers neighbors have any in individually imbued authority to acquire any went to conform to their answers to any of the above questions?

          No.

             > 13. Can two or more individuals combine their non-existing authority to require others to conform to their druthers in order to create authority to require others to conform?

          The question is far too general / broad, but to a certain extent, the answer is yes. 

             > 14. As you and no other individual has any naturally imbued authority to require others to conform to your druthers how could it possibly be that you or any number of your friends coworkers neighbors or family members can combine their non-existing authority in order to require others to conform?

          Again, the question is far too general / broad & specific situations would have to be described in order to get a cogent answer.

             > 15. Do you recognize that the previous several questions are addressing the issue of voting?

          Not specifically, as voting wasn't mentioned, although it could be inferred.

             > Please consider the following statement:


             > "How many men would it take to properly and democratically vote the panties off of an unwilling woman?"


             > 16. Isn't it true that no matter how many men were to vote the panties off of an unwilling woman it would still be the crime of rape?


          Without physical contact with the woman, no, but otherwise immoral & criminal, yes.


             > 17. Do you agree that in order for us to solve the problems we face in our society that we must come to an agreement as to how these problems should be resolved, and that in order for this to be successful there must be universal, 100% agreement as to how these problems will be resolved?


          No.  And to think that you'll ever get 100% agreement on anything in any society is ludicrous.


             > 18. As I am confident that all of you will all agree that no matter how many men might agree to vote the panties off of an unwilling woman that they have no authority to enforce such a vote, so how is there any difference between voting the panties off of an unwilling woman and voting money out of your pocket?

          Depends entirely on what the money is to be used for & what percentage of what each person has would be required.  In other words, would it be proper to say we're going to take 50% of everyone's income to build a casino with legalized prostitution?  Of course not.  But how about a vote to take 2% of everyone's income to help fund a new public hospital?  The people might agree to something like the latter arrangement. 

             > 19. Is not clear from the previous questions that voting is a criminal act?

          No.

             > Many times in the recorded history of man has human civilization gone through the exact same problems that we are at this time struggling to resolve? How many times in the previous history of man have those involved attempted to resolve the problems the same way we are trying to resolve it at this time, using the same failed reasoning that has been set forth above in the questions that I have presented?


          Just because people don't use methods / tools available to them doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with the methods / tools.  With regards to voting, what percentage of the people actually get out & vote?  The U.S. has about the lowest voter turnout percentage-wise of any country in the world.  And as the 1960's saying goes, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" - when the majority of the people don't take an active role in their gov't. / society, you're going to have nothing but problems.

           

             > Can it ever be reasonably expected that there will be universal 100% agreement as to what it is that will constitute the acceptable level of interference of government in our lives or the exceptional level of taxation that should be imposed on us?


          Of course not.


             > Does this not establish that if we are to ever resolve the problems facing humankind that we must come up with a different means? A different solution? A solution that is based on an absolute rather than the whimsy of politicians or voters who have no individual authority to require anyone to do anything?

          Who's "absolute" ???  I can say that the principles in the B-ble are my absolute, but if you don't consider the B-ble to be a good source, then your absolute(s) would be different.

          The rest of the message gets into matters which are far too involved to cover in an e-mail or forum such as this.  Some interesting thoughts on gold/solver coin vs. federal reserve notes though.

          ~ ~ ~

        • E Junker
          ... 2nd question - the people. 1st question, to provide things & services the people (collectively) want but are unable to provide for themselves
          Message 4 of 7 , Feb 21, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            > 11. What is the purpose of government? Who gets to decide this?

            2nd question - the people. 1st question, to provide things & services the people (collectively) want but are unable to provide for themselves (individually) - i.e., build highways, provide fire departments, etc. & to protect their
            rights.  Perhaps best defined in the Declaration of Independence:

                 "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

            Whoa, pardner!  We have unalienable rights to firehouses, roads and such? 
            I submit the government is instituted among men to secure the people's  rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of (money) happiness.  The Federal government isn't instituted to provide me with anything other than protection from those that would deny me my listed rights.  There's no income or housing or medical care listed as rights.  Nor can they be.


            From: Jake <jake_28079@...>
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 7:40:32 AM
            Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Acceptable level of interference of government in your life?

             

            My responses to the questions posed:

            ~ ~ ~

          • BOB GREGORY
            *I have only a few comments on individual questions/answers below. Others may choose to comment on the same or other questions/answers. 1. There is indeed, a
            Message 5 of 7 , Feb 21, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              I have only a few comments on individual questions/answers below.  Others may choose to comment on the same or other questions/answers.

              1.  There is indeed, a reasonable basis for having construction and housing codes.  However, as with most government approaches, they often go too far or are too general so that an inspector can find a violation in practically any house, not matter how good its condition.  Though most people agree that a double cylinder deadbolt is essential to good security for outside doors, they are illegal under most housing codes.  I have had to install single cylinder locks for a codes inspection and then change them to double cylinder locks after the inspection for better security for the tenants.  This is only one example of many which I could cite. 

              2.  Taxes can be lawfully imposed and still be excessive.  The federal government has for many decades overtaxed the public and used the excess funds to do unconstitutional things and to bribe/coerce the states into making laws that are beyond the reach of Congress (speed limits, blood alcohol levels, and many others).

              9.  Profits made from an unincorporated business activity by a man or woman (as opposed to a corporation) are not properly taxable according to Supreme Court Rulings.

              “The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him.” Butcher's Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 US 746 (1884).


              “That the right to conduct a lawful business, and thereby acquire pecuniary profits, is property, is indisputable.” TRUAX v. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 348 (1921).

              In Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720, 733 (1925):

              "[T]he Legislature has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are of common right, but it does have the power to declare as privileges and tax as such for state revenue purposes those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right..."


              “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 US 105, at 113; 63 S Ct at 875; 87 L Ed at 1298 (1943).


              FLINT v STONE TRACY, 220 US 107, 151-152, (1911):
              “Excises are ‘taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.’ Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680.”

              DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS. CO. , 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918):
              “Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.”

              DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS., 247 U.S. 179, 183 (1918):
              "An examination of these and other provisions of the Act (The 16th Amendment) make it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit upon the gainful returns from their business operations."


              --  It is difficult to say definitively that the principles in the "B_ble" form one's absolutes.  There are some principles there which are immoral and revolting and others that make pretty good sense.  People just selectively choose the principles that sound  "right" and "good" and "fair" or "Christian" to them and ignore the others, sometimes to the extent of pretending that they do not exist.  The "B_ble" is like a Chinese menu from which people select the things which justify what they want to do and believe.  The old saying that even the Devil can quote scripture for his own purpose is merely an extension of the fact that almost everybody does it.



              On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Jake <jake_28079@...> wrote:
               

              My responses to the questions posed:

                 > 1. What would it be that would constitute the proper and acceptable level of interference of government in your life?

              -0-  None.

                 > 2. Is it proper for the government to be able to require you to pay taxes, to be inoculated, to attend government schools, to get permission from the government to repair a light switch in your house, to get a license from the government in order to practice a profession?

              To pay taxes lawfully imposed, yes; to be inoculated, no; to attend gov't. schools, no; to get gov't. permission to repair a light switch in my house or to get a license to practice a profession, it depends on the level of knowledge / skill needed to make the repair / for the profession.


                 > 9. In your opinion what is the acceptable level of taxation that the government can impose upon you? Does the government have any proper authority to require you to reveal to the government how much money you have?

              1st question - none.  People's activities can be taxed & I would say not more than 10% of their "profit or gain", but the people themselves cannot be taxed.  In other words, a corporation can be taxed for the "mere privilege of existing" but people can't be, although profits they make from business activity can.  Simply put, as long as people want services from gov't., they're going to have to be willing to pay for them & then the only question is how to do it fairly & equitably.

              2nd question - no.


                 > Does this not establish that if we are to ever resolve the problems facing humankind that we must come up with a different means? A different solution? A solution that is based on an absolute rather than the whimsy of politicians or voters who have no individual authority to require anyone to do anything?

              Who's "absolute" ???  I can say that the principles in the B-ble are my absolute, but if you don't consider the B-ble to be a good source, then your absolute(s) would be different.



            • Jake
              ... I submit the government is instituted among men to secure the people s rights to life, liberty and thepursuit of (money) happiness. The Federal
              Message 6 of 7 , Feb 21, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                   > Whoa, pardner!  We have unalienable rights to firehouses, roads and such? 
                I submit the government is instituted among men to secure the people's  rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of (money) happiness.  The Federal government isn't instituted to provide me with anything other than protection from those that would deny me my listed rights.  There's no income or housing or medical care listed as rights.  Nor can they be.

                Now don't take my statements out of context.  I didn't say the people have unalienable rights to fire departments, highways & such, but they do have the right to build such things, including the right to create a government to handle large projects the people themselves cannot handle on their own.  

                And don't confuse the federal gov't. with State and/or local gov'ts. - the federal gov't. is specifically limited by the U.S. Constitution & while the States have their own constitutions, it's easier to change things @ the State or local level & when it comes to fire depts., roads, schools, etc., those are local issues which should be dealt with locally - or Statewide for some.  

                The States' biggest mistake has been to accept $$$ from the federal gov't. thereby putting themselves under the thumb of Washington, D.C. (district of criminals).

                Also, regarding housing, medical, etc. "rights", they can be created by statute, but of course they do not have status equivalent to "unalienable" rights & are really "privileges".

                ~ ~ ~ 


                From: E Junker <westernwit@...>
                To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 5:05:51 PM
                Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Acceptable level of interference of government in your life?

                 
                > 11. What is the purpose of government? Who gets to decide this?

                2nd question - the people. 1st question, to provide things & services the people (collectively) want but are unable to provide for themselves (individually) - i.e., build highways, provide fire departments, etc. & to protect their rights.  Perhaps best defined in the Declaration of Independence:

                     "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

                Whoa, pardner!  We have unalienable rights to firehouses, roads and such? 
                I submit the government is instituted among men to secure the people's  rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of (money) happiness.  The Federal government isn't instituted to provide me with anything other than protection from those that would deny me my listed rights.  There's no income or housing or medical care listed as rights.  Nor can they be.

                < snip >

              • coalbunny
                If I may.... A lot of what we have today was not around 231 years ago. Today we have luxuries like paved highways, hospitals, fire departments, and as much as
                Message 7 of 7 , Feb 21, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  If I may....

                  A lot of what we have today was not around 231 years ago.  Today we have luxuries like paved highways, hospitals, fire departments, and as much as I despise them- police.

                  I am not a fan of overspending, I despise any abuse of the civil rights of ANYONE in the United States (citizens and visitors alike), but we have luxuries that weren't there before.  That is the role of the government.  To do for the citizen what the citizen cannot do for themselves.  Provide services and luxuries for the citizens, that would not be there without the government.  The defend the citizens in time of war or help them in times of disasters.  NOT to be our baby sitter.

                  If you are part of the community, expect to meet certain responsibilities.  The next time someone's house burns down, the firefighters may be volunteers but they are not paying for the tools and supplies to fight your house fire out of their pocket.  It comes from the community pocket. 

                  But in no way do I endorse the abuse of our rights.  There is a fine line between a responsive & respectable government and the government we have now. And they can't see that.

                  Or perhaps they just don't want to see it. 

                  I can respect a certain amount if intrusion in exchange for the luxuries.  But by no means does that mean they have the right to my life.
                  c



                  On 2/21/2011 3:05 PM, E Junker wrote:
                  > 11. What is the purpose of government? Who gets to decide this?

                  2nd question - the people. 1st question, to provide things & services the people (collectively) want but are unable to provide for themselves (individually) - i.e., build highways, provide fire departments, etc. & to protect their rights.  Perhaps best defined in the Declaration of Independence:

                       "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

                  Whoa, pardner!  We have unalienable rights to firehouses, roads and such? 
                  I submit the government is instituted among men to secure the people's  rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of (money) happiness.  The Federal government isn't instituted to provide me with anything other than protection from those that would deny me my listed rights.  There's no income or housing or medical care listed as rights.  Nor can they be.


                  From: Jake <jake_28079@...>
                  To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 7:40:32 AM
                  Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Acceptable level of interference of government in your life?

                   
                  My responses to the questions posed:

                  ~ ~ ~

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