Elites engage in commerce by proxy

[shikamaru]

Proprietor is awfully similar to the word propraetor ain't it? Propraetor pretty much means for (pro) the praetor. If a birth certificate is a corporate charter document then there is your corporation. William BLACKSTONE apparently regarded states to be corporations.

Interesting ....

Here is what Etymonline has concerning various terms:

proprietor 1630s, "owner, by royal grant, of an American colony," probably from proprietary (n.) in sense "property owner" (late 15c., see proprietary). In general sense of "one who holds something as property" it is attested from 1640s.

proprietary mid-15c., "possessing worldly goods in excess of a cleric's needs," from M.L. proprietarius "owner of property," noun use of L.L. adj. proprietarius "of a property holder," from L. proprietas "owner" (see property). Meaning "held in private ownership" is first attested 1580s.

praetor magistrate in ancient Rome (next in rank to consuls), early 15c., from L. praetor "one who goes before, a consul as leader of an army," from prae "before" (see pre-) + root of ire "to go" (see ion).

[motla68]

Class. If you prefer, try the term ESTATE.
Start with Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856) concerning the term ESTATE.
And you make a classical mistake concerning SERVITUDE.
Slavery is A form of SERVITUDE, not the form.
There are a wide variety of forms of servitude of which slavery is but one.
And you miss the boat yet again.
The name of the game is SERVITUDE in ALL its forms both great and small.
Another error.
Ask a seamen on shore leave if he has freedom or liberty and if the terms are synonymous.
It's your prerogative to remain in ignorance of the etymology of terms if you so chose.

To me you are in error, Freemen can choose to serve or not to serve and how long to serve, free will to devise his own contracts.

Cookie cutter thoughts, boxes , absolutes, ok i get it, you are all about compartmentalization. To which I disagree about things, so guess will have to agree to disagree on that too. I cannot live that way, whenever I make a motion to do a thing usually have a backup plan in hand ready to go in case changes ever need to be made. Everything is relative. Start at the 3:27 mark on the following video: http://youtu.be/sj3wEoA0AsQ

[shikamaru]

To me you are in error, Freemen can choose to serve or not to serve and how long to serve, free will to devise his own contracts.

You need more precision in your writings.
If this is your personal definition of a TERM, state so.

In most instances, no they can't.
Most "freemen" waive their rights through contract.
Most "freemen" couldn't guide their rights and suit through a brown paper sleeve let alone a court.
Most "freemen" know not the "King's English".
Most "freemen" hang themselves with their own speech, actions, or deeds.
Most "freemen" claim to be free then accept the benefits from that which they are seeking to be free of.
Most "freemen" want to use terms when they don't know anything about the history, origin, or development of the terms which they use.
Most "freemen" have done no substantive research whether historical or legal that would enable them to become free.
The above is my opinion and observations over the years.

Cookie cutter thoughts, boxes , absolutes, ok i get it, you are all about compartmentalization.

You error again.
What have you against inquiry?

If you were smart you would learn to develop multidimensional vision.
Can you see the sub-atomic particles, atoms, the whole, and the different time shifts of the aforementioned at the same time?

To which I disagree about things, so guess will have to agree to disagree on that too. I cannot live that way, whenever I make a motion to do a thing usually have a backup plan in hand ready to go in case changes ever need to be made. Everything is relative. Start at the 3:27 mark on the following video: http://youtu.be/sj3wEoA0AsQ

Here is an idea:
Try citing more scholarly research such as treatises or archive documents and less on the YouTube videos.

[motla68]

You need more precision in your writings.
If this is your personal definition of a TERM, state so.

In most instances, no they can't.
Most "freemen" waive their rights through contract.
Most "freemen" couldn't guide their rights and suit through a brown paper sleeve let alone a court.
Most "freemen" know not the "King's English".
Most "freemen" hang themselves with their own speech, actions, or deeds.
Most "freemen" claim to be free then accept the benefits from that which they are seeking to be free of.
Most "freemen" want to use terms when they don't know anything about the history, origin, or development of the terms which they use.
Most "freemen" have done no substantive research whether historical or legal that would enable them to become free.
The above is my opinion and observations over the years.



You error again.
What have you against inquiry?

If you were smart you would learn to develop multidimensional vision.
Can you see the sub-atomic particles, atoms, the whole, and the different time shifts of the aforementioned at the same time?



Here is an idea:
Try citing more scholarly research such as treatises or archive documents and less on the YouTube videos.

Philosophy is just as important as scholarly research if not more so. Just like a judge makes opinions in court so is scholarly research, just look how far alternative medicines have come and the scholarly researchers who try to stop it.
If you cannot develop a thought without using a book as a crutch then you are going to have a really difficult time when they take them all away.
It has done me very well to approach situations in an informal manner unlike the cattle drive going on in society today.
Were you born with a book in hand, will you die with a book in hand, if not then you might need to look at what your doing wrong in between.

[shikamaru]

Philosophy is just as important as scholarly research if not more so. Just like a judge makes opinions in court so is scholarly research, just look how far alternative medicines have come and the scholarly researchers who try to stop it.

What do you think the term jurisprudence means?

If you cannot develop a thought without using a book as a crutch then you are going to have a really difficult time when they take them all away.

However, the words, terms, ideas, and concepts you use are not your own. They were created antecedent to your existence.
Again, if you want to ignore the history prior to your existence, that is your prerogative.

It has done me very well to approach situations in an informal manner unlike the cattle drive going on in society today.

That's great. Glad it works for you.

Were you born with a book in hand, will you die with a book in hand, if not then you might need to look at what your doing wrong in between.

That depends. Were you born speaking English? Were you born with your philosophy?
If not, you may want to reconsider the absurdity of your statement above.

[motla68]

What do you think the term jurisprudence means?



However, the words, terms, ideas, and concepts you use are not your own. They were created antecedent to your existence.
Again, if you want to ignore the history prior to your existence, that is your prerogative.



That's great. Glad it works for you.



That depends. Were you born speaking English? Were you born with your philosophy?
If not, you may want to reconsider the absurdity your statement above.

ok, here is some book knowledge for your benefit of doubt;

jurisprudence
n 1: the branch of philosophy concerned with the law and the
principles that lead courts to make the decisions they
do [syn: law, legal philosophy]
2: the collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization
presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for
jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order"
[syn: law]

Where does authority come from, how is it derived?

I could do this blindfolded and practically have, had laryngitis one day going to court, before walking in I wrote a bunch of notes down on a notepad, I knew what they was going to ask and then when asked i just handed them sheets of paper from the notepad in order, all the DA could do is shrug and say he dismisses the case.

The clerk confirmed with me that "VD" meant the case was dismissed.


Am I a freeman yet?
I was born a freeman with philosophy(the spirit) within me, a mistake can be corrected at any time.
I am of my fathers Estate, the paper is of the lower estate.

John 1:1 thru 5.

[shikamaru]

ok, here is some book knowledge for your benefit of doubt;

jurisprudence
n 1: the branch of philosophy concerned with the law and the
principles that lead courts to make the decisions they
do [syn: law, legal philosophy]
2: the collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization
presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for
jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order"
[syn: law]

Remember I put forward the term for cause.
I'm well aware of how jurisprudence is defined.
This is good. We are in agreement that philosophy is involved.
While you have espoused yours. I'm showing you their philosophy and definitions

By the by, you should cite the source(s) from whence this information comes unless it is your organic writings.

For your perusal:
Six Books of the Commonwealth by Jean Bodin

That which I present doesn't mean it is my personal endorsement.
I realize that much of this material is propaganda such as The Federalist Papers.

Where does authority come from, how is it derived?

Many times by force followed by custom and habit.

I could do this blindfolded and practically have, had laryngitis one day going to court, before walking in I wrote a bunch of notes down on a notepad, I knew what they was going to ask and then when asked i just handed them sheets of paper from the notepad in order, all the DA could do is shrug and say he dismisses the case.

The clerk confirmed with me that "VD" meant the case was dismissed.

Am I a freeman yet?
I was born a freeman with philosophy(the spirit) within me, a mistake can be corrected at any time.
I am of my fathers Estate, the paper is of the lower estate.

Two senses here.
Freemen as has been historically defined.
Freemen as to one's personal philosophy.

What you are not considering is my philosophy that one must know a system quite thoroughly before you can hack that system.
That philosophy has worked out smashingly well for me in a multitude of areas i.e. computers and law for starters.

It behooves anyone to know their adversary.

[motla68]

Remember I put forward the term for cause.
I'm well aware of how jurisprudence is defined.
This is good. We are in agreement that philosophy is involved.
While you have espoused yours. I'm showing you their philosophy and definitions

By the by, you should cite the source(s) from whence this information comes unless it is your organic writings.

For your perusal:
Six Books of the Commonwealth by Jean Bodin

That which I present doesn't mean it is my personal endorsement.
I realize that much of this material is propaganda such as The Federalist Papers.



Many times by force followed by custom and habit.



Two senses here.
Freemen as has been historically defined.
Freemen as to one's personal philosophy.

What you are not considering is my philosophy that one must know a system quite thoroughly before you can hack that system.
That philosophy has worked out smashingly well for me in a multitude of areas i.e. computers and law for starters.

It behooves anyone to know their adversary.

I have no trust in man nor his books, can only trust myself.

Consider instead of force, custom and habit, using manifestation, choice and concomitant .

I think of freemen as the latter definition.

The answer is in the question, you must leave it all behind. We cannot change the past nor the future, we can only live in present.

" The best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time."
- Abraham Lincoln

[shikamaru]

I have no trust in man nor his books, can only trust myself.

Who said I'm placing trust in them? I'm learning from them.
You don't have to agree with them to learn from them.
I don't agree with Christianity. That doesn't preclude me from learning from the Bible.

The answer is in the question, you must leave it all behind. We cannot change the past nor the future, we can only live in present.

This is where we disagree. Those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it.
Since most people are ignorant of history, we only need to read history and apply the similarities to today to see where situations are headed.

In fact, I'm finding much of the wisdom of the ancients to be of superior quality to the swill peddled about by media today.
Give me the classics over much of the trash called literature today.

[motla68]

Who said I'm placing trust in them? I'm learning from them.
You don't have to agree with them to learn from them.
I don't agree with Christianity. That doesn't preclude me from learning from the Bible.



This is where we disagree. Those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it.
Since most people are ignorant of history, we only need to read history and apply the similarities to today to see where situations are headed.

In fact, I'm finding much of the wisdom of the ancients to be of superior quality to the swill peddled about by media today.
Give me the classics over much of the trash called literature today.

Walking and talking and thinking like them whether classic literature or present day, that is not learning. It is just a product of a public fool system. Learning to learn that is where it is at, teaching ones self.

Your quote " Those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat " , I cannot tell you how many times I have heard that, it is just copycat manifestation. But if this is how you live then let me tell you another one, " people keep doing the same things beating their heads against a wall and expecting different results ". The point is most of the people using the first quote are living the life of the second quote, it is a viscous cycle of different levels. New websites and/or books pop up all the time churning out the same OLD information and presenting it as new.

Fortunately I do not succumb to such tail chasing any more, one day I grabbed a legal thesaurus and looked up these statutes everyone is talking about, used that to replace most of the words in the statute also removing the code header and history reference below it, then used that in affidavits and motions, did the same thing with maxims of law and found usually the judges were very entertained by it, after doing this several times I taught myself knowledge that goes beyond what the common man would use in court, now i just write a letter to the clerk of court telling them why am making an appearance and then just do what I said I was going to do, there is no affidavits, no motions, no arguing, I just call it for what is, who I am and what those instruments are. My skin is not paper, my blood is not ink, the word is with me.

[shikamaru]

Walking and talking and thinking like them whether classic literature or present day, that is not learning. It is just a product of a public fool system. Learning to learn that is where it is at, teaching ones self.

This is a strawman and false inference which you are awfully quick at resorting too.
You assume based upon a faulty inference, then leap to conclusion to knock over.
Ask before inferring. This is called confirmation.

Your quote " Those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat " , I cannot tell you how many times I have heard that, it is just copycat manifestation. But if this is how you live then let me tell you another one, " people keep doing the same things beating their heads against a wall and expecting different results ". The point is most of the people using the first quote are living the life of the second quote, it is a viscous cycle of different levels. New websites and/or books pop up all the time churning out the same OLD information and presenting it as new.

Grossly incorrect.
Whether it is days of the week; Gregorian calender; or Christian principles, you practice ancient history whether you are conscious of it or not.

Learning from history doesn't mean doing the same things. In fact, they teach you what not to do.
Those items that make sense, you test to see if applies to your situation.
You don't have that much time to make that many mistakes.

Fortunately I do not succumb to such tail chasing any more, one day I grabbed a legal thesaurus and looked up these statutes everyone is talking about, used that to replace most of the words in the statute also removing the code header and history reference below it, then used that in affidavits and motions, did the same thing with maxims of law and found usually the judges were very entertained by it, after doing this several times I taught myself knowledge that goes beyond what the common man would use in court, now i just write a letter to the clerk of court telling them why am making an appearance and then just do what I said I was going to do, there is no affidavits, no motions, no arguing, I just call it for what is, who I am and what those instruments are. My skin is not paper, my blood is not ink, the word is with me.

From what I can tell, assessing your posts in aggregate, you don't research much either.
You have no shortage of pointless pictures, I give you that.
Put that much effort into clarifying and supporting your writings, you'd be taken more seriously by me.

[motla68]

This is a strawman and false inference which you are awfully quick at resorting too.
You assume based upon a faulty inference, then leap to conclusion to knock over.
Ask before inferring. This is called confirmation.

Grossly incorrect.
Whether it is days of the week; Gregorian calender; or Christian principles, you practice ancient history whether you are conscious of it or not.

Learning from history doesn't mean doing the same things. In fact, they teach you what not to do.
Those items that make sense, you test to see if applies to your situation.
You don't have that much time to make that many mistakes.



From what I can tell, assessing your posts in aggregate, you don't research much either.
You have no shortage of pointless pictures, I give you that.
Put that much effort into clarifying and supporting your writings, you'd be taken more seriously by me.

I see your not short of compartmentalized opinions, someone else's indoctrinations and looking outside yourself to find answers rather then developed progressive thought without some map book telling you where to go. I have seen nothing that you put together on here to show your work other then what is mentioned above.
Your quote: " You don't have that much time to make that many mistakes ", if this is not a patriot myth I do not know what is, where is your proof of this, are you saying your a fortune teller? All of these things and the fear hold you back from living, you can not really learn unless a mistake is made, this is what forms our character.

This is come down to deja vu of some of the debates I went through with David when we were having our big volley and I do not care to suffer through them again. I do give much credit to David though because at least he has shown some of his work by his own hand, that is the very basics to which I started from and i have no problem with that, some of us start from somewhere and move forward into the development of intelligent thinking making connections to see what is not physically in front of us and developing it into something that gets settled with equal balance in the world. This does not always mean getting everything we want, sometimes you have to give something up to get something back, it may not always be what you expect.

I am thankful for everything though, thankful for you and this conversation in which everyone benefits, but I must go now and get back to my work of other constructive time in which the local community benefits.

[shikamaru]

Ancient Greece and Slavery

... Iconography made no substantial differentiation between slave and craftsman.

... All activities were open to slaves with the exception of politics. For the Greeks, politics was the only activity worthy of a citizen, the rest being relegated wherever possible to non-citizens. It was status that was of importance, not activity.

.... Slaves were also used as craftsmen and tradespersons. As in agriculture, they were used for labour that was beyond the capability of the family. The slave population was greatest in workshops: the shield factory of Lysias employed 120 slaves,[45] and the father of Demosthenes owned 32 cutlers and 20 bedmakers.[46]

Slaves were also employed in the home. The domestic's main role was to stand in for his master at his trade and to accompany him on trips. In time of war he was batman to the hoplite; it has been argued that their actual role was far greater.[47] The female slave carried out domestic tasks, in particular bread baking and textile making. Only the poorest citizens did not possess a domestic slave.