Who Owns You?

skidmark said:

Except for those who lived there before the historic district was created, everyone there signed an agreement to abide by certain covenants. Just like moving into a neighborhood controlled by a HOA. Those agreements to abide by the covenants are considered voluntary because the documents say you had a chance to read and review the covenants and ask clarifying questions before putting your signature at the bottom.

How many of you really read the legal small print before accepting a computer program? But it's the same thing - by accepting/installing the program you are agreeing to abide by all the mumbo-jumbo contained therein.

Perhaps a better way of looking at the ownership question s it relates to OC/CC/Self Defense is to look at what, if any covenants are involved.

CC is easy - read the laws about who can get a permission slip and where you can/cannot employ it.

OC and Self Defense are a bit more difficult because, as I see things, the covenants are not what you agreed to but what what TPTB have told you they will and will not do. The most often cited is the 5 (count them - five (5)) different SCOTUS rulings that the police have not duty or obligation to protect you except in certain vary narrow and precise circumstances. Having been left out on your own, what options are open to you and which ones do you want to exercise? (Even if I could carry a policeman on my back, he has no duty or obligation to protect me. Lemme see here - 185 pounds on my back or maybe a little over 2 pounds on my hip? And even if I carried a cop on my back and put him down when it came time to defend myself I cannot use him for either concealment or cover. Decisions, decisions.)

In short, the covenant is that you are on your own - how do you want to handle that?

stay safe.

Click to expand...

I've read it.. a few times... it gets confusing sometimes as to what they refer to and they intentionally make it so damn long, you can't remember the first part you read by the time your on the 5th paragraph.

as to this ownership, if you want to look at it realistically, the federal government owns you, you have a SS number right? you may as well call that your "parcel" number and your parents signed away ownership the second they signed for the SS number. hence why if I have a second child I might consider refusing to sign it..

solus said:

citizen, et al., if you have expended more than 30-60 seconds in this type of discussion you propose to have with JQPublic, they are over the conversation since you have exceeded their attention span.

this coupled with the fact your discussion is esoteric, the timeframe JQPublic will expend on said conversation, is at best < 30 sec since you have exceeded their capability to even begin to understand!

further conversation will make JQPublic angry as they sense you are showing them how stupid they are so JQPublic will get defensive and off we go into debate mode...

ipse

(nightmare ~ speaking from my metaphysically position, of course...)

Click to expand...

If someone initiates conversation and is genuine about their inquiry, as may very well be often the case, then you should not encounter such problems, solus. If you cannot explain such that a layman can understand, you may not be quite as philosophical as you see yourself, and if their attention to the conversation is so easily lost it is likely a reflection of your skill as a teacher rather than any characteristic you insultingly attribute to the common man. I try to not hold myself up as an elite among my community. Humility is difficult, but pride is damning.

Edit to add: I'm not trying to insult you, solus. I strongly disagree with the sentiment that you seem to be expressing, that attempting these sort of conversations (that are the subject of of OP) are futile.

Ezek said:

.

as to this ownership, if you want to look at it realistically, the federal government owns you, you have a SS number right? you may as well call that your "parcel" number and your parents signed away ownership the second they signed for the SS number. hence why if I have a second child I might consider refusing to sign it..

Click to expand...

Facepalm. Huge honking big facepalm. Huge honking big facepalm so huge and honking big my head is moved back at least two counties.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Facepalm. Huge honking big facepalm. Huge honking big facepalm so huge and honking big my head is moved back at least two counties.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

you know there are people who studied the social security act and found things in it that basically backs up what I said..


here is a link to one http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap7.html
and here is another one I found

https://llstuler.wordpress.com/

I find them interesting, although long winded.

stealthyeliminator said:

lol
---------------------------------
One of the most simple arguments establishing self-ownership was simple to deny self-ownership necessarily means that someone else has a higher claim to your life than you. While you might occasionally run into someone that might try to argue that, most people will readily accept (as common sense, or self-evident, or whatever) that no other person has a higher claim to their life than them.

I think self-defense is ultimately based on self-ownership. That might be one reason self-defense is so readily accepted as justification by reasonable people - they understand, even if they haven't articulated it, that people own themselves and so self-defense makes sense even if they can't explain why.

If you do not own yourself, you arguably may not have any right to defend yourself.

It is axiomatic that no one has a higher claim to your life than you. Additionally it is your personal responsibility to defend your life from aggression - you have no claim to demand of others that they provide you with that protection or defense. As long as you don't aggress on others in doing so, you most certainly have a right to acquire property, and seeing as defense of your own life is your own responsibility, it is wise to acquire property that might be used to defend yourself against aggression, or deter aggression from occurring in the first place.

Click to expand...

I don't know...

I keep having this reoccurring nightmare of a HUGE troll-like OBAMA looming over my mother as she gave birth screaming "YOU DIDN'T MAKE THAT!"

twoskinsonemanns said:

I don't know...

I keep having this reoccurring nightmare of a HUGE troll-like OBAMA looming over my mother as she gave birth screaming "YOU DIDN'T MAKE THAT!"

Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

solus said:

citizen, et al., if you have expended more than 30-60 seconds in this type of discussion you propose to have with JQPublic, they are over the conversation since you have exceeded their attention span.

this coupled with the fact your discussion is esoteric, the timeframe JQPublic will expend on said conversation, is at best < 30 sec since you have exceeded their capability to even begin to understand!

further conversation will make JQPublic angry as they sense you are showing them how stupid they are so JQPublic will get defensive and off we go into debate mode...

ipse

(nightmare ~ speaking from my metaphysically position, of course...)

Click to expand...

Thus me asking for ideas on how to succinctly tie self-ownership to defensive carry.

Just gotta read through the thread drift, man. It occurs to me that even the thread drift may suggest an idea to me, so I don't really mind it.

Nightmare said:

SNIP This is fundamentally an is/ought question.

Click to expand...

Just to drift my own thread.

Glad you mentioned that. Interesting question.

I would have to say I disagree. Here's why.

There has to be some fundamental stable frame of reference/reference point.

If we say is/ought, then the "is" part fluctuates back and forth across time. There goes the self-evident truths in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. They're only true if the "is" side has enough guns.

It occurs to me that "is" and ought can be on the same side. For example, "is" can be fundamental truth. But, that truth can be denied by enough people with enough guns such that it can also be an "ought."

And, when I look it over, I see that government spends an awful lot of time and effort lying and diverting attention away from the "is."

So, I'm gonna go with "is" being a fundamental reference point based on the laws of nature, the laws of human nature, and the Creative Agency. The government and society denying that "is," with enough denial occurring, to throw "is" also into the "ought" category.

Ezek said:

you know there are people who studied the social security act and found things in it that basically backs up what I said..


here is a link to one http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap7.html
and here is another one I found

https://llstuler.wordpress.com/

I find them interesting, although long winded.

Click to expand...

Nope.
42USC405(c)
Basically, a number will be issued to anyone who wants to be a socialist. Starting with alliens that enter the country lawfully.



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Freedom1Man said:

Nope.
42USC405(c)
Basically, a number will be issued to anyone who wants to be a socialist. Starting with alliens that enter the country lawfully.



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I once knew a 10 year-old boy whose father started a pass-book* savings account for him with $5. A few weeks later the bank sent a letter saying that the boy had to have a social security number if the account was to be maintained. Dad didn't know any better. Certainly the boy didn't either. The boy got his number.

All because the boy's little pass-book savings account could be used to launder money and evade taxes. Or, so the argument went. Yeah, suuuure. A ten year-old with a pass-book savings account was gonna launder tens of thousands of dollars or hide some of his dad's taxable income in a little pass-book savings account.

The little boy is still locked into the system through that number. A number that was originally promised to be used only to keep track of old-age pension money.

And, today, if a fraudster acquires that number, they can create endless headaches for the now-grown little boy, euphemistically referred to as identity theft.** In fact, the fedgov twice lost that little boy's number--remember the Veterans Administration losing laptops or hard drives. They sent that little boy, older now, a letter each time.

Can you guess who that little boy was? That's right, he wrote the post you just read.



*This is for the younger crowd. A pass-book for a savings account was literally a small book. When you deposited say five or ten dollars, the teller would hand write the amount in the book, and then stamp it with her teller's stamp to validate it. You kept the pass-book. It recorded all your deposits and withdrawals--say for comic books or whatever. Each entry had a teller's stamp beside it.

**Notice how the financial services industry threw the onus for someone else using your identifiers on you. You can't possibly be the victim of identity theft. If someone else uses your name to make a purchase, the financial services company and the seller are victims of fraud. Not you. But, its been twisted into you being stuck with ramifications to protect the financial services industry's interests. Fraud is fraud. There is no such thing as identity theft. Its an invented crime to throw some of the responsibility for fraud on you. Its gotten so bad that a few years ago I noticed my own bank offering to regularly check activity (so-called identity theft) in my name--for a fee!! Oh, you're going to charge me to protect yourself from fraud? Really?

Maybe the statement "It is about self ownership", if you see an interest expand if not, then keep it short to something like "since I own myself it is up to me provide for defense of myself".

Citizen said:

I once knew a 10 year-old boy whose father started a pass-book savings account for him with $5. A few weeks later the bank sent a letter saying that the boy had to have a social security number if the account was to be maintained. Dad didn't know any better. Certainly the boy didn't either. The boy got his number.

All because the boy's little pass-book savings account could be used to launder money and evade taxes. Or, so the argument went.

The little boy is still locked into the system through that number. A number that was originally promised to be used only to keep track of old-age pension money.

And, today, if a fraudster acquires that number, they can create endless headaches for the now-grown little boy, euphemistically referred to as identity theft. In fact, the fedgov twice lost that little boy's number--remember the Veterans Administration losing laptops or hard drives. They sent that little boy, older now, a letter each time.

Can you guess who that little boy was? That's right, he wrote the post you just read.

Click to expand...

When you do your research and obtain a copy of the SSA application for an OMB control number for the application for a SSN you would know that the form for applying for a SSN is to obtain or retain a federal (social security) benefit.

42USC408(a)(8) shows that an unlawful demand for a SSN is a felony.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Freedom1Man said:

When you do your research and obtain a copy of the SSA application for an OMB control number for the application for a SSN you would know that the form for applying for a SSN is to obtain or retain a federal (social security) benefit.

42USC408(a)(8) shows that an unlawful demand for a SSN is a felony.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're intending to convey.

Just in case, please understand my earlier post was using yours as a spring-board to comment, rather than to contradict.

sudden valley gunner said:

Maybe the statement "It is about self ownership", if you see an interest expand if not, then keep it short to something like "since I own myself it is up to me provide for defense of myself".

Click to expand...

Good point.

I cannot emphasize too much the impact of the ownership question, though. I mean this literally. Both times that I asked, "who owns you?", it brought the listener to a dead stop mentally. This really, really, really penetrates.

If a fella is so glib or superficial or out-of-touch with himself that it doesn't really impinge, so be it.

But, having seen the effect first-hand on people who were not glib, etc., I very much want to find a way to capitalize on it. If a way cannot be found, so be it. But, I ain't letting go of it easily. The question really gets traction. Way more than anything else I've ever tried.

Plus, it just makes sense that the question would get traction, would impinge. From everything I've seen, freedom is literally hardwired into us. The question, "who owns you?" slaps that hardwired freedom in the face.

Sure you own yourself. It's just that you have the social responsibility to conform to the majority norm and provide to those that may need what you have through your implied consent to the social contract.

Sorry I know I'm not be helpful to the thread's goal. Being reminded I'm a slave makes me irritable.

Citizen said:

Good point.

I cannot emphasize too much the impact of the ownership question, though. I mean this literally. Both times that I asked, "who owns you?", it brought the listener to a dead stop mentally. This really, really, really penetrates.

If a fella is so glib or superficial or out-of-touch with himself that it doesn't really impinge, so be it.

But, having seen the effect first-hand on people who were not glib, etc., I very much want to find a way to capitalize on it. If a way cannot be found, so be it. But, I ain't letting go of it easily. The question really gets traction. Way more than anything else I've ever tried.

Plus, it just makes sense that the question would get traction, would impinge. From everything I've seen, freedom is literally hardwired into us. The question, "who owns you?" slaps that hardwired freedom in the face.

Click to expand...

Yes putting the question to them is the best tactic. The same premise would still apply. I like the tactic. Get past the common left/right (false paradigm) and actually get to the base of property rights.

I think'll I'll try a similar tactic. Lately have had very few folks ask why other than kids. It has been mostly "what type of gun" is that.

With kids I simply state "who will stop the bad guy". They almost always point to me or answer "you will". I love doing this when its an anti parent who has used their kid as a tool and I just blew their whole tactic out of the water.

sudden valley gunner said:

I think'll I'll try a similar tactic. Lately have had very few folks ask why other than kids. It has been mostly "what type of gun" is that.

With kids I simply state "who will stop the bad guy". They almost always point to me or answer "you will". I love doing this when its an anti parent who has used their kid as a tool and I just blew their whole tactic out of the water.

Click to expand...

And, rubbed their face in the fact that their kid thinks you will be a better protector than their own parent.

Ow, ow, ow. That's gotta hurt--when your kid points to the stranger and indicates he thinks the stranger will protect him instead of you.

Citizen said:

And, rubbed their face in the fact that their kid thinks you will be a better protector than their own parent.

Ow, ow, ow. That's gotta hurt--when your kid points to the stranger and indicates he thinks the stranger will protect him instead of you.

Click to expand...

Hehe...yep and I don't feel guilty not one little bit.

stealthyeliminator said:

If someone initiates conversation and is genuine about their inquiry, as may very well be often the case, then you should not encounter such problems, solus. If you cannot explain such that a layman can understand, you may not be quite as philosophical as you see yourself, and if their attention to the conversation is so easily lost it is likely a reflection of your skill as a teacher rather than any characteristic you insultingly attribute to the common man. I try to not hold myself up as an elite among my community. Humility is difficult, but pride is damning.

Edit to add: I'm not trying to insult you, solus. I strongly disagree with the sentiment that you seem to be expressing, that attempting these sort of conversations (that are the subject of of OP) are futile.

Click to expand...

stealth, facts from studies...ppl who are used to modern technology can scan web pages at a rate of less than a webpage in a minute. why do you believe commercials are geared in 30 sec spots and most married couples only talk for 20 minutes a day!!

Transient attention is a short-term response to a stimulus that temporarily attracts/distracts attention. Researchers disagree on the exact amount of human transient attention span; some say it may be as short as 8 seconds.

Selective sustained attention, also known as focused attention, is the level of attention that produces the consistent results on a task over time. Some state that the average human attention span is approximately 5 minutes

keep talking about the individual who initiates the conversation and even if they have a true interest, the terms being used by the OC'r will be new and therefore difficult for the inquirer to retain the information in even short term memory.

additionally, the individual who brings up the query may be doing so not for information but from a shock and awe at the sight of your firearm. further, once the OC'r goes against what the beliefs of the individual who raised the query the individual shuts down and the OC'rs msg does not received.

philosophical, nawlllll but rather expressing critical thinking based on gaggles of marketing studies conducted by those smarter than myself who are mainly trying to discern how to get their products advertised in the best and fastest way...

when the individual's eyes glaze over while you are explaining the virtues of OC'g and why a firearm is imperative know you have exceeded their attention span.

ipse