Re: American Slavery

The Articles would certainly be an improvement ....
Until the Government can be separated from schools, it is likely that *any* fix will fall short.

Regard$,
--MJ

"What's the difference between a bright, inquisitive five-year-old, and a dull, stupid nineteen-year-old? Fourteen years of the British educational system" -- Bertrand Russell



At 08:39 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote:

MJ.....I read this piece.  What are your thoughts about it and if the "US" was to do away with the constitution, then what should it be substituted with?
 
S

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

American Slavery

By Chris Dates

by Bill | June 20th, 2011

"My subject, then, fellow citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine. I do not hesitate to declare with all my soul that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July!" -- Frederick Douglass

I always hear folks saying, "if we could only get back to the Constitution". Well, in the spirit of the 4th of July coming up in a couple of weeks, I would like to examine the founding documents of this country with the hopes of pinpointing just where we went off track. Did we actually get away from the Constitution?

I would like to start with the Declaration of Independence. In my opinion, the Declaration is pure American poetry, and the first couple of paragraphs are beautiful. It's enough to make you proud to be an American again. Here we go-

The Declaration of Independence

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

I would like to examine this sentence very closely --

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their JUST powers from the consent of the governed.

Do you see that word -- Just -- in there? I would like to define that word, as it was put there for a reason. It does not say "deriving their powers from the consent of the governed".

Just -- Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.

Armed with the logic of the Declaration, let's dive into the Constitution, and see if we really got away from this sacred piece of parchment. The Constitution claims The Congress has many powers, but the Constitution never really claims where The Congress got them from in the first place. Remember, the Declaration only claimed that Governments derive their "just" powers from the consent of the governed. I would like to dissect the Constitution here and see how just these powers the Constitution claims "The Congress" retains really are.

Article 1 Section 8

8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Is the power to tax a just power? I honestly do not believe it is. I think it is completely immoral, and I don't believe any mere mortal has possession of the power to tax.  Well, they might believe they have that power, but if any individual tried to exercise that power, it might get them severely hurt, or killed. What I mean by that is if you claim you have the power to tax, you also claim you have the power to steal. Simply changing the name of the action does not relieve a person of the morality of it. If murder is called by a different name, is it still wrong?  You do not possess the "power" to go over to your neighbor's house to lay and collect taxes on him; therefore you CANNOT give that power away. So, where does The Congress derive this power from? It's is not from the people, it is impossible. I would really like to focus on the morality issue here for just a second. Without The Congress claiming this power, none, and I mean none of this tyranny we have now would be possible. I'm sure some of you might think it would be worse without this power to steal; it might be (gasp) Anarchy! Although that is a lovely conversation, I do not want to get into that in this essay. Besides, my colleagues here at zerogov.com have done a very good job slaying that dragon.

The Constitution specifically says The Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, but it never says what the limit on this taxation is. I think I know the reason that no limit was put on taxation. It is impossible to put a limit on theft. Theft is either wrong, or it's not. It's an either/or proposition. Please, don't think I'm pulling and intellectual slight-of-hand here, taxation is theft. Beneath all of the bureaucracy, tax bills, and paperwork, lies is a gun. I have had many conversations with people who say "it won't come to violence if you just pay", this is where I ask them to give me their wallet. Of course, it doesn't have to come to violence if they just give it to me, they usually get the point, although I'm sure they got the point already, the red pill is a tough one to choke down. OK, back to taxation. How much would you, the "citizen", or "the tax payer", prefer is stolen from yourself? How much would you prefer is stolen from me? You see, if you do not stand on the principle that theft is morally wrong, then you have no principle to point to when the Government takes it all. You have nothing to point to in order to justify your outrage. Are you good with 10% theft? 20% theft? 50% theft!? If the issue of taxation always rests on a preference, it will ALWAYS differ between people. You either stand on principle, or you agree with theft. Period. People say, "But you are being provided a service!" I am an auto mechanic. I do not provide my services at the business end of my pistol, although it would be so much easier, but that is immoral, that is wrong. Wouldn't it be wrong of me to come to your house, repair your car, and then stick you up to pay for it? Of course that would be wrong. The Government is no different than me, if it's wrong for me, it's wrong for them.

The problem here is when you consent to theft; you turn your neighbor into a slave. If you consent to governmental theft, you also consent to governmental slavery. I feel no moral obligation to pay taxes; I pay them so men with guns don't come to my house. I pay them strictly out of self- preservation. Much the same way slaves kept working in order to avoid death. Since I have to pay taxes, I have to work longer to pay for the things that I need for my own life. This is slavery, and it is wrong on so many levels. Slaves work all day for someone else, only to have a couple of hours left in the day to try and take care of themselves and their families. Slave masters have always understood that you cannot work the slave and take it all, which would kill him. The only difference now, instead of having one slave master, we now have millions of slave masters, who, with a vote, can take more and more from us, making us work longer, and harder for our own needs. Theft and slavery are morally wrong, it does not matter if the money is being stolen to provide for the common defense, or the general welfare, or to feed starving puppies, it is still wrong. We are all on the plantation, and Democracy is the slave master. Of course, the intellectual elites of this world are all laughing at us, because we have bought into this huge scam hook, line, and sinker. It gives the quote, "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist", a whole new ring doesn't it? It takes a special kind of evil to make a man act immoral when he normally wouldn't.

8.2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

What does this even mean? To borrow money on the credit of the "United States". I'm not the "United States"; you're not the "United States", so just who is borrowing this money? Why is the "United States" borrowing money? And the more important question, who is liable to pay it back? If the scumbags on Capitol Hill can borrow money on the credit of the United States, and pawn the debt off on me, I should be able to do it to them. I reckon it would go something like this, "I Chris Dates hereby borrow money on the credit on The Congress". This should relieve me of all responsibility of having to repay money that was borrowed. Of course, I have now just made all of the members of The Congress my slaves. Borrowing money in someone else's name and charging them to pay it back is so immoral it's sick, but hey, it's right there in this sacred document we love so much. We need to understand the severity of this line in the Constitution. This, in essence, is the power to not only enslave me, buy every generation of my family to come. There was no stipulation of when this money had to be paid back. There was no generational clause in there; it was left very bland for a purpose. This one line, along with the power to lay and collect taxes, gives The Congress the power to enslave every generation of Americans, perpetually. The Constitution is the blueprint for a perpetual slave machine. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but it's the truth. I do not possess the power to borrow money on the credit of my neighbor, so I could not possibly give this power to some entity calling itself "The Congress". Do you have the power to enslave your neighbor? No? Then how in the hell did "The Congress" get that power?

I could go on and on here, but I think I have laid out a pretty good case.  The Constitution is an immoral document, and, to paraphrase Lysander Spooner, it is unfit to exist. If it is to exist, a Government should never be based on it. It is a maker of tyrants, and a maker of slaves. If it is to exist, it should be held up for all generations to come as what not to do when deciding on government. It should be left in its pretty guarded glass case only as a reminder that it is wrong to enslave our neighbors, even if we use nice phrases and words like We the People, liberty, and security. The Constitution cannot change what is right and wrong. There is no getting back to the Constitution, we are here folks, and this is it. Nothing right could ever come from a wrong. Immorality only begets more immorality. The reason the government is wrong now, is because it was wrong at its inception. If men of virtue are only allowed to play by immoral rules, it is irrational to expect moral results. Which begs the question as to why men of virtue would play such a game? They wouldn't.

Happy 4th of July, slaves.

"No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle ­ but only in degree ­ between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure." -- Lysander Spooner

http://zerogov.com/?p=1957

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

 

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.