Okay, here's a thought. The average medievel serf was forced to work all day in the hot sun, breaking his damn back for his master. He got to keep about half of what he produced. He wasn't allowed to own a weapon, or to do anything his master considered "sinful."
My question is, how is this different from today? Well, actually, it is different, because in purely mathematical terms, the serf has it better than you. He got to keep 50% of the fruits of his labor - the average American, after income tax, FICA, social security, and inflation created by blundering state monetary policy, gets to keep a mere 48%.
The other restrictions of serfdom apply to us as well. To be fair, we are allowed weapons. However, any weapon that would be of actual use in an armed rebellion against the state is strictly forbidden - that's one less reason to keep the people happy.
And don't try engaging in anything that prevailing culture defines as "sinful." Drugs are strictly forbidden, if by "drugs" you mean "only those psychoactive substances that can be connected with an ostensibly anti-american stereotype." You aren't allowed to get yourself a hooker - despite the fact that prostitution is certainly a more honest profession than that practiced by our politicians. Are they our leaders, or our nannies?
All of this comes down to one thing, friends - the state OWNS you. You are nothing but property to it, to be used or discarded as is convenient.
Didn't our founding fathers fight a revolution over this kind of thing?

The serf got zero percent of what he 'gave' his master. As a taxpayer you get something, albeit not much, back for your tax dollars, ie. schools, roads, fire, police, et al.

Nox

The Serf also lived in mud huts, with no heating, toiled in the fields all day, worked for the church on odd days, had a life expectancy of around 45ish and was immediantly recruited into the army at the slightest bit of trouble.

Wanna go back in time? Be my guest.

A few differences.

A serf had no rights.
A sert could not quit(without fear of punishment).
A serf had to go to church every day.
A serf owned nothing.
In some periods, a serf had to get permission to have a child.

Trust me, you don't have it any where as bad.

The Serf didn't have to live in the midst of niggers and mexicans and his women respected him, obeyin' the penis as it were.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Who's Your Daddy?:
A few differences.

A serf had [b]no rights.
A sert could not quit(without fear of punishment).
A serf had to go to church every day.
A serf owned nothing.
In some periods, a serf had to get permission to have a child.

Trust me, you don't have it any where as bad.[/B]

---

- Your rights do not truly exist if they are guaranteed only by the benevolence of your government. If your rights can be revoked at all, you have no rights - at least not when it counts.

- You or I cannot "quit" the United States without being punished, at least so long as you plan anything even remotely not kosher in the eyes of the American government. John Walker Lindh "quit" the United States and "joined" Afghanistan. Then when he attempted to defend his adopted nation from an American invasion, he was declared a traitor to the nation that he didn't even want to live in. If we're free to just up and quit, why do we have "traitors" in the first place?

- First off, no, serfs did not have to go to church every day. They had to pray every now and then, but if they're singing hymns and such all day, when would the damn work get done? But I digress.
Anyway, while you do not have to attend a certain church, you do have to follow a very strict moral code. No drugs. No sex that you paid for. In many states, no homosexuality. And of course, at all times, the citizen is expected to give his absolute obedience to his masters.

- YOU own nothing. Thanks to the ideas of eminent domain and a variety of Executive Orders issued over the years, everything you own is just on loan to you from the State. If the government declares an "emergency" (a sketchy legal term if ever there was one), arms can be confiscated, vehicles can be commandeered, and whole industries can be nationalized. As I said before, when your rights exist at the sufferance of your masters, they do not exist at all.

My point is not that we should go back to living in mud huts and working the Baron's wheat fields. All I'm saying is that this nation was supposed to have been founded on principles of strictly limited government power. Here in America, the people were finally promised the freedom they believed God had granted them. And still, even as we wave our flags and sing our songs, the very meaning of our nation has been destroyed. The proud republic of days past has been replaced with yet another nationalist empire.
Better off than serfs? Maybe. But still nowhere near free.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
- You or I cannot "quit" the United States without being punished

---

False. You can leave at any time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
John Walker Lindh "quit" the United States and "joined" Afghanistan. Then when he attempted to defend his adopted nation from an American invasion, he was declared a traitor to the nation that he didn't even want to live in.

---

Again False. He was never declared a traitor (I wish he would have been). Not only that, but the weasel began his 'I really do love America' routine when he found out how much trouble he was in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
If we're free to just up and quit, why do we have "traitors" in the first place?

---

A quick history lesson. Benedict Arnold was a traitor. At the conclusion of the Revolutionary war, the Tories were allowed to leave for Canada or any other destination they chose. They were not traitors, they made a political choice. Benedict Arnold also made a political choice- while wearing the uniform. Hope you see the difference.

Nox

Perhaps we're all unclear what I mean when I say "quit." I define quitting a nation as leaving that nation and all your responsibilities to that nation, and transfering them to another one. Such responsibilities would include defending your adopted homeland from a foreign invasion. If John Walker Lindh were really free to quit, he wouldn't only be allowed to simply leave - he would be allowed to transfer his loyalties entirely, and defend his new home as just another soldier. Instead, he was captured and brought home to face charges of conspiracy to kill Americans. It's a war, people. Isn't any war just a conspiracy to kill people of a certain nationality? Lindh received such treatment because he was, in the eyes of the American government, at least unofficially, a traitor.

And as for whether or not I can see the difference between Benedict Arnold and the so-called "Tories," I can. But can you? First off, it is important to note that the Tories were tormented by their neighbors throughout the war, and so didn't get off so easily as you seem to think. Perhaps you are the one who needs the history lesson, eh?

But I digress. Think things through logically, bit by bit. Both the Tories and Benedict Arnold decided that their allegiance laid with Britain. So what set them apart? The Tories simply went to Britain or British possessions. Benedict Arnold, on the other hand, transferred his allegiance to Britain, and then did exactly what would be expected of a British citizen - helped to suppress a rebellion against the crown. Because Arnold actually acted on his transferred allegiance, he is a traitor. The point being that, even if you leave the State of your birth, you are only ever allowed to serve that State. So, in every way that it counts, the State does not let you transfer allegiance to a rival State.

And when you think about it, weren't the American colonies themselves traitors - rebelling against their country? Isn't it possible that the term "traitor" is just a convenient term used to bring shame on those who fail to obey?

(We could continue down this theoretical road if you like, gang, but I'd really rather get back to the citizen/serf comparison)

[This message has been edited by Armed&Angry (edited 10-20-2002).]

Well... it's an interesting debate.

I think currently we're a little better off than the serfs, but that will all change once the average nutcase learns how to build a city-leveling superweapon from parts he orders from magazines. That day WILL come, people.

No it won't. On the other hand, someone may decide to cripple the North-east or South-west electrical grid for a couple weeks. The negros and mexicans should have the country pretty much totalled by then.

While one might draw a parallel between the average joe blow citizen of today and the serf of feudal times, make no mistake, the life of the serf was FAR worse than you can imagine.

There was little distinction drawn between the feudal villeins that worked the land and the animals that also belonged to the liege lord. Your body did not belong to you. You had NO rights. Your very life was at the whim of the liege.

Things here are not THAT bad yet.

Bear in mind also that our system of law and government WAS patterned after the English Common Law.

Oh, and another thing, I think that what you were refering to by the term "serf" was actually not entirely correct. What you described was a "freehold", very much like a sharecropper. Those individuals were free men. Although they had to swear an oath of fealty to their leige lord they were not chattel. They worked their lord's land in exchange for a share of the harvest. They had basic rights. Serfs, also known as "villeins", on the other hand, were chattel. That is, they were property. From their lord they received only enough to sustain their life, nothing more. Frequently they did not even receive that much.
Thus endeth today's history lesson.

I must touch this once more to clear up a point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
If John Walker Lindh were really free to quit, he wouldn't only be allowed to simply leave - he would be allowed to transfer his loyalties entirely, and defend his new home as just another soldier. Instead, he was captured and brought home to face charges of conspiracy to kill Americans.

---

Taliban Johnny tried to do all the things you mentioned (transfer loyalties). However, once captured, Johnny was the one who claimed US citizenship. The boy wanted his cake (freedom to change sides) and eat it too (come back home when the going got tough [capture]).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
Both the Tories and Benedict Arnold decided that their allegiance laid with Britain. So what set them apart? The Tories simply went to Britain or British possessions. Benedict Arnold, on the other hand, transferred his allegiance to Britain, and then did exactly what would be expected of a British citizen - helped to suppress a rebellion against the crown. Because Arnold actually acted on his transferred allegiance, he is a traitor.

---

BA did far more than transfer allegience. This traitor tried to sell out his command and the military fortress of West Point...while a member of the US forces. The ultimate in treason. Even though the Brits honored their side of the bargain (made him a Brit officer and a safe haven), why do you think they (the Brits) shuttled him off to obscurity? Does the phrase, "Once a traitor, always a traitor" ring a bell? Why do the hardened criminals in the joint gladly murder traitors and spies? They cannot be trusted.

I agree with transferring allegience; that is the backbone of immigration. Playing both sides against the middle (a la Taliban Johnny) is treason.

Nox

Okay, in the interest of simplicity, I'll speak to Ursus' comment first, in this post, and then respond to Nox in a separate one.

Although I honestly do appreciate your concern for my intellectual wellbeing, Ursus, I don't mean "freehold" - I mean "serf." Are we really more than property to the State? Your possessions and money can be commandeered if your rulers see fit. Even you yourself can be seized by the State via conscription. Your body does not belong to you, because the State has the final say on how you can operate it. You are, to use the term you used, chattel.

I'm not saying that, materially, we're as bad off as serfs. They didn't have cars, TV's, Totse forums, etc. But from a civil liberty standpoint, I see little difference.

And now, on to Nox.

In the context of the situation, wouldn't it make sense for John Walker Lindh to claim American citizenship upon his capture? He tried to transfer allegiance, and more importantly, actually ACT UPON said allegiance when his new home was threatened. The U.S. government, however, once they captured him, did not treat him as just another soldier - how many other Taliban troopers were brought to American soil and charged with conspiracy to kill Americans? He was tried on these charges because - and this is the important part - they thought that he never should have transferred his allegiance away from the United States. Why weren't the other Taliban soldiers tried like Johnny? Because they didn't try to transfer allegiance away from the U.S. (having never owed it any such thing in the first place).

So, given all this, isn't John Walker Lindh entitled to the protections of American citizenship? The government essentially declared that he had gone against his responsibilities AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. So, if he's still bound to those responsibilities, why isn't he also entitled to the protections of American citizenship? When you look at it that way, isn't it really the U.S. government that's trying to have its cake and eat it, too?

As for Benedict Arnold, everything he did would be expected of a British citizen. His command and the fortress at West Point were both in rebellion (committing "treason," as it were) against the Crown. With such "traitors" in his midst, Arnold would be expected to "sell them out" - to not do so would be to "sell out" the lives of English soldiers, who would have to deal with West Point later, and at much increased cost.

Now, of course, he's not quite a perfect example. As I understand it, Benedict Arnold went back over to the King's side largely because he needed the money, and because of his Tory wife. An ideologically motivated betrayal would probably have ingratiated him to the British, whereas his actual actions just showed that he could be bought. But still, my point remains. The Tories are not considered traitors because they didn't try to fulfill the duties of their British citizenship - i.e., they didn't try to suppress the rebellion. Benedict Arnold, on the other hand, did. As a result, he is a traitor, and had the Americans gotten their hands on him, he would have suffered greatly. Why? To punish him for working for another master. Can't have the serfs getting uppity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
how many other Taliban troopers were brought to American soil and charged with conspiracy to kill Americans?

---

None. They are in Guantanamo Bay awaiting disposition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
He was tried on these charges because - and this is the important part - they thought that he never should have transferred his allegiance away from the United States.

---

False. He was going to be tried not because he transferred allegiance. He was tried because after he transferred and things went it the toilet, he tried to revert back to being a US citizen. It was Taliban Johnny who claimed US citizenship after he was captured and in that pit of a prison. He he not done that he would have been treated as any other Taliban. This idiot wanted it both ways.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
Why weren't the other Taliban soldiers tried like Johnny? Because they didn't try to transfer allegiance away from the U.S. (having never owed it any such thing in the first place).

---

Absolutely true. We agree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
So, given all this, isn't John Walker Lindh entitled to the protections of American citizenship?

---

Absolutely not. Look on his passport. Taliban Johnny forfeited his citizenship when he joined the Taliban. It's there in black and white.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
The government essentially declared that he had gone against his responsibilities AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

---

Yes, because he joined the Taliban.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
So, if he's still bound to those responsibilities, why isn't he also entitled to the protections of American citizenship?

---

You are mixing apples and oranges.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
When you look at it that way, isn't it really the U.S. government that's trying to have its cake and eat it, too?

---

No.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
As for Benedict Arnold, everything he did would be expected of a British citizen. His command and the fortress at West Point were both in rebellion (committing "treason," as it were) against the Crown. With such "traitors" in his midst, Arnold would be expected to "sell them out" - to not do so would be to "sell out" the lives of English soldiers, who would have to deal with West Point later, and at much increased cost.

---

I haven't a clue what you mean here. You are talking in a circle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
An ideologically motivated betrayal would probably have ingratiated him to the British, whereas his actual actions just showed that he could be bought.

---

I'm assuming you've never been in the military, let alone combat. Project yourself into a combat scenario. You are a Brit; do you want BA defending your back?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
had the Americans gotten their hands on him, he would have suffered greatly. Why? To punish him for working for another master.

---

Totally false. He would have been hung for treason. Now if you want to try to soft-soap the issue, go ahead. On the battlefield you don't have time to decide which master you are going to serve at this or that minute. However, since we lack a common core of experience (military service) I am limited in gaining your understanding of such an abstract concept of comradarie and trust.

For the record, I would have hung both BA and Taliban Johnny.

Nox

You are correct on at least one account, Nox - I have never served in the military, and in point of fact, to do so would be illegal, having not yet achieved my age of legal adulthood. Five months left.

I fail to see how it is "talking in a circle" to simply explain why Benedict Arnold's "treason" would be expected of any loyal British citizen. The Americans were in revolt. Arnold contributed to the Crown's efforts to crush this revolt. I guess I just don't see where confusion would figure in here.

To use a hypothetical example, let's say ol' Taliban Johnny found out ahead of time about the 9/11 attacks, and "sold out" the hijackers to American authorities. Certainly, the hijackers would consider this treason. But would you? Of course not, because you would perceive him as doing exactly what would be expected of any red-blooded American.

With certain differences, this is the same situation Arnold was in. He had rebelled against the Crown, but he eventually ended his part in the rebellion - in a sense, stopped committing treason, at least in the British point of view. I don't really see how this chain of events can be so difficult to wrap one's mind around. To the British, Arnold was just doing his duty - albeit at a tidy profit to himself.

To say that Arnold would have been hung for treason, as opposed to being hung for serving another master, is manifestly absurd. At its most basic level, treason IS serving another master. Lindh chose to serve the Taliban instead of America. Arnold chose to serve Britain instead of America. You call it treason, and I call it serving another master, but is there really a difference between the two?

Armed&Angry, my friend, I applaud the fact that you are concerned about the relationship you have with your government. Years and years ago I too once shared the same concern that you have demonstrated on this topic. I had concerns regarding this topic as well as many others, all of which dealt with the status of my citizenship.

Over the years my wife and I have spent literally hundreds and hundreds of hours doing research into the history of our national laws, political system and the sociatal relationship of the people with our national government. Actually, the hours of research probably ran into the thousands.

We began our research with the intent of neither trying to prove nor disprove any of the troubling constitutional issues that were before us. We decided to simply gather information to see where it would lead us. The more we learned, the more we came to understand the reality of the current situation within our country. Finally we began to actively seek information that might disprove the disquieting conclusions that we were beginning to form. Our search for information that might prove contrary to our conclusions was in vain.

The conclusions the we arrived at were outrageous and far reaching. We were very dismayed and concerned by the magnitude of the implications that arose from our new found knowledge. Our first impulse was to seek publication of our conclusions. But, ya know, after several months of indecision, it finally occured to us that it would make little difference whether we made our research known or not. Most people really don't care about the information we had discovered. Most people just want to live their lives simply and with as little controversy or unrest as possible. Frankly, I doubt that most people would believe that our conclusions were accurate and would simply consider our work to be radical and unrealistic. Indeed, I would not fault them for drawing those conclusions, for what we learned is just that fantastic and unbelievable. So, we decided to simply try to act "normal" while always knowing the true status of the American people.

In the final analysis, it really makes little difference whether you consider your status as being little different than that of the feudal serf. It just doesn't matter. You can do NOTHING to change your status. You may spend your entire life rebelling against the status quo, but in the end, all you will have accomplished would be to make yourself miserable.

My friend, what you brought up in this thread is insignificant in magnitude compared to the enormity of what has actually happened to the soveriegnty of people of this country. But, it is what it is and there ain't nuthin you can do about it... so just chill...

I wish you happiness and contentment in your life.

Ursus, there's a sad truth to what you say here. I, too, spent thousands of hours researching constitutional issues, the way the government works, the money issue, etc, etc, ad nauseum, and to a certain degree I agree with you. The battle has, indeed, been lost. That's because the only way to come to these realizations is to educate yourself regarding them. Unless you do, you'll never believe what has happened here over the past decades. Most people would prefer not, however. Witness the incredibly small numbers of people raising their voices against increasing government intrusion in this country today, and you have some idea of what I'm talking about. Why, the public is actually clamoring for more and more government by the day! Such things as street corner surveillance cameras and implanted identification chips are not only greeted with resignation, but actually with open arms and hailed as a good thing. We now have our own little Napoleon who wishes to take over the world, rushing about attacking foreign nations on any pretext, and scarcely anyone sees anything wrong with it at all. As a man in his fifties, I feel certain that I have lived through and seen the absolute best that this country has to offer, and it will be downhill all the way from here. But don't make the mistake of discouraging people to gain the knowledge that you have and attempting to enlighten others, for although it seems the battle is lost to you, it's also true that every government has its ebb and flow, and the only possibility for its turnaround is for people to gain the education they need in any manner they can. The internet can help with this, it being such a breakthrough in communication, but it's ONLY through increasing dissatisfaction with the status quo that things can ever change, so if you can stomach living with the status quo, I can understand that, but you're in a sense betraying all the knowledge that you have gained by discouraging others to do the same.

ummm.....u know, thoses taxes actually do somthing u dimshit, drugs fuck with your brain and produce violent crime, and prostitution spreads sexully transmitted dieseaes, why don't you head back to your dark age lord and get him to do somthing about the taxes? He won't do shit but sit on his ass.

-ShadowFist

>>>>>ummm.....u know, thoses taxes actually do somthing u dimshit,<<<<<

Pay for new wars


>>>>>drugs fuck with your brain and produce violent crime<<<<

So does alocohol and thats legal

<<<and prostitution spreads sexully transmitted dieseaes,<<<

So does sex in general.

>>>>>why don't you head back to your dark age lord and get him to do somthing about the taxes? He won't do shit but sit on his ass.
-ShadowFist<<<

How is that different from what we have now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
You call it treason, and I call it serving another master, but is there really a difference between the two?

---

Two questions:

How do you define treason?

Is it possible for anyone to commit the crime of treason?

Nox

hipposelect,
I wish someone had discouraged ME! What good is knowing what I know if I can do NOTHING to change it? Eh? It would have been better not knowing. I've come to terms with this whole situation, I understand all of the implifications of the 10th, 14th and 16yh amendments. I know about the Illuminati and the Trilateralists and the Federal Reserve and all of the rest of the things that helped strip us of our civil rights. But ya know what? There is not one thing that any of us can do about it. Not a thing. Hell man! Even when you DO try to talk to most people about it you're considered to be some kind of whacko! So, yeah, I DO try to discourage other people from finding out about something that will change their life when nothing positive can come of it. I have no illusions about this country ever being what it was meant to be. It just ain't gonna ever happen. I've not sold out. I paid my dues and had my turn in the barrel thank you very much. If you think this country can ever be what you think it should be then perhaps you didn't research deep enough.
What is really sad is the fact that this country didn't die in the blaze of glory that was due it. Instead, our democratic republic died quietly from within, with barely a whimper. And most people don't even know it. Thanks, but NO! I would have preferred not knowing.

First, Nox.

Nox, treason, in my view (and I think yours), is when an individual acts against the government of his birth, in favor of another government. In essence, it is serving another master.

Now, I do not see anything wrong with not obeying one's master. My master has instructed me not to consume cannabis, or alcohol until I'm 21. I have disobeyed him on both accounts. My master has said that the United States must attack any nation it chooses, and that I may have to die in a foreign land to further such goals. Despite my master's command, I will sooner die of old age in a military prison than kill someone simply because they got in Uncle Sam's way. To disobey the master is not bad - it is the essence of civil and intellectual freedom. One must be his own master.

Of course, Benedict Arnold is nonetheless an odious individual. This is not because he betrayed the American government, but because he betrayed the ideals of liberty by going back to the tyranny of the Crown. His betrayal of the ideal is evil, in my eyes; but I will never condemn a man for rejecting his government.

Our opinions are different. This is a subject we will only go round and round one.

We disagree.

Nox