Just how was it ever determined that voting, where the whim of the majority would determine how things were done, would be the way our lives are regulated?
http://jahtruth.net/illumin.htm#Protocols
Just how was it ever determined that voting, where the whim of the minority who vote prevails, would be the way our lives are controlled?
http://jahtruth.net/300.htm
Was the origin of voting determined by a vote? If so who/how was it decided that the results of that vote would be binding on everyone or anyone? Who was it that decided who would vote to decide who would vote to decide who would vote to decide who would vote - if you get my drift?
http://jahtruth.net/democra.htm
How was it decided who would be bound by the outcome? How was it determined that those who voted "no" would be bound by those who voted "yes"? What about those who did not vote in the election to determine that voting would be how things are decided; how/who decided that non-voters would also be bound by the outcome? Could those who voted "no" have done so just to stop what they considered to be an outrageous scheme to gain control over them? Under that criteria would it not be proper for those who voted "no" to claim they were not bound by the outcome? But that not withstanding, could not the majority (of those who voted) then claim that anyone who participated in the election thereby agreed to abide by the outcome? But where would such majority get the authority to enforce such a determination? And then what about the non-voters? Could not the non-voters properly claim that their non-participation constituted their justification for ignoring the vote? But on the other hand, could not the majority claim that those who did not bother to vote thereby constituted an acknowledgment by the non-voters that the non-voters did not care one way or the other, that is, that the non-voters thereby agreed to abide by the outcome, no matter which way the vote went? At the outset - who had the authority to decide these things? At best, both reason and logic indicate that only those who voted "yes" could reasonably be bound by the outcome.
http://jahtruth.net/politics.htm
My considered opinion, with the one exception following hereafter, is that there is and can be no rational authority for requiring anyone to abide by the outcome of any election. The only exception would be that those who freely agreed to be bound by the outcome prior to the vote, could be held thereafter, to be obligated to abide by the outcome.
Put another way; If I have no individual personal authority to require you to abide by my whim and you have no individual personal authority to require me to abide by your whim, then neither of us nor everyone all together, have any authority to require anyone to abide by the outcome of any vote.
The Thirteenth Amendment provides that involuntary servitude shall not exist in the United States; how can voting to institute taxation negate this absolutely unequivocal prohibition?
As "taxation" is nothing but a euphemism for armed robbery; "voting" (the means by which the armed robbery is implemented), is nothing but a euphemism for mob rule!!
What say you?
Cheers,
Yadu Alipuria
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The ONLY solution is to enforce The Plan against the traitorous N.W.O Zionist mass-murder, inside-job perpetraots of 911 and the phoney War on Terror:-
http://jahtruth.net/plan.htm
Time is running out:-
http://jahtruth.net/signs.htm
