On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 00:37:42 -0800, grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote:
Accepting playment of this dodging game seems largely irrelavent (and harmful) to the real issue at hand... your right to speak. At least in the US...
Agreed, but who wants to gamble with the next 20-35 years of their life being thrown away in some hellish sensory deprivation solitary confinement torture chamber to prove the point?
Let the gubmint further undermine whatever legitimacy they have left by inventing tortured legal arguments as to why people must be compelled under threat of violence to speak lies (ironically by not speaking)
Some would say that any interpretation (fiat) of the original Charters text created subsequent to, and without sole dedication to exclusive analysis of, the thoughts of those who wrote them... is bogus, unless so amended. Lots of bogus laws based on flawed interpretation (or on flawed interpretation of good interpretation) out there... and no one testing them. Slowly stacking up, harder to revert with each additional one layered on and woven in tight. A fine day to be a lawyer and a citizen perhaps. Or perhaps there are none that good...
If we go by the Tacitus metric of “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”, then the United States is well and goodly f*ck'd. http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2011/11/tacitus-syllogism/
I like Richard J. Maybury's 'The Two Laws' concept; Two laws are necessary for civilizations to develop and advance:
1) Do all you have agreed to do. 2) Do not encroach on other persons or their property It's dead simple and all we really need IMHO.
