This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

39 Lawyers

I was offended by pro-State trolling on the 4th of July. They were celebrating "The anniversary of the birth of our country and the Constitution."

The 4th of July has nothing to do with the Constitution. The 4th of July celebrates a group of people deciding "This government isn't working for us. It's time to try something else."

If you carefully read the Declaration of Independence, most of the abuses cited occur in the present. You aren't forced to quarter troops in your home. Via high taxes and high military spending, the effect is almost the same.

The Constitution was a counter-revolutionary document. It created a new strong central government, after the people fought for freedom from another strong government. Many farmers were paying just as much in taxes or more, compared to before the Revolutionary War.

Instead of paying taxes/tribute to the King and Parliament, taxes/tribute were paid to State parasites in the new Federal government. The Federal government was a copy of the British mercantilist system, cloaked under the illusion of legitimacy via a representative democracy/republic.

The US Constitution was written in secret. That's not due to noble goals. People would have revolted if they realized their freedom was being stolen. Some people walked out of the meeting, once they saw what was happening.

Another interesting point is comparing "People who signed the Declaration of Independence" and "People who signed the Constitution". Very few people signed both documents.

The people who wrote the Constitution were a bunch of lawyers. They weren't just any lawyers. They represented insiders for the state governments.

There was no provision for direct popular ratification of the Constitution. It was ratified by state legislatures, which were themselves composed of insiders. In many states, there were many re-votes required to secure ratification. In some states, the Constitution passed by a thin margin.

Some representatives probably were promised favors in exchange for changing their vote. In Rhode Island, the threat of embargo and invasion were required, to secure ratification. Once ratified, there was no provision to un-ratify the Constitution, as the Southern states discovered during the Civil War.

Why should the actions of 39 lawyers 200 years ago enable State parasites to steal from me? The Constitution is not a valid contract.

Suppose the Constitution were put to a direct popular vote today. Suppose that 51% or 75% or 99.99% voted "Yes, I support the Constitution exactly as written." What right to the people who vote "yes" have to steal via taxes from those who vote "no"?

Besides, State parasites would never allow or encourage such a vote. It might break their illusion of legitimacy. People who work for the government, directly or indirectly, would probably vote to preserve the way things are now.

More than 50% of the people work for the government, directly or indirectly. That makes it impossible to achieve real reform by voting.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the Constitution needed to be re-ratified every 20 years, or it would lose its legitimacy. This attitude is reflected in some early laws. The first US central bank was given only a 20 year charter.

It is silly to believe that a document written more than 200 years ago can protect individual freedom. Politicians openly express contempt, when someone suggests that a proposed law is Unconstitutional. State parasites have a monopoly for interpreting and enforcing the Constitution and laws. That leads to the obvious corruption.

It's offensive to see the Constitution celebrated on the 4th of July. Compared to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution was a counter-revolutionary document. Pro-State trolls don't emphasize "The Constitution was written by 39 politically-connected lawyers."


Doug Plumb said...

Its all about money.

Our money is not "money", its debt - the very opposite of money (wealth) !!!

You cannot pay a debt with a debt. Imagine if I borrowed your car then smashed it up then borrowed someone elses car and put it in my driveway. Could you demand that I give you the other car ? No way. But I could give it to you. This is why income taxis voluntary.

If I was lie-able and agreed to be re-presented as a slave (from being a man with inalienable rights) in a "court" (where games are played) I would be subject to "acts" (acts are not real- because the money isn't real) of congress that result from "bills" in congress which are nothing more than bankster demands for money that doesn't exist.

This system is a legal system - a system that is legal- because we aquiesce to it. If you wish to be lie-able then you become part of the play through aquiescence.

Governments cannot force people into slavery because forced slavery is illegal, but they can trick and intimidate you into it. They trick us into this system because our governments are really bankrupt corporations who owe money to the banks and trick us as part of the conditions of their Ch 11 bankruptcy.

You are your birth certificate are two different entities. They hold your birth certificate and you have a certified copy as proof. That is evidence of a public trust of which you are the beneficiary- the corporation evidenced by the BC can be made to pay the debt.

You get tricked by attourneys into being the surety for this trust by being re-presented (as a slave). Attourneys exist to attourn our wealth over to the banks- they are not the same as lawyers who are experts at law. Attourneys are the guardians of this money system and they trick us into being lie-able -that is to believe the banksters money is wealth.

If everyone started learning about the Law (instead of this fraudulent system that is legal) we could stop electing attourneys to re-present us and the system would cave in like a paper tiger.

BTW: were the original signers of the Declaration of Independence not killed off and burned alive while in their homes by the Brits ?

PS: Thanks for being critical of those lying manipulative money grubbing weasels that are sometimes called "lawyers".

Robin Smith said...

I agree. Nothing at all has changed at the bottom

Could this be because in both cases the economic rent of the land was being collected for private purposes. So to fund government, everyones work and production had to be taxed.

No wonder nothing changed. Money was and still is the common means of exchange. If the underlying social maladjustment remains, allowing the rent of the land to be collected privately rather than publicly, it matters not about the money. The money is just the means to "transfer" that unfair distribution of wealth. A superficial effect.

The central problem has always been that THE RENT IS COLLECTED PRIVATELY. Proof? Tell me what wealth you can create without using land? Its the only thing you MUST have to create wealth. You do not have to have money to create wealth.

This is so simple a child could understand it. Yet it takes a man to not deny it.

FSK said...

Robin - This debate comes up frequently, "Which tax is most evil?" That's like asking "What's the best way to beat your wife?"

Some people say that property taxes are the most evil tax. Suppose you have a self-sufficient farm. You produce just enough food to feed yourself. Due to property taxes, that isn't a viable lifestyle. You have to participate in the State economy, just so you can get State money to pay property taxes. Now, you're also subject to the income tax and inflation tax.

The most evil taxes are:

- income taxes
- inflation tax
- government regulations tax
- property tax

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at