Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[LordEd]

You need a policy sheet to work out if you need to apologize?

You're right, you have recinded your Canadian citizenship. Sorry about that.

[Burnaby49]

You fucking guys are stupid.

At this point I owe Burnaby49 an apology. After reading Burnaby's post about all the crazy and hateful things that Psam had put on the Internet, I thought maybe Burnaby was stretching the truth under the influence of some cheap ale. But Burnaby nailed it on the head.

Sorry, Burnaby, I will never doubt you again.

How dare you make such a grossly offensive post about me? CHEAP ALE? Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency? I get hammered only on the best local Vancouver craft beer. I can assure you that it is not " cheap".

Calm down Burnaby, calm down. Have a Steamworks Kolsch, maybe another, plot your revenge.

[Psam]

I'm appalled with my Self for admiring a person with such despicable political beliefs for his taste in beer.

[Burnaby49]

I'm appalled with my Self for admiring a person with such despicable political beliefs for his taste in beer.

There's always common ground somewhere.

[notorial dissent]

My first/immediate thought when I saw Psammy's original post was that he feels he is being abused because no one agrees with him and keeps telling him he is wrong, if that is the case, then he is indeed having abuse heaped upon his poor downtrodden not allowed to vote whenever he feels like head. Otherwise Meh!!! His actions strike me as those of the standard sovcit barracks lawyer, and worth just about as much consideration.

[Pottapaug1938]

He, like so many others of his type, has come here to try to dazzle us with bafflegab which makes sense only to fevered minds like his

Sir, you may not know it, but that is exactly the kind of abuse that Psam has been complaining about and I am starting to see his point. You should have referred to it in a compassionate manner as "authentic bafflegab" or "genuine bafflegab" instead of giving it generic treatment by referring to it as mere "bafflegab." I will be recommending a fine of 100 Quatloos against you for your insensitivity to our poor, downtrodden, weak, abused, beaten, exploited, impotent, frightened, and intimidated Psam Frank.

I will be happy to pay the fine with my profits from the RV of the dinar and dong, which highly-placed sources tell me is already in process.

[Psam]

Burnaby49,

I love the expression "common ground".

I am trying to find common ground between two camps.

On the one hand, there are what I will call the dissenters. I hope You will agree that this is an accurate description of the camp even if You might use more derogatory words to describe Them, some of which I might agree with in many cases.

I will try to paraphrase what the dissenters have in common by saying that They believe that there is no conclusive moral justification for a state to unilaterally impose its authority upon every single inhabitant of a land. What They don't typically agree with, though, is that there is great benefit brought to a society by establishing a concise and complete set of rules governing how any member(s) of society treats any other member(s). I believe that this is true but most dissenters don't. I also believe that it is beneficial if these rules are equally accessible to each member of society for revision and also that they apply to each member of society equally.

The other camp, I will respectfully refer to as the statists. I think it is accurate to say that a statist believes that the state whose laws prevail in a land may conclusively be determined to have indisputable moral right to state what the laws are in a land and to use force to assure that every resident of that land abides by those laws. While I can see some validity to this point of view, and I even think that rational, intelligent efforts have been made in places like Canada to establish such a state in a fair and practical way, I disagree with the words "conclusively" and "indisputable" in the above rationale.

I am trying to find common ground between dissenters and statists and yet most members of both camps have very little desire to show any respect for the validity of any points made by the other camp.

Here's another area I am trying to find common ground on.

Periodic democrats believe that an interactive electoral system would result in deadlock and ineffectiveness. I am willing to concede that this is possible, but based on observations of the usage of this system in real life over the last ten years, I see no evidence to support this theory. My observations have led Me to believe that an interactive electoral system would result in greater stability, lower cost, better accountability, more conscientious decisions, and a greater overall satisfaction with the decisions made.

I think that common ground between a periodic democrat and an interactive democrat would be to acknowledge that either of the above eventualities are possible and that the only way to know for sure is to look at implementations of the system that have occurred in real life and analyse the resulting decisions that have been collectively made by participants. For either camp to assume that their conclusion is decisive without doing so would be a refusal to meet on common ground.

[Psam]

...oh yeah and beer.

[Bill Lumbergh]

Periodic democrats believe that an interactive electoral system would result in deadlock and ineffectiveness. I am willing to concede that this is possible, but based on observations of the usage of this system in real life over the last ten years, I see no evidence to support this theory. My observations have led Me to believe that an interactive electoral system would result in greater stability, lower cost, better accountability, more conscientious decisions, and a greater overall satisfaction with the decisions made.

Please provide us with concrete examples of where your "interactive electoral system" has been used in real life.

There have already been posted many reasons why your system is hopeless and contradictory.

[Psam]

The Interactive Sovereign Society (ISS) has existed for five years.

This society asks the hypothetical question, "what if a person could be exempted from the laws made by an existing government and instead made responsible only to the laws made by the ISS? How would We wish the laws to then be written?"

Here are the laws that the society has enacted: http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads/summation.pdf

One of the principles written in the above set of laws is Respect For Others' Laws, which is elaborated on in a few paragraphs in that document. In that elaboration, it is written that any member who would like to deem any laws of an existing government to be inconsistent with ISS principles and therefore not required conduct for members of the ISS should ask the society for an official response in the External Legislation Registry.

All the members so far have been in Canada. All of the laws that have been deemed inconsistent with ISS principles are therefore laws in Canada. They are all written in the External Legislation Registry: http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads/ELR.pdf

These are the decisions made so far using an interactive electoral system in real life. The validity, or lack thereof, of the hypothetical question as to whether a citizen of Canada could be exempted from the laws made by periodically elected governments is irrelevant to the fact that the members take the hypothetical question seriously and use the interactive electoral system to facilitate the collaborative process by which the wishes of the members are agreed upon.

[LordEd]

How many members?

[Burnaby49]

So Psam is saying that his voting system works grand for the tiny but enthusiastic little clique who are trying to promote it. Not, to my mind, a really relevant test.

I will try to paraphrase what the dissenters have in common by saying that They believe that there is no conclusive moral justification for a state to unilaterally impose its authority upon every single inhabitant of a land. What They don't typically agree with, though, is that there is great benefit brought to a society by establishing a concise and complete set of rules governing how any member(s) of society treats any other member(s). I believe that this is true but most dissenters don't. I also believe that it is beneficial if these rules are equally accessible to each member of society for revision and also that they apply to each member of society equally.

So what? You go on and on about the state's moral right to govern and how the state has no moral right to impose it's rules on you if you chose not to be part of it. What does that have to do with anything in respect to Canada or any other nation? The Canadian government does not justify it's existence on moral grounds but on legal ones. It is the duly appointed government. If it has any moral duties they are established by the voters that brought it into power but you refuse to be part of that process. You believe that if you want something you should have it and since you want your voting system implemented it should be so. Why? Because you want it and if Canada won't give you everything you demand then it has failed you.

You went to court on that basis and lost. Now normally when you lose at court, you lose, but you wanted a consolation prize. You wanted the court to give you a court order exempting you from the laws of Canada because if the country didn't give you everything that you demanded your position was, let's see, how did you put it in your Facebook posting. Right. "Hey Canada, go fuck yourself."

I've read a lot of your material and while I see demands on Canada, including demands that you be exempt from all those Canadian laws and responsibilities that you don't want to apply to you, I didn't see anything about your willingness to abandon all of the benefits Canada provides you. You want a one way street where you have no responsibilities but get all the goodies that we taxpaying Canadians fund on your behalf. I didn't see anything about "Hey free medical system, go fuck yourself". And what about the massively taxpayer subsidized transit system You live by a Skytrain Station. Do you refuse to use it or the busses on moral principle because you have exempted yourself from the system.

And don't give me any BS about how you are willing to pay your taxes to your make-believe government as an alternative to the real Canadian government. That's just giving to yourself and pretending it has equal moral force to actually contributing your share to Canada. Does your paper government provide medical, streets, transit, any other services? No, it is just a bank account you put the money in and take back out while feeling good about yourself.

Almost all governments demand that all people within their boundaries follow the laws of the country, not just the laws that the individual wants to obey. That is how it is. They don't do it by moral force, they do it by law because that is the only way to run a nation. However if you are too precious to live in a nation that forces you into slavery through unjust laws I have an alternate suggestion to suicide. I said "almost all" countries demand that people obey the laws. However there are some countries where a man can do what he wants and only obey those laws that he approves of. They are called failed states. Somalia is one, Iraq and Libya a couple of others. The governments don't control things because they can't. A word of advice, if you move to one of these Freeman heavens you'd better go armed because things can turn nasty when the populace decides on its own rules.

The other camp, I will respectfully refer to as the statists. I think it is accurate to say that a statist believes that the state whose laws prevail in a land may conclusively be determined to have indisputable moral right to state what the laws are in a land and to use force to assure that every resident of that land abides by those laws. While I can see some validity to this point of view, and I even think that rational, intelligent efforts have been made in places like Canada to establish such a state in a fair and practical way, I disagree with the words "conclusively" and "indisputable" in the above rationale.

Don't make up statements as convoluted as that paragraph and then pretend that they are my view. The laws of Canada are not based on an "indisputable moral right" that's just gibberish. Laws are based on the will of the governing party as passed by the legislature. for many reasons, mostly practical or situational, not moral.

Merriam Webster defines statism as;

statism: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ...

I don't believe in any of that. But I accept that the Canadian government has legitimate power over me. To believe otherwise is just stupid since it does have power over me. I accept the reality of it, you don't. So go ahead and spend your nights in ardent debate at the Cambie or the Alibi Room over a pint thinking up a better system for the rest of us. I'll just have the pint and not the conversation.

[Philistine]

Psam wrote: "I disagree with the words "conclusively" and "indisputable" in the above rationale."

You may well disagree with the above rationale because it's a strawman argument you've created.
Since the law is elastic and changeable by an elected government it isn't conclusive and indisputable. It's changeable and can be disputed.

[wserra]

Allow me a minor addition:

So go ahead and spend your nights in ardent debate at the Cambie or the Alibi Room over a pint thinking up a better system for the rest of us

whether we want it or not.

[notorial dissent]

Psamy, dear Psamy, so in love with words and the sound of his own voice that he neglects to pay attention to the meaning of the very words he utters.

We, you live in a democracy, at least a type of one, where even the voice of the veriest of idiots can be heard, that does not however require or necessitate that said idiot's fantasies be paid any attention to other than to simply ignore them.

You have voiced your opinion, and other than a bare handful of like minded, it has been roundly and soundly ignored and disregarded, what part of this do you not understand. You tried to FORCE your idea off on to the rest of the Canadian public by going through the courts, and got told again, roundly and soundly NO!!!!

If you were intellectually and morally honest you would attempt to sell this to the Canadian public the old fashioned and honest way of getting out and selling it, and you didn't, and you weren't, probably because somewhere deep inside you knew this was a crock and not going to fly.

The plain fact of the matter is that NO ONE IS INTERESTED in your great idea. So accept that fact and move on.

There is, to put not too fine a point on it, NO COMMON GROUND here and never will be. Any more than there would be to a requirement that everyone where tutu's. So please, grow up, get over it, and get on with your life.

[The Observer]

The plain fact of the matter is that NO ONE IS INTERESTED in your great idea. So accept that fact and move to Somalia.

FIFY. Much better.

[notorial dissent]

The plain fact of the matter is that NO ONE IS INTERESTED in your great idea. So accept that fact and move to Somalia.

FIFY. Much better.

That'll do, they just won't be as nice about it as we've been, but yeah.

[The Observer]

The plain fact of the matter is that NO ONE IS INTERESTED in your great idea. So accept that fact and move to Somalia.

FIFY. Much better.

That'll do, they just won't be as nice about it as we've been, but yeah.

There is less compassion in Somalia than here on Quatloos? I bet it would be hard to convince Psam of that.

[Psam]

You tried to FORCE your idea off on to the rest of the Canadian public

It's the Canadian public that is forcing their system of governance on Me.

I wasn't asking to have my preferred system of governance forced upon any other person.

I was asking not to have their system of governance forced upon Me.

I would be quite content if their system is not forced upon Me while other Canadians wish to continue to have elections once every four years to determine how They are governed.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that, under the alleged supreme law of Canada, every person is guaranteed freedom of conscience and religion. My conscience is strongly rooted in protecting the rights of Others to make free choices when They are ready to make them, with patience and support. That's what an interactive electoral system does. I am asking to be allowed to live by my conscience.

According to section 1 of the Canadian Charter, the only reason that my freedom of conscience may have limits imposed upon it is if those limits "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". So demonstrate that denying the right to vote for periods of time causes a society to be more free and/or democratic, and I would be happy to consent to the governance of the state You are so grateful to have. The fact that demonstrating such a thing appears equivalent to demonstrating that a lobotomy improves your chess game is amusing but also pertinent.

You used the words "off" and "on" consecutively in a sentence in the above quote. That's a neat trick. I'm going to go on off the beaten path and use them consecutively but in reverse. Fun game!

[The Observer]

Ok, now I see Psam's problem. He has been watching too many Burger King commercials; he thinks that in regards to elections, he is allowed to have it his way.