Re: Libertarian Party lying?

William C Colley wrote:
> Greetings All,

<snipped material>

[1]
> Well shucks there's no hope then is there? May as well just live with
> it make a token effort to hold back the growth of government.

Holding back the growth of government is a GOOD goal.
Impractical to implement under the current system. As you are aware,
bureaucrats are rewarded with bigger budgets by blowing more money, not
less. In fact, agencies that consume below budget often have their future
budgets cut.

One possible interim solution is to tax the government expenditures. No self
taxed government can spend more by taxing more.

[2]
> Hey, why don't you get a law degree Mr. JetGraphics, so you can more
> directly challenge all these injustices in court?

It might surprise you to find that the government doesn't injure private
property rights of those who are not socialists. Ergo, there is no need to
challenge non-existant injustices.

However, if one IS a voluntary socialist, one has no grounds to complain.

An example of "voluntary abuse" is non-custodial child support. Prior to
national socialism, there was no such thing. I asked the court, what was
their legal authority to compel someone to pay, when involuntary servitude
is unconstitutional. I have a hand written reply from a court officer that
admits that their SOLE authority to compel payment is the Social Security
Act of 1935. Ergo, if one is NOT a voluntary participant in national
socialism, one has not consented to be liable for paying child support.


[3]
> Well the LP is a _political party_ not an anarchist organization. So of
> course they aren't going to call for violent revolution against the
> Federal goverrnment. But if that's what you want then go for it.

Anarchy is the absence of law. Exercising sovereignty IS law. So it would be
more accurate to state that LP is involved with the democracy, while I
advocate individuals restoring their status in the republican form of
government, as guaranteed to them by Art 4, Sec 4.
Since 99% of the abuses are derived from consent to socialism within the
democracy, it would be safe to say that the first step would be to leave
national socialism. And to fully achieve individual sovereignty would
require leaving the democracy.

[4]
> Dude, you have _no way_ of knowing what a libertarian government would
> do if it gained power in the USA, just like I don't.

That is true. Do we ever "know" what the elected officials are going to do
"to us"?
Interesting point to ponder - the legal definition of a constituent is one
who has given "power of attorney" to his elected official to bind him to
the laws enacted.

[5]
> At least the LP is
> on record for drastically reducing the size of the Federal government.
> Would they succeed if elected or would they be corrupted by power as
> many others have been? I don't know, but to somehow _blame_ the LP for
> the current state of the Federal government, as you seem to be doing,
> is simply stupid.

I do not blame the LP for the current regime, or past abuses. However, if
they are a "political party" dedicated to reforming law, it would be
helpful if the leadership expressed their goals in correct legal
terminology that made sense. If they will not conform to law, then one can
only wonder WHAT they have planned after election.

[6]
> Now if you don't think the LP platform goes far enough, hey, start your
> own political party and make your own. It's a (mostly) free country.

That sentiment is a common misunderstanding about the law and government.
For example, we're taught that we are all "U.S. citizens" at birth. This is
not true. A citizen is a subject. A free inhabitant is not a subject. Since
free inhabitants with domiciles (upon private property) are sovereigns,
they must be the "people" that servant government is working for.

I think you'd agree that it is better to be the sovereign served by
government, that the servant serving the government.

Anecdotal info:
My friend was called for jury duty, so he decided to have some "fun". When
the clerk asked him if he was a U.S. citizen, he answered that he was born
within the boundaries of the city, county and state in union with 49 other
states. The clerk sighed, and asked him again. He answered, "I don't know,
you won't tell me..." The clerk moved on. But they LET HIM SIT ON THE JURY!


> <snip much excellent factual information>

[7]
> Dude, if you're so worried about a powerless third political party with
> all the troubles you have outlined here, well you certainly have your
> priorities misplaced. Either involve yourself directly in the LP and
> work to change the platform to something you think is closer to the
> truth, or provide evidence that the current sad state of huge
> government in the USA is somehow due to the LP lying about it's
> positions.

The troubles previously outlined are not addressable by legislature. At
least not directly. If the LP leadership are learned in law, then they are
deliberately misrepresenting the situation (*lying). If the leadership is
ignorant of law, they should study it before attempting to reform that
which they are ignorant of.


[8]
> I don't rightly know if the LP can _ever_ win a national election, but
> I'll vote for them anyway because it is still an alternative that is
> better than supporting Republicans or Democrats.

Whether they can win or not, it's nugatory. The optimal solution is not
found in partisan politics.

For an example of useless effort, consider the "draft dodgers" who burned
their draft cards in the 1960s and 70s.
According to the Selective Service Act, codified in Title 50, US Code, male
"citizens and residents" are liable. There is no mention that inhabitants
are liable for service. This conforms to the organic documents that formed
the United States of America.

Are you aware of the difference between an inhabitant (with a domicile) and
a resident (with a residence)? If you were tricked into asserting that you
are a U.S. resident, residing at a residence, would it be more effective to
correct the record, and stop being a resident? Ditto for "Free inhabitant".

Another useless effort: "protesting" socialist taxes. The individual income
tax liability is tied to one's enrollment into national socialism and
usury. Those I personally know, who were hassled by the IRS had two things
in common, (a) active SocSec number, and (b) open, interest bearing account
with an instrumentality of the Federal Reserve. Those I personally know who
were left alone, did not have active SSN, nor open, interest bearing
accounts. Most Americans are unaware that they volunteered to be liable for
socialist taxation.

Why is the "bank signature card" important? That's the document wherein you
agree to abide by the rules of the "Bank". Guess who is the U.S. governor
of the "Bank" (IMF)? The Secretary of Treasury. And according to Title 22
US Code, the governor of the bank SHALL NOT BE PAID by the U.S. government.
He shall be paid by the FEDERAL RESERVE CORPORATION, which is NOT a federal
agency, but a private corporation, and fiduciary agent for the Creditor, as
well as fiduciary agent for the U.N.

As posted earlier, the debt caused by usury is impossible to pay. So the
whole bankruptcy, reorganization and capitulation of America to the
financial powers is a covert overthrow of lawful government... except that
we consented to the mess. (Dang it!)

Until "We, the people" cease consenting, there's no legal remedy or
recourse.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Boston Legal vents against "the System" - NOT
    ... exercising the rights and powers of an American. ... participate in national socialism - it's against your religious beliefs. ... the government abhors trampling on that thorn. ... But that's the exact opposite of law. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Alliance with liberation and independence movements
    ... of a peaceful, parliamentary, transition to socialism. ... if a new socialist government built upon capitalist ... project that had set down roots in Western industrialized countries, ... view, processes, those of capitalism, not outcomes, those of national ...
    (soc.politics.marxism)
  • UNITED STATES SOCIALIST REPUBLIC (USSR)
    ... government in the first revolution of February 1917. ... Bolsheviks ultimately victorious. ... powers to turn the United States of America into the United States ... America from the clutches of socialism. ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
  • UNITED STATES SOCIALIST REPUBLIC (USSR)
    ... government in the first revolution of February 1917. ... Bolsheviks ultimately victorious. ... powers to turn the United States of America into the United States ... America from the clutches of socialism. ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Re: OT - Yet another Republican hypocrite
    ... government, let's call it what it is, socialist or socialism money ... Redistribution of Wealth!), ... and, like all power, the power to redistribute ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)