Obama revises Oath of Citizenship
If you aren't willing to defend what you've fought to obtain, did you really earn it?
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Previous comments...
Any automatic draft or military or other mandatory service is profoundly against inalienable rights and thus profoundly anti-American.
Inalienable does not require "earning". It is inherent to the type of being you are.
Rights that can be changed by consent of the governed are inalienable. I willl give up my rights to x number of years and agree to perform military or other public service in exchange for...'. Once the social contract is put in place anyone wishing to join who is off the appropriate target age range must of course accede those same rights. If not they don't join the social contract.
For that reason those who went to Canada had simply not consented to be part of the social contract. No big deal. But to rejoin or join anew or again they were on a par with any other immigrant. That is a right of choice offered at age 18 if it is offered freely . Under our system it is not offered freely but under coercion of fine or jail. Therefore invalid.
The false part is 'forgiving' the choice made and allowing someone to 'return' without accepting the still in existence social contract. Which cheapens and makes that contract even more of a lie and a falsehood. It has no reason to exist, caused problems not needed, and serves only to provide cannon fodder or security forces for those not deserving of such protection.
2. Figure out which LEA will respond
3. Decide what constitutes 'suspicion' and ' probable cause.' The first is for DOHS and the second is for real law enforcement.
Based on that criteria Obama should be on the no fly list already for suspicion of supporting terrorism and on the LEA lists as a canddate for 'probable cause.' The neat part of the Patriot Act Rules are their are no regulations, definitions or guidelines. One man's probable is anothers suspect depending on did the wife burn the eggs again this morning. Probably the safest place for any real citizen to be is simply report ones own self. It's called hide in the open or maskirova. That waiy you won't stand out among the other 200 plus million.
The strongest proof of the none required though is US Citizen, no police record, military service and did not vote Democrat or Reipublican - with no record of gun purchases nor traffic tickets.
I can still vividly remember the officer administering the oath at the induction center in Kansas City, prefacing with the warning that if any of us refused to take the oath that we would be immediately arrested and face 10 yrs in a Federal prison. That after a day spent walking around in my tidy whities, with a hundred other boys, following behind a guy wearing women's panties and a bra.
Get serious. This post is nonsense and demonstrates a refusal to use reason and a total denial of individual natural rights.
This is the exact kind of juvenile, snap-to, Conservative patriotism crap that's resulted in the voluntary giving-up of individual rights, not to mention wars and death in any direction we look.
That's all you need to know about that and the Obama regime.
What I conclude is that you see yourself as an anarchist along the lines of philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartyr - who asserted that they and they alone could ascertain morality and that said morality was an individual decision. Whether or not you believe such is up to you, but their philosophical assertions break down as soon as you introduce interactions with a second agent party. Like it or not, a government of sorts exists any time two agent parties interact - the question is the need for and interdiction of an agreed-upon (read authoritative) third party.
What you seem to assert is that nothing a government can do has the moral authority granted to it by you for being a part of it because you take issue with certain portions of it. While I understand your position, I can not agree with it for the simple expedient that you currently avail yourself of the portions which are acceptable - such as mutual defense, trade, highways, public services, etc. What I see in the example cited is precisely the same thing you seem to want to claim: that because you don't agree with certain parts that somehow you can ignore the demands made of you which entitle you to certain benefits even while taking advantage of those benefits. That is the case of the looter mindset as identified in the article: the notion that somehow I can pick and choose which parts I want to give even though I demand full privileges for the things I get. That to me is not a value-for-value mindset.
Not in any way. A government by definition has some level of authority over the citizenry, and two random people interacting do not, necessarily, have one of them in a position of authority over the other.
I have not asked for the government to provide "mutual defense" and so therefore cannot be held liable for it any more than if I started marching soldiers on your property line to "defend you" and then sent you an invoice for services rendered. Highways should be sold and privatized and paid for via tolls, rather than theft. Public services I am happy to pay for the services I ask for and/or partake of, but nothing else.
It is not "looting" to insist that the person who is most capable of deciding how my money is spent is me and not a distant government bureaucrat. It is not "looting" to insist that what is mine is mine, and nobody has a right to take it from me by force.
The "looters" are the ones who think they have greater authority over the money in my wallet than I do.
The Founders did. See the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States thus: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (emphasis mine)
As a citizen of this nation, you take upon yourself all the perks and also all the obligations of citizenship within it - whether by birth or naturalization. If you do not want to avail yourself of these opportunities by taking upon yourself the requirements you are free to renounce your citizenship or seek to amend the terms mutually. But you have no authority to impose on the remainder of the citizenry the obligations of your citizenship while claiming the privileges. That is looting - whether it be in terms of labor or money.
What we should feel grateful for is that we do have a portion of our citizenry who are willing to step up in defense of us all. I honor and support our brave men and women serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. What we should not take for granted, however, is that while these have stepped up to act on our behalves that this in any way takes away our obligations in this regard to act if called upon.
Only I, via informed consent and agreement, can bind myself to any sort of contract, social or otherwise. I have not done so.
If you don't believe in that fundamental concept, I'm curious why you hang around on a site whose moral principles are predicated on that basic truth?
If you have voted, you have accepted them. If you have ever paid taxes, you have accepted them. Read the fine print. You deceive yourself to believe otherwise. And as I have pointed out, you can feel free to deny your citizenship as an American and take back what you think has been stolen from you.
"If you don't believe in that fundamental concept..."
I do believe in consent and I recognize that because I am an American citizen by birth that I similarly take on the responsibilities of such. You attempt to deny such responsibilities by having a foot on both sides of the fence: the one side which entitles you all the protections of an American citizen and the other that allows you to deny taking on the responsibilities of such a citizen. What I am pointing out is that neither can new immigrants nor existing citizens deny the responsibility to protect this nation that is an ongoing and fundamental responsibility of citizenship in this nation and has been so from its founding.
Could you exercise your right of Association and join a nation which did not require you to protect it? Absolutely. The terms of citizenship for the United States of America, however, are quite clear in affirming the opposite. You are welcome to protest, pretend, and posture. It will not change Reality one iota.
Those two statements are contradictory. You were born into that "responsibility" as opposed to having consented to it, and it is your burden (as someone born into that responsibility) to distance yourself from that responsibility rather than the state's burden to demonstrate that you have accepted it.
In a world of consent, it would be the state's burden to demonstrate that you had consented to the responsibility.
You want to affirm only a world of positive/active assent. That's not how birth citizenship works and never has and that's why your argument is void. Until you positively assert your non-citizen status, you are subject to the rules and regulations AND afforded the privileges of being a US citizen. Can the rules be changed? Sure - through official and legally binding means agreeable to both parties. So take your disagreement up with your representatives and get the laws changed. Or renounce your citizenship if this issue is such a big deal. Those are both paths I would recognize as being logically consistent.
That is not how "consent" works.
You're arguing "what the status quo" is, and that's fine, but I'm arguing how things should be. The "status quo" is also that we're all basically required to live for others by paying taxes, etc., etc. If that's the life you enjoy, knock yourself out.
I strive for better. I strive for freedom.
"I strive for better. I strive for freedom."
As do we all. So get the laws changed to match your ideal. Until that happens, however, you are stuck with what we have - like it or not.
I have said that I reject the moral premise, and I consider anyone or any entity (ie, state) which defends the premise/practice as -- themselves -- immoral.
I completely understand the world I live in. It is not a world of freedom, in any way shape or form.
But what I won't do is pretend that it has any legitimacy. I'll suffer through the indignity of slavery to the state while railing against it at every opportunity, hoping to create some future critical mass where - yes - such immoral states can be overturned and replaced with something that respects freedom.
You seek for the freedom of anarchy. You will have to make such of your own accord. Good luck with that.
Not likely to see it in my lifetime, but since there is no such thing as a legitimate "state", I've got to hope and try. :-)
Those are very extreme words. You are basically saying that you find any form of government immoral. Good luck with that whole anarchy thing.
I think that if you and I and some friends decide to form a governing body that binds "us"? Sure, nothing immoral about that.
As soon as we try to demand that others obey that body? Nope.
So let's say you complied with that laundry list but one day wanted to do something such as travel. Right about that time the draft was put back into effect. OR your parents went broke and you looked in vain for real scholarships and went aftere a student loan. Now tell me about your moral values. You did it to yourself by playing stupid and saying it will never happen to me. So now we've disposed of your moral values let's get back to reality. No you may not have a student loan nor a government job you failed to comply at age 18 with the Universal Military Conscription Act and guess what ....we're enforcing those provisions. You have the right to remain silent.....
The moral or ethical check comes after Law Two of Objecftivism. When the facts are ascertained, tested, checked and determined to be useful or not useful what's called the ground truth.
THEN comes your values or lack thereof. The Premise that's false is you didn't study objectivism nor moral philosophy. You may not enter into a commercial contract prior to age 18, The government did it for you at birth. And you agreed at any of those points I mentioned along the way.
Unless you have a Daddy or a Rabbi in the system....That out is always available for the right sort. Members of the ruling class fo rexample.
You're basically defending statism, and mob-rule theft. You are an enemy of freedom.
I have nothing further to say to you at this point. There's nothing productive to be gained so long as you persist in your belief in the superiority of the state over its slaves.
Because individual liberty, and freedom from slavery of the state, is tooootally a leftist stance.
plonk
EDIT: To be clear: I am not advocating violent overthrow or anything like that.
I simply advocate that anarchy is more legitimate, morally, than statism, and I would do my best to dissolve the state (through the appropriate legal channels, such as a ConCon) and advocate for such.
I see things like libertarianism as "nice stopping points" on the way to anarchism. People have to become adjusted to responsibility, self-reliance, and a lack of control over others' behaviors.
Baby steps. But always keeping the end-goal in sight as it were.
A great textbook on this topic describes how such a society could quite easily function.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1137281650/
A great read, highly recommended.
Try again.
It's wrong but there it is. Reality.
On the other hand while you could have got away without registering and voting some of the other traps are or were almost completely unavoidable. But they don't to be accepted. And less abusive slave master how I would catagorize voting for a slave master.. Three answers - two wrong one right.
Hows hurricane season shaping up over there?
"Hurricane season"?
Your chances to act otherwise came at a. before age 18. After 18 and before being drafted. When asked to register to vote. In carrying out the act of voting. When told to pay federal taxes and in the act of paying federal taxes. in any and all observance and compliance of any federal law, custom, or regulation or use of any of the federal government support systems auch as student loans, In using the federal courrts and in all courts the civil rights provided by the the Constitution in school, as an employer or business owner, in travel using a US Passport.
At each of those steps you gave consent and only two of them sere involuntary. Income Tax and the Universal Military Conscription Act or draft. Even then you could have registered as a conscientous objector.
At any point prior to being drafted you could have objected with your feet and left the country and applied for citizenship in a place more to your choosing. Had the receiving country agreed to accept you in it's program for citizenship all would be fine and honorable providing the IRS approved. No one else much cared unless you were a litsted felon and even one that did not pay something as simple as child support would set off trip wires at the federal or state levels. Assuming you were from Oregon anyway.
The taxes were based on what you lived on, who provided it, did it count as taxable income which is due and payable no matter where in the world you lived or how earned. Another trap. but for you legal.
Country Two allows citizen you are not longer the problem of the USA except if yiou owe back taxes from before the granmt of citizenship.
Parrents could have explained all this and so could your teachers if they gave a shit. But probably not.
Any red flags would arise when asking for a VISA to visit the USA.
All of this best down prior to age 18. Refusal to sign up for the draft is a jailable, finable felonly offense under federal law. Look it up yourself. It's openly posted.
How closely enforced? Depends on how hard up the slavemasters are in manning their protective echelon and their property part of which ....is ......you.
If you don't like it . Tough. No one cares.
:Least of all the left wing that are the sole supporter of the military draft laws left in the country. They want their cannon fodder ready when needed. To the military you are just a big waste of time and good air and food.
That leaves the possibility, in future, of joining the Protective Echelon. the Directorate of Internal State Security and becoming one of the Fascists you sought to escape.
You sit here, defending the slave-masters as though they are morally right, making yourself a part of their crime.
You've clearly never met any of the millions of Muslims in the US who are perfectly "westernized" and happily living the American dream.
3.3M muslims in America was the last count.