Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Is anarchy better than no government at all?


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

Poll: Is anarchy better than no government at all? (0 member(s) have cast votes)

Is anarchy better than no government at all?

  1. Yes (6 votes [20.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.69%

  2. No (15 votes [51.72%])

    Percentage of vote: 51.72%

  3. Huh? (8 votes [27.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.59%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 BUDDIEE

BUDDIEE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2785 posts

Posted 29 September 2005 - 05:13 PM

+++ Now: The Constitution of Mass says that all laws must have an enacting clause:
Part II Ch. VI SEC. VIII:
" The enacting style, in making and passing ALL ACTS, STATUTES, and LAWS, shall be 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same'"

Do I see an enacting clause concerning the GENERAL LAWS ch 281? NO!! IS IT A LAW according to the Constitution of Mass? NO!

So I go to the Massachusetts archives to find the origins of this act and what do I find? It is not an act of the legislature of 1920. Dummy! Doesn't it say in Sec 1 of Ch 281 it is not an act of 1920? Yet notice it calls it THIS ACT...Huh! After much head scratching and research I find out it was a resolve of the legislature.

The public legislative season had ended and they called a special session of the legislature and it became a resolve. So what is the difference between an act and a resolve?

BALLENTINE'S LAW DICTIONARY 1969 page 1105, resolution. An expression of the opinion or mind of a municipal counsel concerning some matter of administration and providing for the disposition thereof, being less formal than an ordinance and requiring no set form of words. Sawyer v. Lorenzo, 149 Iowa 87, 127 NW 1091. An expression of any legislative department of government other than by statute. A proposition of law declared in a case, e.g. the first resolution in Wild's Case.

+++ what do i read?
OPINION OR MIND, BEING LESS FORMAL THAN AN ORDINANCE...EXPRESSION OTHER THAN BY STATUTE.

So I go to Blacks law Dictionary 6th ed. , page 1310:
Resolution.
A formal expression of the opinion or will of an official body or a public assembly, adopted by vote; as a legislative resolution. Such may be either a simple, joint or concurrent resolution. The term is usually employed to denote the adoption of a motion, the subject matter of which would not properly constitute a statute, such as a mere expression of opinion; an alteration of the rules; a vote of thanks or of censure, etc. Such is not law but merely a form in which a legislative body expresses an opinion.

+++ NOT PROPERLY CONSTITUTE A STATUTE...SUCH IS NOT LAW BUT EXPRESSES AN OPINION.

ok lets get a non attorney opinion; WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED
1860, PAGE 944, second column:
Re-solve' n.

2. Legal or official determination; legislative act concerning a private person or corporation, or concerning some private business. Public acts of the legislature respect the State, and to give them validity, the bills for such acts must pass through all legislative forms. Resolves are usually private acts, and are often passed with less formality. Resolves may also be the acts of a single branch of the legislature; whereas public acts must be passed by a majority of both branches.

AMERICAN LEGISLATURES.
+++ Figures it takes a non lawyer to call a spade a spade. LEGISLATIVE ACT FOR PRIVATE CORPORATION/BUSINESS!! I smell a lawyers corporation known as the BAR.
Notice the difference between a Public act and a private resolve! So is a resolve Public law? NO!

SO, While in the archives I pull all 4 of the Historical Notes for ch. 281 sec. 1, and guess what I find. They all were not enacted as laws but were adopted as resolutions of special sessions of the legislature. And the language and wording is identical each time with the new name replacing the old name for the name of the codes.

So what is the conclusion?
That they are not duly enacted Public Acts of the legislature, but private opinions that are not laws.
So what does that mean?
You are never charged with a violation of a public Statute-at-large, or duly enacted law, but rather some private concerns opinion by means of a cheat sheet (code) giving evidence that a real law exists. So you are not charged with a violation of a real law.

Now sheeple! when is an act not an act?
Don't you just love legalese!

I also found New Hampshire to have an identical so called law ( is it law?) by a different chapter number and different years, yet the wording is identical. NOTHING IS ORIGINAL BUT BOILERPLATED.

My guess is all the states have this same section respecting the naming of the laws[oxymoron]. My Sources in N.C. say they have found a similar situation where the legislature use ENACTS for a public law but also the word DECLARES instead of the word Resolves for its private laws.

Another little gem I found in the annotated M.G.L.A. under article 12 of the constitution it says " ...and no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of law, exiled, or deprived of life, liberty or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or law of the land, without trial by jury."

Annotated note # 7. "'Law of the land' does NOT APPLY to statutory law of the commonwealth, but refers to the language found in Magna Charta, to concept of due process of law.

So the law of the land does not apply to statutory law and is asuperior law to statutory laws. . Well if it is not statutory, then whatlaw is law ofthe land?

WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED 1860, page 231 third column under: Com'mon: 10.

Common law. - In Great Britain and the United States, the unwritten law, the law that receives its binding force from immemorial usage and universal reception, in distinction from written or statute law. That body of rules, principles, and customs, which have been received from our ancestors, and by which courts have governed in their judicial decisions. The evidence of this law is to be found in the reports of those decisions, and the records of the courts. Some of these rules may have originated in edicts or statutes which are now lost, or in those terms and conditions of particular grants or charters; but it is most probable that many of them originated in judicial decisions founded on natural justice and equity, or on local customs.

IMMEMORIAL USAGE/ UNWRITTEN LAW from Universal reception - distinct from STATUTE LAW!! How about the universal principle that says that every soul has a right to unfold any way it wills as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other souls.[ governments are not souls, but fictions, persona's. ] [ remember we are all theatrical spectacles to the world.] So Law of the land is the common law not of old England but the common law common to all men throughout time immemorial of antiquity, which is unwritten [guess that eliminates written statutes as laws]

Check this old court case out!
" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state.

There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.

+++So then by the adotion of Natures law, I am not bound by governments laws without my consent.
It appears people have been mentally removed from their Natural state, by the governments since this case in 1796. If you do not insist on Nature's Law, then you loose your independence.

I choose Nature's law and maintain my independence of all governments law not in harmony with it.

Is there no way of getting out of Governments laws?

The answer is that we can never get away from universal principles - BUT WE CAN SPECIALIZE THEM.

We may take it as an axiom that any law which appears to limit us contains in itself the principle by which that limitation can be overcome, just as in the case of the floatation of iron. In former days noone thought of building ships of iron because iron does not float. Yet now ships are seldom built of anything else, though the relative specific gravities of iron and water remain unchanged. What has changed is the Personal Factor. It has expanded to a more intelligent perception of the law of floatation, and we now see that wood floats and iron sinks, both of them by the same principle working under opposite conditions, the law, namely, that anything will float which bulk for bulk is lighter than the volume of water displaced by it, so that including in our calculations the displacement of the vessel as well as the specific gravity of the material, we now make iron float by the very same law by which it sinks. This principle shows the function of the Personal Factor is to analyze by contemplations the manifestations of Law which are spontaneously afforded by Nature and to discover the Universal Affirmative Principle which lies hidden within them, and then by the exercise of our powers of Initiative and Selection to provide such specialized conditions as will enable the Universal Principle to work in perfectly new ways transcending anything in our past experience. In this axiom, then, we shall find the clue which will bring us out from government laws. The same laws which place various degrees of limitations can be so applied as to set one free. We just need to contemplate it! It's there. Within every law of limitation is the law of its expansion! Just Specialize it!
  • 0

#22 DownWithFascism

DownWithFascism

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11842 posts

Posted 29 September 2005 - 06:51 PM

Originally posted by vigorous
The last anarchy I ever saw was when the substitute
teachers came into our grade 8 classrooms.


I once saw my class wind up a very inexperienced substitute teacher so well that the poor chap was on the verge of tears. I think a girl or two felt sorry for him and went to speak to him at the end of class, perhaps to offer him a tissue and some disciplinary advice about how to deal with unruly pupils.   :shocknlau
  • 0

#23 SVAmigo

SVAmigo

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1407 posts

Posted 29 September 2005 - 07:26 PM

Hey Buddie

Think you could post the condensed Cliff Notes version (with conclusion) of all your posts?

Be much easier and less time consuming.....


SVA
  • 0

#24 Patrick

Patrick

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4962 posts

Posted 29 September 2005 - 07:42 PM

.....What an idiotic question; leave it to an idiot like the ''kween'' of white trash...
  • 0

#25 SVAmigo

SVAmigo

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1407 posts

Posted 29 September 2005 - 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Patrick
.....What an idiotic question; leave it to an idiot like the ''kween'' of white trash...



Hope you're not refering to me....

SVA
  • 0

#26 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 29 September 2005 - 07:53 PM

I love you too Patty

:kowt:
  • 0

#27 Mari

Mari

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15430 posts

Posted 29 September 2005 - 08:12 PM

It's an interesting subject considering what we witnessed in New Orleans.
  • 0

#28 Sigmund Fiend

Sigmund Fiend

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4695 posts

Posted 29 September 2005 - 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Mari
It's an interesting subject considering what we witnessed in New Orleans.





...from the comfort of our TV screens in Alaska! :cheers:
  • 0

#29 Patrick

Patrick

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4962 posts

Posted 30 September 2005 - 01:45 PM

''Hope you're not refering to me....''

No, Amigo...

.....I was speaking of the idiot that posted right behind your above post; that's what ''KoWT'' stands for...
  • 0

#30 punta

punta

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1830 posts

Posted 30 September 2005 - 01:57 PM

With so many potential candidates, will KoWT replace the court jester?
or is Patricks job safe?
  • 0

#31 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 30 September 2005 - 02:28 PM

The trouble with reading and writing is that people write stuff down, and other people read it. And the people that read it never quite know the true meaning of what they had read because they weren't there when it was written, and they certainly weren't there when what was being written about actually happened.

All sorts of governments and financial systems have worked perfectly well in certain times and particular environments with specific peoples. Most of the time transplanting these systems to another situation has proved a disaster.

Nevertheless, for people seeking dominion over others (the small-dick syndrome), they need something to sell to their prospective followers. An idea. And if traditional religion isn't a popular current flavour, try another religion: economic systems, or failing that, methods of governance.

Personally, I wouldn't like to try anarchy in a city of more than 5 million. Or less.
  • 0

#32 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 30 September 2005 - 02:31 PM

patrick's not my court jester

he's too shrill (in a feminine sort of way)

it's more sad than funny that a man who shares my given name would behave in such a pathetic and debased way
  • 0

#33 Patrick

Patrick

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4962 posts

Posted 30 September 2005 - 04:11 PM

.....The feeling is mutual, I'm sure...
  • 0

#34 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 30 September 2005 - 04:30 PM

"mutual"?

u think I'm feminine and shrill?

dude!

there's stuff wrong w/ you

not that that's a revelation or anything
  • 0

#35 Patrick

Patrick

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4962 posts

Posted 30 September 2005 - 04:48 PM

''there's stuff wrong w/ you''

.....I would imagine anyone intelligent would seem out of place to the likes of you...
  • 0

#36 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 30 September 2005 - 05:01 PM

one shouldn't stake claim to intelligence

if you're intelligent, people already know it

no sense rubbing their noses in it

especially as a way of stroking yourself

and if you're not intelligent

and are just putting on airs as some kind of mental salve for disfunction

you end up looking

well

shrill and feminine
  • 0

#37 Patrick

Patrick

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4962 posts

Posted 30 September 2005 - 05:06 PM

Listen, sissy...

.....I may be a lot of things, but feminine is not one of them; you cannot address the scope of my position, so you have to talk stupid guff as you do herein... you're welcome to continue, but it reflects far more upon yourself than it ever would me...
  • 0

#38 CooD

CooD

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4529 posts

Posted 30 September 2005 - 05:10 PM

Communism is anarchy--
at least, there are no classes, so there is no state.

Can there be rules and rulers still?

Such as on the bases of age, patriarchy vs. matriarchy, fill in the blank?
  • 0

#39 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 30 September 2005 - 05:16 PM

is this the "scope of your position"?

Originally posted by Patrick
.....What an idiotic question; leave it to an idiot like the ''kween'' of white trash...



you started it, phucktard
  • 0

#40 Patrick

Patrick

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4962 posts

Posted 30 September 2005 - 06:20 PM

Well...

.....It was an extremely stupid question...
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru