Lets start from the beginning

[Patriotdiscussions]

I posit that "PD" is still trying to cope with being forced to do various things when he was a tyke. The source of the problem is some unknown aspect of PD's relationship with someone (very probably Mommie or Daddy) back when PD was just a "leetle feller."

Something in that early childhood relationship is the beginning.

I think you are on the right track, Farmspear.

There are those who love to rewrite American history to make it seem that the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution opted for a government free of coercion. This exercise in history revision ignores the well documented employment of force by the Founders to enforce the law, the most notable case being Washington's use of the federal militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion.

I theorize that many of this "the Framers were coercion free" crowd are substituting their mythic, but inaccurate, nation of American history, law and custom for the mommies and daddies who used a belt to get them to clean up their rooms.

Are you saying that some people believe after you give consent to be governed that you don't have to follow the rules?

Strange. Those folks have some weird ideas I tell you.

[arayder]

So we govern by consent then, . . .

No one as agreed to your presumption? I think most posters are saying the people, by their consent give the government the authority to enforce the law.

I think Jefferson said it best. Governing by force would be North Korea type government . . .

Yeah, Jefferson had a lot to say about North Korea. . . .not.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Ah, PD has created another thread. He entitles this one: "Lets [sic] start from the beginning".

In an effort to make sure beliefs do not interfer [sic] with my information intake, I suggest we start from the beginning and see where our paths diverge.

In that light, what two ways can men govern other men?

Our paths diverge over the concept of where "the beginning" is located.

On September 7, 2014 "Patriotdiscussions" started a thread here -- entitled "Let me start my questions from the beginning" -- with these questions:

Does being born automatically submit you to the social contract?

Does not every male citizen have to sign up for selective service?

Does the constitution not outlaw involuntary servitude?

Would being born, forced into the social contract and thus selective service be voluntary servitude?

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=10197&p=175743#p175743

Now, there is a common theme here. The theme is PD's problem coping with Authority and Authority Figures and with being forced to do various things.

The "beginning" of all this is better understood by trying to answer the question: "Exactly which relationship that was important to 'Patriotdiscussions' in his early childhood is he still trying to resolve?". But, that's a question that (probably) only "Patriotdiscussions" can answer. His ability to answer that question correctly would be an indicator of how far along in his mental journey he has come.

I posit that "PD" is still trying to cope with being forced to do various things when he was a tyke. The source of the problem is some unknown aspect of PD's relationship with someone (very probably Mommie or Daddy) back when PD was just a "leetle feller."

Something in that early childhood relationship is the beginning.

Thanks for the Cracker Jack psych eval that is so far off based it is not even funny. Tell me famspear would a teenage boy who has problems with authority join the civil air patrol? Would he rise to first Sargent and gain the rank of tech Sargent?

Save your bias psych exam to impress your lady friends.

[Patriotdiscussions]

So we govern by consent then, . . .

No one as agreed to your presumption? I think most posters are saying the people, by their consent give the government the authority to enforce the law.

I think Jefferson said it best. Governing by force would be North Korea type government . . .

Yeah, Jefferson had a lot to say about North Korea. . . .not.

He said learn what a period is for.

[arayder]

So we govern by consent then, . . .

No one as agreed to your presumption? I think most posters are saying the people, by their consent give the government the authority to enforce the law.

I think Jefferson said it best. Governing by force would be North Korea type government . . .

Yeah, Jefferson had a lot to say about North Korea. . . .not.

He said learn what a period is for.

I am sure he was happy when Sally had hers. Are you saying Jefferson did not use force to govern?

Careful, now.

[arayder]

I posit that "PD" is still trying to cope with being forced to do various things when he was a tyke. The source of the problem is some unknown aspect of PD's relationship with someone (very probably Mommie or Daddy) back when PD was just a "leetle feller."

Something in that early childhood relationship is the beginning.

I think you are on the right track, Farmspear.

There are those who love to rewrite American history to make it seem that the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution opted for a government free of coercion. This exercise in history revision ignores the well documented employment of force by the Founders to enforce the law, the most notable case being Washington's use of the federal militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion.

I theorize that many of this "the Framers were coercion free" crowd are substituting their mythic, but inaccurate, nation of American history, law and custom for the mommies and daddies who used a belt to get them to clean up their rooms.

Are you saying that some people believe after you give consent to be governed that you don't have to follow the rules?

Strange. Those folks have some weird ideas I tell you.

No, I said exactly what I said.

You're like child who puts words in other people's mouths and thinks it's a good argument. I am not surprised that an individual who can't say what he wants to say wouldn't be able to know what another is saying.

[arayder]

PD, I think you should go ahead and tell us what you think, rather than pretending to be a student in learning mode.

After all on graigslist you are offering classes during which promise to show prospective students "how the government works" and how they can "beat the banks":

-----------------------
Classes on law,economics and psychology (central florida)

Patriot discussions holds meetings or one on ones with people looking to understand how the government can do the things it does. want to know more about WHY you have to use obamacare? Having trouble with your mortgage or are you in foreclosure? I can help you beat the banks friends. All my services are donation only (except for mortgage/foreclosure help) and are based on what you think my information is worth. Truly a free market type business. Remember that if we are getting bad information from the government, then our life choices will be based on that bad info, protect your family, know what's going on.

source: http://orlando.craigslist.org/cls/4531347794.html

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

PD, as an aside I have to say that in light of your scholarly fails on this forum I question the wisdom of you offering advice, some of which comes close to paid legal advice.

Thanks for your concern friend, sadly the florida bar has a very informative post on what is paid legal advice and what is legal information.

I see that you avoided talking about the fact that you come here saying you know nothing, yet are trying to get a mortgage "legal information" business going.

[Famspear]

Thanks for the Cracker Jack psych eval that is so far off based it is not even funny. Tell me famspear would a teenage boy who has problems with authority join the civil air patrol? Would he rise to first Sargent and gain the rank of tech Sargent?

The word is spelled "Sergeant" -- that's "S-E-R-G-E-A-N-T" -- not "Sargent" -- although it's pronounced as "SAR-jent."

No, my Cracker Jack psych eval is on target. And, joining the civil air patrol, or rising to the rank of tech sergeant, or doing all the hundreds of other things that people do to get along in life does not necessary mean that the individual does not have a problem with authority.

Save your bias [sic] psych exam to impress your lady friends.

That would be "biased psych exam," not "bias psych exam."

And, no, I'm not "biased" in making my psychological evaluation of you. I have made my evaluation after a careful and unbiased analysis of your own words.

I am most certainly not an expert on psychology, but I don't believe it takes an expert in that field to get some pretty accurate information about you -- from your own posts.

Oh, and I have several things going for me that are much more impressive than my non-expert knowledge of psychology. There is no doubt that my lady friends are impressed.

[arayder]

I think you hit a nerve Famspear.

I would point out that an unwillingness to speak plainly is consistent with a child who just got a whipping and won't admit that afterwards he mumbled he wanted a daddy who wouldn't beat him.

[noblepa]

Is anyone seriously suggesting we govern by force?

Yes, just about every tax protestor and sovereign citizen type typically makes that claim.

However, I don't think that any regular poster here makes any such claim.

I, too, wonder where you are going with this. As I said, tp's and sovcits seem to read Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence to mean that governance requires INDIVIDUAL consent. They are often heard saying "I do not consent" during their various arrests.

A question such as you pose requires a somewhat nuanced answer, yet you pose it as a simple either-or or yes-no question.

When one does this, it is usually done to set a trap for the respondent. If I answer simply "consent", you would probably come back and ask something like "What if I don't consent?". That's the fallacy of asking either-or type questions for a complex issue.

As has been stated here many times, in answer to both you and other trolls, the US government derives its power from the COLLECTIVE consent of the populace. We implicitly consent every time we vote. In fact, simply remaining in this country and not working vigorously to change a perceived unjust law can be considere to be implicit consent. IOW, if you don't like a law, work to change it.

Like others here, I would like to see from you a more in-depth discussion of the issues, as you see them, even if you don't wish to take a position during your learning process. Simply coming here, dropping a question like that, with no context, is disingenuous, to say the least.

[notorial dissent]

I personally suspect that the divergence was at the potty training level, at which he failed miserably, and has been resentful and petulant ever since.

[Gregg]

If the correct answer was something suitable for a multiple choice format, the correct choice was not provided (I would suggest consensus works as well as any) but really, the answer can't be answered in less than a sentence, and as such, can't be comprehended by the person asking it.

[littleFred]

Is PD really heading down the individual/collective consent argument? Surely PD knows that holds no water?

But what does PD mean by govern? Limiting the choices to force or consent seems to restrict the discussion to laws. I suppose the USA is much like the UK: most people consent to most of the laws most of the time. Of those who don't, some will be prosecuted. Of those found guilty, a small proportion won't pay the fines or whatever, and punishment must be forced upon them.

But governing is about wider issues than laws. It includes policy-making on foreign affairs, defence, health, education and much else. An appropriate word might be "delegation". Most people don't care much about most issues, and are content that politicians make decisions. We might lobby for issues we care about, but most people don't.

[JamesVincent]

Thanks for the Cracker Jack psych eval that is so far off based it is not even funny. Tell me famspear would a teenage boy who has problems with authority join the civil air patrol? Would he rise to first Sargent and gain the rank of tech Sargent?

The word is spelled "Sergeant" -- that's "S-E-R-G-E-A-N-T" -- not "Sargent" -- although it's pronounced as "SAR-jent."

Thank you Fam, that kinda crap irritates the piss out of me. I would also like to point out that if, indeed, someone had done these things they would sure as hell know how to spell it. It would also be Tech Sergeant, or Technical Sergeant. It is a proper form of address, not an adjective.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Is anyone seriously suggesting we govern by force?

Yes, just about every tax protestor and sovereign citizen type typically makes that claim.

However, I don't think that any regular poster here makes any such claim.

I, too, wonder where you are going with this. As I said, tp's and sovcits seem to read Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence to mean that governance requires INDIVIDUAL consent. They are often heard saying "I do not consent" during their various arrests.

A question such as you pose requires a somewhat nuanced answer, yet you pose it as a simple either-or or yes-no question.

When one does this, it is usually done to set a trap for the respondent. If I answer simply "consent", you would probably come back and ask something like "What if I don't consent?". That's the fallacy of asking either-or type questions for a complex issue.

As has been stated here many times, in answer to both you and other trolls, the US government derives its power from the COLLECTIVE consent of the populace. We implicitly consent every time we vote. In fact, simply remaining in this country and not working vigorously to change a perceived unjust law can be considere to be implicit consent. IOW, if you don't like a law, work to change it.

Like others here, I would like to see from you a more in-depth discussion of the issues, as you see them, even if you don't wish to take a position during your learning process. Simply coming here, dropping a question like that, with no context, is disingenuous, to say the least.

Wow, good post.

My position is all contracts require individual consent, and that society is based on the social contract.

Along the lines of Individual vs collective consent I find no mention of Americans giving collective consent to be governed, nor any mechanism to implement a collective consent.

Here is a birds eye view of this topic

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusiv ... eclaration

Early Americans equated individual consent with consent through elected representatives. There is no injustice, say, if a person freely consents to onerous work in a contractual agreement. The rewards, presumably, would be commensurate to the legally binding obligation freely entered into. Similarly, laws and taxes enacted by legislatures could be onerous, but there would be no injustice in this theory as long as the people consented to these laws, either personally or through their representatives.

[morrand]

Thanks for the Cracker Jack psych eval that is so far off based it is not even funny. Tell me famspear would a teenage boy who has problems with authority join the civil air patrol? Would he rise to first Sargent and gain the rank of tech Sargent?

The word is spelled "Sergeant" -- that's "S-E-R-G-E-A-N-T" -- not "Sargent" -- although it's pronounced as "SAR-jent."

Famspear, stet! He spelled it correctly.

Remember, some go Sargent, some go York. Either way, they're still Dicks.

[JamesVincent]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, the attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good

[Famspear]

.....My position is all contracts require individual consent, and that society is based on the social contract.

Well, if you mean that to be legally bound by the laws of the United States of America, or of Florida, your "individual consent" is required, you're wrong. Maybe that's not what you're implying.

Along the lines of Individual vs collective consent I find no mention of Americans giving collective consent to be governed, nor any mechanism to implement a collective consent.

Well, then you need to study a little harder. Maybe you were asleep in that ninth grade civics or government class.

Or, perhaps your supposed failure to find any "mention of Americans giving collective consent to be governed" is another manifestation of your problem with Mommie. Or Daddy.

[Patriotdiscussions]

.....My position is all contracts require individual consent, and that society is based on the social contract.

Well, if you mean that to be legally bound by the laws of the United States of America, or of Florida, your "individual consent" is required, you're wrong. Maybe that's not what you're implying.

to be governed means to be subject to the laws yes, not the common law that everyone is subject to, but the statutory, compelled to perform statutes. Most are non positive law, or prima facie law, which is a REBUTTABLE presumption. Only a law that does not apply to everyone can be a rebuttable presumption of law.

Along the lines of Individual vs collective consent I find no mention of Americans giving collective consent to be governed, nor any mechanism to implement a collective consent.

Well, then you need to study a little harder. Maybe you were asleep in that ninth grade civics or government class.

Or, perhaps your supposed failure to find any "mention of Americans giving collective consent to be governed" is another manifestation of your problem with Mommie. Or Daddy.

Tell you what professor, perhaps you could direct me to someone that shares this belief of collective consent to the social contract.

[Famspear]

Tell you what professor, perhaps you could direct me to someone that shares this belief of collective consent to the social contract.

Yes, that would be me and the vast majority of people in the United States of America.