slug.com slug.com

8 3

I vote for a people’s congress. An all online voting body composed of 10,000 members......per state. Thoughts??

SidHartha 4 June 13
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

8 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

Online? Really? Have you ever heard of hacking? Loss of millions of credit card numbers by hundreds of companies at the mercy of criminal minds with nothing more to do than sit in mommy & daddy's basement in their pajamas and infiltrate everyone's computer and steal everything? (It worked for Gates.)

Democrats are already counting on winning by fraudulent mail. Online voting would be even better for their theft of the election. If you're the kind of moron who thinks that is the kind of country you hope to live in, then sure, you must defend the idea.

Did you even read my post?

@SidHartha. I see: "I vote for a people’s congress. An all online voting body composed of 10,000 members......per state. Thoughts??" Do you think you posted something else? Please enlighten me.

(I suggest not asking for my thoughts if you only are going to dismiss them. Virtue signalling is ridiculous, but if you are going to attempt it, probably best that you actually have virtue.)

@TimTuolomne it sounds like you’re already mad at me before you even talk to me. It sounds like you already know what I’m about. Virtue signaling??? This is not a home for SJWs

@SidHartha, You dodged a fair question and accused me of something that isn't true. Our discussion is ended.

@TimTuolomne ok Tim, I was hoping we could turn this around and maybe even become friends. I bet we have a lot more in common than either of us realize. I mean we’re here right? We probably both hate SJWs, and communists and we’re both probably pretty pissed off at our government and the media. I don’t blame you for calling my idea stupid. It is stupid to think that any kind of change is gonna happen. Oh well

1

If it is law then it is a voluntary assocation for mutual defense. If it is subsidized slavery hiding behind a fake claim of lawful authority, then it is subsidized slavery, not law.

Since America became subsidized slavery (not even hiding) in 1789 the people as a whole, or the people in unauthorized groups (authorized by the criminals at the top of the criminal government), were subject to whatever was dictated by the dictators in power.

That is a fact.

That is a fact that matters.

If the idea with this proposal is to turn what is (subsidized slavery) into what is not (voluntary association for mutual defense), then that turn will either be accomplished in at least 3 ways:

  1. The most evil way possible
  2. Lesser evil methods than number 1
  3. Lawfully

If 10,000 members per state decided - as a rule - to affect a lawful change in the government (going from subsidized slavery to voluntary association for mutual defense), they could use the common law to do so.

So...why invent a method of government that might work when a method of government has already been proven to work?

A number of volunteers in each county constitutes a pool from which grand juries are constituted. 10,000 in each state is then divided into each county.

Take Texas and Rhode Island for example:

Texas Counties
254 divided into 10,000 equals 39 people in each County volunteering as Independent Grand Jurors when needed: (they have been called Justices of the Peace, or Magistrates in the past)

Notes On The State Of Virginia
by Thomas Jefferson

"The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves; but if it be a fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment."

For those who claim that Ancient History is not "up-to-date" see:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,..."
or
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

On to Rhode Island:

5 divided into 10,000 equals 2,000

Obviously there is a need to adjust lawful coverage based upon practical matters.

Useful (to some) data:

THE REVOLUTIONARY AMERICAN JURY:
A CASE STUDY OF THE 1778-1779
PHILADELPHIA TREASON TRIALS
Carlton F.W. Larson

"In late eighteenth-century England, most felony cases were prosecuted by private parties, generally the victims.82

  1. JOHN H. LANGBEIN, THE ORIGINS OF ADVERSARY CRIMINAL TRIAL 99 (2003).

"Treason cases, by contrast, were generally prosecuted by professional attorneys working for the crown such as the attorney general or solicitor general. Pennsylvania followed England's lead with respect to treason trials, entrusting all of the cases to the state's attorney general, Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant. On August 7, 1778, the SEC informed the Assembly that as "the professors of law are supposed to be making great sums of money by espousing the cause of the disaffected," it would be necessary to increase Sergeant's funding and to provide him with at least one assistant. This was the "more necessary, as there is every reason to suppose that some of the persons charged with treasonable practices will endeavour to obtain, at any expense, the most experienced council in this and the neighboring states."' he SEC warned, "[t]he bringing of Traitors to justice is at all times an object of great importance, and more especially so in our present circumstances. ' The Assembly acquiesced, and the SEC offered the assistantship to Joseph Reed, a member of the Patriotic Society, noting the "important trials of traitors, which would employ the Supreme Court during the next winter." And thus the wheels of English criminal procedure, rusty from several years of disuse, again began to turn on the banks of the Delaware. The common law criminal jury, developed over hundreds of years in an island kingdom 3000 miles away, would be deployed in a way Englishmen could never have imagined-to try as traitors those men who had remained loyal to their English king. The process began on August 21, 1778, when the three justices of the Supreme Court issued a precept to Philadelphia County Sheriff James Claypoole for holding a Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery at the State House, beginning on Monday, September 21.80 The next day, Claypoole issued a proclamation announcing the court's sitting. Claypoole presumably selected and summoned the grand jury and the panel of trial jurors sometime between August 21 and September 21."

Lesson learned?

When foreign corporations invade your land and impose tyranny by brute force and falsehoods, it may be a good idea to dust off the actual law power and use it. It might be a good idea to know what it is first.

Fascinating. My thoughts on updating the government are simply a matter of vastly increased population. The 10,000 number, well there wasn’t a lot behind it. It could either be a federal system or state. The idea is that the position would have no perks, no pay, cheap to run a campaign and a way to dissuade being infected by lobbyists. Maybe not have vast power but a couple of powerful punches. I dunno, smarter people would have to run with the idea.

@SidHartha

Keep on thinking, it helps. Food for thought:

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

"1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

"2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

"The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

"The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

"Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

0

Trying to figure out how to stay in power!

Come back tomorrow and find out how I propose to do this!

1

Lol nothing would ever get done. Ever. And places with even mixes of leftist and libertarian with some extreme right and whatever would disolve into antagonism the likes of which not dreamed of even in the British system.

1

Great! Now we want 10,000 government representatives taking bribes per state?
Why do I need any representation? When I can withdraw money from my bank account instantly from anywhere in the world and communicate with anyone in the world instantly, why can't I represent myself. Also it's impossible to bribe (pointless, if not impossible) everyone.

0

Something like this, yes. Details aren't as important as the concept of an embryonic new government that will eventually become the new nation.

Details are important. Most embryonic new governments wind up like Russia in 1919, Viet Nam in 1973 and Iran in 1980. Lack of government creates a vacuum that is immediately fought over by warring factions. Without a wide acceptance of a transition plan it will end in chaos.

So many Debbie downers. Why can’t someone just say, “Hey, that could work. Let’s all get together and work out the details.”

@SidHartha Why? Because all you said was 10,000 online somebodies would rule my life.

Nothing about the form of this body, the rules that restrict them, legislative procedure, vetos, the will of the people they rule, Constitutionality of what they legislate, And, as has been pointed out, how do we keep it from getting hacked? There's nothing but a vague... I can barely call it a concept.

@Tycho ok so you completely dismiss the idea because I don’t feel like putting hours of work into it so that 5 people on slug will make fun of it. Imagine this, there is a representative for every 100 people. You and a hundred of your friends get someone to volunteer to do this good work for your country, state or whatever. I knew no one would care, why even try. You just go on and keep yelling at people while they burn down your way of life. Enjoy your prison.

@SidHartha Maybe you ought to put some time into it.

How would 10,000 online reps per state - that's five hundred thousand! - solve anything? It certainly wouldn't be more efficient? What are the rules? Why online? Who qualifies? Are there terms or is it a lifelong appointment? Are there term limits? And which 100 people does each represent and how is that decided?

Sorry you got your feelings hurt, but I'm not going to jump on some vague notion because radicals are trying to destroy my nation.

@Tycho I get it. It was just a dumb post to see what kind of response I’d get. And thank you for pointing out the flaws. Maybe I will put more time into it although I’m quite sure a scholar would do a much better job. I just don’t like being disenfranchised but also I wouldn’t want to give a lot of power to the “great unwashed.” I mean you see what the masses of liberals are doing right now. I also do not like seeing people be emotionally manipulated or seeing kids claim to be communists and call each other comrades. It’s disgusting.

@SidHartha Well, do give it some thought. I'm not against decentralized power by any means. And local concerns ought to remain local. It wasn't dumb just kind of... scant.

1

Those in power will stay in power because they will select the delegates.

1

I think that the days of congress working for the people and in the peoples best interest are long gone. So I think this would be a great idea.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:103841
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.