"We the People.." Do Not Have Constitutional Right to Vote

To end wars, embrace capitalism--capitalists are too busy making money to wage war.

Ayn Rand: "Men who are free to produce, have no incentive to loot; they have nothing to gain from war and a great deal to lose. Ideologically, the principle of individual rights does not permit a man to seek his own livelihood at the point of a gun, inside or outside his country. Economically, wars cost money; in a free economy, where wealth is privately owned, the costs of war come out of the income of private citizens—there is no overblown public treasury to hide that fact—and a citizen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses (such as taxes or business dislocations or property destruction) by winning the war. Thus his own economic interests are on the side of peace.​

In a statist economy, where wealth is “publicly owned,” a citizen has no economic interests to protect by preserving peace—he is only a drop in the common bucket—while war gives him the (fallacious) hope of larger handouts from his master. Ideologically, he is trained to regard men as sacrificial animals; he is one himself; he can have no concept of why foreigners should not be sacrificed on the same public altar for the benefit of the same state.

The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonists throughout history. Trade does not flourish on battlefields, factories do not produce under bombardments, profits do not grow on rubble. Capitalism is a society of traders—for which it has been denounced by every would-be gunman who regards trade as “selfish” and conquest as “noble.”

Let those who are actually concerned with peace observe that capitalism gave mankind the longest period of peace in history—a period during which there were no wars involving the entire civilized world—from the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914.--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/war.html

​

 

"It is totally irrelevant whether the States have succeeded in using Art. V to propose a new Amendment"

Yes, you are correct, it is another amendment option, but irrelevant … and just as the Appendix is irrelevant … until it bursts.

 

Let's not go overboard here, you could just as easily build a cabin from scratch, heat with wood that you cut, split and haul. You could easily plant a couple of acres for food after you clear them and don't forget what a pleasure it is to hunt and fish when you have to to survive. The missus will just love to haul the laundry down to the creek and beat it on a rock. You can home school the kids, beats packing lunches and getting them off to school. It also cuts down on all of those useless after school things like soccer and basketball, they'll get plenty of exercise doing their chores like feeding the chickens and sloppin the hogs. You don't even need a car, after all where would you be going seeing as you already live in Eden. Who needs all those gimmicky electronic things or the internet when there's a library in town you can go to when ever you want. Yessir, that there luxury thing is highly over rated, you're the one that would be living the dream and be way out ahead of the Green New Deal. So you wouldn't want to tell anyone how good you got it out there in the sticks you don't want too many neighbors like those backward corporate types.

 

Ah, the good old days.

 

You can either invade a country or leave them alone and trade with them. When goods cross borders, armies don't. John Stossel

 

Any right you have as an individual, is only yours until a more powerful GROUP decides they want it.. Women didn't get the vote until they banded together.

 

Firstly Carl, I appreciate the comment as it comes from a position commonly held.

As s member of FOAVC I saw all the arguments possible defining Article V as well as congresses act related to Amendment.

When 2/3 of the states apply for a convention, (seeking Amendment is no different really) congress SHALL call a convention. They refused to in 1911 Which enabled the federal reserve act of 1913.

When 3/4 of the states are holding conventions within them proposing Amendments, then they ratify, congress and the court have no authority over the Amendment.

I apologize for my choice or arrangement of words in my post you quoted. Please allow me to restate and simplify.

The people define the BEST speech, and government MUST accept that definition when the people act in majorities within 3/4 of the states.

The best speech is speech that enables the unity in the people needed to effectively alter or abolish.

You are correct, no aspect of current government or its icons can br trusted, which is exactly the reason I post this,

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.


2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling the peoples unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Because people can agree upon those definitions of what are our most prime right.

 

Thank you for your response and clarification.

 

Thank you Corporate America for giving every American an average credit card balance of $4,293, and giving us a total consumer credit card debt of over $4Trillion.
Thank you Corporate America for giving us a Student Loan Debt of over $1.5Trillion.
Thank you Corporate America for giving us obesity and diabetes, and shortening our "healthy" lifespan by 12 years.
Thank you Corporate America for giving us Tobacco-related deaths like Lung Cancer, Emphysema, Heart Disease, Strokes, Ectopic Pregnancies, Gangrene, Colorectal Cancer, etc.
Thank you Corporate America for giving us food-related diseases like Botulism, E. coli, Salmonella, Hepatitis(A), Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridium perfringens, and many other pathogens in our meats, sea food, poultry, eggs, salads and vegetables.
Thank you Corporate America for giving us Oxycodone, Opiates, Heroin, Antidepressants,, Alcohol, Thalidomide, Nicotine, MSG, cancer-causing food additives, colorings, dyes, and preservatives, Prozac, Psychotropics, etc.
Thank you Corporate America for polluting our oceans with non-degradable plastics, oil spills, corporate made waste(paper bags, cans and bottles, forks and knives, etc.).
Thank you Corporate America for polluting our finite soil, with poisonous industrial runoffs, and dangerous chemicals. It takes 1000 years to produce 1 cm of usable top soil.
Thank you Corporate America for destroying our land, through land erosion, mass deforestation, strip mining, land fills, human sewage, etc.
Thank you Corporations for polluting our air with carbon emissions, lead, sulfur dioxides, carbon dioxides, CFC's, methane's and nitrogen oxides.
Thank you Corporate America for providing me with the technology, to destroy people, countries, and the world, while sitting at a control console.

Thank you Corporate America, for allowing me to live your imaginary, corporate conceived lifestyle. Thank you Corporate America, for allowing me to explore/experience anywhere in the world, while still sitting in my favorite armchair. Thank you Corporate America for allowing me to converse with real people, without even opening my mouth, or being present. Thank you Corporate America, for allowing me to touch my childhood dreams, by embracing your fake and canned corporate illusions. May God bless you Corporate America, for always looking over my shoulders, and guiding me in making my own lifestyle and social decisions. May God bless you Corporate America, for keeping me from thinking for myself, or choosing my own path towards happiness.

Your faithful corporate stooge. Consumer
​

 

All true.

However, A5 respects the people’s options in ways that flabbergast spoon fed Americans expecting authority to tell them what their rights are.

My respect for the framers knowledge of human nature grows massively when
I consider HOW the 9th Amendment is intended to be s tool of state Citizens to control states.

~~~Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ~~~

The number of delegates per states is not defined. This factor provides a great opportunity for state Citizens that can use natural law to form constitutional majorities.

 

Maybe I’m addressing too much too fast. A constitutional majority really is formed in s hierarchical fashion and I’ve figured out a lot of that, but that does not say others can handle the whole thing at once. Let us construct a foundation that starts at the bottom.

It starts with the simple biological definition of the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech AFTER the natural law fact of the survival instinct is accepted. I’ll assume you recognize we all share that instinct.

~~ The ultimate biological, natural law (same things) defining the PURPOSE of free speech is that it is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood. ~~​

Because we all share the instinct to survive, a group having that intent and knowing it, then forming is a natural event.

Agreed?

 

The only answer for that is--speak for yourself, as I did.

If you don't like, don't buy. If you disagree, leave your guns at home.

 

"... the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech AFTER the natural law fact of the survival instinct is accepted. I’ll assume you recognize
we all share that instinct."

True, but ignored by those who use free speech to lobby for laws allowing euthanasia. Sorry, not really relevant to your post.

The 1st amendment gives us "the right to petition the government for redress of grievances". if your grievance is with a neighbor who plays the TV too loud, and other annoyances, you can call the police ... but is the survival issue for you or for the neighbor?

To my way of thinking the Survival Instinct refers to doing what ever is necessary to preserve your life … not your life-style;.

 

Yep, you’ve got the context okay. It’s a sociological right that the PURPOSE of free speech serves.

What makes this thread exceptional is it creates an opportunity to define who or how “we the people” have a right to vote.

Yes, but people erroneously assume that extends to the federal government. No, it is directed at state government. This is where rahl falls flat, because everything after the act of 1871 is fraud and before then only state Citizens are defined.

The states have a vote in the federal elections. So “we the people” refer to Citizens of a state which lawfully can control the state with a majority. Then 3/4 of the states can amend without congress or the court having authority over the amendment. This make the people indirectly, the rightful masters of the congress and the court just as Lincoln said in 1859.

The strategy that makes sense is to use the 9th Amendment to perfect the 1st Amendment so that state Citizens can easily form a majority on any issue. The 9th Amendment is basically for mass adaptation protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The fact it is not taught in schools and only 2 in 20 adults know it shows how bad the infiltrated government of 1871 wants to get rid of it. Meaning it is the FIRST thing that state Citizens need to wield in constitutional majority.

 

You are arguing for the psychological manipulation of the mob in order to establish majority rule as the basis of liberty. Your purpose is to the bridle the unbridable to compel them to work for the common good instead of their evil selfish profiit seeking, money grubbing souls. It’s straight out of Animal Farm

When the majority rules, the individual suffers.

 

" because everything after the act of 1871 is fraud and before then only state Citizens are defined."

State citizens are still defined and in control, unfortunately, by virtue of the Electoral Congress. Why I say unfortunately requires a different thread.

 

Let us test this.

When the majority rules that naturally pure air and water are a natural law right, which individual suffers?

Logic dictates that the only the individuals that place short term wants over long term needs suffer, and it’s minor. Those folks have a mental problem that is causing their self destruction and should not be allowed to control causing the destruction of others.

Sorry, your assertion fails.

 

Rights, hypothesis, axioms, postulates, corollaries, principles, science, discoveries, mathematical formulas, and the validity of ideas is not subject to vote, it simply is what it is--like gravity, and Newton's law's of motion, Galileo's and Conpericus's heliocentric physics--which at the time the majority considered blasphemous.

In other words, it is your's that fails--when the majority rules that Jews have no rights, as the German's did--that blacks are slaves, as the American South did--that businessmen have no right to profits, as every nation and religion on earth states--that women have no right to choose the best path for her pregnancy, as the Religious Right cries--that certain books are forbidden, as some American, schools, colleges and libraries do today-- on, and on, and on.

If there is one thing history demonstrates it's this: The majority of the time the majority of humanity is wrong about the majority of that they hold to be true.

Rights are not sanctioned nor given by a majority, they are a political necessity-- derived from our nature as rational beings--to protect the liberty of individuals, not to enhance the greatest good for the greatest number.

Ayn Rand: "The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

" 'Rights' are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.


"Man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross; . . . these rights are man’s protection against all other men.'
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

In a free society, the individual thinks for himself; in a democracy, the majority thinks for him.

 

Your point is one I agree with, and have for some time.

I would like to see a thread dealing with the unfortunate aspects of the electoral congress. Please allow an opinion that might make it un-needed.

As long as the purpose of free speech is abridged, the people are easily and almost certainly misled. Meaning democracy is hijacked. I’m that case the electorial congress might correct the misleading. Of course the people even tho misled could make the right choice despite, in which case the electoral congress might foul the peoples decision.

In all cases, without an ABSOLUTELY secure vote, we actually have no way of knowing.

This is why the American lawful, peaceful revolution only does two things in the beginning. It ends the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech and secures the vote.

I really should correct a cognitive distortion of “all or nothing thinking” that slipped past me. This;

-“everything after the act of 1871 is fraud” -

There actually may have been some constitutional acts by congress since 1871. The congressional record will need to be examined by state Citizens using the PURPOSE of free speech then evaluated by delegates of Article V in state conventions. A number of nullifications, rescinding/repealing certain acts and affirmations of others, as constitutional will be made.

 

No.

The PURPOSE of free speech was abridged in all cases you cite.

Do you agree, asa rational being, that the ultimate biological, natural law PURPOSE of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?

 

Absolutely not, I most vehemently disagree, The purpose of free speech is to prevent force from being used to shut up those you disagree with. The purpose of free speech is not the dissemination of knowledge, but to protect the thoughts, words, and actions of the individual from force.

Ayn Rand: "Freedom of speech means freedom from interference, suppression or punitive action by the government—and nothing else. It does not mean the right to demand the financial support or the material means to express your views at the expense of other men who may not wish to support you. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one’s own antagonists. A “right” does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort. Private citizens cannot use physical force or coercion; they cannot censor or suppress anyone’s views or publications. Only the government can do so. And censorship is a concept that pertains only to governmental action."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_speech/1.html

Freedom of speech is nothing more than a political concept designed to protect the rights of the individual, not a metabiological function whose essence is inherently constructed to transmit majority approved rantings, delusions, ignorance, and beliefs. I think that's called a meme.

 

Wow, what an elaborate contradiction of self. A cognitively questionable case of tail chasing.


The origin of the law and political thought you mention was a biological necessity for large groups of people to survive, remain free, have and hold rights because one individual just may carry the knowledge needed to survive and do those things.

 

You're using words to obfuscate your true intentions, or you are just retardedly bored. In either case, we're done.

 

LOL, and what would you postulate are my "true intentions"? Can we expect accountability, or, are you done even trying?

 

I don't speak for myself, I speak for the facts. Your truths are relative to you, and therefore subjective. My truths are relative to everyone, therefore objective. The function of Corporations is to "manufacture a need". Unless, you really think you need a mansion, hundreds of different cheeses(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cheeses ), a Million dollar yacht, a million dollar car, or even Billions of dollars in amassed wealth, etc., to live comfortably, etc?

These lifestyle perceptions, are artificially created by corporations to encourage consumers to consume more. This has very little to with liking or disliking the goods or services, and everything to do with convincing you to purchase the goods or services. Corporations are only motivated by profits, not morality.

I agree and disagree with you. I simply remember a time when life was not this complicated. Maybe I just need someone, or something to blame. I really miss the good old days, sometimes.