Guess she can't get a particular cock off her mind! When she get
remarried? How about the other one, little bambinos running around
the Italian piazza lately? Friggin T-birders.
--- In Conservative_American_Brotherhood@yahoogroups.com, C Adams
<coryadams@...> wrote:
>
> The other one is still an Adams and remarried! Go figure.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: american_cavalier <american_cavalier@...>
> To: Conservative_American_Brotherhood@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:33:45 PM
> Subject: [Conservative_American_Brotherhood] Re: Mutual Defense
Societies
>
>
> Ahhh, the Smith who became a Guido :-)
>
> --- In Conservative_ American_ Brotherhood@ yahoogroups. com, C
Adams
> <coryadams@ ..> wrote:
> >
> > There is still a tax free town in Northern Italy just across the
> border from Switzerland. I'm willing to bet this is part of one of
> those original trade routes.
> >
> > These are interesting people. I traveled small towns in the
> Romanish part of Switzerland. People will not even look at you if
> they don't know you, but once you have an in with somebody you are
> treated like family.
> >
> > Cory
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: american_cavalier <american_cavalier@ ...>
> > To: Conservative_ American_ Brotherhood@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 5:20:14 PM
> > Subject: [Conservative_ American_ Brotherhood] Mutual Defense
Societies
> >
> >
> > A review of the formation of the Swiss Federation and other forms
of
> > mutual defense societies has never been looked at by modern
> > anthropologists as an example of how clans, tribes and nations
were
> > originally formed.
> >
> > Take for instance, the Alamanii of the Roman Empire. There very
name
> > in Latin is suggestive of a mutual defense society of tribes, a
type
> > of collective security agreement against the Romans signed by
clans
> > which spoke a similar language, shared a similar topography, and
had
> > similar religious beliefs and shared customs. Along with the
Saxons,
> > the Eastern Franks, and various smaller Celto-Teutonic tribes, the
> > Alamanii were the ancestors of the German nation. In fact, the
modern
> > Romance languages all use a derivitive of Alamanii to describe
Germany.
> >
> > More important is the fact that the Alamanii settled amongst
various
> > Romano-Gaulic tribes in the Alps and under the Burgundian
established
> > the free-holder cantons of the Alpine region. When these
Helveticans
> > formed a mutual defense society against the depradations and
taxation
> > of the nobles, they did so based upon their earlier rights. They
were
> > a type of proto-American nation. In the end, the established the
> > Swiss Federation.
> >
> > When the Constitutional Convention was formed, many of the key
figures
> > looked at the formation of the mutual defense societies, the Swiss
> > Federation, the Dutch Republic, the Magna Carta, the Petitions of
the
> > Liberties of Towns in England to the Crown, the Petitions of
> > Parliament in England to the Crown, the Scottish Declaration of
> > Independence at Arboth, the Covenant Declaration in Scotland, the
> > Glorious Parliament and its Bill of Rights, and saw a clear line
of
> > history which showed the development of Anglo-Saxon principles.
> >
> > This principles show a mixture of individual-family clans banding
> > together under tribal kings who are limited by a common law with a
> > Greco-Roman ideal of the city-state with it's local sovereignty
to be
> > inviolate forming a huge corpus of laws, precedents, and customs,
> > proving a type of federal system is best for people unifying their
> > interests.
> >
> > Cory, seems to mistake the current policy of centralized democracy
> > which has obliterated the federal rights of local authorities and
the
> > current central government which has usurped those powers and
vested
> > them with a bureaucracy, with the sovereignty of the people and
their
> > representatives. This results in a philosophy which believes any
form
> > of representative government is a threat to liberty no matter how
> > close to tradition and locality it is. This philosophy is false.
> > Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> >
> > --- In Conservative_ American_ Brotherhood@ yahoogroups. com,
> > "christopherrobin19 69" <christopherrobin19 69@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is certainly a case for devolving most governmental
functions
> > > down to the lower levels. Lichtenstein and the other cantons
of
> > > Switzerland were viewed as part of the comparative political
process
> > > at the Constitutional Convention. Most of the Convention
delegates
> > > believed the then existing county and state system was most
> > > demonstrative of this principle. What happened?
> > >
> > > --- In Conservative_ American_ Brotherhood@ yahoogroups. com, C
Adams
> > > <coryadams@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If it is no government we should at least have the choice of
many
> > > more states - Thus Williams email message of decentralization.
> > > >
> > > > I would be happy with no government but many competing states
> > > (think many Lichtensteins) would offer much more freedom than
we
> > > have today if people could shop for what they desired from
> > > government.
> > > >
> > > > The rest of what you are saying I basically am agreeing with
but I
> > > attribute the cause to the heavy centralization of some
industries
> > > to government protection, subsidy or other. The big media
house
> > > have always been in collusion with the government. The
Internet is
> > > beginning to affect the stranglehold of information flow that
they
> > > once enjoyed though.
> > > >
> > > > States may be forced to decentralize but they won't go down
> > > without a fight taking your future prosperity with them (see
> > > inflation).
> > > >
> > > > Listen to this excellent podcast interview of Hans Herman
Hoppe by
> > > Lew Rockwell on the state and the allusions that keep it going:
> > > http://www.lewrockw ell.com/podcast/ index.php? p=episode&
> name=2008- 07-
> > > 29_008_the_scam_ called_the_ state.mp3
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Cory
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > > From: american_cavalier <american_cavalier@ >
> > > > To: Conservative_ American_ Brotherhood@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:52:55 PM
> > > > Subject: [Conservative_ American_ Brotherhood] Re: American
> > > Communicator July, 2008
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <The message of government decentralization is a powerful
one.>
> > > >
> > > > Yeah. But not a society of no government.
> > > >
> > > > <The most interesting thing I could take away from that is
that
> > > > business (in most cases) has been forced to decentralize
because of
> > > > competition, technology and mobility of capital.>
> > > >
> > > > Business hasn't been forced to do so. In reality, capital is
being
> > > > more and more centralized not only in the US but across the
world.
> > > > Currently, if you look at all the department stores in the
US,
> > > fully
> > > > 80% of them are owned by three companies. This concentration
of
> > > > wealth arose through deregulation and the continuing
> > > accroutrements of
> > > > sovereign power by individuals.
> > > >
> > > > <The exceptions are usually large companies that have the
> > > protection
> > > > of government through regulation, subsidy or some other
legislative
> > > > protection like large banks, communication companies, United
Air
> > > > Lines, Freddie and Fannie, etc.>
> > > >
> > > > 75% of all media outlets are owned by three media
corporations.
> > > > United Air Lines exists in an industry that is heavily
unregulated
> > > in
> > > > comparison with other industries.
> > > >
> > > > <Yet the government proves that it does not serve our
interests by
> > > > instead of decentralizing to meet more localized efficiencies
it
> > > seeks
> > > > to constantly consolidate its power through increased taxes,
> > > inflation
> > > > and nationalization of the banking sector over the last
month.>
> > > >
> > > > The governmental centralization that you speak of hasn't
exactly
> > > > occurred in the manner you speak of. At one time, each city
could
> > > > block Ford Motor Company from conducting any business in the
city.
> > > > Today, that power has been usurped by the Federal government.
It
> > > has
> > > > done so by declaring such regulation "Unconstitutional" ,
thereby
> > > > ending ANY governmental authority to restrict Ford Motor Co.
> > > Instead,
> > > > the Federal Government overseas aspects of the Ford Motor Co's
> > > > operation for meeting standards in efficiency, labor disputes,
> > > > finance, environment, etc.
> > > >
> > > > The raising up of the individual to sovereign status has made
it
> > > > possible for powerful individuals to stomp out any rivalry
from
> > > below.
> > > > Over time, this power has eclipsed that of local powers such
as
> > > > counties and cities, then states, and now the Federal
government.
> > > > Thus, global government is being proposed to "watch" over
these
> > > > globalist corporations. Individualism ends in the tyranny of
one
> > > man.
> > > >
> > > > --- In Conservative_ American_ Brotherhood@ yahoogroups. com,
C
> > > Adams
> > > > <coryadams@ ..> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The message of government decentralization is a powerful
one.
> > > > >
> > > > > The most interesting thing I could take away from that is
that
> > > > business (in most cases) has been forced to decentralize
because of
> > > > competition, technology and mobility of capital. The
exceptions
> > > are
> > > > usually large companies that have the protection of
government
> > > through
> > > > regulation, subsidy or some other legislative protection like
large
> > > > banks, communication companies, United Air Lines, Freddie and
> > > Fannie, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet the government proves that it does not serve our
interests by
> > > > instead of decentralizing to meet more localized efficiencies
it
> > > seeks
> > > > to constantly consolidate its power through increased taxes,
> > > inflation
> > > > and nationalization of the banking sector over the last month.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > Cory
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > > > From: william collier <upadaria@ .>
> > > > > To: Conservative_ American_ Brotherhood@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 3:41:31 PM
> > > > > Subject: [Conservative_ American_ Brotherhood] American
> > > Communicator
> > > > July, 2008
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > American Communicator July, 2008
> > > > >
> > > > > The following is a ONE ARTICLE special issue of The American
> > > > Communicator.
> > > > >
> > > > > I
> > > > > have been "out of pocket" due to serious health issues with
my
> > > mother
> > > > > and will begin more "news" articles throughout this week.
> > > > >
> > > > > This
> > > > > article is persuasive in nature, but it has a broad
intention, of
> > > > > persuading you, the reader, to pursue decentralization
rather
> > > than the
> > > > > centralization that is getting out of hand in America.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill Collier
> > > > >
> > > > > _______
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A Revolution of Decentralism
> > > > >
> > > > > America needs a
> > > > > new revolution, hopefully a revolution that is peaceful and
> > > orderly,
> > > > that will
> > > > > take power from the few who run our government and our
economy
> > > for
> > > > their own
> > > > > purposes and transfer it to the many, who can exercise it
through
> > > > their own
> > > > > communities of sovereign individuals who share a common set
of
> > > > beliefs and
> > > > > values and express them individually as well as through the
> > > rules of
> > > > conduct within
> > > > > their community (rules consented to by the people who own
the
> > > > community.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Our
> > > > > technological capabilities allow for a much greater level
of self
> > > > reliance in
> > > > > our homes and in small communities.
> > > > > A cohousing
> > > > > community in Nashville, Tennessee called "Nashville
Greenlands"
> > > > consists of 10
> > > > > adults sharing 3 houses with their own gardens and during
the
> > > summer
> > > > they grow
> > > > > 80% of their food, a feat made possible thanks to
hydroponics and
> > > > organic
> > > > > gardening.
> > > > > This level of
> > > > > self reliance means that it is not necessary for people to
> > > depend on
> > > > large
> > > > > scale organizations, be they political or economic, for
very the
> > > > things they
> > > > > need.
> > > > > Can a community
> > > > > of 100 or so like-minded families use the resources they
> > > presently
> > > > use, in
> > > > > terms of time, spending, and taxes that would normally go
for
> > > > centralized
> > > > > programs or large scale insurance programs, and develop
their
> > > own social
> > > > > services, health care insurance or assurance, education
programs,
> > > > and the like?
> > > > > The technology
> > > > > is there to do precisely this and if in the past the excuse
for
> > > massive
> > > > > programs and institutions that control resources on a large
scale
> > > > was that this
> > > > > was necessary for efficiency's sake this argument is much
less
> > > > logical today.
> > > > > The real
> > > > > question is this: can a one size fits all social, economic,
> > > > cultural, and
> > > > > political system ever operate successfully without
concentrating
> > > > wealth and
> > > > > power into a small group of people's hands and can such a
system
> > > > even produce
> > > > > good results, such as prosperity and freedom?
> > > > > There are two
> > > > > simple and undeniable truths that we cannot avoid or ignore
> > > without
> > > > creating
> > > > > serious problems: people are policy and structure creates
> > > behavior.
> > > > > What people
> > > > > believe, as evidenced by their character and behavior
instead of
> > > > what they say
> > > > > they believe, defines their true policy. If you assign
someone
> > > to make
> > > > > decisions the decisions they make will not so much be based
on
> > > the
> > > > official policy
> > > > > that they are told to follow as they will be based on that
> > > person's
> > > > beliefs.
> > > > > You cannot make policy, at any level, without assigning
people
> > > whose
> > > > behavior
> > > > > over time proves that are in harmony with that policy.
> > > > > The way
> > > > > people's beliefs are shaped, and remember I am talking
about
> > > beliefs
> > > > that are
> > > > > proven by their behavior, is through the structure of
rewards and
> > > > sanctions in
> > > > > which they operate. If the structure of your system allows
or
> > > > rewards greed or
> > > > > lying and does not take precautions against these things,
then
> > > you
> > > > will produce
> > > > > greed and lying. Whatever is allowed and rewarded will be
> > > practiced and
> > > > > whatever is not allowed or is not rewarded is not going to
be
> > > > practiced.
> > > > > These two
> > > > > factors of human behavior on a social level, which means
that
> > > most
> > > > of the time
> > > > > most of the people who succeed or prosper do such behavior,
are
> > > able
> > > > to be
> > > > > manipulated.
> > > > > You can, for
> > > > > instance, change a structure by purposefully discriminating
> > > against
> > > > certain
> > > > > people and favoring other types of people in hiring which
then
> > > leads
> > > > to a de
> > > > > facto, if not formally legal, change in structure.
> > > > > On the other
> > > > > hands, if you alter the structure in seemingly small ways
that
> > > > change the way
> > > > > things are rewarded or punished and that change what is
rewarded
> > > or
> > > > punished,
> > > > > and then enforce it strictly then you can change the
people's
> > > > beliefs, even
> > > > > without changing their opinion, by forcing a change in
their
> > > behavior.
> > > > > These two
> > > > > factors cause any system where decisions are made for large
> > > numbers
> > > > of people
> > > > > by groups of a few people to tend to be influenced by
> > > manipulations
> > > > of these
> > > > > two factors.
> > > > > This small
> > > > > group of people tends to be inaccessible to most people
most of
> > > the
> > > > time: they
> > > > > are physically removed from them and, moreover, it is simply
> > > > impossible for
> > > > > then to actually interact on an individual basis with too
many of
> > > > these people
> > > > > as they may be if they were representing only 100 to 200
> > > electors.
> > > > > People are
> > > > > inherently self serving, this is a basic human trait, and
most of
> > > > the time this
> > > > > trait is not necessarily bad. The tendency to be self
serving
> > > can be
> > > > expressed
> > > > > negatively as greed or positively as taking care of your
family.
> > > It
> > > > is greedy
> > > > > to place your needs or desires ahead of the welfare or
freedom of
> > > > other people,
> > > > > it is responsible to take care of your family before you
worry
> > > about
> > > > helping
> > > > > people outside your family, to not put their needs below
the
> > > needs
> > > > of people
> > > > > outside your home.
> > > > > The natural
> > > > > tendency is to focus on what you need and want and what
your
> > > family
> > > > needs and
> > > > > wants and very few people, even "good" people, are totally
> > > > altruistic and
> > > > > self-sacrificing. When you allow decisions that effect
large
> > > numbers
> > > > of people
> > > > > to be made by a very few people you will unavoidably see a
system
> > > > that evolves
> > > > > which has a basic policy, no matter what the stated
ideology of
> > > its
> > > > leaders,
> > > > > that centers mostly on serving the wants, needs, and
interests of
> > > > these people
> > > > > and their families.
> > > > > The longer this
> > > > > system exists, the more this tendency to create a class of
people
> > > > who control
> > > > > the system in their best interests grows. Eventually you
get to a
> > > > point where
> > > > > the ideologies or stated beliefs of the various competing
groups
> > > of
> > > > elites are
> > > > > not much more than clever ways to get customers, investors,
or
> > > votes by
> > > > > promising the majority of people whom they "serve" whatever
is
> > > > necessary. Most
> > > > > of the time such promises are unrealistic or the people
making
> > > such
> > > > promises
> > > > > have no intention of carrying them out.
> > > > > Whatever your
> > > > > beliefs are about how society or the economy should be run,
if
> > > you
> > > > depend upon
> > > > > the creation of small groups of people to implement your
ideas
> > > the
> > > > end result
> > > > > will be a system that puts their needs above everyone
else's.
> > > > > You may pretend
> > > > > that a massive "democratic vote" will express the will of
the
> > > > people, but this
> > > > > cannot be the case. Most people most of the time do not
have the
> > > > time or the
> > > > > energy to stay on top of issues and keep abreast of ideas
in a
> > > > meaningful
> > > > > enough way to have all the information they need to make a
> > > decision
> > > > or to judge
> > > > > the behavior and character of the people they may be
elected.
> > > > > The promise of
> > > > > "majority democracy" is a myth: the plain fact is that most
> > > people
> > > > do not have
> > > > > access to or the time to study everything they need to know
> > > about in
> > > > order to
> > > > > make what we might call and informed decision. The larger
the
> > > scale
> > > > of people
> > > > > that are effected by a decision, and the more technical or
> > > > complicated the
> > > > > issue in question might be, the less likely it is that most
> > > people
> > > > most of the
> > > > > time will have a realistic opportunity to actually become
well
> > > > enough informed
> > > > > to choose what policy should be implemented or which
candidate is
> > > > the best
> > > > > choice.
> > > > > Let us assume you
> > > > > want to live in a society that is based less on competition
and
> > > more on
> > > > > cooperation, that the people who have much give to those
who have
> > > > little, and
> > > > > that profits are not put ahead of people or the
environment.
> > > Now, go
> > > > further,
> > > > > and say that some of you want a society that might be
described
> > > as more
> > > > > traditional or conservative while others may agree that
society
> > > > should, as much
> > > > > as possible, be neutral, leaving such ways of living and
moral
> > > > choices only to
> > > > > the individual as long as the individual is not intolerant.
> > > > > These are
> > > > > different points of view and even within the basic shared
> > > beliefs of
> > > > > cooperation rather than competition the structure of your
society
> > > > will be very
> > > > > different between the two different ideas.
> > > > > A structure of
> > > > > society that says one social value or moral value system
will
> > > > prevail would
> > > > > prevent the second view from being implemented.
> > > > > The structure
> > > > > of the second system would create a system where the
tendency
> > > would
> > > > be to
> > > > > promote an anything goes attitude and where people who want
to
> > > > associate only
> > > > > with people who share their values, or who want to argue
against
> > > certain
> > > > > behaviors, will be suppressed and their children will be
> > > > indoctrinated, against
> > > > > their parent's wishes, to embrace behaviors that the parents
> > > > sincerely believe
> > > > > are harmful.
> > > > > The argument of
> > > > > the resent day ideologies seems to be, in effect if not in
what
> > > is
> > > > said, that
> > > > > we can either have one moral value system that everyone
must
> > > follow
> > > > or that we
> > > > > can only have a morality-free society in which pretty much
> > > anything
> > > > goes except
> > > > > for anyone who might argue against or condemn certain
behaviors
> > > > which they
> > > > > disagree with on moral grounds.
> > > > > The individual
> > > > > has only two choices: either impose your beliefs on the
whole
> > > > society or live
> > > > > in a society where anything goes but where you cannot speak
> > > against
> > > > certain
> > > > > behaviors or choose to associate only with people who share
your
> > > > beliefs.
> > > > > These are the
> > > > > evils of centralization of power and wealth: that it
produces a
> > > > class of elites
> > > > > who use their positions in their own best interests and
that it
> > > > creates a constant
> > > > > crisis in which the individual's beliefs are either imposed
on
> > > the whole
> > > > > society or where they cannot realistically practice them on
> > > anything
> > > > other than
> > > > > a personal level.
> > > > > Moral values
> > > > > cannot be practiced only on an individual scale or only in
> > > certain
> > > > areas. Moral
> > > > > values should apply to everything in our lives. In concrete
terms
> > > > the individual
> > > > > who cannot choose the value system that his children will
be
> > > taught,
> > > > who cannot
> > > > > choose the rules of their economic relationships, who
cannot
> > > choose
> > > > the people they
> > > > > will associate with in terms of fellowship, buying,
selling, and
> > > the
> > > > like is
> > > > > not a free person.
> > > > > The beliefs and
> > > > > values of the individual mean nothing and their only
consolation
> > > is
> > > > the myth
> > > > > that they can vote for issues they have no time or energy to
> > > > understand and for
> > > > > candidates they know they cannot trust on one hand and that
> > > within
> > > > their own
> > > > > four walls they can make moral choices.
> > > > > Elections are a
> > > > > joke, basically you choose issues or candidates without
having
> > > all
> > > > the straight
> > > > > facts and, moreover, you cannot even be assured that your
vote
> > > will
> > > > be counted
> > > > > or that the election will be truly fair.
> > > > > Your so called
> > > > > freedom of conscious does not extend to who you associate
with or
> > > > what you say
> > > > > in public despite the fact that the survival of your way of
life
> > > and
> > > > beliefs
> > > > > into future generations depends on having a cultural group
> > > > (community, society)
> > > > > that promotes those beliefs and forms social, political,
> > > cultural,
> > > > and economic
> > > > > associations which favor people who share such beliefs.
> > > > > In the Muslim
> > > > > world the technique for destroying the beliefs or at least
> > > limiting
> > > > the spread
> > > > > of the beliefs of other people is fairly simple: as long as
non
> > > > Muslims pay a
> > > > > tributary tax and do not seek to publicly broadcast those
belief
> > > > they are
> > > > > supposed to be left alone within their communities or
churches.
> > > > > The technique
> > > > > of the centralists is even worse, it goes beyond doing this:
> > > > communities of
> > > > > people who do not embrace a values-free culture where the
> > > desires of the
> > > > > individual matter and nothing else, have no option for
expressing
> > > > their beliefs
> > > > > in public without some sort of negative social sanction and
they
> > > > have no right
> > > > > to decide to not associate with people who practice
behaviors
> > > that
> > > > they find to
> > > > > be immoral even as they must silently submit to the forceful
> > > > indoctrination of
> > > > > their children by the schools.
> > > > > It is said that
> > > > > having the vote, being able to live by any moral, or
amoral,
> > > value
> > > > system you
> > > > > choose so long as you do not publicly condemn or criticize
other
> > > > moral beliefs
> > > > > and behaviors, and being able to express yourself
creatively any
> > > way you
> > > > > choose, again as long as you do not "judge" other people,
is the
> > > > true meaning
> > > > > of freedom.
> > > > > The sovereignty
> > > > > of the individual cannot be practiced if the individual
cannot
> > > > choose what they
> > > > > will say in public, how they will live, what beliefs their
> > > children
> > > > will be
> > > > > taught, what values will govern their relationships, and
who to
> > > live
> > > > with or
> > > > > near, who to buy from or sell to, and who to associate with
in
> > > any
> > > > capacity
> > > > > based on their moral beliefs and lifestyle choices.
> > > > > The myth of the
> > > > > centralists is that "freedom ends at the end of your nose."
One
> > > has
> > > > to ask, if
> > > > > all the people out there only have freedom within their own
body
> > > or,
> > > > at best,
> > > > > their own house, then what or who has authority or freedom
beyond
> > > > the end of
> > > > > your nose?
> > > > > If your
> > > > > individual freedom is limited in this way then how can you
> > > interact
> > > > with other
> > > > > human beings? Your freedom must extend to those
relationships but
> > > > how can you
> > > > > exercise this freedom over relationships that include
people who
> > > do
> > > > not hold
> > > > > your beliefs? Beyond this, how can you exercise freedom
over a
> > > > relationship
> > > > > that includes millions of people and that has rules that are
> > > > established by
> > > > > people who live far away from you and who receive little
more
> > > input
> > > > from you
> > > > > beyond an ill-informed vote?
> > > > > Here is a
> > > > > simple concept that may help us to address these myths.
> > > > > The ability to
> > > > > control a relationship in a meaningful way that enables that
> > > > relationship to
> > > > > accomplish the goals you set for it depends on three
factors:
> > > size,
> > > > agreement,
> > > > > and effectiveness.
> > > > > The size of a
> > > > > relationship is defined as the ability of its participants
to
> > > > interact in a
> > > > > meaningful way and is influenced by the distance
individuals must
> > > > travel to
> > > > > interact, the number of people involved, and the
communications
> > > and
> > > > > decision-making process itself.
> > > > > The agreement
> > > > > level of a relationship is, quite simply, the agree to which
> > > > participants in
> > > > > the relationship agree about their beliefs, values, morals,
way
> > > of
> > > > life, or
> > > > > priorities as well as the degree to which they agree that
such
> > > > shared beliefs
> > > > > and etc. should be used to guide the rules and standards of
> > > conduct
> > > > as well as
> > > > > the structure, activities, and goals of their relationship.
> > > > > Effectiveness
> > > > > simply speaks to the issue of the realistic chances that the
> > > > relationship in
> > > > > question has to achieve its goals in terms of how many
resources
> > > it
> > > > can bring
> > > > > to bear and how effective the shared beliefs which govern
that
> > > > relationship are
> > > > > in terms of their goals.
> > > > > We can speak of
> > > > > goals in terms of height, breadth, and depth.
> > > > > The height of a
> > > > > goal relates to how big the goal is, whether the goal may
be 20%
> > > > self reliance
> > > > > for food versus 80% or creating a small community center
versus
> > > > launching a
> > > > > rocket into space.
> > > > > The breadth of
> > > > > a goal relates to how many spheres of human action and
> > > interaction
> > > > are to be
> > > > > addressed: is the goal to create a trading system or to
both
> > > create
> > > > a trading
> > > > > system and regulate product safety.
> > > > > The depth of a
> > > > > goal relates to its details (does it seek general
regulation of
> > > > banking or to
> > > > > create detailed rules for individual banks) and the degree
to
> > > which
> > > > it effects
> > > > > the individual (a small tax versus a large tax, a
regulation that
> > > > allows civil
> > > > > unions of one that forces people to rent to people
regardless of
> > > their
> > > > > lifestyle).
> > > > > Every rule or
> > > > > policy is designed to achieve a goal. These goals can be
purely
> > > > material (make
> > > > > sure nobody is poor), they can be designed to encourage new
> > > > behaviors (tax
> > > > > breaks for using solar power), or to discourage other
behaviors
> > > > (high taxes in
> > > > > cigarettes).
> > > > > Whatever the
> > > > > intention, all rules and policies, one way or another,
create a
> > > > structure that
> > > > > tends to have material effects, that promotes certain
choices and
> > > > behaviors,
> > > > > and that discourages other choices and behaviors.
> > > > > The laws or
> > > > > policies on paper are only to be looked at from the
perspective
> > > of
> > > > the types of
> > > > > people who carry them out and enforce them: to understand
this
> > > you
> > > > would weigh
> > > > > the proven effects along with the written law, the way it
is
> > > enforced or
> > > > > carried out, and the type of people who are enforcing it or
> > > carrying
> > > > it out.
> > > > > Here is another
> > > > > simple principle: your personal freedom is directly related
to
> > > the
> > > > degree to
> > > > > with the laws and policies that govern your life reflect
your
> > > > beliefs and
> > > > > values.
> > > > > It is not
> > > > > enough to say you can choose as you please in your life or
cast a
> > > > vote when the
> > > > > laws or policies you have little to no control over make it
more
> > > > difficult and
> > > > > less rewarding to follow your beliefs or, worse, if they
block
> > > you from
> > > > > practicing those beliefs in an effective and practical
manner in
> > > > your personal
> > > > > actions, in your choice of associates in ALL areas of your
life,
> > > and
> > > > in your
> > > > > right to stand up publicly to say what you believe,
including
> > > > condemning other
> > > > > beliefs or behaviors.
> > > > > Let's ties this
> > > > > all in together with a statement of fact: the goals of
> > > relationships
> > > > must be
> > > > > limited in their height (how large the goal is), breadth
(the
> > > > breadth of areas they
> > > > > address), and depth (the degree to which they effect the
> > > individual)
> > > > in direct
> > > > > proportion to size, agreement, and effectiveness.
> > > > > A relationship
> > > > > should have more limited goals if it is larger (because
bigness
> > > promotes
> > > > > centralization of power and wealth) or if the level of
agreement
> > > is
> > > > lower
> > > > > (because its rules will always favor one set of beliefs
over
> > > others
> > > > and limit
> > > > > the individual's sphere of freedom). This needs to be
balanced
> > > with the
> > > > > effectiveness of the relationship so that the beliefs which
> > > govern
> > > > it must be
> > > > > questioned and revised if they produce bad results and so
that
> > > it has a
> > > > > sufficient enough scale to pull together the resources it
needs
> > > to
> > > > achieve its
> > > > > goals.
> > > > > A general rule
> > > > > of thumb is this: relationships should involve people who
have a
> > > > large degree
> > > > > of agreement on as small a scale as is possible in order
for the
> > > > relationship
> > > > > to be able to have enough resources to get the job done.
> > > > > The objective
> > > > > of society, according to the orthodox view, is to afford the
> > > > individual the
> > > > > greatest possible freedom of action. Some argue that
guaranteeing
> > > > opportunity
> > > > > in a free market will suffice, others argue that this is not
> > > > possible unless
> > > > > the individual is guaranteed, as much as possible, a living
wage,
> > > > housing,
> > > > > education, and health care.
> > > > > The notion that
> > > > > the individual is the primary unit of society and that
their
> > > freedom or
> > > > > welfare, op both, is the primary objective of society's
> > > activities,
> > > > laws, and
> > > > > policies and how it uses its resources is illogical. The
> > > individual
> > > > cannot be
> > > > > said to be free to make choices if their choices are
limited
> > > only to
> > > > their
> > > > > personal actions and do not include how they define and
govern
> > > their
> > > > > relationships and with whom they choose to have such
> > > relationships.
> > > > > If you are
> > > > > speaking of a society of, say, 500 or so families who have
very
> > > > similar beliefs
> > > > > and who have created a system for making decisions through
a
> > > process of
> > > > > consensus which balances both the individual's interests
and
> > > needs
> > > > with the
> > > > > overall needs and shared beliefs and goals of the group,
then you
> > > > can say that
> > > > > the primary unit of society is the individual and that
giving the
> > > > individual
> > > > > freedom and assuring them that their needs will be met is
the
> > > > objective of that
> > > > > society.
> > > > > Perhaps larger
> > > > > groups of such communities may pool resources for more
limited
> > > > shared goals:
> > > > > the larger the group and the less amount of agreements that
> > > exists
> > > > the less
> > > > > decision-making power that group should have to impact the
lives
> > > of
> > > > individuals
> > > > > or small societies of like-minded individuals.
> > > > > Consider the
> > > > > "American society." It is large in size and the level of
shared
> > > > agreement is
> > > > > getting lower year after year.
> > > > > What should the
> > > > > basic unit of such a large society be?
> > > > > Clearly, the
> > > > > basic unit cannot be the individual, for then the
individual
> > > becomes
> > > > completely
> > > > > submerged. The individual can effectively express and
practice
> > > their
> > > > freedom
> > > > > within a small society, but it is a fiction to say that it
is
> > > even
> > > > possible for
> > > > > this to occur on the scale of a 300 million strong nation.
> > > > > Indirectly, and
> > > > > ultimately, the individual is the primary unit of society,
but in
> > > > practical
> > > > > terms a super large society cannot be seriously effected by
the
> > > > individual and
> > > > > if the individual has no intermediary between themselves
and the
> > > central
> > > > > political and economic powers of that society then the
> > > individual is
> > > > a pawn,
> > > > > not an agent of influence.
> > > > > The only
> > > > > possible basic units of the American society can be
component
> > > parts
> > > > in which
> > > > > representatives of a few people, who can interact with
small
> > > groups
> > > > by talking
> > > > > directly and regularly with their representatives or
leaders,
> > > which
> > > > means in
> > > > > practical terms that one representative has the ability to
talk
> > > to
> > > > up to 500
> > > > > people on a regular basis, especially with the use of
technology,
> > > > while those
> > > > > 500 or people need to interact with no more than 500 people
whose
> > > > views they
> > > > > represent.
> > > > > Call these
> > > > > entities what you wish, call them cantons, virtual cantons,
free
> > > > societies, or
> > > > > whatever: in the end these entities or around 500 small
> > > communities
> > > > of around
> > > > > 500 families each are the proper basic unit of a society of
300
> > > > million people-
> > > > > given these entities maximum freedom of action, protecting
their
> > > > rights, their
> > > > > property, and their lives, as well as promoting their
general
> > > > welfare or even
> > > > > assuring them of help in time of need on a temporary basis
are
> > > the
> > > > proper
> > > > > objectives which such a society should seek to fulfill
though its
> > > > government
> > > > > and its economic system.
> > > > > Of course America as a
> > > > > society consists of states and of corporations- the states
are
> > > > supposed to be
> > > > > represented in the Senate and the corporations tend to be
> > > > represented through
> > > > > lobbying and through the Federal Reserve. It is alleged that
> > > > individual are
> > > > > represented by the House of representatives through popular
> > > votes in
> > > > districts
> > > > > that include, roughly, 250,000 or less voters (over 550,000
> > > people).
> > > > > The size of the
> > > > > US House of Representatives is actually good, it could be
400 to
> > > 500
> > > > members
> > > > > strong and represent these basic entities which consists of
> > > sovereign
> > > > > individuals who more or less have shared beliefs and who
are
> > > somehow
> > > > organized
> > > > > into communities of around 500 families.
> > > > > (NOTE: these
> > > > > numbers are not set in stone, they allow me to paint a
specific
> > > > picture, but
> > > > > the greater principle is that they should be small enough
> > > > communities of like
> > > > > minded people so that some form of consensual decision
making is
> > > > possible if
> > > > > desired and yet large enough to be able to have enough
resources
> > > to
> > > > accomplish
> > > > > their shared goals or meet needs they wish to partially or
fully
> > > > meet through
> > > > > some form of social cooperation. )
> > > > > The smallest
> > > > > communities with the greatest amount of shared values, but
which
> > > are
> > > > large
> > > > > enough to handle most of the material needs of that
community,
> > > > should have the
> > > > > most amount of economic and political power which they can
then
> > > > express by
> > > > > forming larger groups of communities which choose a
delegate to
> > > > represent the
> > > > > interest of all 500 communities at the national level.
> > > > > These delegates
> > > > > would not be free agents, they would take issues to the
leaders
> > > or
> > > > delegates of
> > > > > their member communities and then express those opinions. In
> > > > addition to this,
> > > > > the people who interact with the national delegate on
behalf of
> > > > their small
> > > > > community would also go back to their own communities where
a
> > > > decision-making
> > > > > process would occur whereby the community could instruct its
> > > > delegate in terms
> > > > > of the least favorable result and the most desired and
possible
> > > > results leaving
> > > > > it to the talent of the delegate to negotiate a good deal.
> > > > > The idea of
> > > > > calling these entities "virtual cantons" comes from the
Swiss
> > > model of
> > > > > confederacy which is based on Cantons that are actually
> > > consensual
> > > > democracies
> > > > > and from the fact that while these entities would also be
> > > capable of
> > > > being
> > > > > consensual democracies (or whatever they wished to be,
within
> > > > reason) they may
> > > > > not be based on geographic territories.
> > > > > These virtual
> > > > > cantons should be made up of people of shared values and
beliefs,
> > > > generally
> > > > > they are themselves some form of a federation of more or
less
> > > sovereign
> > > > > communities (I prefer the term commonwealth) of people who
share
> > > the
> > > > same
> > > > > values and who live near each other.
> > > > > The individual
> > > > > is free to form or join a sovereign community
(commonwealth)
> > > based
> > > > on their own
> > > > > beliefs knowing that this community will be the primary
means by
> > > > which they
> > > > > exercise influence over the social and economic rules they
will
> > > > follow as well
> > > > > as their primary means of cooperating on a larger level
then
> > > their
> > > > own house
> > > > > for shared goals or to be assured of help in time of need
or
> > > lack.
> > > > > The
> > > > > commonwealth of sovereign individuals is then free to
choose a
> > > > federation of
> > > > > other communities (virtual cantons) based on its beliefs
and
> > > values
> > > > which will
> > > > > pool the resources of these commonwealths for shared needs
or
> > > goals
> > > > and which
> > > > > will send its delegate to the House of Delegates (renamed
> > > from "House of
> > > > > Representatives) .
> > > > > This is not
> > > > > specific, I am trying to show and hopefully persuade you to
agree
> > > > with the
> > > > > concept of decentralization without trying to be too
detailed,
> > > as if
> > > > I have all
> > > > > the answers.
> > > > > The tendency to
> > > > > centralize power and wealth is bad, it is hurtful to our
freedom
> > > and
> > > > it is also
> > > > > not a very efficient way to run society if individuals and
their
> > > small
> > > > > communities are to have a reasonable opportunity to live
free
> > > and obtain
> > > > > material prosperity not just overall, but in terms of how
the
> > > vast
> > > > majority of
> > > > > people live most of the time.
> > > > > If we give
> > > > > power to small communities of people who share the same
beliefs
> > > we
> > > > give maximum
> > > > > freedom to the individual, we allow various ideas to
compete and
> > > > prove how
> > > > > effective they are, we avoid the inherent danger of
> > > centralization
> > > > of power and
> > > > > wealth, and we make the individual responsible for what
they
> > > believe
> > > > and how
> > > > > they act while making it realistically possible for those
> > > > individuals within
> > > > > their communities of choice to obtain material prosperity
and be
> > > > assured of
> > > > > help in time of need.
> > > > > This concept of
> > > > > decentralization balances the individual right of being an
agent
> > > of
> > > > influence
> > > > > within a society of individuals who share their beliefs and
> > > values
> > > > with the
> > > > > need to avoid simply having the beliefs and morals of the
> > > majority being
> > > > > imposed on everyone else who lives under the jurisdiction
of the
> > > > government
> > > > > that majority controls.
> > > > > In the future
> > > > > we should talk about how you can start to use these ideas
and
> > > how a
> > > > revolution
> > > > > from within, a revolution of sovereign individuals and
their
> > > sovereign
> > > > > communities, can be carried out to decentralize American
society
> > > in
> > > > a manner
> > > > > that gives REAL maximum freedom to the individual.
> > > > > Here is the bottom
> > > > > line of this report: centralization of power and wealth is
bad
> > > and
> > > > the only
> > > > > check against this that will work is for sovereign
individuals
> > > of a
> > > > like mind
> > > > > to form their own virtual commonwealths and virtual cantons
which
> > > > insist on and
> > > > > assert their basic sovereign rights, which is the
sovereignty of
> > > their
> > > > > individual members, in the same spirit and with the same
> > > intensity
> > > > as the men
> > > > > who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill Collier
> > > > > Freedomist
> > > > >
> > > > > The Freedomist Pledge:
> > > > >
> > > > > "We, sovereign electors of the United States of
> > > > > America, asserting our inherent rights of self defense,
freedom
> > > of
> > > > association,
> > > > > and redress of grievances, do pledge ourselves to one
another in
> > > > mutual support
> > > > > for help in time of need in order to uphold the Declaration
of
> > > > Independence and
> > > > > the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, knowing
that if
> > > any
> > > > one of us
> > > > > suffers and none defend them then every one of us will
become a
> > > > prey, to come
> > > > > to one another's aid by all necessary and possible means,
without
> > > > hesitation,
> > > > > in times of trouble, through hardships and trials, risking
our
> > > own
> > > > persons, property, and sacred
> > > > > honor if need be, in order to mutually defend our rights,
our
> > > > persons, and our
> > > > > property against any and all threats but according to rules
of
> > > > engagement which
> > > > > neither haste to apply strong measures when they are not
> > > necessary
> > > > nor shrink
> > > > > from any measure when nothing else will serve us. We pledge
> > > ourselves to
> > > > > periodically meet to discuss measures that are needed for
> > > > preparedness and if
> > > > > possible training, to decide and implement cooperative
actions,
> > > and
> > > > to select
> > > > > people for specific tasks to assist our efforts."
> > > > >
> > > > > SIGN THE PLEDGE, form your own "Freedomist Platoon"!
> > > > > Don't wait for any leader to emerge, we are Americans,
> > > > > heirs of the sons of the frontier who built communities out
of
> > > > nothing without
> > > > > any contact with the outside world for months or years and
the
> > > > slaves who
> > > > > escaped, often on their own, without waiting for anyone
else to
> > > help
> > > > them or
> > > > > tell them what to do.
> > > > > If you don't like black people or white people or
> > > > > Mexicans, Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or
liberals, or
> > > > people from
> > > > > "that part of town" then wake up: the real danger is the
Quisling
> > > > Army of
> > > > > Marxists who are burrowed within the institutions of our
nation
> > > and
> > > > who are
> > > > > determined to destroy this nation. Anyone who is willing to
> > > pledge
> > > > themselves
> > > > > to protect your rights, your person, and your property
deserves
> > > your
> > > > respect
> > > > > and mutual support.
> > > > >
> > > > > Make sure for your own family that at least 10-20 other
> > > > > Americans are pledged to protect you, as you them, by all
> > > possible
> > > > > means if your rights, person, or property are threatened or
> > > violated.
> > > > > If enough of us achieve this, the likelihood of ANY
Quisling
> > > program
> > > > > succeeding would be slim.
> > > > > For
> > > > > ideas or help you can email me, upadaria@yahoo. com, or
just let
> > > me
> > > > > know if you have your own Freedomist Platoon (by whatever
name
> > > you
> > > > > choose). There is nothing to join: do this on your own with
a few
> > > > > friends, keep it simple, and spread the idea, in your own
words
> > > or use
> > > > > mine, urging people to arm themselves, prepare for
emergencies,
> > > and
> > > > > secure a group of friends and comrades who agree to stand
up for
> > > one
> > > > > another's rights, persons, and proprty.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill Collier
> > > > > Freedomist
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
