JDX

It is a well known fact that soy products are a staple in many vegetarian diets. It's also a well known fact in some informed circles that soy is harmful when ingested. Dangers of Soy in diet: http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/index.htm Soy alert: http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html Soy Online Service: http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/

Subjective conclusion. Actually I only mentioned the action "I" would take. The reader is free to exercise his/her own judgement. But, I suggest learing some facts before jumping to any conclusion, after all, that's what objectivists do. When I began a high animal (mainly beef cooked rare to medium rare) protein/fat, low carbohydrate diet the first thing I noticed was an abundance of energy and improved mental clarity. I also noticed that the occasional chest pain I used to incur was no longer evident. Here's a couple of excerpts with links to their articles: "Vegetarians have always claimed they get all the folic acid they need from vegetables. Well, they don't." http://www.realhealthnews.com/dailydose/dd...dd20020723.html for the rest of the article. Another excerpt: "Despite its status as darling of the vegetarian "meat martyrs," soy is NOT a health food. In fact, it's neither healthy nor is it food, if your definition of that word includes some measure of actual nourishment. And it isn't merely worthless as a food, it's downright harmful. Hundreds of studies have linked soy proteins and derivatives to: * Heart disease * Cancer, especially of the breast * Allergies and reduced immunity * Thyroid dysfunction * Malnutrition and digestive problems * Nutrient deficiencies, including calcium (vital for the prevention of osteoporosis) * Reproductive disorders, cognitive and mental decline, and more" Complete article here: http://www.realhealthnews.com/dailydose/dd...dd20050401.html Another excerpt: "You are also not getting the truth from Jane Brody of The New York Times, Dean Ornish, and other muesli munchers. A pure vegetarian diet is a shortcut to the grave. It's not the vegetables and fruits that kill, its the starch and sugar compounded by the lack of animal fat and animal protein in the diet." Article: http://www.realhealthnews.com/dailydose/dd...d20030110b.html

Not at all. But, whether roses or perfume appeal to you does not change the fact that they are feminine gifts. Agreed. Vegitarians cheat themselves of health benefits of animal fat and protein. They're probably more susceptible to disease and will likely live a shorter life. Their motives are usually the result of gross misinformation. Rather than date a vegitarian I'd lean toward education. Good definition and great gift!

QUOTE(JDX @ Sep 24 2005, 11:03 AM) * Do your actions, speech and manner of dress evoke thoughts of sex? If so, you are sexy. What healthy man does not enjoy the sexy side of a woman? Anyone who happens to be watching you, not me. My statement was benign, but here's my opinion: Take total strangers. A man enters a library and is immediately attracted to a quiet, strait-laced, businesslike female librarian. She appeals to him because he imagines the "other side of her" must be the opposite of the image she currently projects. The thought of a woman being quiet, strait-laced, businesslike 24/7- 365 probably would not appeal to most men. "A side" obviously implies at least one other side. Now, I agree wholeheartedly that intellectual compatibility is the best basis for a long term relationship. But wild sex could provide the "glue" which holds the relationship together and cause it to last. A lady having a strait-laced side in public and a wild side behind closed doors would probably meet with most hetero males' approval.

QUOTE(JDX @ Sep 24 2005, 04:03 PM) * Letting one's hair down provides an outlet for emotions one is unable to express while being serious and strait-laced. Hello Felix. How so? Not sure what that means either.

Do your actions, speech and manner of dress evoke thoughts of sex? If so, you are sexy. What healthy man does not enjoy the sexy side of a woman? Balance. Letting one's hair down provides an outlet for emotions one is unable to express while being serious and strait-laced.

Maybe you don't see yourself as sexy. Romance involves being sexy. If you're not willing to become attractive to the opposite sex you should not expect romance. And, arranging the atmosphere and the meal would be *your* idea, not his. He probably wouldn't ask or expect a sexy tryst, but would likely find it very appealing. Looking like a "brainless bimbo" on the street and dressing sexy at home are two different things. As a classy lady you can have more than one side to your personality. There's a time to "let your hair down" and a time to be strait laced and businesslike. There's nothing wrong with either way when they occur at the right time and place.

Romantic gifts from my point of view are feminine. Roses, perfume, jewelry are things that a women would hold near and dear to her heart. The way to a man's heart is through cleavage and a steak dinner. Appealing to a man sexually and gourmetically (if that's a word) will turn him on and show you care. Practical gifts may show you care but are not romantic. Giving a man a book appeals to his intellect or special interest, but the thought of romance may not even enter his mind. A candle lit dinner with a lady in a sexy dress are romantic and puts the woman in control of the situation. The logical end to the evening is romance. And that evening will occupy a special place in his memory.

Romantic gifts are not suitable for men. I think you should give yourself a sexy gift, possibly a negligee, and wear it on the special day. And, maybe serve him a candle lit dinner. That should put him in the romantic mood you're seeking.

IMO14th Amendment created the 2nd class citizen you are referring to. All Citizens of the united States became US citizens. People are now viewed by corporate government as "legal fictions" or "corporate entities". Sam Jones has become SAM JONES. (Check your birth certificate and all government issued cards). This allowed de facto corporate government to legislate their opinions (in the form of statutes) and force citizens to obey the "will of legislators". The final aspect of the fraud was enforcement of fraudulent statutes by a corrupt judicial system. When you hear a judge say "this is my court" that's literally what he means. Trials are administrative in nature where the plaintiff (the state) and defendant (a citizen) are both legally corporate entities having no rights, only privileges. After reading the 861 evidence it fits right in with what I suspected all along, that the Income Tax is an excise (indirect) tax which does not apply to domestic income. I'm still waiting for anyone (in or our of government) to cite the law which identifies the activities subject to Income Tax. A person's income can not be taxed directly, therefore, there must be an activity or activities subject to taxation, with income only being used to determine the amount of tax due.

"The contention that the[16th] Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). This statement was confirmed and explained by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), in which the court stated that "by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation...." Let's move on to my original question that I make only to explore that avenue. "What activities are subject to the excise tax called the Income Tax?" Please site the law in which those activities are noted, and also the law which makes US citizens liable.

The question of whether an individual income tax was a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution did not arise until the Union enacted an income tax during the Civil War. The Supreme Court followed the opinions from the Hylton decision and ruled unanimously that an income tax was an "excise," and not a "direct tax," and did not need to be apportioned among the states. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880).

Since the Income Tax is clearly an excise tax (indirect tax) my question to any de facto government "official" is what activities are subject to that tax and what law makes citizens liable?

My reference point of common law is the US Constitution. Rape has a victim. Consensual sodomy is not a crime. What "crimes" against nature? Common law of 700 years ago is irrelevant. I merely want to faze out subjective law and replace it with objective common law. I don't favor an immediiate or rapid change. And, gradual change should be accompanied by changes in public education. Statutes require a corporate government, which makes a "city" legally equal to a "person" and superior to humans in the sense of jurisdiction. I think government should and can operate without fraud. IMO common law if worded correctly is a more honest application of law which can be as effective as statutes. If the constitution is rewritten properly all previous errors and inconsistencies can be dealt with.

I don't limit my expression to the tenets of any one group. I am an objective person, using my brain in that manner most of my life, which preceded Objectivism. I do respect Ayn Rand and Objectivism, but I do not respect the manner in which some apply its principles, especially to government. In my short time on this forum I've encountered several members who seem more focused on making personal attacks than in discussing relevant facts of an issue. Now, corporate government is practiced by every city, county, state, and country which has incorporated. The book "The Corporate City" details the benefits of organizing city government in the form of a corporation. State governments and the US government are also corporations. An incorporated city becomes a fictional person so it can legally impose the "will of legislators" on actual real life persons living within the boundaries of its fictional jurisdiction. It creates totally subjective law. Even actual crimes like murder when specified in statutes is subjective because legislators can determine a mandatory punishment. This makes conditions specific to each case irrelevant, and usurps the purpose and authority of juries and judges. I could make the same comments about you, but that would just lead to ill feelings, preventing an understanding to be reached. Don't you agree? Common law only deals with crimes that have real victims, actual people. Abstractions, are not recognized as persons. Laws are not codified, they are stated, in detail if necessary. Statutory law operates from a position of "fiction". Defining an abstraction like "the state" as a person is fraudulent. Statutes pervert a language to fit the agenda of corporate government, criminalizing human activity. Operating from fiction and fraud allows rampant subjectivity.

It's your system of statutes which lacks respect for reality. You think a statist system is a "proper government" and that an abstraction can be a victim. But, you fail to answer: "How does one victimize an abstraction?" You deny the existence of corporate government when it is requirement for the function of the system of statutes which you advocate. You think people need to be told (by statute) that they shouldn't kill someone who defrauds them. And, you think that "There is no such thing as a 'corporate government'", when you are literally surrounded by them. And, after stating all these misconceptions you label my post #34 (facts and objective conclusions) as "gibberish" and attack me as "incapable of making a connection with reality". Objectivism is a philosophy which places a high value on *honesty with oneself*. By labeling my facts and opinions as gibberish you show no respect for honesty. And finally, please keep in mind that condescending language is reserved for those with superior knowledge.

[Mod's note: Merged from a separate thread that was started when this one was closed. - softwareNerd] I recently participated in a discussion regarding existing conditions in government/law in the US today. The thread is titled 14th Amendment , Intent and Effect and my last post was #34. David Odden found something in the facts I presented which he objected to. He used very condescending language and closed the thread to new posts, making it impossible for anyone to answer his last post. My question is, does David Odden speak for all objectivists or is this forum open to the presentation of proven facts. If my last post #34 in the subject thread offends other objectivists, I would appreciate hearing from them.

So now the statist's comments are uncovered. In the REAL world a victim must be a human being. How does one victimize an abstraction? This is the way current corporate governments prosecute victimless crimes, using "the people" and "the state" as plaintiffs. That violates a mans right to face his accuser. Unless the prosecutor plans to line up every person in the state who all claim and can prove injury. I thought you would present something new and intelligent. Your system of statutes requires a corporate government, which you claim doesn't exist. I could not possibly support you system of statutes, because it's a mirror image of the current corrupt system we have now. Specific details could be ezpressed in common law form, where "a victim" is a requirement in the commission of a crime, and "a victim" is always a human being, not an abstraction. NO! Fraud is not cause to escalate to or exact revenge through physical violence. One has a right to defend oneself against physical attack or a threat of violence made with a weapon. Those are the only two instances I can think of now. Technically that's true, however, see above for an explanation why retaliating with physical violence is a crime. Statutory Law, as practiced in this country, is expressed as "the will of the legislators". Your definition does not include that meaning. It seems, the "canard" is yours. LOL! You can't be serious! You can not throw a dart at a US map without hitting 3 jurisdiction (with one toss) regulated by a corporate governments. Here's an excerpt from the book "The Corporate City" http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=25973165 Volume Introduction "The important thing about the political entity called a city (or town, or village, or borough, for that matter) is, of course, that it is a legal person and can do things that its residents could do individually, but not jointly (when not so incorporated) without great risk. It can buy, sell, and hold property; it can sue and be sued; it can borrow money. Moreover, the incorporation of the city enables it to do things that its residents could not do at all, individually or jointly, without incorporation. It can tax its residents and nonresident property holders and entrepreneurs; it can require residents and visitors to take (or not to take) prescribed action; and it can punish by fines and imprisonment failure to conform to these requirements." Then we have: The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. [citing In re Merriam's Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed U.S. v. Perkins, 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed 287]

Fine, is there a victim to every crime? Seems quite important to me. It doesn't deal with specifics but that principle would prevent acts such as gambling, drug use, prostitution, etc. from being criminalized. The circumstances of "violating a contract" would determine whether that act was criminal or a civil matter or both. Killing someone is only acceptable in self defense. Initiating violence is a crime. My position is that principle should not be violated by any statute. I can agree that details for all possible situations should be stipulated in a system of statutes. The definition you apply is not currently in use by any country, to my knowledge. So, why would you expect anyone to know or accept your definition? As long as your system of statutes defines actual crimes, I can probably support it. So how do corporate governments (local, county, state, & federal) manage to regulate the live of citizens?

My opinion of statutory law is based on the subjective manner in which it's currently being legislated. You may be defining it differently. I would be open to expressing laws in well defined objective statutes if "a crime" required "a victim". Humans own their own bodies and are free to determine their own futures as long as they don't initiate force or violate the rights of others. That's unclear. Perhaps you could answer it yourself and then ask my opinion. We may be defining "statutory law" differently. I'm using what is currently be practiced. Statutory law is expressed as "the will of legislators" in US democracy. That allows "laws" that are based on opinions to "legally" violate the rights of individuals. Do you approved of that? If you are speaking of "statutory law" in other terms, I could possibly agree with you. Here's another question for you: Corporations can only regulate their own employees and possibly other corporations. Do you agree?

Common law is usually objective. Statutory law is subjective. Legislators can and do criminalize anything they want using statutes; Usually to satisfy the emotions of a dumbed down public to make themselves seem useful, when in fact they are the main problem. Many statutory laws cause problems where none need exist; which leads to more statutory laws to attempt to correct a symptom of the problem originally cause by subjective law. A never ending vicious cycle. A free society exists without any *exterior authorities*. All problems can be solved by individuals and businesses. Government need only protect the rights of individuals. There is no "greater good" or "higher purpose". There are, however, actual crimes dealt with in statutes. But, IMO, people would be better served by common law. No one should be permitted to initiate force or violate the rights of any other individual. Those accused of actual crimes should have their guilt or innocence and punishment (if guilty) decided by a jury of their peers. I advocate the gradual fazing out of subjective law. I also advocate privatizing the public school system. And, I think it advisable to add two subjects to grade and high school curriculum: Objectivism and Proper Nutrition.

State Citizens and federal citizens are dealt with in a completely different context. State Citizens were recognized as having inalienable rights and were not considered to be corporations liable for regulating. Federal citizens are legally viewed as corporate entities subject to various jurisdictions where their daily lives could be regulated.

Government regulating the activities of business corporations is something I can understand and agree with. Business corporations owe their existence to government. and therefore could legitimately be regulated by their creator, government. My objection is when government presumes all citizens to be corporate entities to bring everyone under legislative control. Do you think humans have a right to own their bodies and determine their own futures, as long as they do not initiate force or harm anyone? How hard is it to know that those activities which cause physical harm to others, except in self defense, are crimes. And, those activities which cause monetary loss to others are also crimes. IOW, initiating force which violates the rights of others is a crime. Megan, your objectivism insights are greatly respected and appreciated, but I must disagree with your opinions of law/government. The US Constitution is a good example of common law. Statutory law allows legislators to impose their will (opinions) on people within their jurisdiction by enacting "laws" which criminalize activities having no victim. Those (statutory) laws are not needed and only serve to increase "government's" authority or possibly further legislators' careers. Of course people who commit actual crimes, those where someone is physically or monetarily damaged, must be held accountable, and therefore would be subject to laws. Murder, theft, fraud etc. can not be tolerated in a civilized land. But, those "laws" which criminalize such things as *smoking in certain outdoor areas*, *arbitrary curfews*, *drug use*, *prostitution*, *gambling* or any activity having no victim is not within the legitimate purpose of government. That is what I object to.

Right, a "person" is either an individual or an organization. But, what you fail to comprehend is that both are corporate entities under statutory law. By your own definition "persons" are accorded "legal rights" which are not really rights, but actually privileges. Government only recognizes those privileges because a "person" (corporation) has no rights. One must deny being a person and only admit to being human in order to claim inalienable rights. Are you aware that all "governments" in the US are corporate and de facto in nature? So what! The definition of the term "person" prior to the 14th Amendment is irrelevant. The relevant definition appears in statutes. For instance: Motor Vehicle Law book for my state contains a section devoted to definitions listed prior to the statutes. Total nonsense. If you admit to being a US citizen (as describe in the 14th Amendment) you are a "person" subject to a jurisdiction (A power to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law). Meaning if you violate a "law" (jaywalking to murder) within certain territory, you are liable to face judge and or jury. Same thing here as "person". Citizen meant free man until the 14th Amendment which created a new class of citizen (subject). When the 14th Amendment created a corporate identity for every citizen the basic effect was to exchange the rights of free men for the privileges accorded to "persons". Corporate entities have no inalienable rights. You seem to willingly accept your second class citizenship, and in so doing. you've waived your rights in favor of privileges which can be extended or withdrawn at any time. I do not.

The text of the amendment was advertised as being enacted to classify former slaves as citizens but that classification was applied to ALL citizens. It made ALL citizens *subject* to all jurisdiction (corporate governments) in which they reside. When "governments" became corporate it became necessary to create "corporate identities" for all citizens to validate the statutes to come. And, current statutes and code are usually accompnied by definitions of important words contained in those "laws". Those "laws" are all directed to "persons" defined as corporate entitties.