Government is evil by its very nature

Those who govern least, govern best. These words spoken more than 200 years ago set the stage for a country in which a free people were to exist and live their lives peacefully without the burden of tyranny.

Today the government has become a tyrannical master that few people 200 years ago could have even imagined. Gone are the days of free citizens and the government being the servant of the people. We now exist as serfs and peasants who are ruled by a government which neither represents the interests of the people, or the country as a whole.

The criminals occupy every governmental office and sell their influence and votes to the highest bidders. The police run amok and commit crimes that would shock and disgust the worse of the English Redcoats against whom we rebelled. The Courts are a joke and justice is non existent in a legal system which is for sale providing you have the wealth to pay for it.

When ever you give one man power and privilege over another, you create corruption of the human spirit just as a bank creates money when you sign a loan document. The creation of government creates evil and corruption and robs the people under that government of their sovereignty and their freedom. Until we understand that simple basic concept, we are doomed to live our lives as subservient peasants while government rules over us with cruelty and distain.

 

Well the problem is that when people ran their own lives it was a complete failure. The Articles of Confederation gave all the power to the States and minimal power to the federal government and it was leading to the destruction of the union on many levels. This is why a convention was called and the Constitution was written.

There has to be a strong central power that makes rules in order for a society to be prosperous. I can not even begin to list the problems you will face if you remove the power of the government to actually govern.

 

government is not inherently evil. it is the power invested in government that draws corruption if it is allowed to expand too far. in a truly advanced society, complete self-governance would be viable. enlightened self-interest would make it obvious that justice benefited all and a separate governing body would be unnecessary. well, we ain't there yet. far from it. for now a governing body is needed to enforce a rule of law that protects the rights of the individual from those more powerful than he. the problem arises when that body is allowed to gain more power than is needed and begins to trample the very rights is is sworn to protect, to sell those rights in order to gain more power and to place itself above the laws it is sworn to enforce. such problems should be avoided by a basic set of rules. in our case this is the constitution, but an unwary populace has long since allowed those rules to be perverted for the benefit of power brokers and special interests.

 

Firstly, ignore the spook. No accountability.

Agreed. People call it anarchy. It will work IF everyone who is a part of it knows nearly everything there is to know about human needs and will not place a need over a want.

Correct, but the people seem psychologically disabled from even knowing what their own power is, in order to purify the government.

Worse that unwary. Our populations are corrupted by corporate media which has been empowered by an infiltrated federal government. Infiltrated at the civil war.

This is evident in that we are mostly a population of complainers that do not even know what our most prime constitutional rights are. Nor is there interest in them. let alone information about using them in our interest.

I consider free speech to be our second most prime constitutional right.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...free-speech-choosing-limits-over-purpose.html

It is a supporting right of the most prime constitutional right, to alter or abolish as it is manifested and codified with Article V. Article V is threatened, our constitution is threatened. The second post has strategy which puts control completely in the peoples hands. Which I fully trust them to do, but they need to be educated within their social structure by those that can still conduct critical thinking.

Spook thinks gov can govern. Nonsense, not when it is infiltrated and corrupted so bad it works to corrupt and disempower the people.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...titutional-threat-thread-real-defenses-7.html

The problem of covert, cognitive infiltration manipulating the public is so bad that one poster came up with an inversion of what is needed, just to test the poster here. BIG FAIL. Not one could, or would admit that free speech actually has an ultimate purpose.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit.../394345-we-should-get-rid-free-speech-18.html

For those that are worried about ALEC hijacking an Article V convention, and the potential is shown in the first thread, this proposal is probably the best we can get.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...endment-congress-cannot-runoff-lawmaking.html

 

our population gets what it deserves. even "unwary" is too kind a term. though the power of the individual is sometimes stolen, it is more often sold and sold cheap. the people are continually selling their power for comfort and the illusion of security. accusing media or any corporate entity of causing this ignorance is merely shifting the blame to escape responsibility.

while i would agree that freedom of expression is quite possibly our second most important right, i disagree with your estimation of which right should be considered of prime importance. it is the right of ownership, both of self and of the fruits of our endeavors, that is of primary importance. though this right is not codified within the bill of rights, it is heavily implied by those that are. this is undoubtedly why there was opposition to the creation of a bill of rights in the first place. by composing a list of the rights of the citizenry, the way is left open for unscrupulous power to claim that those not listed are not true rights. even the inclusion of the ninth and tenth is not proof against such abuse

 

One thing that would legitimize government is the consent of the governed. I don't know if we really have that now, or ever did. These days, most people don't even vote, so how could a democracy be legit?

 

If the right to alter or abolish government destructive to rights is not the most prime right of constitution, how do you propose to have the lawful right to protect the rights you list?

 

Government has killed and enslsved more people than any institution created by man which by default makes it the most insidious.

 

Can you be accountable to some simple logic?

 

Thomas Jefferson said the best possible government is the least possible government. Too bad Obama and the democrats dont understand that.

 

I agree that is the beginning of the justification of unity, the need for it. But that understanding alone will not end our subservient position.

That power over another was given, but a power to alter or abolish that power when it became destructive to rights was also given back to the people in exchange.

Accordingly that beginning of unity must lead to agreement upon the right to alter or abolish power given over others in order for the abuse of power to be ended.

 

Government is a necessary fact of life. Organization in the allocation of resources along with regulatory oversight is only natural and smart. Government provides that structure. It's not evil any more than a gun is evil. Gov. is a tool. And it is here to stay. The US gov. is the largest org. in the nation and it ain't going back in size. Those calling for 'shrinking gov' are uninformed stonethrowers. The best we can hope for in gov. is transparency, accountability, representation and effectiveness. Make gov. work better. Don't try to eliminate it. That's the folly of fools.

 

Sure, if you're talking about the Confederacy....that was a very dark period of treachery pockmarking the South's history.

 

the right to self-ownership, self-expression, self-protection.... are you beginning to see a theme here? these primary rights are all about the individual, they are inherent and undeniable in a free society. what you are expressing is a right of the collective to alter its governance, it is reactive and secondary to the rights of the individual. though it may seem rational on its face, it is a trap. by considering this to be the primary right you have placed the will of the collective above the will of the individual and opened the door to legalized oppression. society exists to protect the individual, not the other way around.

 

Rubbish, the country was doing just fine under the articles of confederation, it was the federalists who perpetrated the propaganda that the country needed a strong federal government. It was the federalists and the bankers who needed a stronger government not the people.

 

I agree....

gov should help people that request it and need it

not try to control people that do not request it (IE the war on drugs, big gulps, cigarettes, ect....)

.

 

Your entire post is a logical fallacy and by being so is untrue or more accurately a lie. Government is not necessary, and is also never legally legitimately binding on any people except those who of free will voted to form it. It is ridiculous to presume any people can represent other people and to form a government which is in any way binding on those people without their specific written consent and proxy.

Let me explain this in a way even someone of limited legal education can understand. Governments are formed by representatives, but where do the representatives obtain their authority? Do they really legally have the proxy to vote for the people they claim to represent. The answer is no, unless they can produce legal written proxies for every person they claim to represent.

The government was formed by way of a Constitution which is supposedly a contract between the government and the people. The problem is, that for any contract to be valid, all parties which are included in that contract must agree to that contract of their own free will. This was clearly not the case with the US Constitution and thereby the contract is not legally binding to anyone who did not agree to it. It is no more binding upon the people of a State to send a representative to sign a contract in their behalf as it is for your neighbor to go to a auto dealership and sign a contract for you to purchase a car without your consent.

Furthermore it is not legally possible to make a contract which is legally binding upon your heirs without their willing consent, so the idea of the Constitution which formed the government to begin with being legally binding on future generations simply by way of the fact of the geography of their birth is ludicrous.

The only thing that makes the chains of government binding on the people whom suffer under them is their belief that those chains actually exist. At the point where people understand that government is a fraud, the government ceases to exist. Government like religion, is only binding on people to the extent that they of their own free will decide to allow it to be.

If they decide to deny it, it cannot exist.

 

No, it is not governments place to help anyone. It is impossible for government to "help" one person without stealing from another.
By what authority does government make itself the judge of what it should rob from one person and give to another. Government is evil and the people who occupy the offices of government are the most vile and despicable members of the human race. Why would we want to give these psychopaths the moral authority to decide right and wrong, or give them the power to rob us of what we have earned of our own hard labor?

 

I disagree, I like the United states, you seem to want a country more like Mexico

and who do you want to dictate the punishment of someone that kills and rapes children... your God or your Gov? I want the Gov to punish them, if God wants to take over let him, but until that happens, we will handle it without him

do you think your God would protect you from terrorists without the US Gov? yeah right, we see in Iraq what a weak gov is good for.....

could move to an Amish community, see how free you are then...

.

 

Your first sentence is not true. Government is inherently evil. In order for you to say it is not, you must justify your statement by giving at least one example of a government which is not riddled with people using their position of power for their own selfish reasons.

The fact is that people who do not wish to exert power over others are not attracted to positions of power, whereas people who do wish to have power over others are attracted to positions of power. Once they have that power they use it to forcibly steal the fruits of other peoples labor by way of theft they term as taxes. They then consolidate their power by formation of armies to exploit people of other countries and police forces to exploit the people of their own countries.

They then commit the worse atrocities of history by way of wars in which millions upon millions of people are murdered, and the survivors are relegated to wage slaves who sustain the lavish lifestyle of the .1%. Of course all governments are experts in propaganda and most are very accomplished at confusing their people and blaming their miseries and burdens on other peoples and governments in order to deflect their anger away from where it belongs, which is at their own government.

 

I believe you are confusing a few things. The confederation of sovereign states lacked sufficient power to perform the very few relevant tasks it was to do. It could not pay its bills. It could not compel the states to get along with one another (commerce). It could not defend the nation from external attack nor from internal dangers.

The people were just fine.

You are also confused about the flow of power. The articles did not give power to the states. The states already had all of the power. Instead the states were unwilling to cede power to a national government. Fear of tyranny was the reason. And, as we see today, they were right to be afraid.

We have a Constitution for a reason. It is time to return to it and to begin dismantling the massive, unconstitutional national government.

 

These are the words of a serf or a tyrant-wannabe.

We can amend the Constitution to roll back the soft tyranny we face.

 

I think we have it pretty good in the USA, I say we stick with what we have, it's working

.

 

There is a happy median between no government and the one we have now where every single act and thing is either taxed, regulated or both....Today we do live in a regulatory dictatorship.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't vote you get what you deserve....

 

This is a concept I never really understood. It is a fallacy based on the illogical assumption that democracy is fair or even a valid form of binding creation of law.

In fact, democracy is a farce. It is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. Why should something you vote for be binding upon me? Because the majority rules?

What about in the case when the election is won by a miniscule minority of the population? Then the majority should be held to the whims of the minority because of some abstract and arbitrary rule.

Why should I be bound by the rules or laws passed without my consent? Suppose your neighbors got together and decided to take your house and turn it into the neighborhood clubhouse because they all voted for it regardless of your consent or your rights?

It is a stupid concept that somehow not voting is giving up your right to have a say in something that legally affects you or that being on the loosing side of an election gives the winners the right to pass laws that are legally binding upon you.

It is simply tyranny under the guise of self government.