Is Having A Lawful a Government A Civil Right?

Widespread Election Fraud In California Primary

He leaves out natural law which created and can carry rights that American government is sworn to protect in human society.

It's possible anarchy could hold them in higher regard and better sèrve them. But deep education in needs is required of all of the people of it.

 

The elements of law were derived from the Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta and the Ten Commandments.

 

Yes, in Nature, might makes right for non-political Animals.

 

While the Constitution requires that politicians and some bureaucrats uphold the Constitution, that has nothing to do with natural rights. Nor would I trust a politician or high level bureaucrat to do anything other than what is good for that person first and foremost.

Well it's a damned good thing that the government "educates" most children for 12-18 years.

- - - Updated - - -

Non-human animals don't think about rights or might. They live in the present.

 

Yet, without politics and being evolved enough to be a political animal, means it is a natural right in Nature.

 

What missing history, do you have a clue? All we have to this point is pure conjecture with nothing concrete. And just what does some sad saga about the French being on this continent before the English settlements have to do with slavery? And now we switch to some sort of heresy not being recorded in history.

Do you actually have a real topic here? What does this have to do with the main topic of which you seem to lack anything concrete?

 

To make that claim, one would need to be based in reality and have the cognitive ability to sort right from wrong and reality from imagination. It would seem from your claims that this is not the case unless not being able to respond to a challenge would fit the bill. I would say the whole claim would be based more on paranoia than reasoning.

More like the concept that people should be educated in general, then perhaps they would understand the world around then and not have to whine about that which little matters.

So that pretty little picture really entertains you but it would seem you little understand what it represents much less how to interpret it. Is it little blue ovals or just foreign sounding names that draw your attention? But hey, you really should do your homework:

Yawn!!! This is the second time you have posted this same thing with the same level of misunderstanding about what it is about and still no clarification of what you are trying to prove, if anything. Also, what does this have to do with the topic other than making some excuse of what you can't answer the questions?

 

I much prefer this reference to Hofstede, one which may have saved you some embarrassment.

 

Actually, government is not a right at all. Government is the anti-thesis of rights. The more government you have the less rights you have.

It's like slavery. If one owns another totally, then all recognize that as slavery. But at what point other than zero does another's claims against you stop being slavery. And for slavery to exist, their must be masters. What most of the masses in the "supposed" free world fail to realize is they relish the idea of electing their masters every chance they get.

 

In your case I would recommend leaving anything to do with pleadings to those with the understanding of pleadings and the law, like hire a lawyer and be represented as ward of the court.

 

I would dare opt to say that it was more a total misunderstanding of the meaning and philosophy of anarchy.

 

Actually none of the above. The Code of Hammurabi were laws decreed by one claiming to be superior to all others, a king. This king further supported the whole concept of slavery, the ability of one to "own" another, nothing at all lawful about that.

Then you state the Magna Carta wherein some elite captured their king and threaten to kill him unless he agree to certain rights. Of course the king remained king and the elite remained above the masses that were enslaved to them.

And then we have the Ten Commandments wherein so dingo roaming the desert looking for a home goes up on the mountain while the rest of the group party-out and comes down with a couple of stone tablets with ten commandments from some mystical being that only talks to him. And then the actual commandments, commanding, really? And to boot while a few should be self evident, most are but for control of others.

There is but one law in this world, non-aggression. That doesn't mean one can't kill another with impunity when they have been transgressed under the doctrine of self-defense.

 

Might never makes for right.

 

Knowing lawyers will not pursue defense of the constitution, British accredited registry and all, it appears you support concealment of treason then, rather than a citizen harassing the judacature. I state this because you have seen before where federal judges conceal treason.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.disclosure.html

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.civreassign.html

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.civreasign1.html

 

Cognitive distortion of "all or nothing thinking", entitlement, minimization.

Distort is all you do.

 

Survival is a natural right.

 

Did you know evasion and selectivity are the most prominent features of cognitive infiltration?

 

Cognitive infiltration takes a position, but does not use logic.

Natural rights, natural laws, are all features of our phylogenetic DNA. The rights exist as we do, the laws are derived by our rational observance of the behaviors created by the DNA.

 

Why bother having a social Contract, if it is not enforceable at law?

 

Again, in your case, you should leave legal to those that represent one incapable of or hazardous on their own. Now being this is your thread and you keep addressing this as a key element of the topic, let's fully address this travesty.

Treason:

Where in any of that same garbage you keep posting does it relate to any of the above? Well, it don't. I am sure the Federal Judge had a good laugh at that filing and as you were the obvious loser of the case, demanded you pay the fee for the court's services.

You, the one wanting to instill a trust to a document that means nothing in reality except to those that believe in a master and want to volunteer to be a slave should understand that the only true functions of courts and sheriffs is the delivery of process for a stated fee payable in advance and recoverable from the defendant if the plaintiff prevails.

Second, your filing in criminal court was a total travesty as their was none of the elements, including the caption, that construe a criminal action. As a matter of fact, it doesn't meet the requirements of a civil action either and if it had not been dismissed for non-payment of the fee would have resulted in dismissal and some very expensive counter suits. Too bad the fees weren't paid as education is never really free and this one would have been a whopper and we aren't speaking of Burger King either.

And no, I have never seen where any judge conceals any such thing. It is the losers that conceal due to their complete lack of knowledge of that which they insist on attempting without any knowledge of the subject at hand.

 

To distort that which is already distorted would either result in further destruction or more likely in this instance, a return to natural or regular shape.

 

That is a given, an absolute but does not involve might as a right. Survival is to live and let live but to be able to defend to the degree needed to survive up to and including total destruction of that which opposes. However, survival always encompasses the non-aggression principle wherein violence is never justified. No, these are no opposing principles but one and the same.

 

What I am starting to know in more depth than I really care to is your persistence that your incorrectness in a matter is always seen as an attack by another because you don't have the depth of knowledge to be able to justify your position which is understandable as in building that justification would lead to the error inherent in your position.

 

WOW, another extreme. Just what do you base this misprision of knowledge about natural law?

- - - Updated - - -

Why would anyone want a "social contract"?

 

For this reason:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.