Slashdot Mirror
Spectral Imaging Reveals Jefferson Nixed 'Subjects' for 'Citizens'
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."
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.
You can't handle the truth.
Absolutely. You would think more people on /. would be replying seriously to this article. It's incredible to think that that one ink blot had such a profound effect on the US today. Think of how much of a core element the word "citizen" has become; it's like a symbol of our freedom and unity.
...nothing changed
Not sure how this post is a troll, actually read the declaration and you will find striking similarities between the abuses of King George III and the abuses of congress today and the presidents of today. Look at the tax rates and you will see that we're taxed more today than we were under King George III! We still have taxation without representation in many ways, from taxes on minors who have no representation, to the lack of congressional representatives from territories and DC.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
If he kept in the paragraph banning slavery, we probably would have 13 independent countries rather than any sort of union, especially for the southern states which required the extra labor for agriculture. The founding fathers all had to make compromises in order to get the thing passed, otherwise we would still be a confederacy of independent states. (No, I'm not talking about the CSA, I'm talking about having 13 independent nations with a loose affiliation)
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
Glad someone mentioned this. It's difficult for me to take the Declaration of Independence seriously when blacks didn't get rights until almost 200 years later... not to mention the plight of Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.
Never mind this changed word; what about all the changes made in the drafts that existed only in the founding fathers' minds? Sure, this finding shows some of the thought processes going on at the time, but there were plenty more that never left such direct evidence on paper, and just as important.
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).
Well, of course. It was a major change in philosophical mindset... it's PRACTICAL effect was much more limited, not the least of which because of the failings of the very same people who wrote it to implement it as they claimed they would.
This space available.
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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).
Well, First, I think using the term 'security' in relation to a TSA checkpoint shows an incredible level of naivete. They exist for theatre and pacification of the ignorant masses (and of course to keep TSA personnel employed) but not in reality for security. Second, its a incredibly valid example of the Federal government's steady push to supercede the rights and responsibilities of the states, just like the Department of Education, FDA, etc... None of these has any basis in the Constitution. There's no reasonable basis for the Federal government to have any involvement in transportation that stays strictly within a state's border.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
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.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.