Magna Carter is a reference point for the current non written constitution not it's unalterable foundation
eh? I at least understood that England had one of the oldest constitutions and that it was the basis for a lot of others? Is the current unwritten constitution that you speak of statute law?
We are not given an economy, we had an economy from the start and we now have a group of parasites who manipulate the economy using the monetary system to remove our wealth and pass it on to those they deem fit
This is rubbish.
Our economy is based on business. Businessmen are not parasites. Individual speculators might be but there aren't that many of those proportionally.
Businessmen are not parasites
Most are not, most offer a service in exchange for a fair price. I have never been taxed by a business directly.
The parasites I was referring to were those who manipulate the economy and contribute very little, those people who:
create inflationary pressure by creating money from thin air
remove market pressures from vital mechanisms like interest rates
remove the moral hazards of banking
those whose interests it is in to wage war whenever possible.
That sort of thing.
i don't see how anyone could believe that this isn't just a bunch of nutters trying to confuse the judiciary. if there were any basis to any of what they were saying do you not think a serious challenge would have been mounted by this point?
read any of the articles on this website and tell me their not written by a nutter.
The parasites I was referring to were those who manipulate the economy and contribute very little, those people who
Absolutely there are bad destructive greedy people everywhere. Can hardly blame the system for that though.
"The Man" to whom you referred originally means the wider establishment, not any particular minority. The bad people are in the minority. As are the good. The majority are morally indifferent, effectively.
Can hardly blame the system for that though.
We cannot blame the establishment for the fact there are greedy destructive people but we can blame them for letting the demons run amok. They are supposed to protect the interests of citizens but often fail in this by favouring the interests of the very rich and powerful.
The man is a catch all term for authority in the sense that I was using it and believe it applies. Zappa once said that Government is the entertainment division of big business and I think he was largely right.
Mr Nutt, No the constitution of the United kingdom is referred to as unwritten as there is no one document that sets out ones rights and obligations nor the role of the queen and parliament or even the existence of a cabinet. this can be contrasted with the US constitution or the French. Instead we have a body of case law statute and parliamentary convention. The fount of all knowledge Wikipedia, states:-
"The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed.
Unlike many nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that the country has an uncodified, or de facto constitution.[1] However, much of the British constitution is embodied in the written form, within statutes, court judgments, and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and royal prerogatives.
The bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[2] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. There is some debate about whether this principle remains entirely valid today,[3] in part due to the UK's European Union membership.[4]"
Many think that a single codified document would help others fear it gives the likes of the freemen more grist to their mill.
You will note the constitutional doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty completely trumps the freemen's contractual argument.
sadly I think that they are plagued with nutters and conspiracy theorists and as Elfin says, largely just want to get out of paying for stuff.
I'm pretty sure they're certainly not plagued with peoplewho have any knowledge of constitutional or contract law!
We are not given an economy, we had an economy from the start and we now have a group of parasites who manipulate the economy using the monetary system to remove our wealth and pass it on to those they deem fit.
The financial system only exists because of a law and state that uphold it. It'd be lovely if we could have no state and all barter and get on perfectly well, but in reality, if there was no law to stop nasty people taking stuff by force / killing people for their own advantage or stealing things, then chances are we wouldn't be living in such a safe place, and for sure the first against the wall would be the pacifist anarchists, cos they'd be easy pickings.
The financial system only exists because of a law and state that uphold it.
Not sure I agree with that, the economy is all about people trading with each other and we have gradually laid down a set of rules, the point of which is to ensure that the trading in the economy is fair. Thing is, at the moment it is not fair. Not by a very long way.
You need to make your mind up Torminalis. If the financial system does not exist because of the law and state that uphold it, then you can't complain about it being unfair - there is nothing you can do about it.
However the law and the state is responsible for the financial system - no one prints their own money, ultimately everyone is indebted to the state for their own personal wealth. An important point to remember, when people start whingeing about paying their taxes.
ernie, just because I believe that markets and trade are a natural phenomenon does not mean that I cannot demand representation in return for my taxation. We pay a fortune to the government to regulate the markets amongst other things and they seem to be using that money against us a lot of the time.
The state provides the money but wealth still exists without money, they merely provide a medium for the exchange and storage of wealth. Even the storage of that wealth actively diminishes its value! What sort of idiotic system is that? If the wealth is created by the state, how come every time more turns up, ours becomes worth less?
how come every time more turns up, ours becomes worth less?
share dilution?
Torminalis:
Are you aware that it's an immensely fine line between regulating to stop bad people taking advantage and stifling economic growth?
It's extremely difficult to get the balance right. The bad people aren't always bad and their money making generates a lot of money for everyone else on the whole (but not always). So we need them in some ways to contribute to a dynamic wealthy economy. If we legislate them too much they bugger off elsewhere and take their money with them.
Are you aware that it's an immensely fine line between regulating to stop bad people taking advantage and stifling economic growth?
Of course I am.
If we legislate them too much they bugger off elsewhere and take their money with them.
This is what we are told ad nauseum but studies have shown that executive pay is very well into the realms of diminishing marginal returns. The performance gap between someone paid £100k and £1m is much less than the difference between someone earning £10k and £100k. Maybe a cultural change where people are just workers rather than masters of the universe is required.
They do make money for the coffers of the country but only about 12% (in the financial services industry) and if that is so easily lost is it really worth having in the first place? Do bear in mind that the financial services industry don't actually make anything. They assist with the flow of capital from those who have it to those who need it but that is about about it. There must be a simpler and more effective way to do that without allowing so much cream to be skimmed from the top.
We keep hearing about the govt nationalising the risks and privatising the profits, we keep hearing about all of these implausibly productive people in our economy who will run away if we don't afford them an astronomical wage, we keep hearing that we have to encourage big businesses to invest in the UK. Personally I am inclined to challenge these assumptions.
The financial services industry actually depend on us and our money much more than we depend on them. It is they that need the pension pots and the insurance funds that we fill up, without a big stake their winnings would be marginal by comparison. And when they lose, it is us that lose, by having our pension pots decimated or our insurance premiums and our taxes pushed ever higher. They will still get their bonuses.
It's extremely difficult to get the balance right
It is but the Labour asshats and the tory scumbags don't even seem to try. How big was the tax break to Vodaphone? How much did Gordon sell off the gold for? How much did our state bank pay in bonuses this year? Why was the Murdoch deal not referred to Ofcomm and the monopolies people? How much was paid in bribes to the Saudi's? How many arms dealers did Cameron take to the Middle east with him? Why was the alleged Lockerbie bomber released? How many wars have the friends of government profited from whilst we run up debts to be paid off by our grandchildren?
I know it is hard to make it work properly but it would be nice to be able to believe that someone was at least trying.
The court system can only enforce these statutes and acts with the 'consent of the governed'. That is to say, if a man is in court for say driving through a red light and in court he doesn't give is consent to contract (more about that in a bit), the court has no power whatsoever to punish him for the 'crime', provided no other party has been harmed
This is the bit that's complete fanny and everything that comes after is gash (accurate legal terminology). That's not what government by consent/policing by consent/consent of the governed means.
Firstly, it's a political concept/belief/policy about how things should be, not a legal maxim about how things are.
Secondly, the consent referred to is collective, not individual. In the case of the US or UK, the consent operates by way of a democratically-elected government. It's irrelevant whether you individually decide or don't decide to consent today.
Both of these elements can be seen in the following:
That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, the attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good."
It's just all cut & paste bollocks seized on by simpletons and lizard-botherers to avoid paying for stuff.
What the hell is a 'lizard botherer'...?
Similar to a god bother but believes lizards are in charge - see David Icke
Aha! David Icke! The man in the tracksuit!
I find his perspective informative and thought-provoking. Apart from the lizard shite. That's just crazy talk.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
