Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[Hyrion]

Democracy does not literally mean "rule of the majority". It means "rule of the people". Not "most of the people with the exclusion of a few dissidents". Not "enough of the people that it's kind of obvious that that's the right decision".

It definitely doesn't mean the few dissidents who misinterpret the constitution can decide to rule themselves and ignore the rule of the majority without leaving the country and making their own.

And, if Psam thinks it means "everyone must agree before a rule can be applied" then good luck with that as the chances of 5 people totally agreeing on a set of rules is hard enough without trying to get 35+ million people to agree.

Especially since what Psam is upset over was in place (4 years between voting) long before he was even born.

If one can not apply a particular rule or policy that may be disliked by someone in the future - then nothing would get ever get done. I'm sure serial killers are quite against a Law that says murder is wrong.

Edited to add: It's ironic in the ISS rules, it's "majority rules" as well. So I wonder how Psam rationalizes his "majority rules" as somehow being different from others "majority rules". Ahhh... right. In his "majority rules" there's no minorities, but in others, he's a minority. So that raises the question of how Psam rationalizes his "minority because he's not part of the majority" is any different then my "minority because I'm not part of the ISS majority".

Either way, Psam has backed himself into a logical corner again where his own words are self-contradictory when measured against what he argued as his court case and position.

[Burnaby49]

Psam's gone off the deep end;

Samuel Michael Frank
Yesterday at 11:24am ·

Raising one's children in a society that allows its members to vote once every four years to choose their government is like telling one's children, "even when You're an adult You'll be too stupid to make responsible decisions at times of your own choosing", which is an abusive way to treat one's children. Therefore having children in Canada and condoning periodically elected governments being imposed upon your children is abuse. Therefore residents of Canada who condone Crown governance being imposed upon their children had no right to have children in the first place given the incompetent nature of their parental abilities.

This obsession with his voting system is getting (getting? Hell, gone way, way past) past any normal mental balance. Even his friends agree;

Katrina McAstocker
i think this crossed a line psam
Yesterday at 6:53pm

Note that Psam is single and has no children so he has no clue what bringing up children entails. Except that to be a good parent people have to kiss his ass about his magical voting system. Guess that made me a failure in bringing up my two sons.

In othe psam news he reaches out to Robin thePage family to complain about us.

Samuel Michael Frank
I have been in a debate with some members of that paper army. Scroll down halfway through page 3 to find my first comment on the discussion.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10279&start=40

This was in response to a Face Book post by Rob that had absolutely nothing to do with psam's response;

Rob Inthe Pagefamily
December 30, 2015 at 8:50am ·
The land upon which we stand is being occupied by a foreign force. The invasion occurred hundreds of years ago and it took centuries to gain full control. They tried to legitimize their occupation through treaty but their violent actions drown out any peaceful words they use. The occupation army is massive as every card carrying individual is a member of that army. They justify it through papal bulls under the Doctrine of Discovery. A piece of paper is the source of their authority and power to occupy this land.

The purpose of that army is to occupy the land, control the resources, profit from those resources and use complex command and control structures to govern it all as effectively as possible. That is what armies do. They are trained in the art of war, control and conquest.

Those who resist are attacked and crushed at all costs for resistance, non-compliance and true freedom & prosperity are dangerous to the continued success of their occupation.

I refuse to participate with this disgusting level of covert and outright violence. It will be up to each card carrying solder to choose whether they will continue participating with this violence or renounce their commission and join the resistance using peace, freedom, prosperity and love as our tools to confront war, violence, occupation, rape & pillage.

https://www.facebook.com/rob.pagefamily ... 4433262399

Poor psam is obviously achingly desperate for attention. That's not a hint to post here again Psam! We've been though your torrent of pointless theory already.

[notorial dissent]

I still fail to see the actual value or even reason for Psam's claims, his fantasy aside from being totally unworkable is not even practical on a small scale let alone a national scale, and I still do not see why it makes a difference to him. Truth to tell, he strikes me as the type who wouldn't vote when it was election time, too much bother etc. Which all things considered just means one less nut job polluting the voting pool.

Otherwise, I do agree that Psammy badly needs attention and obviously isn't getting any, even his fellow nutjobs think he's a nutjob, it is however of the variety that he is unlikely to seek out, at least voluntarily, and we may be reaching a point where that will no longer be an issue.

[Chaos]

I didn't realize everyone here was writing, then scanning in, their posts from paper. no wonder it takes so long to get a response sometimes.

[Hyrion]

Therefore residents of Canada who condone Crown governance being imposed upon their children had no right to have children in the first place given the incompetent nature of their parental abilities.

That's an awesome political strategy - do your best to insult every potential constituent..... that'll get you their votes.

[notorial dissent]

More like Psammy insulting and alienating, more than usual I mean, the people he's trying to convince this is a good idea. The man is a complete and utter fool.

[SteveUK]

"You'll be too stupid to make responsible decisions at times of your own choosing"

.....the irony

[Psam]

I would like to discuss some issues We might be expected to agree about, since clearly We have beaten the issue We disagree about to death and neither this Quatloos Crowd nor I appear likely to alter opinions on the matter.

I would like to discuss, logically and rationally, several dynamics of human society and civilisation over the last few thousand years.

Has an interactive electoral system ever been tried in the last few thousand years in known history? I expect that our answers will be "no" and yet I would love to find out otherwise. If they are though, then it is good to find an issue We agree upon, as I stated earlier was my intention in this comment.

Is it possible that an interactive electoral system might create conditions in society that are detrimental to the existence of freedom and democracy as compared to the conditions created by periodic elections? Here again, I expect our answers to concur while enthusiastically excited about the possibility that I am wrong about this: yes it is possible.

I wonder if any participant in this conversation so far could think of assertions that We All might be expected to agree upon.

[Burnaby49]

I would like to discuss, logically and rationally, several dynamics of human society and civilisation over the last few thousand years.

. . . . . . .

Is it possible that an interactive electoral system might create conditions in society that are detrimental to the existence of freedom and democracy as compared to the conditions created by periodic elections? Here again, I expect our answers to concur while enthusiastically excited about the possibility that I am wrong about this: yes it is possible.

Way, way, too abstract for me. We're not a philosophical bunch. In any case the discussion of the last few thousand years of humanity is well outside of the mandate of Quatloos and probably the interest of most contributors. As an ex-accountant and tax auditor I keep away from vague academic discussions.

However congratulations! For the first time in the history of Canada the "first past the post" electoral system is, according to our present government, going to be replaced by a more democratic but as yet undecided alternative. This is an opportunity you won't see again. If your system has any chance at all it is right now with the current term of the new government.

[Psam]

I do agree that Psammy badly needs attention and obviously isn't getting any, even his fellow nutjobs think he's a nutjob, it is however of the variety that he is unlikely to seek out, at least voluntarily, and we may be reaching a point where that will no longer be an issue.

I am curious who is being referred to as "my fellow nutjobs" here.

I expect it is in reference to this comment:

Katrina McAstocker
i think this crossed a line psam
Yesterday at 6:53pm

I am wondering how my Friend Katrina qualifies as a nutjob.

I am going to take a guess that it is because You've assumed that She is a member of the Interactive Sovereign Society (ISS).

There are two modes of thought taken by members of the ISS that I expect You refer to as nutjob mentality. One is that a member believes it might be possible that an interactive electoral system would provide more stability, fairness, decisiveness, and ease of implementation for a society than using periodic elections to choose decision makers. The other is that present conventional governments in the world today don't necessarily have the right to govern every single person on the land that they claim to make the laws for.

If Katrina were indeed an ISS member, then of course You have no way of knowing whether her membership signifies that She subscribes to both of the modes of thought described above or just one of them. Some members subscribe completely to one of the two and not at all to the other, and the society welcomes all members' democratic participation equally with this in mind.

So if You are calling Katrina a nutjob without having figured out which of the above modes of thought She subscribes to, then You must believe that both modes of thought are equally indicative of nutjobousness.

Notorial Dissent, I have discovered a great many diverse People on this quatloos website and learned some things I didn't expect to. I am glad I entered this discussion. However, You, my Friend, have never failed to be an asshole with nothing interesting or respectful to contribute in every single thing You write. I am a great admirer of consistency, and for that, You have my admiration and respect. Oh yeah, and my love, my Friend. You have that too, asshole.

[Burnaby49]

Hey don't forget me! I haven't been kind to you either.

[LordEd]

I am curious who is being referred to as "my fellow nutjobs" here.

Me too. I really would just like a head count. Evidence points to a total membership of 3 so far.

Did you have the opportunity to be punished today?

[wserra]

There are two modes of thought taken by members of the ISS that I expect You refer to as nutjob mentality. One is that a member believes it might be possible that an interactive electoral system would provide more stability, fairness, decisiveness, and ease of implementation for a society than using periodic elections to choose decision makers.

I don't know that I would go so far as to call someone who believes that a nutjob. I do know that it only requires a quick glance to see that the idea is so wildly unrealistic that it is not worth any more of my time.

The other is that present conventional governments in the world today don't necessarily have the right to govern every single person on the land that they claim to make the laws for.

Unless you're referring to diplomats, that's nutjob territory.

[Psam]

I am curious who is being referred to as "my fellow nutjobs" here.

Me too. I really would just like a head count. Evidence points to a total membership of 3 so far.

Did you have the opportunity to be punished today?

"Evidence" points to a total membership of 3 so far?

Does that include Katrina? Because I would think that the fact that She admonished Me for my comments might be just as much compelling evidence that She is not a member. There are several non-members, in fact even People opposed to an interactive electoral system, who respect Me enough to let Me know when my comments offend Them. Claiming that evidence points to Her being a member is at best ignorant and at worst insulting. You might owe Her an apology, perhaps?

If You feel that copying her comments from a public Facebook discussion to this blog is an acceptable practice, then I would think it would be quite sensible that You could ask Her your Self on Facebook whether She is a member before making assumptions. If You have done this and been refused a straight answer, then perhaps drawing extrapolations from inconclusive evidence to come up with your best guess might be an acceptable practice. If not, then You are just being an asshole.

Not tactics I would expect from People who claim to have respect for lawful process.

[Psam]

The other is that present conventional governments in the world today don't necessarily have the right to govern every single person on the land that they claim to make the laws for.

Unless you're referring to diplomats, that's nutjob territory.

Who has the right to govern Crimea, the government of Ukraine or the government of Russia?

No matter which answer You give, You are stating that a "government in the world today doesn't necessarily have the right to govern every single person on the land that they claim to make the laws for". Does that mean You're a nutjob?

[LordEd]

You, one who was named as some auditor or receiver or something financial, and I saw one other name in a document.

No idea who Katrina is. Don't care. Didn't copy her post and hadn't mentioned her.

I believe your "proven system" has no membership of any scale and is proven with a tiny subset of people as opposed to a broad set of beliefs as is found in this country.

[wserra]

Who has the right to govern Crimea, the government of Ukraine or the government of Russia?

Does the answer to that question have anything to do with the US or Canada? I didn't realize we were discussing Crimea.

[Burnaby49]

Who has the right to govern Crimea, the government of Ukraine or the government of Russia?

Does the answer to that question have anything to do with the US or Canada? I didn't realize we were discussing Crimea.

As I said, he's trying to make it so open-ended that we descend into gibberish.

[arayder]

Who has the right to govern Crimea, the government of Ukraine or the government of Russia?

No matter which answer You give, You are stating that a "government in the world today doesn't necessarily have the right to govern every single person on the land that they claim to make the laws for". Does that mean You're a nutjob?

I hereby enact woo pitcher's debate rules #1 Never answer directly and #2 Ask a question.

------------------

Do governments have "rights"?

[Chaos]

poor Psham. Much like all scammers....threatens to leave but keeps coming back.