Topic: Challenge: Find The Ever-Elusive Collective Government (Read 71 times)

The Right to Travel is what I prefer to call the Freedom to Travel, and is one of the key rights missing from modern constitutions. The first amendment of the US constitution isn't directly about traveling even if it has been interpreted as such. There is a much improved suggestion for human rights in constitutions at: https://bitbucket.org/metanexom/rainbow-road/downloads/RainbowRock_2024Jun.pdf (search Freedom to Travel).

"Sharing Liberties   Sharing liberties are interactions with others used for travel, helping others, and exercise of equal authority. Sharing liberty allows freedom of travel with possessions and the protection of that freedom and others through the right of equal authority. Sharing liberties can be considered socioeconomic liberties. Such broad liberties are supported by people who support an unclassed society but may be opposed by people who support a classed society."

The book divides rights into three categories: economic liberties, social liberties, and sharing liberties. Sharing liberties are neither left-wing nor right-wing constructs but are libertarian ideas. Economic liberties are generally right-wing. Social liberties are generally left-wing.

Strangely enough one could ague that sharing liberties are collective liberties as they apply to people as they interact together. With only one person on Earth freedoms and rights would be meaningless. People's proximity to each other in various circumstances such as travel put pressure on our personal rights and freedoms in both fair and unfair ways. A fair way would be that if someone got in our way blocking our way of travel, that would be a violation of our freedom. An unfair way is that if I wanted to travel from one state to another and was pulled over for going 1km/h over the speed limit.

So, just by being near each other, the collective of people do have an impact on governance. The primary impact of the collective seems to be to activate individual rights, not to decrease them in favor of rights or freedoms of the "greater collective" as claimed by Communists and most leftists.

The reason its application is so successful is that people don't realize that it exists, and therefore can't do anything about it except by accident. If people knew and used it, things would be different.

I was talking with a Rep Party woman about the Right to Travel, which is adjudicated to be a 1st Amendment right. She seemed to like the idea of licensing, which is legally against the 1st Amendment right. Why? She thinks there is safety in licensing, but doesn't realize that there is danger in breaking an Amendment.

Thanks for bringing up the concept of corporate personhood, which is a definite legal embodiment of the concept of a collective applied generally which is applied in some ways to both government collectives and non-government collectives, especially more official collectives as chartered corporations. The corporation makes things even more nebulous as a government collective essentially creates a non-government collective yet remaining substantially under it's control via the corporate legal system and wide body of corporate regulations.

It seems that corporations decisions can be traced to individual decisions as well as votes by the board of directors. So the board of directors of the corporation acts by vote. But, each vote can be traced to specific people. Therefore as with the other post it seems that the collectives as they work in practical reality are in turn traceable to the specific individual actions of specific people. The actions of the collective are reducible to the actions of specific individuals within the corporation.

Thanks for your contribution to this topic. This is a similar proposition to my comment on the police force that any individual that has a record of convictions would have the right to arrest others. So, in that case the qualification would be considered the results of their arrests. I'm not entirely sure about you comment that anyone isn't able to handle any task and therefore qualified to be in the collective. It seems that the current systems around the world are most often that if one meet the requirements as set by various majority votes, then they are considered part of specific government collectives but not the government as a whole... so not part of a an official "The Government" but rather part of a specific government's specific department.

There also seems to be an aspect of support, especially by decision-making support. It seems that if one person approves of a specific person's action in public as part of an organizational collective, they are acting as "the collective" itself. And, there is a more nebulous version where someone's membership to an organizational collective lends implicit support for all of it's decisions, so there is another aspect in that regard of implicit support. Both explicit support and implicit support of the actions of a collective seem to be an essential element of the collective itself.

People who believe something also believe that your beliefs aren't something that they must believe. So, what gives them the right to enforce their beliefs on you? Nothing.

Government is built on what is written, not on what people believe. Many laws that have been written have been struck down because they didn't apply to the beliefs of people who didn't believe in those laws. And the people didn't believe in those laws because those contradicted foundational law... the Constitution and the Amendments. Note that I am talking about the States of the United States. Other countries might be different.

Here is one way you can understand all this. Note that I only did this for Arizona. Look up the word "person" in the laws of your State and see if it applies to you.

Regarding the word "person" in traffic definitions, the words "man" and "woman" are not there. Persons are all some kind of corporate body or club or political body. The only word that might apply to a man or woman is the word "individual." An "individual" could be a "person," which might apply to a man or woman, except that "man" and "woman" are not listed. If it applied, they should be listed as "man" and "woman."

All this means is that driving statutes apply to "persons," and not to men and women. Further, the 1st Amendment has been adjudicated to mean the right to travel. People have the right to travel to attend government functions, etc. And this means that they have the right to travel with their property, because nobody would expect them to go to to political functions naked.

Since travel is a right, government can't make traffic laws that are anything other than advisories. And attempting to adjudicate the breaking of an advisories can't be done, because of the nature of advisories in general.

The way they get around the right to travel is with the word "person." You believe that you are a person. So, when you agree with them that you are a person, they have to accept what you believe, and apply the person driving laws to you.

If you had remained a man or woman, but not a person in their courts, driving laws wouldn't apply to you. But you must speak and act the part of NOT being a person. As soon as you speak or act the part of BEING a person, everything you have said applies no longer, and you are guilty.

https://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf

It's believed that a unit or individual is given the right information to solve a particular problem better than those without the information. The individual could automatically have the right to be part of the collective if he is able to consistently handle related issues properly.
So, the collective are made of individuals with the knowledge to handle related issues properly and consistently. They are connected together to form a Network of cells/people with the ability to handle a task properly.

Unfortunately, in the natural world, anyone or any cell does not posses the ability to handle any task, hence can't be qualified to be in the collective. Each individual is specially made to handle its own task properly. This qualifies it to join its own collective.
By the way, we don't need to be in the traditional police system to qualify to serve. Once you have the knowledge and can handle the task properly and consistently, you automatically qualify and won't have much issues with law set up to check abuse or something like that

Most people even on the right believe the power to arrest others is the exclusive domain of police officers. Therefore, police officers seem to claim a power of collective consciousness that makes them special. So, how does this collective consciousness work exactly? How does the whole become more than the parts in terms of government?

Democratic or Republic type governments sometimes claim rights that some people have but others don't, especially when it comes to the "monopoly on violence" of government powers. It seems these special rights of governance rely on the concept of collective consciousness, that there is at least situations where the collective has more rights or authority than the individual.

While the left believes in the idea of the collective consciousness, the right actually also believes in it at times such as when considering others part of their government without ever having signed up. Only libertarians and perhaps some might-makes-right authoritarians don't have an idea of the collective consciousness.

For a human individual, even though they are composed of gargantuan numbers of cells, it is quite clear that the person emerges as an individual despite being a "collective of cells" because of the unified brain wave patterns. So I see how a human is a collective. But I don't see how a Democracy or Republic can really be a "collective person".

In my Caroasi document (https://bitbucket.org/metanexom/rainbow-road/downloads/Caroasi_2024Jul.pdf) I explain how individuals actually do have truly equal rights and you do have the exact same rights as a police officer to arrest other people more or less based on your reputation to arrest people who are later considered guilty of a crime. However, I'm still seeking to understand the other side of the argument, I'm sure there must be a best argument for that side and have yet to understand it.