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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Acceptable level of interference of government in your life?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.