"...that our founders are outdated and did not actually create the fairest system on the planet for you in the Constitution, because it limits how much they can take advantage of you."

The criminals who wrote and signed the 1787 Constitution are not "our" founders. They represented a faction comprised of Slave Traders, Central Banking Frauds, Despots, Tyrants, Oligarchs, Aristocrats, and Warmongers, and they did not create a "fair" system, as warned about by so many forgotten "founders" like George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, Luther Martin, and all those "founders" falsely labeled anti.

Take the lesson from history, the criminals project blame onto the victims even before they begin perpetrating the very crimes they blame on their targets. Or forget history, what good is it anyway?

@Josf-Kelley You know, when I read the Federalist Papers I received a very different picture than the one you paint. We do not agree about THE Founders, and you are certainly within your rights to disavow them. But a better system? No.

@TimTuolomne

It isn't my job to convince you of anything. I write to pass on a messages that set the record straight. Your words prove a point I have figured out on my own.

When criminals (slave traders, warmongers, central banking frauds, Aristocrats, and whichever bottom barrel humans join in) take-over governments calling themselves the government the result is extensively expanding and accelerating damage as power flows from the victims to the criminals.

1. People confuse actual government with the counterfeit version enforced by criminals and the result is ignorance of actual government.

2. The same confused incapacity to hold two opposites in mind at once, like up and down, or left and right in the mind at the same time, results in ignorance of criminals in government.

3. Good people in government are confused with bad people in government and all people in government are collectively guilty of the crimes done by the bad people, as far as the ignorant are concerned.

4. The bad people are no longer bad, as their crimes are blamed on everyone in government including the good people.

5. Good people no longer do good things, as their good deeds are credited to the criminals.

Here is an example:

"We do not agree about THE Founders, and you are certainly within your rights to disavow them."

You blame me for setting the record straight, you remain willfully ignorant, and as a result, you then express your need to strike out with falsehoods. I do not disavow them, as you claim with your chosen words.

Good people:
In Convention, Richmond, Monday, June 9, 1788
Patrick Henry
"A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal Convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. Nothing can justify a people in resorting to it but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated."

Criminal fraud:
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy
by William Watkins

Criminal named. Crime: Central Banking Fraud (adopted later by the Communists)

So right there in the mind of someone conflating, comingling, confusing, distorting the facts that matter when criminals infect government is judged anyone daring to point out those facts will be guilty of disavowing all of them as if all of them were one monopolistic thing.

Good people:
To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802

"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic."

AND

"If ever America lose sight of this principle, she will no longer be the land of liberty. The father will become the assassin of the rights of the son, and his descendants be a race of slaves.
"As many thousands who were minors are grown up to manhood since the name of Federalist began, it became necessary, for their information, to go back and show the origin of the name, which is now no longer what it originally was; but it was the more necessary to do this, in order to bring forward, in the open face of day, the apostasy of those who first called themselves Federalists.
"To them it served as a cloak for treason, a mask for tyranny. Scarcely were they placed in the seat of power and office, than federalism was to be destroyed, and the representative system of government, the pride and glory of America, and the palladium of her liberties, was to be over- thrown and abolished. The next generation was not to be free. The son was to bend his neck beneath the father's foot, and live, deprived of his rights, under hereditary control.
"Among the men of this apostate description, is to be ranked the ex-President John Adams. It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish in contempt. May such be the fate of all such characters.

Criminal named. Crime: Alien and Sedition Acts (adopted later by the Communists)

Some people prefer to be duped, as some people can plainly see.

"But a better system? No."

Better system:
"For more than six hundred years—that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215—there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury

Criminals exposed:

Patrick Henry:
"Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system? Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty?"

Robert Yates, Brutus I, October 18, 1787:
"The judicial power of the United States is to be vested in a supreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The powers of these courts are very extensive; their jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes, except such as arise between citizens of the same state; and it extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution. One inferior court must be established, I presume, in each state at least, with the necessary executive officers appendant thereto. It is easy to see, that in the common course of things, these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts. These courts will be, in themselves, totally independent of the states, deriving their authority from the United States, and receiving from them fixed salaries; and in the course of human events it is to be expected, that they will swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states."

George Mason, 1787
"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."

So those reading this can ignore the fact that messages were offered by a group of actual Founders of actual government while counterfeit Federalists were taking-over the existing federal government under the common law, and then after ignoring those facts people can blame (discredit) those offering those messages: a well established fact that matters. What was the point of the Alien and Sedition Acts?

@Josf-Kelley When your first pitch is disrespectful, without knowing me at all, I wouldn't expect to be taken very seriously, if I were you. And you completely lost me when you said I accuse you, after I stating my own truth. At the very least that shows boundary confusion. It appears you have read the Federalist Papers. However we clearly see them differently. And you seem to argue that there is a better system, but never say what it might be. I will not look forward much to your reply.

@TimTuolomne

Let's be clear about something.
You attached the following false accusation to me:

"...you are certainly within your rights to disavow them"

You did that in your "first pitch," so now you are playing the victim? I disrespected you.

The subject matter was:

"...that our founders are outdated and did not actually create the fairest system on the planet for you in the Constitution, because it limits how much they can take advantage of you."

That is the subject matter that you offered as the subject matter, and I agree, that subject matter is worthy of the effort to know precisely, not falsely, and not ambiguously.

I offered this:

"Take the lesson from history, the criminals project blame onto the victims even before they begin perpetrating the very crimes they blame on their targets. Or forget history, what good is it anyway?"

You did this:
"...you are certainly within your rights to disavow them"

That is false, it is called libel in fact. You published a very tiny, inconsequential, but none-the-less false statement that (if I could prove it to a jury) injures me in some way. Even if you did not intend to do it (mens rea), instead you did it without intent to injure me it is still a false statement, a false claim, as to what I may do: disavow them. So your injury, again no matter how slight, is in principle an (actus reus) libel by you against me.

You did that, and I can prove, at least, that in no way did I, do I, or will I "disavow them," as you suggest in your disrespectful manner. You did that, and then when I respond, you then play the victim.

"And you seem to argue that there is a better system, but never say what it might be."

More falsehood, more libel.

In the above text in my comments is this:

"Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty?"

The law of the land, previous to the criminal take-over, was trial by jury, and it was the trial by jury that proceeds according to the common law.

Not only did I not, as you falsely claim, "never say what it might be." It is right here in my comments, and out of ignorance, or apathy, or whatever causes you to miss it, you missed it, and you then publish disrespectfully false statements charged to me personally.

What about the subject matter?

There were very good people risking all for liberty, and the power to maintain it, which was rule of law, the law of the land, which includes trial by jury according to the law of the land, which is the common law. They were the founders who founded a number of States and a Federation of States, and I do not, as you claim, disavow them, hell I keep on quoting them as a matter of fact.

You libel, and then you blame me after you libel, and you have the audacity to blame me for disrespecting you when I point out your ignorance, or whatever causes you to conflate criminals with good people as if they were one.