Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[Psam]

If you voluntarily live within a city/town, state/province, or country, you consent to be governed by the laws within those boundaries. If you do not wish to consent, the solution is easy -- move elsewhere.

Look, I have already said that I can see the possibility that some day I’ll understand clearly that I’ve been wrong all this time and you’ve been right, and that it is actually objectively, conclusively, flawlessly ethical for a form of governance to be imposed upon an individual without the individual’s consent in some circumstances.

Now I know that it’s important for a person to know that this is true without having to understand the reasoning by which it is shown to be conclusively ethical, and you are capable of knowing that it’s true despite it being plainly obvious that you don’t understand the reasoning since you evade some of the questions that I ask to try to comprehend how this reasoning works. I can see that you are to be commended for knowing this truth despite not really comprehending the reasoning by which it is shown to be ethically conclusive, and I am to be denigrated for not knowing that it is true, and in fact even more so because I make attempts to understand why it is true when it should be plainly obvious to me that I am too stupid to comprehend that reasoning and therefore I should accept that what you are saying is true because it’s obvious you know what you’re talking about.

I shall nonetheless continue to attempt to comprehend this reasoning so that I can understand why you think there is not the slightest bit of ethical haze in imposing a form of governance upon an individual who does not consent to it, if certain conditions are fulfilled by that government to justify being a government at all.

I know that those conditions exist because it seems clear, for instance, that you believe that there was nothing about the First Nations being recognised as the overseers of the law in the land where they resided as Europeans first came over the Atlantic that gave them the right to impose their form of law upon the intercontinental visitors, so clearly you believe there are some conditions where it is not ethical for a form of governance to be imposed upon others without their consent, or else you would say it was ethical that the First Nations preside over the law that governs the People of Canada.

So if you know that in some circumstances it is ethical for a form of governance to be imposed upon an individual without consent, and in other circumstances it is not ethical for a form of governance to be imposed upon an individual without consent, then perhaps if I ask my questions juuuuust riiiiight, I can pull out of your head the precise conditions that distinguish these two clearly defined ethical truths.

I’m probably gonna keep trying, no matter how much the members of this forum tell me that I should shut up because I’m too stupid to comprehend the truths that you’ve all found to be self-evident, and I should be smart enough to know that I’m too stupid to understand them and just accept that they’re true despite the fact that none of you seem to be able to prove it in any rationally conclusive fashion.

But what the heck good is rationality anyway, unless of course you’re trying to demonstrate justification for a limit imposed upon a constitutional right to a court so that the court will let you deny or infringe that right and call it a constitutionally allowable denial according to section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Other than that though, rationality is just stupid.

[notorial dissent]

if the ISS is allowed by the courts to receive its members taxes instead of the Crown...

Psammy, nice/sorry to see you're still totally delusional as ever.

Incidentally, it is only spelled "phuque" in Canada.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

It's simple. Since early times, whoever has control of the sharp pointy things and more recently boom-sticks has control of an area. It's to most nations credit that we've worked out in the last hundred years a system of deciding who controls those sharp pointy things without resorting to the use of the same said sharp pointy things.

Now, you are totally entitled to believe that we should all live in some hippie-shit commune holding moots about whose turn it is to put the bin out. However, the rest of us are also entitled to laugh at you without providing any explanation.

Edit: for shame... I typed "who's"!!!

[wserra]

Leave, you won't be missed. I don't know if it's the general opinion here that you are being tedious and idiotic but it's certainly mine.

Yep. Psam is the guy who on every possible occasion corners anyone who will listen to expound at great length on some pet theory that interests no one but him. The guy is not abusive or even rude, so people of good will are reluctant to tell him off. That reluctance doesn't mean that they are glad to see him. Indeed, over time, more and more people are likely to tell him that he resembles someone convinced that he has invented a perpetual motion device, and who is determined to proselytize for it constantly.

People who fit that description tend not to take hints well.

[Pottapaug1938]

If you voluntarily live within a city/town, state/province, or country, you consent to be governed by the laws within those boundaries. If you do not wish to consent, the solution is easy -- move elsewhere.

Look, I have already said that I can see the possibility that some day I’ll understand clearly that I’ve been wrong all this time....

I doubt it. The reality has been explained to you; but you just doan' wanna hafta listen to us. Let me, though, modify my above advice:

If you voluntarily live within a city/town, state/province, or country, you consent to be governed by the laws within those boundaries. If you do not wish to consent, the solution is easy -- move elsewhere, or try to change things so that they are more to your liking. If you succeed -- great. If you don't succeed, you either accept the reality of having to live under the laws of your jurisdiction, or head elsewhere.

Since some of your "what ifs" have involved Nazi Germany, I'll give you an example based on that. If you are an anti-Nazi German, in 1943, you have three choices. One is to live as best you can, under the Nazi-imposed laws and governance; another is to resist as best you can, and hope that the Gestapo doesn't catch up with you -- which recognized the laws and jurisdiction of the Nazis, even though you don't voluntarily consent to it; and the third is to flee Germany and try to get to another jurisdiction where the laws are more congenial -- and, once there, you consent to being governed by the laws of that new jurisdiction, simply by having placed yourself within their territorial limits.

In another vein, you may decide that the laws of your jurisdiction do not apply to you, because you disapprove of the territorial changes which have happened. One example are the Reichsbürger of Germany, who claim that the 1937 Reich still legally exists, and that the Federal Republic is illegitimate. Knowing that your grandfather had a mansion in Breslau, you head to the mansion to reclaim it. However, the Polish authorities, in Wroclaw (which Breslau now is called) will take a different view of the matter; and you will count yourself lucky to escape with nothing worse thasn immediate deportation to Germany.

The bottom line: if you voluntarily remain in British Columbia and Canada, you are subject to their jurisdiction, because your remaining there signifies your consent to that jurisdiction. Please don't waste our time pretending otherwise.

[Psam]

The bottom line: if you voluntarily remain in British Columbia and Canada, you are subject to their jurisdiction, because your remaining there signifies your consent to that jurisdiction.

The thing that morons like you can’t seem to explain though is the answer to the question I’ve repeatedly been asking: what are the precise, explicit conditions that make it ethical for a regime to be formed that has the ethical right to impose its governance upon every individual residing in a particular area of land?

Do you understand the difference between de jure and de facto?

[Psam]

Since early times, whoever has control of the sharp pointy things and more recently boom-sticks has control of an area.

That makes it possible for a regime to impose its governance upon the people in the area. I get that, sure. I’m asking what makes it ethical.

[Psam]

When the Supreme Court of Canada stated that “the consent of the governed is a value that is basic to our understanding of a free and democratic society”, was that just a bunch of drivel they wrote for fun? Is it purely meaningless? Do those words have zero impact on what you call the law in Canada?

[Psam]

It’s already fairly well established that the words “supremacy of God” in the Constitution have zero impact because there’s no possible way to construe them that would have any effect on how the law is interpreted that is based on any sort of empirical facts that can be established. The words themselves are of as much importance as a person farting while writing them. They’re worthless. They were written to appease the neurotic, not convey anything meaningful. However, those are words in the Constitution itself, not words the SCC has published to expound the interpretation of the Constitution. “The consent of the governed” are words that the Court wrote, not words from the Constitution. My understanding is that the Court doesn’t write stuff into its reasons for its decision unless the stuff it writes actually means something relevant to the decision being made, in an attempt to show how the decision is justified.

[JamesVincent]

Since early times, whoever has control of the sharp pointy things and more recently boom-sticks has control of an area.

That makes it possible for a regime to impose its governance upon the people in the area. I get that, sure. I’m asking what makes it ethical.

Being ethical or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you have to obey the laws of the land you live in. If you don't like them either leave the area or work to change the laws you don't like. Stop asking the same stupid, pointless questions and actually do something. Courts do not make or decide law, they enforce law. Your fantasy government will never be recognized by them since it is an illegal structure. You want to have the power get elected somewhere and lobby for change. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

[Psam]

Being ethical or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you have to obey the laws of the land you live in.

See, all I wanted to know was whether or not you believe you are ethical. Thank you for confirming for me that you don’t believe you are ethical. That’s all I wanted to know. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

See, all I wanted to know was whether or not you believe you are ethical. Thank you for confirming for me that you don’t believe you are ethical. That’s all I wanted to know. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

If I make all the rules they are by definition ethical. But I've said that before and you ignored it.

[Burnaby49]

Psam wrote: ↑
Sun Dec 20, 2020 10:16 am
See, all I wanted to know was whether or not you believe you are ethical. Thank you for confirming for me that you don’t believe you are ethical. That’s all I wanted to know. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

Not at all, you've done a brilliant job of exposing us to the entire internet as unethical morons.

Since, by your own words, that's all you want to know, will that previous sentence shut you up?

[Dr. Caligari]

if the courts will not uphold those conditions, then there is no way that humanity can possibly achieve a world that I would be content to live in, so I end my life.

You've been promising that for years. Why don't you just do it already, and make everyone around you happy?

[Psam]

If I make all the rules they are by definition ethical.

No, if you make all the rules then they are ethical by your definition of the word “ethical”. Your reasoning is like saying “I know I’m right, just ask me, I’ll tell you”.

Here, I’ll show you what I mean by conclusive ethical reasoning.

If you do not consent to the governance of an existing institution’s method of writing and adjudicating laws, and yet you do not provide an alternative complete and concise method of writing and adjudicating laws by which to instead consensually have your conduct constrained, then nothing anybody else does to you, including actions forcing you to comply with what they call “laws“, would be in contravention of anything you would call “laws”.

That appears to me to deserve to have a “QED” after it. It’s conclusive reasoning. Now I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just saying that in a disagreement between two parties, the onus to demonstrate justificatory reasoning rests upon the party that gets its way, unless of course that party has the ability to force the other party to comply and doesn’t particularly care about being ethical.

If, on the other hand, some independent and impartial third party has the ability to force both parties to live with a compromise between both of their desired outcomes, then neither party has the entirety of the onus to make such a demonstration. See? That is also conclusive ethical reasoning.

Nobody on this forum is capable of providing conclusive ethical reasoning for their claim that there is absolutely nothing unethical about imposing a form of governance upon an individual who prefers an alternative complete and concise method of writing and adjudicating laws by which to instead consensually have her or his conduct constrained.

Another assertion that has been made by some members of this thread is that there are some conditions by which it is conclusively, objectively ethical for a method of writing and adjudicating laws to be declared to be applicable to a specified area of land and to be unilaterally, uncompromisingly imposed upon every occupant of that land, with or without consent of any individual occupant. I’ve asked precisely what those conditions are. I am treated with contempt just for asking the question. Why do you hate a person so much who asks that question? Why can you not consider this question with impartial, deliberative analysis? If you are confident that this reasoning is conclusively true then I’m sure it’ll just take a bit of thought to establish the reasoning that makes this conclusion evident. But you are angry that someone would even ask the question. Why?

[Psam]

Psam wrote:
if the courts will not uphold those conditions, then there is no way that humanity can possibly achieve a world that I would be content to live in, so I end my life.

You've been promising that for years. Why don't you just do it already, and make everyone

Well duh, what if the court does uphold those conditions? I want to confirm that the courts won’t uphold those conditions before I end my life. Duh.

I find it surprising that you believe that the SCC can be expected not to make decisions consistently with its previous precedents. They do, after all, claim to respect stare decisis as a principle of law.

[Pottapaug1938]

The bottom line: if you voluntarily remain in British Columbia and Canada, you are subject to their jurisdiction, because your remaining there signifies your consent to that jurisdiction.

The thing that morons like you can’t seem to explain though is the answer to the question I’ve repeatedly been asking: what are the precise, explicit conditions that make it ethical for a regime to be formed that has the ethical right to impose its governance upon every individual residing in a particular area of land?

Do you understand the difference between de jure and de facto?

I am a retired lawyer who has forgotten more, about the law, than you will ever know.

As for those "precise, explicit conditions" of which you speak -- since YOU are the one who is saying that you doan' wanna hafta obey laws 'cause it's a free country and no one is the boss of you, YOU tell us why you think that you should not have to live by the laws of the jurisdictions in which you reside? While you're at it, you can address the other questions which I've directed your way.

I'm going to leave you with a quote from the beginning of our Declaration of Independence:

"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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

There's a word for a political system in which everyone does what they wanna do because no one is the boss of them an' it's a free country. Look up "anarchy" in any good encyclopedia.

[Dr. Caligari]

Well duh, what if the court does uphold those conditions? I want to confirm that the courts won’t uphold those conditions before I end my life. Duh.

Haven't the courts rejected your blather numerous times?

[Pottapaug1938]

I'll also share with you the American's Creed, from 1917:

I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

— William Tyler Page, The American's Creed

You could tweak that for a "Canadian's Creed." The bottom line is that "the consent of the governed" comes from, not just the votes of those able and eligible to do so, but from their remaining within a given jurisdiction. If you don't like the way that things are run, you can 1) leave, 2) try to change the laws under which you are governed, or 3) rise up in rebellion, and take the consequences. You don't get to proclaim that "I dod not consent to these laws, and so I will adopt my own laws for me and my pals. See "anarchy", again.

[Pottapaug1938]

Psam wrote:
if the courts will not uphold those conditions, then there is no way that humanity can possibly achieve a world that I would be content to live in, so I end my life.

You've been promising that for years. Why don't you just do it already, and make everyone

Well duh, what if the court does uphold those conditions? I want to confirm that the courts won’t uphold those conditions before I end my life. Duh.

I find it surprising that you believe that the SCC can be expected not to make decisions consistently with its previous precedents. They do, after all, claim to respect stare decisis as a principle of law.

If the SCC truly respected stare decisis, it would never have formed, because its members would have accepted the systems of laws under which its potential members live.