Spectral Imaging Reveals Jefferson Nixed 'Subjects' for 'Citizens' 360
Jamie points out this excellent piece, well timed for America's Independence Day, that says spectrographic evidence has established that the one word Thomas Jefferson fully blotted out from an early draft of the Declaration of Independence was not "resident," or "patriot," but rather "subject." This, he replaced with "citizen."
Don't worry (Score:5, Interesting)
they have correct that correction some time ago now, you are not citizens, you are consumers - inmates - terrorists - child molesters - unique serial numbers - organ donors.
Re:Considering the mindset of the era (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Considering the mindset of the era (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Considering the mindset of the era (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Interesting)
Every time, really, unless you make your intentions known beforehand and the authorities actually respect them once known. That is why the new NY law (I think it's NY) is so insidious: it changes the default option to "yes" which puts the onus on you to specifically go on record as opting-out, and means that any problems with the record keeping will mean you could donate anyway.
Re:Considering the mindset of the era (Score:5, Interesting)
All the abuses of King George III on America are very similar to the abuses we suffer under our recent presidents and congresses.
That's because the government structure is very similar. Back then, you had a king appointed by nobody that did whatever he wanted. Nowadays, you have two puppets up for a pseudo-election, while the real legislative power is directed by people most citizens don't even know about (see Bilderberg Group for example). Since they're operating in the dark and are not elected, they also can do whatever they want.
Maybe that sounds a little bit tinfoil-hattish, but that's the most straight-forward way I could think of to explain the US government's behavior in the last decade.
Re:Don't worry (Score:3, Interesting)
What's wrong with automatic organ donation?
Re:Considering the mindset of the era (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Considering the mindset of the era (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Irony is.... (Score:5, Interesting)
What the hell does that have to do with a "Federal empire"? Christ, that's *specifically* a state-level law, enacted by a state, on behalf of the state's people. It's literally the antithesis of federalism (as the term is typically used in the US).
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Considering the mindset of the era (Score:3, Interesting)
You are missing the point here. The primary objection is "kept among us"- this is an objection to quartering soldiers in private homes (which was then not allowed by the Third Amendment).
So rather than having to quarter soldiers we instead have to pay expensive monetary fees to support our imperialistic presence in almost every single country. Another main difference is that the soldiers granted by the king not only were supposed to keep the colonists in line but also to protect them against the very real threat of native American attack rather than the very vague "threat" of "terrorism" and "drugs".
So yes, we no longer have to house soldiers in our home, we have to essentially "house" soldiers in our paycheck. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of abolishing any defense, but do we really need to waste taxpayer money having a massive army spread out in all corners of the globe when we are really not at war?
But that's not at all the same. The judges being objected to weren't appointed for life. They were appointed to serve at the pleasure of the King. That's a very different circumstance. Hence the phrasing " on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices."
Fair enough of a distinction.
And of course almost all your objections ignore the fact that these events have all occurred with the consent of the legislator you voted for. That's very different then when things occur by an unelected monarch and a parliament which one can't vote.
What made you think that the person I voted for made office? Other than local elections, almost none of the people who I voted for actually made it to office. In fact, no one in congress is a member of the Libertarian party which is the party that I choose to vote for. So, no, in fact none of the laws were really made by my consent, just by the majority which I was not a part of.
Re:Don't worry (Score:2, Interesting)
So it's morally justifiable if most people don't have objections.
Excellent.
Tomorrow morning you will find yourself sans property. Since, as is true of almost every man, "most people" don't even care whether you live or die, why the hell should the law assume they do?
Particularly if it means I get to have a TV for my kitchen and a decent set of furniture for the new office.
FWIW, the only time I'd consider not being on the organ register is if opt-in became automatic. I put my health where my mouth is: for example, I've opted out from central computerised health service records. In emergencies this might mean a doctor not being aware of my medical history, but it's far more important that I do not support a system ripe for abuse.
Re:The Irony is.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Try going from South Texas northward.. mandatory federal checkpoints on the only 2 north/south bound routes (which applies going north, but not going south).
Re:The Irony is.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't worry (Score:2, Interesting)
Could you or someone please post information on opting-out of the central computerised health service records, please? It would be greatly appreciated.
Re:Considering the mindset of the era (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the internal army of agencies with essentially unlimited powers that bother me the most, along with gov't increasingly being "privatized" to give *private agencies power over other citizens*. (This is absolutely NOT the same as "privatizing" a function; it's more like setting up a gov't-sponsored mafia.)
This is, as I've pointed out before, about where Rome was around 250AD, and was probably their point of no return. We're getting there a lot faster, probably thanks to modern communications.
Re:Don't worry (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it still yours once you're dead?
Re:Don't worry (Score:3, Interesting)
I just go on the assumption that any power strong enough to resurrect me is also strong enough to give me a spanking new set of lungs.
Old Norse Sources on Trolls (Score:5, Interesting)
The Norse countries
Norse? What is this, the 12th century?
Old Norse:
Ráðumk, ér Loddfáfnir, en ú ráð nemir, -
njóta mundu, ef ú nemr, ér munu góð, ef ú getr -:
rimr orðum senna skal-at-tu ér við verra mann
oft inn betri bilar,
á er inn verri vegr.
Shakespeare Era Translation:
I rede thee, Loddfafnir! | and hear thou my rede,--
Profit thou hast if thou hearest,
Great thy gain if thou learnest:
With a worse man speak not | three words in dispute,
Ill fares the better oft
When the worse man wields a sword.
20th Century Translation:
Even three words of quarrelling you shouldn't have with an inferior.
21st Century Translation:
Don't feed trolls.
Some things never change.