Proper Government

Thanks to Kallepash for sharing details of his court case.
Check out his channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/Kallepash

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Proper
• Government

[rsolgtp]

please. please write down what you want to say before you say it. your video will be about 8 minutes shorter and wont just confuse ppl with tangential chatter. although quite whimsical it can be a bit drifty. not a word but im in your world, so i think you will understand:) peace

[jericomovie]

you might find my more recent videos more to your preference. thanks for the feedback.

[Kallepash]

leap (dot) cc/cms/index.php?name=Forums&f­ile=viewtopic&p=2805#2805

Fascism and anarchy, rights vs. privileges...

And a really long explanation about how "laws against the non-criminal exercise" of protected rights is CRIME, and the moral justification is just that - "justification for CRIME."

There are reasonable regulations - then there are "regulatory takings" - deprivation of one's property without the 5th Amendment requirements for that "taking" to be LAWFUL.

[Kallepash]

But the U.S. government has no claim to the property - as it was recognized that each man in America was sovereign.

The collective authority was prevented from intruding upon the property (land - OWNED by that person) - and each meeting of persons in America was a meeting equal to that "of kings' - free men without need to consider the will of any other.

Kings can go to war.

Americans can also go to war.

U.S. Govt is meant to ensure peace between kings, to settle disputes; not "rule" over them.

[Kallepash]

"Harm" is nothing more than the violation of a protected right.

You have a reasonable right to safety - i.e. that others will not place you in harms way.

Me prostituting myself causes you no harm - moral disturbance, certainly, injury to a protected right, no.

But back to your example; Uranium could be "taken for public use" with just compensation - the mere possession cannot simply be criminalized because "we're afraid."

You're also talking about proximity danger - a violation of right to life

[jagmarz]

Would selling your Uranium to a foreign power constitute "harm" to your neighbor? "Harm" is a logical standard, but it's practical application is vague -- consider prohibitions on dog barking, loud parties, etc. How much Uranium do you have to spill to cause "harm"? One atom? a million? a billion? a mole? a kilogram?

[jagmarz]

The first "owners" of the land, then, were Native Americans. However, discounting that for purposes of this discussion, the Europeans "discovered" the continent and generally claimed all the land in the name of their sovereigns. So my contention is that the land really did belong to the government before it belonged to people. The fact that the US government wrested (or purchased) control from other governments doesn't really change this.

[jagmarz]

To go to the extreme, it's hard for the government to secure ANYTHING if the planet isn't habitable anymore.

[jericomovie]

I suppose you have to think about it before you can see it.

There are two deviations from thought, as it occurs to me. One, go with the popular opinion, or two, become a parrot of something relatively few people know about.

That is to say, most people sidestep the matter by either caring about what Oprah thinks, or memorizing Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil." Neither is actual thinking.

I am admittedly unaware how one might curb that trend for something better.

[Kallepash]

What the &%$@ have we let happen here?

I mean...

This stuff is so blatantly obvious - how can people not see it?