Constitutions...

Shame the US constitution could not guard against the criminal alliance that operate the US now, the real powerbrokers, the hand behind the political leaders.

However, I guess they could not have envisaged such an evil marriage, between corporate elites, and political elites.

 

Or homosexuals...

 

it still stands

no, i've consistently asserted my point

who is that?

 

You went from "no, they don't rely on violence and coercion to enforce the law" to "what should law enforcement do, allow criminals to have their way?"

Straight from denial of the coercion and violence to trying to explain the supposed necessity for the coercion and violence. That's the exact opposite of consistency.

 

'defense against violence' and 'relying on violence to enforce the law' are two distinct concepts

law enforcement doesn't rely on violence to enforce the law, but it does defend against violence

 

I disagree. Government is force. That is why the Founders framed the Constitution to protect our rights from it.

 

government

1) the governing body of a nation, state, or community: an agency of the federal government.

• the system by which a nation, state, or community is governed: a secular, pluralistic, democratic government.

• the action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people.

• the group of people in office at a particular time.

 

Here is one State Constitution that explains the existence and need for a State (government).

 

THERE IS NO MORE CONSTITUTION....We have that Patriot Act with Martial law right around the corner.

 

Washington was using force before the ink was dry on the Constitution. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion?

 

So what happens if you don't pay your taxes or the resulting fines? You've already refused to answer this question once, so I'll go ahead and give you the answer. Agents of the state will come to your home and bind your hands behind your back and then transport you to your new home, a small metal and concrete cage. If you resist, they may very well beat you, electroshock you, or spray noxious chemicals in your eyes possibly resulting in bodily injury or death.

That has nothing to do with 'defense against violence'. That is initiation of violence.

 

What date is 'right around the corner'?

April fools?

 

Law is force. There is no way around that. It should not be something that surprises anyone. The alleged deterrent of crime is the possible use of the force of law.

 

you face penalties and the shame of being known as a freeloader that doesn't pay his fair share

the tax resistor is the one that initiated violence in this case by not following the law, the constitution gives government the power of taxation

Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes."

rebellion

an act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler

law

the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties

 

So, shouldn't the wealthy be paying even higher tax rates than wartime tax rates, during times of martial law? How long can such a public policy choice last, if the wealthy have an economic incentive to ensure that such boondoggles and generational forms of theft don't impact their bottom line to any substantial effect.

 

You really believe that failing to pay taxes is an initiation of violence? I have to ask, do you even know what "violence" is? Do you know what "initiate" means?

 

i think resisting arrest as you described is the initiation of violence

yea, it means 'cause to begin'

 

If I came to your house, forcibly entered, bound your hands behind your back, and then locked you into a small cage, would you consider that to be a violent act on my part?

 

you wouldn't be able to do it

and i haven't broken any laws

 

liberty is not a blessing it is a political grant to ourselves. It was however when the king thought he was god and the founders are not fathers, they are constitutors who worked out a taxing scheme and how far the gub could impose itself upon every living thing.

this country was taken by conquest by the king, that is why you see them claim jurisdiction over the "inhabitants" as well as the early brit citizens in the srticles of confed.

they are most likely making similar contracts with iraq and afghanastan since they too have been taken by conquest and now subject to the english common law.

 

The problem with that is you are disassociating yourself and every other citizen with the obvious, we are the government. We vote, we have debates, we have a free system. If there are inequities in our government or society we are free to vote in those that change this. If force is used to uphold laws they are laws that we allowed, we have the ability to change them if we can get a majority of America to see your side of the issue. Your problem is that you cannot get a majority of America to see your way.

 

And we formed a government that enforces the law. No way around that. Why do you think they call it "enforce".

Enforce: to give force to

 

I agree to disagree; simply because our Founding Fathers said so.

 

yes. we live by the rule of law

 

Your cowardly dodge is duly noted. Have a nice day.