[Fwd: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.]

J.A. Henshaw jeff at jhenshaw.com
Fri Mar 29 09:22:08 UTC 2002


I sent this earlier and it was too long and I got a message 
about a moderator having to read it first; I trimmed the 
content

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:44:54 -0800
From: "J.A. Henshaw" <jeff at jhenshaw.com>
To: plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0203280100130.16088-100000 at shaft.bitmine.net>	<3CA3832A.80103 at jhenshaw.com> <1017350024.2754.8.camel at ciclid.tripwire.com>	 
<3CA39341.7050806 at jhenshaw.com> 
<1017357810.2739.22.camel at ciclid.tripwire.com>

Russ Johnson wrote:

 > On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 14:03, J.A. Henshaw wrote:
 >
 >>pay your taxes (rent)
 >>
 >
 > This is so far from rent it's not even funny. I've been 
paying rent now
 > for 20 years. What have I to show for it. I'd GLADLY 
trade my rent
 > payment for a house payment and tax payment. At least 
then I'd be
 > getting something for my money.
 >


Something,  maybe... but not land ownership. I am still correct.


 >
 >>follow the building codes ( setbacks, fencelines, etc)
 >>
 >
 > Yeah, those are the price we pay for living in a society. 
It also is
 > somewhat based on safety.
 >


Yes,  I know.. freedom for safety, yada yada Patrick Henry
had a few words for you.


 >
 >>the health codes (septic, water etc)
 >>
 >
 > Again, this is for safety and health reasons. Can you 
imagine what
 > Portland would look like if everyone just drained their 
toilets into the
 > gutter?
 >


Hmm,  1921 they passed some building codes,  and prior to
that all Americans waded through their own feces every day
right?


 >
 >>the penal codes ( grow marijuana, etc)
 >>
 >
 > Well, duh.
 >


Well,  duh,  this is *only* unconstitutional.  But gee golly
whiz,  we are safe from those nasty green plants while the
MJTF attacks your neighbors with machine guns and
helicopters.... what do I say to you?


 >
 >>What else do you "own" that you need permission to do things
 >>with?
 >>
 >
 > How about my car? I have to have a license to drive it. I 
have to
 > register the vehicle to drive it on public streets. I pay 
taxes on it
 > each time I put gas in it.
 >


Terrible example.. I have addressed this briefly already,
and I tried to explain driving an it's legal definition.
I don't think you care,  you want safety in exchange for
freedom.

See above reference to Patrick Henry.

I ask you this: If the jails are overcrowded with drunk
drivers,  what has your licensing scheme achieved?

Safety?

 >
 >>However,  the above is food for thought,  and not meant to
 >>be proof.
 >>
 >
 > It's not proof. It's spurious at best.
 >
 >


Spurious? Patrick Henry is spurious too then.  I would
rather be associated with him than a person who gladly licks
the hands that feed him.

( May your chains rest lightly)


 >>I sense that you are genuinely interested in this and not
 >>merely being rhetorical,  so if you want the entire
 >>enchilada I will be more than happy to give you the history
 >>and the proof.
 >>
 >
 > Yes, I am interested. However, be warned that any proof 
that requires
 > anarchy will not fly with me.
 >
 >


I strongly suspect that you consider constitutional
authority anarchy.

I feel the opposite.


 >>>>Oh really?  Again,  I think the rest of the world agrees
 >>>>that Marx was a communist.
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>No, Marx was a socialist. His dream was communism, 
achieved through
 >>>socialist methods.
 >>>
 >>>America is more socialist now than it was 100 years ago.
 >>>
 >>>
 >>>
 >>
 >>Same thing, whatever you say.  Is there a significant
 >>distinction?
 >>
 >
 > Socialism is when the government provides everything for 
the people.
 > There is still someone (or group) in charge, and they 
decide what's best
 > for the people.
 >
 > Communism is when everyone is equal, and no one is in 
charge.
 >
 > In my opinion, Socialism can be achieved in this country 
(and is in many
 > ways. E.G. Welfare).
 >
 > Communism can't be achieved. Humans want to be in charge. 
They want a
 > hierarchy of power.
 >
 >
 >>Either one is antithetical to the constitution.
 >>
 >
 > How do you explain the rampant socialism coming out of 
Washington?
 >
 >



That has been my message all along,  the law is not applied
and you have socialism to show for it.

Now you show me that you don't get it.

I am exasperated.

The text below addresses many of your questions:

The Economic Rape of America - Chapter Nine

GOVERNMENT RAPE, ANARCHY, AND MURDER

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/rape9.shtml





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list