A charter of liberties

[The Atomic Ass]

WARNING: What is contained in this link is an affront to the current political power structure of the world.

If you are a conservative, don't click on the link.

If you are a liberal, don't click on the link.

If you are a hardcore libertarian, then please click on the link.

Now with the formalities out of the way, I'll tell you what it's about. I've been influenced by the Magna Carta, the Constitution of the united States, and by other such documents to write my own charter. Essentially it's a middle finger raised to any state that prevents people from exercising their free will.

As it is still a work in progress, I welcome your comments, criticisms and questions.

Also, please make comments serious, and try to avoid ad hominem. I'd like for this topic to remain open.

Imperium Carta Libertatum

(Also, no, this is NOT a prelude to my performing an attack on any government office. I know someone will be thinking that. )

[ghstofperdition]

I agree with a lot of it, however some issues like not taxing for public education can affect a society negatively. Public education is a must have imo.

[The Atomic Ass]

<opinion> It is very nearly impossible to have a public education system of any kind without an agenda being pushed by whatever level of government controls it. An agenda being pushed is antithema of education. </opinion>

No part of my charter actually forbids a state from operating a school, (or, for that matter, in engaging in any other business activity), however it does prohibit them from taxing everyone on a service that only a portion of the public uses.

In the current system, if a parent does not approve of the quality of the education, or feels the agenda of the school does not conform with their beliefs/opinion/logic, then they MIGHT be able to remove their child from school and home school or utilize a private school, (this option is disappearing in the U.S. however, as well as entirely unavailable in some countries), however they're still forced into paying for the teaching of the agenda they originally did not agree with, as well as the teaching they DO approve of.

If the parents who willingly choose to educate their children in a public school were the only ones paying for it, and were not forced by law to educate their children there, then this would force the state operating the school not only to be frugal in their expenses, (a situation that is not even close to the current reality), it would also (mostly) prohibit undue agendas from being forced in schools.

Currently, most states fund their schools more through state-run lotteries than through property taxes. I'll say right now anyone playing the lottery to win it is a damn fool. Just my opinion again.

Even if the above were not true, the amount of additional money that each worker would make if all of the sales & income taxes were eliminated would easily pay for the education of one, or perhaps two children. It is unfortunate, but a great deal of the wealth is being sapped away from the poor through taxes despite the variety of welfare programs and the supposedly low tax rates on the poor.

Anyway, the tl;dr version for anyone else reading: the charter forbids the state from taxing for public education, but not for providing public education to those who wish it.

[Demiurge]

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

No part of my charter actually forbids a state from operating a school, (or, for that matter, in engaging in any other business activity), however it does prohibit them from taxing everyone on a service that only a portion of the public uses.

It reminds me of what's going on in the town where I went to high school. The school had a good reputation, so many families moved to the town. Now, the school is crowded and may lose its accreditation. Endeavors to build a new school have continually been blocked by an apparently large group of senior citizens. They say, "we don't use the schools- why should we pay for them?"

It's ironic because the senior citizens are collecting Social Security, which is being paid for by... wait for it... working adults whose children attend those schools. Social Security is going to be bankrupt by the time these people retire- so why should they pay?

The fact of the matter is that people are way more dependent on their government to provide for the general welfare than they're willing to admit. That feeling is usually a reaction to what is being perceived is that we pay all this money in taxes to be used for stuff, but we never really seem to benefit from this stuff as much as our neighbor (I'm not on unemployment, social security will be bankrupt by the time I retire, I didn't trade in my clunker, I didn't buy a new house this past year- but I paid for other people to receive money from those things). Then again, there are many services that benefit me that I seldom even recognize.

A new system would really have find a way to properly resolve that. If a citizen is insistent that they only want to pay for X, Y, and Z and not A, B, and C- better make sure that said citizen never needs A, B, and C.

[The Atomic Ass]

Originally Posted by Demiurge

A new system would really have find a way to properly resolve that. If a citizen is insistent that they only want to pay for X, Y, and Z and not A, B, and C- better make sure that said citizen never needs A, B, and C.

Therein lies the beauty of my charter. It only prohibits the mandatory induction into a contract relationship, (Social Security is an example of a currently mandatory contract relationship), but does not prohibit a state from offering services to those who wish to pay for them.

The state is then free to reject people asking for benefits who didn't pay for them, and this also enables individuals to make their own choices with the fruits of their labor.

[ghstofperdition]

Ok, I misread it then. My bad.

But yeah it sounds reasonable enough to me. It'd be nice to arm myself with whatever I feel most comfortable/safe with. I have a question though, on the part where it says that person can ingest anything they feel is healthy for them, what about if it's proven to be dangerous for a person to ingest/consume? Like tobacco. Where do you draw the line there?

Personally I'd like to stock up on my Zombie survival kit. :p

[Randy]

I only ready part of it, but from what I read, it could only work in a "perfect society". There's a lot of room for interpretation or details that could lead to corruption. Other than that, the actual vision of the document isn't bad.

[ghstofperdition]

Originally Posted by Randy

I only ready part of it, but from what I read, it could only work in a "perfect society". There's a lot of room for interpretation or details that could lead to corruption. Other than that, the actual vision of the document isn't bad.

+1

I'm not worried about what's in it (which is damn awesome) but how would be carried out and how a court would interpret the language of it. There's just a few things that need more elaboration on as it's still kinda hazy.

for example:

-if a substance is deemed unhealthy, does one still possess the right to ingest it?

- If there will still be prisons/jails, and the public cannot be taxed for it, who will pay for the overhead costs of the prisons/inmates?

- Who will pay for the salaries of doctors/firemen/other public officials? I can't think of any of them working their ass off for free. Not a dig at you, but I see that only the courts and police are provided for.

- I think there needs more detail in the area of 'dissolving into neighbors' if a state violates that charter. Who gets how much of what parts of the dissolving state?


I'm sure there are some others but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. Again, I'm not trying to shoot you down. I think this a great idea, but if you want a sturdy charter, it's gotta be detailed to an obscene amount. I'm talking down to the correct placement of punctuation like commas, periods, semi-colons, etc. It is entirely feasible that putting a common in front of the wrong word can entirely change the interpretation of a section/document. (has happened many times here in the good ol' US)

[The Atomic Ass]

Originally Posted by ghstofperdition

I have a question though, on the part where it says that person can ingest anything they feel is healthy for them, what about if it's proven to be dangerous for a person to ingest/consume? Like tobacco. Where do you draw the line there?

You can't, really. The essential nature of individual Sovereignty has to include the ability to make choices, even if the result of those choices is self-destructive.

The alternative is a large part of the reason we have such an enormous government today, because they're out to protect us from ourselves. Hallucinatory drugs are made illegal to protect us from "reefer madness".

We have a "Consumer Protection Agency", whose sole purpose is prohibiting the sale of products that don't meet some vague standard, which can be up to the whim of the individual inspector at the CPA. I think the Underwriters Laboratory, an institution that's been around for far longer, has an enormously better system.

[The Atomic Ass]

Originally Posted by Randy

I only ready part of it, but from what I read, it could only work in a "perfect society". There's a lot of room for interpretation or details that could lead to corruption. Other than that, the actual vision of the document isn't bad.

That's my entire reason for posting the incomplete document to the Internet. I can't think of any possible loopholes, so I'm looking for outside perspective.

[ghstofperdition]

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

You can't, really. The essential nature of individual Sovereignty has to include the ability to make choices, even if the result of those choices is self-destructive.

The alternative is a large part of the reason we have such an enormous government today, because they're out to protect us from ourselves. Hallucinatory drugs are made illegal to protect us from "reefer madness".

We have a "Consumer Protection Agency", whose sole purpose is prohibiting the sale of products that don't meet some vague standard, which can be up to the whim of the individual inspector at the CPA. I think the Underwriters Laboratory, an institution that's been around for far longer, has an enormously better system.

Fair enough.

[The Atomic Ass]

Originally Posted by ghstofperdition

- If there will still be prisons/jails, and the public cannot be taxed for it, who will pay for the overhead costs of the prisons/inmates?

That's an issue I do need to touch on, but my stance on that point is that prisoners should not be made to lay around and do nothing, rather they should at the very least be made to do enough work to pay their room and board.

Having spent a weekend in a jail myself, I can tell you how BORING it was. I would have welcomed some work to pass the time.

Originally Posted by ghstofperdition

- Who will pay for the salaries of doctors/firemen/other public officials? I can't think of any of them working their ass off for free. Not a dig at you, but I see that only the courts and police are provided for.

Not police. Peace officers. There is a substantial difference. The police in our current society have a much different role than would peace officers.

Anyway, a doctor is really not a public servant, rather they were and are private businessmen, even today in the U.S. Most doctors you ask will be capitalists, even if they're only in it to save lives.

As for firemen, that's one sector I'd like to see go private.

And as to other public officials, they're mostly redundant. The DMV would no longer exist, and given that states could no longer write new laws (why we have to continue to write new laws is a concept beyond my understanding) the legislature of the states would become redundant.

It sounds harsh to say that in every state, there's going to be thousands laid-off due to a change in the law, but with the disappearing restrictions on trade and business, I can see the private sector providing jobs for them in a short period of time (weeks).

Democracy is one of those things I've really come to despise as of late. If 51% of the people are electing people to write laws that effect 100% of the people, then 49% are getting shafted. California's prop 8, anybody?

Originally Posted by ghstofperdition

- I think there needs more detail in the area of 'dissolving into neighbors' if a state violates that charter. Who gets how much of what parts of the dissolving state?

I would think it would be equally divided based upon border area with surrounding countries, but I don't know how it would work in the (unlikely) event that Australia violated the charter.

Originally Posted by ghstofperdition

I'm sure there are some others but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. Again, I'm not trying to shoot you down. I think this a great idea, but if you want a sturdy charter, it's gotta be detailed to an obscene amount. I'm talking down to the correct placement of punctuation like commas, periods, semi-colons, etc. It is entirely feasible that putting a common in front of the wrong word can entirely change the interpretation of a section/document. (has happened many times here in the good ol' US)

No biggie. Criticism is good, and that's what I'm here to get. An obscene amount of detail is something I'm actually trying to avoid, as I'm planning on this charter being "portable".

/wordvomit

[The Atomic Ass]

New bit under suspension of rights article that will show up with the next update:

- The expenses of operating jails and prisons shall fall as rent upon those
who shall have been convicted of a crime, and the operators of said jails
and prisons shall make available work for those who are incarcerated.

[QuambaFu]

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

You can't, really. The essential nature of individual Sovereignty has to include the ability to make choices, even if the result of those choices is self-destructive.

When risk is removed from the consequences of a decision the bad choice becomes the easy choice. Laissez-faire capitalism? Seperation of economy and state?

Am I wrong to assume that natural law would be an appropriate starting point for such a document?

[orb451]

In the first Sovereign paragraph pertaining to "Right Of Life" you might have misused the word Insure, I think you mean Ensure - to guarantee, make certain of. But then again, because it's healthcare related, perhaps you do mean Insure

With respect to Self-Defense and tools excluded from use, I would ask, does blaring Hip-Hop out of car windows at obscene volumes count as a valid reason for using other tools to defend my ear drums from the auditory onslaught????

As far as this is concerned:

- No Sovereign shall be forced against their will to accept contracts which
they find not to be in their interest, and no contract shall be valid which
was instituted against their will, or by fiat or default, or contains
inclusions that can change without the Sovereign?s knowledge or consent.

I would clarify the 'escape clause' with something like an add/change that digital licensing agreements between a Sovereign and a business are in fact null and void (EULA's) without either:

1) A plain language, EASILY readable, non-legalese written license summation that clearly and easily lists the goals/objectives of said license.

2) The right of the sovereign to accept freely the digital licensing agreement and still maintain the right of the sovereign to nullify at any time and for any reason the license in part or in whole.


I have a hard time with this one:

War, being a contrivance whose only purpose is consume the productive efforts of
Sovereigns against their will, and being equally detrimental to all Sovereigns,
is hereby abolished.

- No state shall make plans for war, nor raise armed forces to conduct such a
war, nor bring about martial law, for any reason whatsoever. Failure to heed
to this shall result in the complete dismantlement of a states government
structure, and the dissolution of that state into it's neighbors.

I respect your opinion but find this one particularly hard to swallow. First, I consider myself a Libertarian. Second, I commend you on taking free time to draw up such a document. Third, I STRONGLY, strike that, VEHEMENTLY disagree that War is a contrivance, etc. Without wars and conflicts we wouldn't have many bits of the wonderful technology and medical knowledge and practice that we do today. You wouldn't be reading this right now if it weren't for people like Dr. Alan Turing. His work in World WAR II decoding and decrypting Nazi intercepts helped him birth the concepts of the first electronic computer.

War is and will always be a part of human nature. When you willfully take away your preparedness for conflict, be it armed or not, you willfully put yourself at the mercy of your enemies. Whether you agree with me or not, you'll never convince me that conflict is NOT inherent to ALL animals. We humans have been the lucky group that has put technology to use in all it's glory and all it's horror. Science shows that our species homo sapiens have been around for ~195,000 years. You're just NOT going to take 195,000 years of animal instinct and suppress it, neuter it or outright remove it just because it sounds good in theory and on paper. And that's not a dig, or an attack, just what I believe and what logically makes the most sense.

Make no mistake about it, I'm not advocating a large, monolithic military that gets involved in armed conflict all over the world. Nor am I advocating a large military "presence" anywhere in the world. If it were up to me the wars in the Middle East would have been long since over and our military would be safely home. I would actively find and close down every public and not so public US based military installation and shut them down and bring personnel home as well. But, after everyone was home, I would not, repeat NOT shutdown the military as a whole.

I would scale it back. I would make it more agile. I would keep it prepared and properly trained. I would keep our weapons research and development moving forward until the point where I could privatize 50% of it. The other 50% I would always keep under government control.

Group-think has gotten the best of many young minds as of late. It is popular to think of war as just about the most awful thing imaginable. That war is completely unneeded. That it does absolutely no good. That it is just useless spending, spending of time, lives and money. Those are good points, and they are valid. However, the good that has come from war in the forms of medical advancements, treatments and technological advancements are numerous and irrefutable. They may not make up for all the lives that were lost, nor should they ever, or ever try to. But once you recognize war and conflict as inevitable, you simply cannot turn and walk away from it. Wishing and hoping for wars to cease and vanish isn't just naive, it's dangerous. Again, that is NOT an attack, just my opinion on the matter.

Someday, somewhere, someone will have a bone to pick with you. Whether it sovereign person to person or sovereign nation to nation. They might be wrong, they might be unjustified, they might be crazy, but it is CRAZY to NOT be prepared for it when it comes. Just as you list your Right to Self Defense as a sovereign individual, our country, unless you're really trying to disband the whole thing, has a right to defend itself too. Not every country will think and act as you do, or with your best interests at heart. However, we as Americans, or as a society have become ham-strung, tripping over ourselves trying to do just that. Trying to get involved in too many places and for too few good reasons. I'm all for closing the borders, shrinking the military and ending our involvement elsewhere in the world. It's high time we let the rest of the world do what they want. And it's definitely time that we started caring more for our own people, their well being, their present and futures and less about what everyone else is doing.

But, and this is a big hairy but, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared, in every capacity, to deal with aggression. Be it against us directly, or against our allies.

And then this:

- No state shall establish surveillance equipment of any kind in any public
place, except within prisons or jails, or within court houses to record
proceedings.

I think what you'd find is that by curtailing the government's ability to monitor
citizens, a whole new market of private businesses doing the same would then
sprout up. That is, you tell the feds "no cameras". They say fine, we still
want to know what's going on, so we're going to use "Joe's Security" firm
instead. Joe's Security firm and it's ilk would quickly turn into government
subcontractors running the same wires, installing the same cameras
and giving control either directly or indirectly right back to the people
you just tried to take it from.

What I would do is say government may install "x" number of cameras
and/or surveillance equipment, but said equipment, it's records and controls
will be open for public, company or special inspection, but through
proper channels and with proper consent so it can be determined
who/what/where is being tracked and for what reasons.

All in all I think you have a great document started there. Even if I don't agree
with you on everything, I respect your opinion.

[The Atomic Ass]

Originally Posted by orb451

In the first Sovereign paragraph pertaining to "Right Of Life" you might have misused the word Insure, I think you mean Ensure - to guarantee, make certain of. But then again, because it's healthcare related, perhaps you do mean Insure

A pun-filled misspelling. Thanks for catching that, I've corrected it.

Originally Posted by orb451

With respect to Self-Defense and tools excluded from use, I would ask, does blaring Hip-Hop out of car windows at obscene volumes count as a valid reason for using other tools to defend my ear drums from the auditory onslaught????

Well, now, that may be the case. At some level, I believe it's around 160db, you are actually in physical danger, as the sound pressure can cause heart palpitations.

Plus, ya' know, insanity can ensue from extended exposure to painful sound levels.

Originally Posted by orb451

As far as this is concerned:

- No Sovereign shall be forced against their will to accept contracts which
they find not to be in their interest, and no contract shall be valid which
was instituted against their will, or by fiat or default, or contains
inclusions that can change without the Sovereign?s knowledge or consent.

I would clarify the 'escape clause' with something like an add/change that digital licensing agreements between a Sovereign and a business are in fact null and void (EULA's) without either:

1) A plain language, EASILY readable, non-legalese written license summation that clearly and easily lists the goals/objectives of said license.

2) The right of the sovereign to accept freely the digital licensing agreement and still maintain the right of the sovereign to nullify at any time and for any reason the license in part or in whole.

Hmm... Let me address these in reverse...

2) A Sovereign can reject the license at any time by ceasing use of the product, even under the current draconian laws... There may be some room for a requirement of return policy in the event an agreement is later nullified.

Under the current draconian laws, however, you can return software/music/videos for a full refund if you initially do not agree with the EULA, which is what more people should do, as it would cause companies to modify their EULA licenses to prevent going out of business.

1) It would be to the benefit of companies to make their EULA's more succinct, though I'm not sure if that can quite be done without violating some part of the Right of free contract.


Ehm, next part broken into multiple sections due to length.

Originally Posted by orb451

I have a hard time with this one:

War, being a contrivance whose only purpose is consume the productive efforts of
Sovereigns against their will, and being equally detrimental to all Sovereigns,
is hereby abolished.

- No state shall make plans for war, nor raise armed forces to conduct such a
war, nor bring about martial law, for any reason whatsoever. Failure to heed
to this shall result in the complete dismantlement of a states government
structure, and the dissolution of that state into it's neighbors.

I respect your opinion but find this one particularly hard to swallow. First, I consider myself a Libertarian. Second, I commend you on taking free time to draw up such a document. Third, I STRONGLY, strike that, VEHEMENTLY disagree that War is a contrivance, etc. Without wars and conflicts we wouldn't have many bits of the wonderful technology and medical knowledge and practice that we do today. You wouldn't be reading this right now if it weren't for people like Dr. Alan Turing. His work in World WAR II decoding and decrypting Nazi intercepts helped him birth the concepts of the first electronic computer.

I won't disagree that war does bring us great technological advances, though I would argue that perhaps we are trading one type of technological advance for another. Whether that trade is even, in our favor, or against our favor we'll never know, but technological advance does march forward even in the absence of war.

Originally Posted by orb451

War is and will always be a part of human nature. When you willfully take away your preparedness for conflict, be it armed or not, you willfully put yourself at the mercy of your enemies. Whether you agree with me or not, you'll never convince me that conflict is NOT inherent to ALL animals. We humans have been the lucky group that has put technology to use in all it's glory and all it's horror. Science shows that our species homo sapiens have been around for ~195,000 years. You're just NOT going to take 195,000 years of animal instinct and suppress it, neuter it or outright remove it just because it sounds good in theory and on paper. And that's not a dig, or an attack, just what I believe and what logically makes the most sense.

I'm not saying we should remove our preparedness for conflict, on the contrary, we should prepare for and expect conflict, but on an individual level as opposed to a national level. Thus the whole point of the self defense article.

And certainly conflict is a part of human nature, we practically revel in conflict. When this desire for conflict is directed in a positive direction, everyone benefits. But states have shown a great tendency towards directing the energy of conflict into a negative direction, generally resulting in great destruction to property, productivity, and life, and generally yielding no tangible benefit.

My intention is that states shall not be able to enter into conflict. As history has shown, the last century of conflict has been largely orchestrated through states by a few whose motives were to consolidate world power, as opposed to two or more states having an otherwise unsettle-able dispute.

Today, our desire for conflict is severely misdirected, and divided between our vicarious conflicts, (through the medium of professional sports, politics and other such "one side pitted against the other" type of television shows), and our spoonfed pseudo-conflict with terrorist boogie-men. (How anyone can think the recent underwear bomber was real is beyond me, but unbelievably, I've met a few.)

Originally Posted by orb451

Make no mistake about it, I'm not advocating a large, monolithic military that gets involved in armed conflict all over the world. Nor am I advocating a large military "presence" anywhere in the world. If it were up to me the wars in the Middle East would have been long since over and our military would be safely home. I would actively find and close down every public and not so public US based military installation and shut them down and bring personnel home as well. But, after everyone was home, I would not, repeat NOT shutdown the military as a whole.

I would scale it back. I would make it more agile. I would keep it prepared and properly trained. I would keep our weapons research and development moving forward until the point where I could privatize 50% of it. The other 50% I would always keep under government control.

Privatize 100% of it. I wants me a phaser dammit.

Originally Posted by orb451

Group-think has gotten the best of many young minds as of late. It is popular to think of war as just about the most awful thing imaginable. That war is completely unneeded. That it does absolutely no good. That it is just useless spending, spending of time, lives and money. Those are good points, and they are valid. However, the good that has come from war in the forms of medical advancements, treatments and technological advancements are numerous and irrefutable. They may not make up for all the lives that were lost, nor should they ever, or ever try to. But once you recognize war and conflict as inevitable, you simply cannot turn and walk away from it. Wishing and hoping for wars to cease and vanish isn't just naive, it's dangerous. Again, that is NOT an attack, just my opinion on the matter.

I may come across in the document as accepting the group think, but I don't. I merely recognize the false and manufactured nature of relatively recent conflict, and I'm trying to put forth a solution to the issue. The solution I put forth may be a bit rough, but most of the charter is a hard pill to swallow for governments as it is.

On this particular article, I am considering a provision where states may retain arms until such time as they all agree to disarm. How to prevent such a situation from going into perpetuity, though, has prevented me from making a section that I can feel comfortable with.

Ultimately, states in conflict don't just affect themselves, they most usually cause harm to the disinterested individual, and usually include (by force) in their conflicts great numbers of individuals who are actually opposed to the specific conflict, the latter being less true in this country today, but still a very valid issue in many other countries where drafts are still common place.

Originally Posted by orb451

Someday, somewhere, someone will have a bone to pick with you. Whether it sovereign person to person or sovereign nation to nation. They might be wrong, they might be unjustified, they might be crazy, but it is CRAZY to NOT be prepared for it when it comes. Just as you list your Right to Self Defense as a sovereign individual, our country, unless you're really trying to disband the whole thing, has a right to defend itself too. Not every country will think and act as you do, or with your best interests at heart. However, we as Americans, or as a society have become ham-strung, tripping over ourselves trying to do just that. Trying to get involved in too many places and for too few good reasons. I'm all for closing the borders, shrinking the military and ending our involvement elsewhere in the world. It's high time we let the rest of the world do what they want. And it's definitely time that we started caring more for our own people, their well being, their present and futures and less about what everyone else is doing.

But, and this is a big hairy but, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared, in every capacity, to deal with aggression. Be it against us directly, or against our allies.

I'm not really tied to national pride, TBH. I could care less what country I lived and worked in, and called my home, so long as I could honestly proclaim it was the freest place on the face of the earth. I'm actually for opening borders, as the travel article demonstrates. My charter isn't restricted to the U.S., otherwise I would right now be championing the Declaration and Constitution, as when they are properly enforced, they make redundant 95% of my charter. I intend my charter to be for all Sovereign individuals, no matter where on the earth they exist at any given time.

Originally Posted by orb451

And then this:

- No state shall establish surveillance equipment of any kind in any public
place, except within prisons or jails, or within court houses to record
proceedings.
[FONT=Verdana]
I think what you'd find is that by curtailing the government's ability to monitor
citizens, a whole new market of private businesses doing the same would then
sprout up. That is, you tell the feds "no cameras". They say fine, we still
want to know what's going on, so we're going to use "Joe's Security" firm
instead. Joe's Security firm and it's ilk would quickly turn into government
subcontractors running the same wires, installing the same cameras
and giving control either directly or indirectly right back to the people
you just tried to take it from.

What I would do is say government may install "x" number of cameras
and/or surveillance equipment, but said equipment, it's records and controls
will be open for public, company or special inspection, but through
proper channels and with proper consent so it can be determined
who/what/where is being tracked and for what reasons.

Cameras aren't as much of a danger to the public as other forms of public surveillance that are being marketed at the moment. The naked-body scanners they're installing in airports come to mind. A government could make whatever rules it wanted to, including putting a naked-body scanner on every lamp post, unless it was prohibited from doing so (by the charter).

A private firm is already prohibited from violating the privacy of Sovereigns, so at best all they can install is cameras. I paint with such a wide brush against the state, because whenever it finds a crack, it starts hitting it with a jackhammer. Forbidding all surveillance devices covers the non-camera types today, as well future technological developments.

Damn that was a long post.

[orb451]

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

My intention is that states shall not be able to enter into conflict. As history has shown, the last century of conflict has been largely orchestrated through states by a few whose motives were to consolidate world power, as opposed to two or more states having an otherwise unsettle-able dispute.

Not sure what you mean by this. Specifically the part about the last century's conflicts being orchestrated through a few states to consolidate world power. Are you saying that US states individually should be stripped of their senators and congress-critters? Isn't it them, collectively, or supposedly, that decides if/when we go to war with someone else or at the very least deploy troops to this place or that place?

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

Today, our desire for conflict is severely misdirected, and divided between our vicarious conflicts, (through the medium of professional sports, politics and other such "one side pitted against the other" type of television shows), and our spoonfed pseudo-conflict with terrorist boogie-men. (How anyone can think the recent underwear bomber was real is beyond me, but unbelievably, I've met a few.)

Not sure about this point either. Are you saying the underwear bomber was just acting alone? Didn't have any ties to Al-Qaeda or Islamic extremists? I ask because I honestly haven't looked him up, yet. What about the guy who was organizing an attack on the NYC subway line? Are you saying we shouldn't take these guys seriously because they're not wearing official Team Qaeda licensed and sanctioned T-shirts? Or because they're more or less acting of of their own volition, but no less seriously, still trying to hurt innocent Americans?

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

Privatize 100% of it. I wants me a phaser dammit.

Mmmmmm, phasers! Now that I can agree with We need more ....ing phasers in life.

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

I may come across in the document as accepting the group think, but I don't. I merely recognize the false and manufactured nature of relatively recent conflict, and I'm trying to put forth a solution to the issue.

Which recent conflict are you talking about? Iraq/Afghanistan? If by false and manufactured you mean the intel they sold us as the reason for going there then yes, I'd agree that it was a crock of horseshit. That said though, since we've been there, the least we could do is stay in it to win it, or at the very least, make sure the countries involved don't devolve into absolute civil war and total chaos. I think Iraq is just now getting to the point of *almost* governing itself. Afghanistan is a whole other shit sandwich.

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

On this particular article, I am considering a provision where states may retain arms until such time as they all agree to disarm. How to prevent such a situation from going into perpetuity, though, has prevented me from making a section that I can feel comfortable with.

I think you're on the right track though, that disarming bit would quickly turn into a stalemate for all involved. Getting around that is the million dollar question. You figure out a way to make that happen where all involved still feel good about the whole deal, you let me know, seriously!

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

I'm not really tied to national pride, TBH. I could care less what country I lived and worked in, and called my home, so long as I could honestly proclaim it was the freest place on the face of the earth. I'm actually for opening borders, as the travel article demonstrates.

And with respect to this, maybe I was misunderstood. I was saying that we should close the borders or at the very least completely tear down and build anew our current immigration policy. I don't give a rat's ass if people want to travel here for tourism or travel elsewhere for tourism, business or what have you.

Anyway, those are my takes on those points/pointer-counts you made. Keep at it!

[The Atomic Ass]

Originally Posted by orb451

Not sure what you mean by this. Specifically the part about the last century's conflicts being orchestrated through a few states to consolidate world power. Are you saying that US states individually should be stripped of their senators and congress-critters? Isn't it them, collectively, or supposedly, that decides if/when we go to war with someone else or at the very least deploy troops to this place or that place?

Pardon me, I should have explained, I'm using "states" interchangeably with "nations". And my comment was not specific to the U.S., Hitlerian Germany was a state being used as a tool for the consolidation of power. Just ask Prescott Bush.

And I'm saying that under this charter, the current major power structures would have nothing to do, save twiddling their thumbs, or perhaps churning out statistical census data. This includes the U.N., the U.S. federal government, as well as similar structures around the world.

And what do our senators and congress-critters actually do? They write laws. All day long, they sit and debate about what new laws should be passed. Even with their lengthy vacation breaks, I'm fairly certain they still manage to argue about new laws for 6 solid months out of a calendar year. But if the only laws that can even exist have to do with prohibiting an individual or group from causing harm, injury or loss to another individual or group, then I can foresee the people realizing "hey, what are we paying these guys for again?"

I don't think states (in the U.S.) should be "stripped" of their senators and congress-critters, rather they should willingly shed them as an unnecessary burden.

Minarchism is the system espoused in the charter.

Originally Posted by orb451

Not sure about this point either. Are you saying the underwear bomber was just acting alone? Didn't have any ties to Al-Qaeda or Islamic extremists? I ask because I honestly haven't looked him up, yet. What about the guy who was organizing an attack on the NYC subway line? Are you saying we shouldn't take these guys seriously because they're not wearing official Team Qaeda licensed and sanctioned T-shirts? Or because they're more or less acting of of their own volition, but no less seriously, still trying to hurt innocent Americans?

If he was working alone, or for a real terror group, then I'd be worried about his actions. However he was neither, and therefore I'm worried about the symbolism of his actions, as opposed to the actions themselves. The short story is he had a bomb, his father several weeks before had gone to the CIA with concerns of his sons' involvement with a known terror group, and he showed up at an airport in Amsterdam, no luggage, one-way ticket paid with cash, headed for the U.S., and THEN he is escorted onto the plane by a CIA agent, where tries to blow himself up and fails. That is a text-book ruse to force a policy, that being the naked-body scanners.

The CIA has already admitted in the past they created Al-Qaeda, I don't see it as much of a stretch to think they may still be controlling them, and using them to carry out an unpopular agenda within this country.

Originally Posted by orb451

Mmmmmm, phasers! Now that I can agree with We need more ....ing phasers in life.

Originally Posted by orb451

Which recent conflict are you talking about? Iraq/Afghanistan? If by false and manufactured you mean the intel they sold us as the reason for going there then yes, I'd agree that it was a crock of horseshit. That said though, since we've been there, the least we could do is stay in it to win it, or at the very least, make sure the countries involved don't devolve into absolute civil war and total chaos. I think Iraq is just now getting to the point of *almost* governing itself. Afghanistan is a whole other shit sandwich.

Recent relative to human existance, the past century at least, starting with WWI, though it could have started earlier, that is the earliest my studies have shown conflicts to have been manufactured. And it most certainly goes deeper than just purposely distorted intel.

Of note, check out Matthew Hoh. He resigned from duty in Afghanistan citing that he believed there to be no active conflict with terrorists, rather we are merely placing ourselves in the center of a civil war. His letter of resignation is linked in the article I linked.

Originally Posted by orb451

I think you're on the right track though, that disarming bit would quickly turn into a stalemate for all involved. Getting around that is the million dollar question. You figure out a way to make that happen where all involved still feel good about the whole deal, you let me know, seriously!

It is an essential component in the fight for individual liberty, so I will be brainstorming day and night on it.

Originally Posted by orb451

And with respect to this, maybe I was misunderstood. I was saying that we should close the borders or at the very least completely tear down and build anew our current immigration policy. I don't give a rat's ass if people want to travel here for tourism or travel elsewhere for tourism, business or what have you.

The only real problem with our immigration policy is what this country's government offers. Some come across the border for genuine work, and are hard workers. I WANT those people to be free to work anywhere they please.

Others come across merely to live off the various social programs we have. I want those people to suck a dick. But in all seriousness, they'd have no reason to come here if the welfare programs did not exist.

Really, the need to close borders is nothing but a symptom of a broken system.

[The Atomic Ass]

Originally Posted by QuambaFu

When risk is removed from the consequences of a decision the bad choice becomes the easy choice. Laissez-faire capitalism? Seperation of economy and state?

Am I wrong to assume that natural law would be an appropriate starting point for such a document?

I can't quite tell if that's a rhetorical question.

I'm assuming it is, but my mind can't quite process it fully.

[The Atomic Ass]

v0.2.1 Just got posted. Changes as noted in the change log.

[orb451]

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

Pardon me, I should have explained, I'm using "states" interchangeably with "nations". And my comment was not specific to the U.S., Hitlerian Germany was a state being used as a tool for the consolidation of power. Just ask Prescott Bush.

No worries if you're referring to Hitler's Germany and the third Reich I think you're off the mark a bit. Hitler only wanted consolidation in government with respect to the person who controlled it and it's power. He wanted that to be himself. That is to say, he didn't want a full-scale democracy, nor communist state/nation, he wanted the power all for himself and he got it. That said though, Hitler believed that the end game for being in power was territorial expansion. Hence the term Third Reich, which is often misunderstood to mean Third Reign, when in fact it means Third Realm. Realm as in Realm like you'd see in Tolkien's Middle Earth. A realm, a land, a great swath of territory to be controlled and expanded. Germany was busy licking it's wounds from WWI, they wanted some national pride back. Hitler had the voice and an axe to grind with Jews so he quickly made them the scapegoat for Germany's woes. I guess in that respect that yes, you could argue that that's a manufactured reason for going to war. But the forest-for-the-trees view, in my opinion, would be that he was just doing what he saw as the next logical step in expanding his territory. That is, go to war with, crush and annex surrounding nations. And if you can weed out the people that have wronged you in the past (READ Jews) then that's just a bonus.

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

And what do our senators and congress-critters actually do? They write laws. All day long, they sit and debate about what new laws should be passed. Even with their lengthy vacation breaks, I'm fairly certain they still manage to argue about new laws for 6 solid months out of a calendar year. But if the only laws that can even exist have to do with prohibiting an individual or group from causing harm, injury or loss to another individual or group, then I can foresee the people realizing "hey, what are we paying these guys for again?"

@ the "what are paying them for again"! I think this quote sums it up nicely:

"Because man has made laws he subsequently comes to think that he exists for the sake of the laws."

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

I don't think states (in the U.S.) should be "stripped" of their senators and congress-critters, rather they should willingly shed them as an unnecessary burden.

Agreed 100%

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

If he was working alone, or for a real terror group, then I'd be worried about his actions. However he was neither, and therefore I'm worried about the symbolism of his actions, as opposed to the actions themselves. The short story is he had a bomb, his father several weeks before had gone to the CIA with concerns of his sons' involvement with a known terror group, and he showed up at an airport in Amsterdam, no luggage, one-way ticket paid with cash, headed for the U.S., and THEN he is escorted onto the plane by a CIA agent, where tries to blow himself up and fails. That is a text-book ruse to force a policy, that being the naked-body scanners.

If it's a text-book ruse, it's a pretty piss-poor one. Why make such a dumb.... move as to literally escort a suspected terrorist/sympathizer/what-have-you onto a plane? I mean, if the CIA got the report from the father that ol' Junior was planning something bad, why go through the trouble of actually tucking him nicely into his seat? Were they worried he wouldn't get through security? Have they admitted as much? Has the actual bomber admitted as much? I'm just curious. And as far as naked body scanners go, why go through all the trouble to come up with this far reaching gambit with all the things that could go wrong with it? For what? To watch people's junk-in-the-trunk as they pass through the terminal? That's their end-goal? Snooping on people's private parts??? I don't know, that sounds a bit far-fetched to me.

On one hand people say "well if you've got nothing to hide, you don't need to worry". I ....ing HATE that line of thinking. That's sheep-think, not even group-think. They've no business looking, it's all security-theatre anyway. On the other hand, people are saying "If they looks at the children, they's got themselves kiddie porn, etc". That too is a piss poor line of reasoning. So they've got themselves kiddie porn, it's either deleted ASAP or what do you think will happen if a single frame of it is ever leaked, downloaded, stolen, moved, copied or sent somewhere???? The shit would hit the fan real ....ing hard and they'd have those things removed faster than the warts on Courtney Love's pussy.

If those scanners are mis-used, they're a huge liabillity. Huge. Like bankrupt the TSA kind of huge. They're not going to take that chance. So they're going to either use them very judiciously or they're going to follow a protocol for the removal of images/data to a T. There's no room for slop with those. No you can argue that it'll just *look* to the laymen like they're doing what they're supposed to with them. That just goes back to the whole thing being security theatre. How many baddies have they caught trying to sneak in bombs tucked neatly in their anus? 1? 10? 100? My guess is, not ....ing many. So why have them? To prevent the bomber's you say they helped on there in the first place? So if not them, then who? And why?

Like I said, there is simply no good reason for having them and since theyre going to ram them down our throats, like everything else anyway, why go through all the cloak n' dagger bullshit? Makes no sense. My theory is that someone, somewhere, got it in their head that it was a good idea. That it would *help*. However ....ing misdirected or misguided this idiot's line of reasoning was, he thought it looked good on paper. Or maybe she did. Whatever. Anyway, that's how I think these things come to pass. Not shady, back-room, back-water, black-water, black-ops horseshit.

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

The CIA has already admitted in the past they created Al-Qaeda, I don't see it as much of a stretch to think they may still be controlling them, and using them to carry out an unpopular agenda within this country.

I hadn't heard that bit about the CIA creating Al-Qaeda. I heard about them helping the Taliban during their fight against the Soviets in the early 80s. I hadn't heard them outright admit that they'd created Al-Qaeda, other than to say something to the effect of Al-Qaeda were the result of a small group of *hard-line* Islamic extremists who thought the Taliban were too *soft* or someone, somewhere, was too soft for them, so they wanted to "keep it real" and get back to the basics of living in caves and clubbing women over the head and shit.

You know, and this is not a dig, just an observation, that you sound a teensie-weensie bit like someone who believes in conspiracy theories. That's OK if you are, you have a right to. Personally I don't buy into them. To me, conspiracy theories are like TV sitcoms. They're funny, they make you laugh, hell some even make you think for a moment or two, but at the end of it, you realize it's all make believe.

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

Recent relative to human existance, the past century at least, starting with WWI, though it could have started earlier, that is the earliest my studies have shown conflicts to have been manufactured. And it most certainly goes deeper than just purposely distorted intel.

What bit about WWI was manufactured? I mean reason-for-involvement-wise, what part was manufactured and/or false? And for that matter, what part of WWII was false/manufactured? I ask sincerely because I don't know. I suppose you could easily argue about Viet Nam as being unnecessary, though our involvement, to the dismay of some Democrats it would seem wasn't oil.

The first Gulf War was most certainly about oil, and about protecting our friends in Kuwait, who also just happened to be sitting on some nice oil. This most recent war was started to find weapons of mass destruction. And at the same time stop terrorist training camps in Iraq and Afghanistan, and simultaneously find and kill Osama Bin Laden. And you want my opinion on why it turned out so damned bad? Because we arrogantly thought that we'd steam-roll the opposition in Iraq the same way we'd done in '90-'91. We thought they'd be surrending to us in droves again. We thought telegraphing our punches in the form of "shock and awe" was going to shut them up, and shut them down.

We weren't counting on a home-grown resistance that was more than willing to fight to the death to keep us out. And most importantly, we let the news and popular opinion ham string our troops with shitty equipment, poor training, poor numbers, poor communication and a hopeless devotion to making things "safe for TV". Casualties, missions, planning, all of it a complete charlie foxtrot because someone, somewhere, was worried about someone else's feelings. Someone else's lives. We didn't concern ourselves with winning, we concerned ourselves with trying to please an unhappy public with winning a game of dirty pool. And when we had the chance to at least use some god damned common sense and actually PLANT weapons of mass destruction. To you know, actually make it LOOK like we'd actually been somewhat justified in our reason for going, we took the fast train to stupid-ville and said "ahhhh, yeah, those weapons we thought were here... uhhhh.... they're uhhhhhh not. yeah... uhhh, I'm going to have to go ahead and say uhhhh.... sorry about that... our bad.... Hey look over there! It's Osama!!!! Git em'!!!!".

Even a dirty cop knows if you want to make the bad guys pay and still look like a hero, you do what's necessary to get the conviction. If that means planting evidence, you do it.

Anyway, that's a topic for another discussion and I'm typing yet another book here.

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

The only real problem with our immigration policy is what this country's government offers. Some come across the border for genuine work, and are hard workers. I WANT those people to be free to work anywhere they please.

Agreed 100%

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

Others come across merely to live off the various social programs we have. I want those people to suck a dick.

Must be that time of the morning because I found that ....ing hilarious! Couldn't stop laughing so for that!

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

Really, the need to close borders is nothing but a symptom of a broken system.

Also agree.

[The Atomic Ass]

Originally Posted by orb451

No worries if you're referring to Hitler's Germany and the third Reich I think you're off the mark a bit. Hitler only wanted consolidation in government with respect to the person who controlled it and it's power. He wanted that to be himself. That is to say, he didn't want a full-scale democracy, nor communist state/nation, he wanted the power all for himself and he got it. That said though, Hitler believed that the end game for being in power was territorial expansion. Hence the term Third Reich, which is often misunderstood to mean Third Reign, when in fact it means Third Realm. Realm as in Realm like you'd see in Tolkien's Middle Earth. A realm, a land, a great swath of territory to be controlled and expanded. Germany was busy licking it's wounds from WWI, they wanted some national pride back. Hitler had the voice and an axe to grind with Jews so he quickly made them the scapegoat for Germany's woes. I guess in that respect that yes, you could argue that that's a manufactured reason for going to war. But the forest-for-the-trees view, in my opinion, would be that he was just doing what he saw as the next logical step in expanding his territory. That is, go to war with, crush and annex surrounding nations. And if you can weed out the people that have wronged you in the past (READ Jews) then that's just a bonus.

Didn't make myself clear enough quite yet. Hitler, for all the things he did/said/thought, was nothing more than a puppet in the larger scheme of things. And those who financed him set him up to fail. Their ends were satisfied when he lost. He who pays the piper picks the tune, after all.

Originally Posted by orb451

If it's a text-book ruse, it's a pretty piss-poor one. Why make such a dumb.... move as to literally escort a suspected terrorist/sympathizer/what-have-you onto a plane? I mean, if the CIA got the report from the father that ol' Junior was planning something bad, why go through the trouble of actually tucking him nicely into his seat? Were they worried he wouldn't get through security? Have they admitted as much? Has the actual bomber admitted as much? I'm just curious. And as far as naked body scanners go, why go through all the trouble to come up with this far reaching gambit with all the things that could go wrong with it? For what? To watch people's junk-in-the-trunk as they pass through the terminal? That's their end-goal? Snooping on people's private parts??? I don't know, that sounds a bit far-fetched to me.

It's piss-poor, of course, but it shows just how conditioned people are to this, that so few people are making a giant stink about this in airports. Most just go through with it thinking that catching their flight is more important than protecting their privacy.

Believe me, if I had any need to fly I'd tell them I only show my dick to women I find attractive, and nobody's feeling me up that doesn't put out.

Originally Posted by orb451

On one hand people say "well if you've got nothing to hide, you don't need to worry". I ....ing HATE that line of thinking. That's sheep-think, not even group-think. They've no business looking, it's all security-theatre anyway. On the other hand, people are saying "If they looks at the children, they's got themselves kiddie porn, etc". That too is a piss poor line of reasoning. So they've got themselves kiddie porn, it's either deleted ASAP or what do you think will happen if a single frame of it is ever leaked, downloaded, stolen, moved, copied or sent somewhere???? The shit would hit the fan real ....ing hard and they'd have those things removed faster than the warts on Courtney Love's pussy.

Me to a female TSA inspector: "If I've got nothing to hide, then neither do you. Take your top off honey."

Also, that's already been proven fake, that images are immediately deleted. Proof.

Originally Posted by orb451

If those scanners are mis-used, they're a huge liabillity. Huge. Like bankrupt the TSA kind of huge. They're not going to take that chance. So they're going to either use them very judiciously or they're going to follow a protocol for the removal of images/data to a T. There's no room for slop with those. No you can argue that it'll just *look* to the laymen like they're doing what they're supposed to with them. That just goes back to the whole thing being security theatre. How many baddies have they caught trying to sneak in bombs tucked neatly in their anus? 1? 10? 100? My guess is, not ....ing many. So why have them? To prevent the bomber's you say they helped on there in the first place? So if not them, then who? And why?

It's all about mind control, and conditioning the masses to do what you tell them to, one little step at a time. First you tell them they have to remove their shoes for inspection before boarding, because someone had a bomb in their shoe. Sounds reasonable enough, so then someone hides a bomb in their underwear, so we have to install naked-body scanners and have intimate grope sessions if they even suspect you might have something on you that's bad.

So what's next? (Honestly, I don't know, what's the programming leading up to? I can't think it's very good)

Originally Posted by orb451

Like I said, there is simply no good reason for having them and since theyre going to ram them down our throats, like everything else anyway, why go through all the cloak n' dagger bullshit? Makes no sense. My theory is that someone, somewhere, got it in their head that it was a good idea. That it would *help*. However ....ing misdirected or misguided this idiot's line of reasoning was, he thought it looked good on paper. Or maybe she did. Whatever. Anyway, that's how I think these things come to pass. Not shady, back-room, back-water, black-water, black-ops horseshit.

I'm sure you could find at least a few who honestly believed these would help the "terrorist threat". Actually, you could probably find a lot of them. You're also going to find just as many getting into TSA for these naked-body scanners as people became priests in the catholic church for the choir boys.

Originally Posted by orb451

I hadn't heard that bit about the CIA creating Al-Qaeda. I heard about them helping the Taliban during their fight against the Soviets in the early 80s. I hadn't heard them outright admit that they'd created Al-Qaeda, other than to say something to the effect of Al-Qaeda were the result of a small group of *hard-line* Islamic extremists who thought the Taliban were too *soft* or someone, somewhere, was too soft for them, so they wanted to "keep it real" and get back to the basics of living in caves and clubbing women over the head and shit.

BBC Documentary where former CIA officials say Al Qaeda never existed. It goes on and on about the "neo-cons", but there are some facts interlaced in there somewhere. Much like all other media.

Originally Posted by orb451

You know, and this is not a dig, just an observation, that you sound a teensie-weensie bit like someone who believes in conspiracy theories. That's OK if you are, you have a right to. Personally I don't buy into them. To me, conspiracy theories are like TV sitcoms. They're funny, they make you laugh, hell some even make you think for a moment or two, but at the end of it, you realize it's all make believe.

/me deadpans, folds a sheet of aluminum foil and wears it like a hat

Originally Posted by orb451

What bit about WWI was manufactured? I mean reason-for-involvement-wise, what part was manufactured and/or false? And for that matter, what part of WWII was false/manufactured? I ask sincerely because I don't know. I suppose you could easily argue about Viet Nam as being unnecessary, though our involvement, to the dismay of some Democrats it would seem wasn't oil.

I include WWI as it was the immediate preceding conflict which eatablished much of the groundwork for WWII, and with WWII being suspect, I am searching the history books for signs of the subtle pokes and prods being given by those groups who would later have more involvement in WWII. I'm afraid I can't cite any specific bit about WWI, though, as it's more a feeling based off other knowledge than solid indisputable fact.

Originally Posted by orb451

The first Gulf War was most certainly about oil, and about protecting our friends in Kuwait, who also just happened to be sitting on some nice oil. This most recent war was started to find weapons of mass destruction. And at the same time stop terrorist training camps in Iraq and Afghanistan, and simultaneously find and kill Osama Bin Laden. And you want my opinion on why it turned out so damned bad? Because we arrogantly thought that we'd steam-roll the opposition in Iraq the same way we'd done in '90-'91. We thought they'd be surrending to us in droves again. We thought telegraphing our punches in the form of "shock and awe" was going to shut them up, and shut them down.

WMD's which we never found and the Bush administration didn't seem to awfully concerned about not finding.

Originally Posted by orb451

We weren't counting on a home-grown resistance that was more than willing to fight to the death to keep us out. And most importantly, we let the news and popular opinion ham string our troops with shitty equipment, poor training, poor numbers, poor communication and a hopeless devotion to making things "safe for TV". Casualties, missions, planning, all of it a complete charlie foxtrot because someone, somewhere, was worried about someone else's feelings. Someone else's lives. We didn't concern ourselves with winning, we concerned ourselves with trying to please an unhappy public with winning a game of dirty pool. And when we had the chance to at least use some god damned common sense and actually PLANT weapons of mass destruction. To you know, actually make it LOOK like we'd actually been somewhat justified in our reason for going, we took the fast train to stupid-ville and said "ahhhh, yeah, those weapons we thought were here... uhhhh.... they're uhhhhhh not. yeah... uhhh, I'm going to have to go ahead and say uhhhh.... sorry about that... our bad.... Hey look over there! It's Osama!!!! Git em'!!!!".

You're starting to see the big picture little by little...

Originally Posted by orb451

Even a dirty cop knows if you want to make the bad guys pay and still look like a hero, you do what's necessary to get the conviction. If that means planting evidence, you do it.

I WANT a dirty cop to plant evidence on me. Then I get to arrest him for possession of whatever he plants. (See the article on enforcement )

Originally Posted by orb451

Anyway, that's a topic for another discussion and I'm typing yet another book here.

Books are good. I'm logging the topics I'm making regarding my charter and other serious issues on various forums so I can reference what I type here into larger treatises I'm working on. The word jockeying helps me think.

[The Atomic Ass]

Another update on the charter, this time with provisions for states to defend themselves. (see the Sovereignty of states article at the very bottom)

On this specific point, a state can protect it's borders from military incursions, it just can't go to other countries to do it.

[The Atomic Ass]

Another new update, I've merged the Prohibition of war article into the Sovereignty of states article.

[The Atomic Ass]

Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass

/me deadpans, folds a sheet of aluminum foil and wears it like a hat

I didn't scare everybody off, did I?