Freedom1Man
Regular Member
more ammo for you
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Who Owns You?
- Thread starter Citizen
- Start date
- Status
more ammo for you
Meh, we're all owned by the banks, we just don't know it. *puts on shiny tin foil hat*
I will say if you convey the self ownership and the responsibility to protect your property is individualistic, such as what sudden valley has suggested, it will be rather short, and to the point.
I will say if you convey the self ownership and the responsibility to protect your property is individualistic, such as what sudden valley has suggested, it will be rather short, and to the point.
Last edited:
carolina guy
Regular Member
+1
Either you own yourself, or you do not. Some do not own their physical bodies (slaves) and some do not own their minds (the vast majority of people on the planet). It is easier to enslave the mind than the body and where the mind goes, the body follows.
carolina guy
Regular Member
Again +1.
The only real fly in the ointment is when you discuss the draft for military duty...then one must assert one's ownership of one's self most ardently.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Again +1.
The only real fly in the ointment is when you discuss the draft for military duty...then one must assert one's ownership of one's self most ardently.
Doesn't the government trick you into "signing up for" the draft by attaching it to the DL or something?
Which brings up another question, perhaps for another day... What's the legitimacy of such contracts? Surely they can't be reasonably deemed legitimate.
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
I've never seen it attached to driver licenses, but the law is in effect requiring males aged 18 to 26 to register with Selective Services for potential conscription. Prosecutions are rare, but failure to register will result in ineligibility for (federally secured) student loans, federal jobs training, federal employment, and federal security clearances. Non-citizens can be denied naturalization. Actual criminal penalties can run to $250,000 in fines and up to 5 years in prison.
Regulations are codified at 32 C.F.R. 1600–1699 (Chapter XVI). The Selective Service maintains their webpage at https://www.sss.gov/
As for contracts or limits on property use such as HOA CC&Rs, zoning, historic district limitations, etc, methinks such contracts and limits are every bit as valid as utility or other easements common across otherwise private property. There is certainly property to be purchased not subject to such restrictions for those who don't want anyone else telling them how to landscape their yard or what color to paint the fence. The flip side is that neither do they then get to impose any such restrictions on their neighbors. Obviously, this is exactly the situation some folks desire. But there are many others who love the look and atmosphere of a neighborhood, but then chafe at living under the same limits that keep all their neighbors from changing the neighborhood characteristics as well.
The consideration is simple: We mutually accept limits on what we can do with our property as our neighbors do likewise. None of us end up with an unwanted pig farm, brothel, gas station, or shooting range next door to our house
Charles
Charles
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Thanks for the info, that's something I'm not very familiar with.
Also, WOW. Am I the only one completely shocked and/or disgusted reading through the website?
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
'murica!
utbagpiper
Banned
You're welcome.
It is important data to be aware of, regardless of how one feels about the law; seeing as how it is the law. Near as I can tell, failure to register before 26 can lead to nearly a lifetime scarlet letter in terms of eligibility for various federal benefits...unless one can demonstrate later that failure to register was not intentional and knowing.
I suspect any further discussion of military conscription would be highly distracting to the OP's desires for this thread so I won't derail further.
Charles
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
The draft is unconstitutional. It is slavery.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Got a letter from SSA, been in 5+ years, we pulled into Germany after 3 months up under the ice, got the mail bag. I had failed to sign up and was informed that I was not eligible for federal service. Went to the XO, showed him the letter, and requested to be let off the boat. The XO, and now Old Man listening, snatched the letter from my hand, tore it to little bitty pieces and told me to get my butt back to work. Old Man said nice try.
Not another word heard from SSA.
Not another word heard from SSA.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Ya might wanna read Art. 1, Sec. 8 a little more closely, given the current bent of the Nine in Black Robes...
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Oh I have read it. The bent of the oligarchs in black robes has little to do with constitutionality.
No where does it say someone can be conscripted against their will.
OC for ME
Regular Member
True, nor does it state that Congress, when going about:
Is prohibited from conscripting members of the citizenry.
This topic has been addressed before. http://www.history.com/news/four-days-of-fire-the-new-york-city-draft-riots
utbagpiper
Banned
From The Selective Services website:
Selective Services said:
Seems on rare occasion the federal government actually uses logic. Probably just to keep us guessing.
Charles
OC for ME
Regular Member
Knew all that. They sent the notice to a APO care of SSN676...go figure.From The Selective Services website:
Seems on rare occasion the federal government actually uses logic. Probably just to keep us guessing.
Charles
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Lincoln was a tyrant.
Not prohibiting them from drafting on a constitutional limited government a government that is supposed to only exist to protect individual rights does not mean they have the power or authority to conscript.
SCOTUS's ruling was basically .....well since other empires do it ours should be able to too.
Daniel Webster a not exactly one against a centralized power gave a great speech on how and why it is unconstitutional.
FUQ- That measures of this nature should be debated at all, in the councils of a free government, is a cause of dismay. The question is nothing less than whether the most essential rights of personal liberty shall be surrendered, and despotism embraced in its worst form.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2070
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Being able to conscript someone means the state owns you.......that silly DOI......was it a lie?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
<chuckle> I was literally just thinking about it this morning.
Nope. Its the government that is lying about its justifications for deviating from the DOI (Declaration of Independence).
A while back I got to thinking about the first sentences of the second paragraph. "We hold these truths...unalienable rights...to protect these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
It occurred to me that the whole justification for the break from England was embodied in those first few sentences. Of course, the next thought was something like: well, if that justification was valid, then it necessarily follows that any government in this country that did not/does not adhere to those principles was/is illegitimate.
- Status