--- On Fri, 11/14/08, william collier <upadaria@...> wrote:

From: william collier <upadaria@...>
Subject: [Upadaria] Our Political Sovereignty As OWNERS Of Our Society!
To: pc@...
Cc: vusa@yahoogroups.com, fpusa@yahoogroups.com, 4core-ideals@yahoogroups.com,
upadaria@yahoogroups.com, EllisFreeLD@yahoogroups.com,
elliscountymarketplace@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, November 14, 2008, 1:18 PM









Our Political Sovereignty As OWNERS Of Our Society!
William R. Collier Jr.
 
Here’s the nub of it folks; we do not have to surrender our ELECTORAL Ownership
over our communities and our society to a Global Economy that is being PLANNED
without our interests at heart and we do not have to surrender our Electoral
Ownership to a secular humanist society that is attempting to DICTATE social
norms to our communities in the name of “individual rights” which, according to
their new definition, a definition we do not choose to associate with and that
we reject, means that the Federal Government and the lone individual are the
only two authorities for upholding and defining social norms through civil law,
criminal law, and general social policy.
(NOTE: On the California situation with Gay Marriage, I firmly beleive the BEST
way to keep the peace is to give each side the option of winning its views in a
city or a county and I also believe they MUST assert that no individual has to
recognize ANY marriage they do not want to recognize..more on that some other
time The BIG issue is NOT "Gay Marriage" or any of the hot button issues, the
issues is WHO GETS TO DECIDE this very important social norm and social policy?)

In reality this creates an intolerable situation in which the true sovereignty
of the individual cannot be truly exercised in the area of participating in
determining social norms, civil law, criminal law, and social policy DIRECTLY in
a community of one’s peers. Of course such communities of our peers may choose,
by right, to adopt any reasonable measure, reasonable in terms of protecting the
right of participation in the political decision-making process and the right of
dissent or dis-association, that is consistent with their sentiments, morals,
and beliefs as to what is RIGHT for their community.
For those who deny that we, the sovereign electors of our communities, possess
such inherent sovereignty over our locales I make no appeal and I offer no
compromise. We assert, simply, that as sovereign individual Electors we possess
an inherent and natural right to participate, as direct legislators, generally
by a super-majority of 2/3rds of more, to establish and enforce such social
norms, criminal laws, civil laws, and social policies as we deem best suited to
protect our rights, persons, and property in accordance with our shared
sentiment, morals, values, and beliefs.
It is illogical and disengenuine to claim that we have any nefarious intentions
or that we will abuse such sovereignty: the purpose of such distractions is to
avoid the fundamental question which is this, whether our sovereign communities,
which we, the sovereign individual Electors OWN by right exclusive of all
non-residents, are and of a right ought to be free and sovereign communities of
free people who are the highest SOVEREIGN, as an Electorate that directly
participates in the judicial and legislative process of the community, and who
must appeal to their conscience, to the mutual consent, and to Nature of
Nature’s God and not to those who would USE a so-called care for “individual
rights” in order to disenfranchise the People.
We do not ask for this Sovereignty or Demand it, it is ours by right of
possession as resident members of our locales and it begs no permission from any
law, official, court, constitution, policy, or government in order to be freely
exercised by the DIRECT participation of ALL Electors in a “consensual decision
making process.”
Our communities are and of a right ought to be truly INDEPENDENT in their
economic sovereignty and in their social sovereignty while remaining AUTONOMOUS
in their political sovereignty in order to protect their inherent right to adopt
their own economic rules and policies, civil and criminal code, social norms,
and social policy independently of any outside power provided that the following
is respected:
 
1. Every dissenter’s right to speak and urge for amendments, repeals, and new
laws, policies, elections, or officials must be inviolate
 
2. That the privacy of the home, of churches, and of private organizations which
are not engaged in violent sedition, treason, or the abuse of any other person’s
rights, property, or person be held inviolate
 
3. That NO religious or anti-religious test be applied for being an Elector or
for running for office
 
4. That where a contiguous dissenting minority exists, as great a degree as
possible of internal autonomy must be respected within areas under their domain
and that if necessary the right of such areas, by a 70% or greater vote within
the target area, to secede or join a neighboring community be respected
peacefully
 
5. That the right to keep and bear arms, to privacy of one’ papers, a trial by
jury, presumption of innocence, of political free speech (the community has a
right to regulate ALL public content according to its social norms provided
dissenters are not prohibited from calling for the repeal of such policies and
arguing their case), of freedom of worship within your home and house of worship
and to publicly seek to convert others, shall be respected
 
These are reasonable terms, designed to allow sovereign individuals their own
space, as ELECTORS. where they can seek to SHAPE their society in a manner that
both prevents an abrogation of the political rights of individuals while also
preventing the political authority beyond the community level from creating
“social norms” that the People in MANY, if not almost ALL, localities in this
nation find to be harmful to society, to their children, to the good of the
nation, and the to the good of their community and which they have not only NOT
been asked to consent to, based on the FALSE idea that ONLY the Federal
Government and the lone individual has ANY authority over the area of
establishing social norms.
If you beleive in TOTAL individual choice with little or NO social norms, pursue
this. Do not say, "well, you can have your specific vision if you have a private
community but you MUST have my vision of unlimited  individual choice everywhere
else" when, in fact, your views are in the minority! Assert your own minority
rights, to privacy, to opting out, to dissension and to your own space, which is
MORE than present society provides!

Our MOST BASIC right is our inherent right to ESTABLISH our social norms
primarily at the local level by means of a consensual decision making process as
we the People see fit for the overall good of every individual and for our
community, our children, our society, and our nation.


This does not mean that we are demanding any particular norms, merely that we
are asserting the RIGHTS of individuals to PARTICIPATE in a DIRECT way in
determining what those norms should be and how or IF we should utilize civil
law, criminal law, or social policy to perpetuate, protect, and maintain such
social norms as we believe, by common consent, are the most beneficial and
healthful to ourselves and our community.
I believe that we need to STOP “asking” for a recognition of this right, and
stop relying on petitions and courts to assert our political sovereignty over
our OWN society  as we see fit and to STOP pausing every few words to answer
pretended concerns and distracting allegations that we want to “cram your
religious down our throat” or whatever anyone else thinks they should say
instead of addressing our fundamental OWNERSHIP over our communities and our
society, which ownership is ours to use as we see fit regardless of their
accusations.
We need to stop trying to CONVINCE the other side; they are not going to agree
to anything we say or do, we need to start to SAY THIS TRUTH boldly and without
fear and rally around it: WE THE PEOPLE are the ONLY authority that has any
RIGHT to decide, in our communities, by our direct consent, the SOCIAL NORMS
that we deem to be most fit for a healthy, secure, and prosperous community. We
need to stop ARGUING WITH THEM or pulling back our words for FEAR that someone
will say bad things about us, and we need to just RALLY AROUND each other RIGHT
NOW!
Whatever kind of community or society you prefer, you have a RIGHT to seek to
urge others to join with you in establishing your society, but you MUST convince
them or you must find communities of like minded people that already exist. WE
ALL DESERVE OUR OWN SPACE, our own communities, where we can participate in
establishing social norms by the consent of the People.
JOIN ME NOW at http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/fpusa    



Bill Collier
RADICAL Freedomist!


PS if you are going to say "only individuals have rights" please define "rights"
and the a priori logic upon you might make this claim...Rights are legal or
moral entitlements or permissions.


There are numerous different theoretical distinctions in accordance with which
rights may be classified.

Natural and legal rights - Rights may be considered to be either of a purely
moral or ethical character, as in the idea of natural rights, which holds that
we obtain certain rights from nature that cannot be legitimately modified by any
legislative authority; or they may be considered to be of an artificial,
man-made character, as in the idea of legal rights, which are arbitrary human
constructs, created by legislative authority and always subject to change.

Claim rights and liberty rights - A liberty right grants permission, whereas a
claim right grants an entitlement. As entitlements, claim rights serve as rules
of interaction between people, as they entail constraints and obligations upon
the actions of other individuals or groups (e.g. if a person has a right to
life, others cannot have the liberty to kill that person). As permissions,
liberty rights are also known simply as liberties, but are still frequently
referred to as rights (e.g. "I have a right to do x" often means "I am permitted
to do x"), though some deny that such usage is proper.

Negative and positive rights - Negative rights require inaction on the part of
others (in the sense of rights as claims or entitlements) , or permit inaction
(in the sense of rights as liberties or permissions) . Conversely, positive
rights require action on the part of others (in the sense of rights as claims or
entitlements) or permit action (in the sense of rights as liberties or
permissions) .

Individual rights and group rights - Individual rights are rights pertaining to
individual people regardless of their membership within a group, while group
rights are held by an ensemble of people collectively or by the members of a
group of people who have a certain characteristic in common. In some cases there
can be tension between individual and group rights.














[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]