New Wisconsin voter ID Law

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Come on! It is a political forum and you don't have to be here. How can we move past politics if we don't want to?

No one requires that you respect this system. You have the 9th A, to say you don't have to.

For the rest of it, the elected officials voted or not and that is what we have as OUR LAW.. You cannot change it, at all, as an individual. An individual can only be a symbol of Change, like Martin Luther King. It is collective self rule. Your individual opinion is only of worth, to you and a few followers. Get many followers and make your own laws for us.

And you are no legal scholar so, again, the varied opinions of us amateurs is hardly the point, is it?

Just because you say all that "should be illegal" is meaningless. Obviously all that is quite legal and is why we do it.
Click to expand...



Collective self rule = oxymoron
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
No one said they don't give a fuck about you, Mr. Victim-card I just said it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
I don't require anyone to declare their apathy toward me; i start from zero and assume lack of that which is not apparent, unless i encounter evidence to the contrary. Same reason i lack belief in the existence of any god or afterlife, i lack belief that a significant number of people "care" that i exist, or that anything unpleasant may ever happen to me, due to their choices. I don't think it's impossible for anyone to care about me, i just don't see an adequate basis for going around assuming anyone does or would.

However... it Does matter, because whether a person is sufficiently justified in their injurious behavior toward me, is extremely relevant, and matters to me... which, IMO, is the only relevant assessment of whether something that affects me does or does not matter: it's MY body and MY life, so whether something someone else does or intends, affects me negatively, is extremely important, because i am (as are you all) the final and only justifiable authority on my own personal domain, which consists of my body and my belongings, and no one is allowed to determine for me, without my consent, what may or may not occur toward my being. And you know what? The verbiage of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, verify my assertion of self-ownership and self-governance. Those who misrepresent those documents to serve their own desires, at the expense of people like us, are the ones in the wrong, and any mentally competent person can see it quite clearly. The fact that none of us seem to be able to repair this egregious series of transgressions by the usurpers, is where the real problem lies.

Sometimes, it can be said to be an effective strategy, to deliberately create unsolvable problems, specifically because they cannot be resolved.

How can we fix that for which someone else has wrongfully claimed control?

If they are not abiding by the constitution, they are not our rightful government.

Ergo: their authority is invalid.

Unfortunately, they have the resources and machinations required to impose their will, regardless... because THEY think "it doesn't matter," even though it very much does, to quite a lot of people.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
^^^ Ergo : their authority is invalid.

Good point. I agree.

However the further question that arises even if the bad guys were paying attention to their oath etc. is posited by the Lysander Spoonerish question of , "without the consent of each individual where do those that DO follow the constitution get their authority over those that did not voluntarily consent to give it to them " ?
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Humans for the most part have stopped throwing virgins in volcanoes. So there is hope for the future. It is the idea that takes wings which the bad guys fear. When more people connect the logic that it is impossible to have a coercive entity ensure peace, the bad guys are done.
Click to expand...
Idk... i think they're still "throwing virgins into volcanoes" but in different forms. At least they're not literally throwing virgins in volcanoes... i guess. But the idea of fantasy-based needless forcible sacrifices, is alive and well, and even parroted as "the right way to do everything," by some people.

Since when does "you have to sacrifice what you want, to get what you want..." actually make any sense? If i throw away what i want, or allow someone else to dictate its absence for me... the only reasonably expected outcome will be that i will not have what i want, because it was either discarded or forcibly removed from my experiences.

Rob Roy said:
^^^ Ergo : their authority is invalid.

Good point. I agree.

However the further question that arises even if the bad guys were paying attention to their oath etc. is posited by the Lysander Spoonerish question of , "without the consent of each individual where do those that DO follow the constitution get their authority over those that did not voluntarily consent to give it to them " ?
Click to expand...
And that is a tough question; perhaps best left for later, once we've eliminated the glaring obstruction to any potential solution to the problem of manufacturing authority to wield over those who refuse to consent, regardless.

Although i suppose you could begin to answer that question with the same false-paradigms which have been erected specifically for the purpose of manufacturing "legitimized" authority... in which the basis only has to be good enough to "fool enough of the people, enough of the time." If enough people go along with a thing, that thing becomes normalized, regardless of whether the basis for validity is sufficient.
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
Maybe one of the biggest problems is all the "hacks" implemented in our now integrity-devoid government. It has almost zero protections against being abused, because it has already been seized and repurposed by those who lust for the power to abuse, and all those originally intended protections, have been long since circumvented and effectively neutralized. So, of course, those people would never want to impede their own capacity to abuse said authority in whatever way suits their fancy... so of course, there will be no restoration of integrity to the system, until it has been thoroughly cleansed and "patched." In fact, if our government was software, it would be time for a total redesign and rewrite, because of all the bad code that has somehow been maliciously integrated into the system, which can no longer function without the malicious parts (the whole point of adding "malicious code").

But try telling any "normal" person that the whole government needs to be dismantled, redesigned, and rebuilt, from Scratch. You'll be labeled "one of those constitutionalist extremist nutjobs," or worse "anti-american," and they'll automatically disregard or negatively interpret everything else you'll ever say.

So... how do we get "normal" people from normal to awakened?

And what if people prefer to sleep and dream, instead of waking into a living nightmare? (which can, of course, only become resolved by the awake, while awake; it cannot be solved by sleep and dreams... or prayer and wishes, for that matter...)
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
It's proposed that when you show up to vote, you simply prove that you are eligible to vote and are the person you claim to be.
Click to expand...
we already have that, and it's 99.9998849% effective, short fry.

pro tip: if you wear heels, people will think you are taller than the 4'11'' you are now.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
we already have that, and it's 99.9998849% effective, short fry.

pro tip: if you wear heels, people will think you are taller than the 4'11'' you are now.
Click to expand...
Still discussing Walrus Goldstein's waistband?

(ie. your wife)

Her cankles/flippers would probably eat a pair of heels if she wore them, wouldn't they?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Dude, the expression "self rule protects us from you" is oxymoronic.

If your "self rule" interferes with someone else's "self rule", then is there "self rule" at all?
Click to expand...
You don't understand the collective part of self rule. I was referring to the fact that these fringe ideas are kept at bay by our interlocking self rule, checks and balances.

Self rule is when we rule ourselves collectively and individually.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Dude, the expression "self rule protects us from you" is oxymoronic.

If your "self rule" interferes with someone else's "self rule", then is there "self rule" at all?
Click to expand...
Stop making sense.


Doer said:
You don't understand the collective part of self rule. I was referring to the fact that these fringe ideas are kept at bay by our interlocking self rule, checks and balances.

Self rule is when we rule ourselves collectively and individually.
Click to expand...

The part you haven't considered is in any form of a "collective self rule" it can only be possible in a specific area or instance wherein each individual within that collective has expressly given their consent to be part of it and be bound by the outcome.

Otherwise a collective self rule becomes a tyranny of the strongest or the majority, not to mention a glaring oxymoronic concept.

Lysander Spooner called again, he said you should read his essay on the Constitution, No treason. It accurately portrays what consent is and isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top