AO, age thing not needed. Move one.
move on AO
move on AO
Be respectful JK121 and I will.
An excerpt from the quote you posted:
“The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labour market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus.”
Exactly. That is how the industrial revolution was subsidized throughout Europe. As I have alluded to elsewhere, people have rarely voluntarily given up their traditional way of life for the sake of “progress” and the peoples of Europe went through this process three times over. First their indigenous cultures were destroyed to make way for civilization, then their cultures were destroyed for the rise of nation states and empires and the ‘one true church,’ then they were forced off the land to become “workers” in an arrangement that persists to this day, working for money to pay to live. And while the brutality of early working conditions (which always persist somewhere in the world, nowadays usually the place where all the goods we use are made) was attributed to laisses-faire, the industrialists were always aided and abetted by the state from the very start.
The laws of the United States were originally far more restrictive of corporations, for some of the founders were very weary of corporate power, just as they were weary of central banks. Just as central banking fought to increase its power, and succeeded in a fitful sort of way, so too did corporations. I would argue that corporations did so more successfully, for while central banks were being variously established and disbanded the corporations were steadily increasing their power. Giving corporations legal personhood and perpetual charter were two of the most pernicious and treasonous things ever foisted upon the people of the United States (though the enforcement of ‘uniform code’ law on everyone is right up there).
I like the United States Constitution, though in some ways I prefer the original Articles of Confederation. I think that the Constitutionalist movement is a worthy cause, though we ought to consider what the alternatives are should restoration prove unattainable. As far as land ownership reform, I have not seen any solutions that I can entirely endorse. I like the indegeonist view that land cannot be owned, but I have not thus far seen any proposals that allow for such a transition from our current arrangement that protect just claims for land use while not implicitly placing land ownership in the hands of government. One of the best models I have ever seen for land distribution without ‘ownership’ is the traditional land use by the northeastern Cree whose land has been systematically stolen and destroyed by the government of Quebec.
According to their tradition, each family had a hunting ground that was reserved for them, with the expectation and responsibility that they would care for the land in such a way that it was sustainable. They did not live on the land year round, living in a shared community for much of the year and going to their land during their hunting season. As a part of caring for the land sustainably, every few years they would let the land rest and would share another family’s land while theirs was allowed to rest.
So while no one owned land, families had land that was reserved for them with the understanding that it would be cared for so as to be perpetually sustainable, and families would share land with each other in order to let lands rest so as to mutually ensure that everyone’s land remained perpetually sustainable.
That was until the occupational government of Quebec built dams to flood their land and clearcut their forests.
While I don’t see how that model is directly transferable to our current context, I think that the basic ideas behind it have a lot of merit for consideration for certain arrangements. Specifically, for arrangements in which a particular piece of land is reserved for a particular purpose under the care of a particular group or family (possibly individual?). It does not apply to all situations, groups, or arrangements. I would look to indigenous land use arrangements for models because they offer many sustainable models, and what works in one place does not work everywhere. All places are not created equal and trying to treat all places the same leads to disaster.
Likewise the Constitution offers a model for governing law, as does the Articles of Confederation and the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy that the Constitution was modeled after. Presently, restoration of Constitutional law would be a great step forward in the restoration of our liberty (political and personal) and human dignity. I feel that it is critical that we have a conversation about and consider what we want in our governments should regions be forced to part ways politically, as this may ultimately prove the only way to break the criminal regime, or be the inevitable necessity of the systemic failure that seems to be underway.
Russell Means recently posted a commentary on the subject of the constitution that I would like to share:
As citizenal points out, we will not be permitted to reform our laws and lives so long as we are ruled by the elitists who forced the fascist model upon us. Constitutional law, if followed, would not allow this fascist regime.
As far as stopping the NWO goes, because our legal and political systems now serve them and not us, the only way to do it is at the ballot box and even this may not be possible if our elections are rigged. Even if they are not, getting everyone educated enough to vote intelligently is nigh impossible. Look how many of us still lay claim to be Republicans or Democrats. We choose between these artificial sides and by so choosing end up nullifying the electoral process because in truth, both parties work for the same master (the NWO). This being the case, the only intelligent thing to do is to only vote for candidates who denounce the NWO and who pledge to work for repeal of the Federal Reserve Act (their rice bowl and source of power). America and Americans have one and only one enemy; the Federal Reserve aka the New World Order. The Democrats, the Republicans, Congress, our President, and our Supreme Court, are subservient to and work for their best interests and not ours.
No, the Constitution does not acknowledge individual land rights because it leaves such things to the states. The right to own property was well established throughout the thirteen colonies when the Constitution was written therefore, from the Founders perspective, there was no need to have the Federal Government meddle in such things. This is not a short coming of our Constitution, but merely a recognition of the fact that the Federal Government has no business messing with private property.
Thanks for the defense, but I had hoped we were going to put this disparagement battle behind us. In a war of words, everyone wants to have the last word. It is a matter of pride but peace demands that someone have the integrity to swallow their pride for the greater good. At this point I reserve further comment until I read what comes next.
“move on”! Nice move, my respect for you just jumped a click.
Only bikers and gang bangers demand respect. The rest of us must earn it and this can only take place if we agree to put down our swords and move on. Everyone posting here including JK121 has made valuable contributions to our store of knowledge. The negativity has detracted from this because it becomes our focus instead of what is being discussed. It doesn’t matter who started it and who said what, let’s do whatever it takes to move on…….and I say this with the utmost respect.
Absolutely fantastic video. Russell Means for President!
I wrote an article which documents how our government, the government of the United States of America, was overthrown. This article is entitled “Let’s Fire Our Government” is the last in a series of four articles. The first three are entitled, “Let’s Fire Congress”, “Let’s Fire the President”, and “Let’s Fire the Supreme Court”. However, the last article stands alone and the first three need not be read to gain value from the first.
“Let’s Fire Our Government” may be found at:
I read all four articles. I especially like how you specifically enumerated in the first three those duties and responsibilities mandated to the various offices in the Constitution. I also like the way you pointed to the flaw in the 17th amendment in the fourth article. And I’m with you on the issue of routine and minor violations. What kind of government would behave so? Most of course, but none that was worthy of being a government. It has become acceptable in our culture because they’re just going to do what they want anyway and it’s no big deal… but if we accept this to be the case we’ve as much as consigned ourselves and our future generations to tyranny, an utter failure of our responsibility.
Sadly, as social animals once it has been made normal to take an ambivalent stance, and then made abnormal to be concerned or to take such things seriously, it then becomes a matter of bravery as well as responsibility to do so.
We may differ on whether voting will help…see the last video below.
wvcaveman, thanks for the history.
While I don’t see how that model is directly transferable to our current context…
Henry George, who wrote Progress and Poverty(1879), had the idea of having land rent or tax.
I’m guessing it would apply to corporate persons. The progressive income tax is a total scam…see
Ricardo’s Law ~ The Great Tax Clawback Scam. This video illuminates the oppression of having landlords and how alternatively, land tax or rent could be used pay for public services:
Some compelling info on the current model and a land based model:
by Agnes George de Mille
–New York, January, 1979
We have reached the deplorable circumstance where in large measure a very powerful few are in possession of the earth’s resources, the land and its riches and all the franchises and other privileges that yield a return. These positions are maintained virtually without taxation; they are immune to the demands made on others. The very poor, who have nothing, are the object of compulsory charity. And the rest — the workers, the middle-class, the backbone of the country — are made to support the lot by their labor.
We are taxed at every point of our lives, on everything we earn, on everything we save, on much that we inherit, on much that we buy at every stage of the manufacture and on the final purchase. The taxes are punishing, crippling, demoralizing. Also they are, to a great extent, unnecessary.
But our system, in which state and federal taxes are interlocked, is deeply entrenched and hard to correct. Moreover, it survives because it is based on bewilderment; it is maintained in a manner so bizarre and intricate that it is impossible for the ordinary citizen to know what he owes his government except with highly paid help. We support a large section of our government (the Internal Revenue Service) to prove that we are breaking our own laws. And we support a large profession (tax lawyers) to protect us from our own employees. College courses are given to explain the tax forms which would otherwise be quite unintelligible.
All this is galling and destructive, but it is still, in a measure, superficial. The great sinister fact, the one that we must live with, is that we are yielding up sovereignty. The nation is no longer comprised of the thirteen original states, nor of the thirty-seven younger sister states, but of the real powers: the cartels, the corporations. Owning the bulk of our productive resources, they are the issue of that concentration of ownership that George saw evolving, and warned against.
To avert such a calamity, to eliminate involuntary poverty and unemployment, and to enable each individual to attain his maximum potential, George wrote his extraordinary treatise a hundred years ago. His ideas stand: he who makes should have; he who saves should enjoy; what the community produces belongs to the community for communal uses; and God’s earth, all of it, is the right of the people who inhabit the earth. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “The earth belongs in usufruct to the living.”
by Agnes George de Mille –New York, January, 1979
The Role of Government
Today’s conventional wisdom advocates “broad-based” tax systems. We’re told that all taxes are bad; they burden people and slow the economy — so to spread the burden around (and incur the least resistance) we should tax as many different sources as we can. Income, sales, excise taxes, lotteries, sin taxes, import duties, estate taxes, taxes on real and moveable property. The US federal tax code is thousands of pages long and changes every year; states and cities have codes of their own. Georgists look at the tortured logic of “broad-based taxation” and cry, “Away with them all!” There is one fair and efficient source of public revenue. All taxes must be done away with, and the value of land must be taken for public revenue.
Radical – and Essential
This reform is doubly just — for it simultaneously removes two great injustices. Everyone has a right to life, and everyone needs land to live. If we must pay private “owners” for access to land (and where is this not the case, today?) then we must pay for our own right to life. Also, public goods — which benefit landowners — are paid for with wealth that has been confiscated, via taxation, from its producers.
The reform is doubly efficient — for it simultaneously removes two great inefficiencies. By collecting the rent of land for public revenue, it removes the burden of taxation from production. And by eliminating the incentive to hold land for speculation, it removes great waste and inefficiency in our use of natural resources.
But even more that that: the reform makes it possible for us to make sense of our relationship, as a species, with our home. The earth is not owned by anyone. It must be held in trust for all people, and all life. It’s no accident that our ability to destroy all life on earth has coincided, in a single generation, with our awareness of our home as a single, fragile oasis in a huge, cold universe.
Getting there won’t be easy. But it’s our only hope.
by Lindy Davies
Many do not realize how dehumanizing voting has become.