NationStates Jolt Archive

Out of game (nationstates) I'm a budding microstate. Sure it probably draws extra marks on my doctors delusional scale; however, why not assist me in becoming more recognized as a "de facto" sovereign state. "Woudln't that be kewl!" Anyway if you'd like to be part of history and help a microstate gain just a little more recognition this petition is for you! http://www.PetitionOnline.com/a0a0a0a1/petition.html Feel open to discus this idea here as well. Comments on the petition etc..

When you become your own self sovereign nation will I have to suffer your self serving and possibly devisive actions within the borders of my nation or will you be located on your own sovereign land elsewhere?

errr... What state is it that you are trying to give up citizenship in?

Where will your state be located? How will your borders be determined? Will you have any actual territory, or will this just be a state of mind? If you do claim a territory, how do you propose to get its current owner to relinquish it? Are you prepared to go to war over your borders? Have you ever seen the movie "The Mouse that Roared?" (if not, you really should).

Will your state provide you with health care? Welfare? Unemployment? How will your state be funded? Do you have any plans to allow immigration?

Will you have treaties with the state from which you are withdrawing? Will people be allowed to freely cross into your state? What happens if you are not allowed to freely cross out of your state?

How about import of goods? If you call for a pizza from their state, will there be some sort of import duty to be paid? Can someone set up a corporate headquarters in your state to avoid taxes elsewhere? How about ships registered in your state?

Will you have a government? Who will run it? What laws will you have? How will you enforce them?

Should I stop now?

:p

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;11733220']Out of game (nationstates) I'm a budding microstate. Sure it probably draws extra marks on my doctors delusional scale; however, why not assist me in becoming more recognized as a "de facto" sovereign state. "Woudln't that be kewl!" Anyway if you'd like to be part of history and help a microstate gain just a little more recognition this petition is for you! http://www.PetitionOnline.com/a0a0a0a1/petition.html Feel open to discus this idea here as well. Comments on the petition etc..
Your best bet is to find a floating wreck and build it into a floating island.

One guy built himself a small island out of air-filled soda bottles in Mexico somewhere, and is now a sovereign state or something. At any rate, he doesn't pay taxes.

When you become your own self sovereign nation will I have to suffer your self serving and possibly devisive actions within the borders of my nation or will you be located on your own sovereign land elsewhere?

If intracircumcordei ever became merited to the point of a nation (that is having a historic culture or sociocultural predominances within a "group" of individuals consenting to the formation of a national body etc.. beyond that of the basis of Intracircumcordei as a state, it's constitution and fundamental values, I would be impressed.

ICCD as a state encompasses all reality of those within Intracircumcordei. In that respect the sovereign land of Intracircumcordei is all domain within reality of those who are within Intracircumcordei.

However on a "modern political/ business landscape" it is understood that individuals have the right to be independant and to pursue their own meanings and purpose in life. It is part of the constitution of Intracircumcordei to bring enlightenment and understanding in pursuit of benificial/worthwhile relations with all persons.

So while ICCD in truth has equal right to use of all reality, ICCD recognizes that the meaning of some objects such as territories / geographic areas, have potential meanings by other individuals, such as use of land for a particular deeded purpose as defined by some legal movement such as oligarchic doctrines/laws.

So while we in truth recognize equal rights to all territory and things within reality that are recognized mutually. We understand our responsibility to advise to the best posible use of that land.

While we understand that some bodies have developed economic / respect /legacy systems for meriting the idea that defines merit of use of the land in various forms. ICCD feels it is important to facilitate a respectful environment, based upon the requirements for moral and ethical interaction. So in mind of use of land it would be the use that has the most benifit. As intracircumcordei is responsible the whole of reality, including other persons as it sees best fit for the benifit of all reality, determinations for actions include the benifit of any individuals who choose to nominally follow the practices of another state, as it is their tradition to act in that manner, based upon that recollection or practice in faith or the environment that their own history exists as to.

So simply all land is sovereign, and all individuals in understanding and reason recognize equality of all, and with that equal rights to use of the land as is best for all as all are one in understanding.

The key issues are difference of perspective and independant creation.
ICCD doesn't recognize boundries of state in the physical world, but difference of perspective within the physical world.

We recognize the individuals right to use of land as they see fit, and we recognize that that individual is responsible for that action, whatever the result be, but in mind if right action is undertaken then the individual should feel right for that action and no harm be done as of any intent.

No, and your nation name is way to big.. :(

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;11736342']If intracircumcordei ever became merited to the point of a nation (that is having a historic culture or sociocultural predominances within a "group" of individuals consenting to the formation of a national body etc.. beyond that of the basis of Intracircumcordei as a state, it's constitution and fundamental values, I would be impressed.

ICCD as a state encompasses all reality of those within Intracircumcordei. In that respect the sovereign land of Intracircumcordei is all domain within reality of those who are within Intracircumcordei.

However on a "modern political/ business landscape" it is understood that individuals have the right to be independant and to pursue their own meanings and purpose in life. It is part of the constitution of Intracircumcordei to bring enlightenment and understanding in pursuit of benificial/worthwhile relations with all persons.

So while ICCD in truth has equal right to use of all reality, ICCD recognizes that the meaning of some objects such as territories / geographic areas, have potential meanings by other individuals, such as use of land for a particular deeded purpose as defined by some legal movement such as oligarchic doctrines/laws.

So while we in truth recognize equal rights to all territory and things within reality that are recognized mutually. We understand our responsibility to advise to the best posible use of that land.

While we understand that some bodies have developed economic / respect /legacy systems for meriting the idea that defines merit of use of the land in various forms. ICCD feels it is important to facilitate a respectful environment, based upon the requirements for moral and ethical interaction. So in mind of use of land it would be the use that has the most benifit. As intracircumcordei is responsible the whole of reality, including other persons as it sees best fit for the benifit of all reality, determinations for actions include the benifit of any individuals who choose to nominally follow the practices of another state, as it is their tradition to act in that manner, based upon that recollection or practice in faith or the environment that their own history exists as to.

So simply all land is sovereign, and all individuals in understanding and reason recognize equality of all, and with that equal rights to use of the land as is best for all as all are one in understanding.

The key issues are difference of perspective and independant creation.
ICCD doesn't recognize boundries of state in the physical world, but difference of perspective within the physical world.

We recognize the individuals right to use of land as they see fit, and we recognize that that individual is responsible for that action, whatever the result be, but in mind if right action is undertaken then the individual should feel right for that action and no harm be done as of any intent.

Let me see if I understand this. You are seeking the authority and permission to be sovereign. Should this be bestowed upon you then any land upon which you stand shall belong to all to use for our common good. Your mission will be to intermingle peacefully and enlighten everyone to the virtuous ways of self action and self sovereignity.

I cant sign the petition. It's not just you, I dont want anyone given the unrestricted right to camp in my front yard and push their religion and philosophy to residents guests and random passers by. That is the purpose of the grassy areas which have been planted in and around all colleges and universities.

"errr... What state is it that you are trying to give up citizenship in? "
Good question.. it isn't so much a state that I am attempting to deny citizenship in, it is the Federal Government of Canada. I'm not sure what "state" that would be, as it is somewhat problematic and ends up being the Anglican Church. However in essence canada, but all individuals in Canada were declared free by Queen Elizibeth II of Canada in the 80's. However, in middle school I bore alliegance to Queen Elizibeth II, in a citizenship ceremony, however I didn't fully understand what it meant, or rather what it means now was not what it meant then as I didn't have full knowledge of the oath, however that was allegiance to the Queen of Canada, and successors. In mind of that I cannot recognize my Canadian Citizenship because the legal implications of being Canadian are not benificial for me to undertake, and are rather a detriment and subjgation of my personal freedoms. Also the court system did not hear petition, nor do I have adequette voice, my ancestrial rights are denied such as rights to bear arms, by legislation, as well the charter infringed, and the constitution of Canada ignored in favour of business practices. Essentially Canada as a constitutional instutiion of state, is not the truth as executed by the Queen of Canada and her government. Also I recognize my own state as Intracircumcordei not Canada. I do not accept Canadian citizenship based upon merit of blood, because I do not have that knowledge in truth, also the Lt. Govenor issued my birth certificate based upon illegal documents showing fallability of the system. Essentially I am not Canadian but am implied to be Canadian by a criminal state and government.

I already sent the information to various individuals within the system, and within courts and justice system stated my sovreignty.

I think geographic mentality of state to be a tad faux as a state is not a geographical institution. A country is.. .. meanwhile a nation is "a people" often tied into a cultural homeland or country. A state is a fundamental point of beleif that holds all reasons for being, and the grounds for interaction within the world. Such as diplomacy. There is only one true state that each of us is veiwing from a different perspective, however at the core of the state, we can see natural order, and express the state rhetorically and emotionally. Thus Intracircumcordei is a nominal expression for the true state, and as seen and agreed by those within the State of Intracircumcordei.

A country is generally a geographic area claimed by a political or sociocultural body exercising their "sovereignty" as granted by the understanding of the state, or self recognition, upon self determination the the sovereign powers become executive as to set out the actions of the state within a given physical area.

ICCD has not created boundries of state, as it has not facilitated any requirement to do so as of yet, as there have been no reasoned contests to the focus of the state to one area, or recognition of any other party as required to cordinate through embassy or otherwise for a well communicated intent. ICCD's sovereignty is not limited and exercises full powers.

In mind of nation ICCD is only a few years old in formation via myself since around 2002. While the state is timeless, the understanding and expression of state is relatively young. I don't have children, and there has been no pact as to the formation of a nation in worship of the state of intracircumcordei.


The State is not limited and has full sovereignty unbounded.

As a country, that will only come about by treaty that sets boundry (demarcation)

As for territory, it is unlimited. As there is no demarcation, of course i can pick up an atlas and notice how there are all these different colours that establish a variety of merits to historic and current affairs in respect to a geographic area.

Intracircumcordei acts for the benifit of all. It reasons on the best executive actions in mind of the full benifit. So to clearly state, it is potentially understood that militant forces enforce their will, and that no course of intent has been undertaken in regard to use of militant force to enact the will of state, and rather that Intracircumcordei encourages each individual to uphold the constitution of Intracircumcordei, and bring about understanding and awareness of the states reason.

Deeds and international business are a peculiar issue, as to economy. Land cannot be truely owned, as the state is the source of all deeds and in general has rights to expropriate as required, generally on just compensation. ICCD itself does not recognize private ownership, however does recognize the ethical basis to distrobution of materials, goods, land etc.. on basis of legacy of respect in benificial action to the state, thus an underlying economic right based upon societal agreement or contract. ICCD has not entered into any such agreements, however does understand that for others who have entered into such agreements may require guidance to understand that the pursuit of benifit is better done through the public mind and serivice rather then private pursuits, however recognizing that every individual should uphold the constitution of state as interpreted by them.

War is a confusion, the state is defended by default it is just the lesson that war shows. In mind of treaty that would create the borders, if that treaty were so voided then it can only be seen that the other party lost status of state or changed status of state as the historic agreement no longer holds. In that mind the political boundry would assumed to be disolved. Every individual has the right to defend the constitution as so determined. Whether that be by benificial use of force or not is the manner in which the consitution is determined, however it would not be the individual as to defence of the state but god to defence of the individual.


"The Mouse that Roared?" Nah I havn't seen it, I don't watch movies too much.



~~~provision of health care? Welfare? Unemployment? ~~~~ I see that more at the social level or national level. The state doesn't set guidelines on social supports, except that we are responsibile for increasing the benifit for all, by right action.

I do have my own political party, and a framework for government services. I'm a strong supported of social services, but I also see a great merit in self sustainability. Of couse culturally and politically there are many issues... as is until canada stops recognizing my citizenship etc.. I have medicare via ontario, I have income supports and don't pay taxes instead i get a few hundred every year, obviouslly it costs the government of canada money to maintain my citizenship from their veiw.. at that because I'm seen as a nut by some I am said to be given around $10,000 per year due to what may be seen as a personality or psychotic disorder. So as long as I am nut I have financial/economic survival supports. If I'm not then I'm left to the wolves, on a political front, I've accepted physical death so it is not a concern for me as an individual. My #1 choice is truthful recognition not subjugation. I don't recognize any right over myself, but as long as they claim it,even though I contest, they end up paying me.. a tribute of sorts, but of course for others it may be seen as "damage to my pr, calling me mentally ill etc.. or an honest concern for me having full faith in life to accept death by militant, selfish and a potentially inhopitable world"

States don't need to be funded, states are just a matter of respect.


Immigration is more of a national concern, or cultural concern. How many people can fit on a rock?


Treaties would essentially establish boundries. I'm not :withdrawing" Intracircumcordei exist by default at a blank slate type entity without limitation.




"Will people be allowed to freely cross into your state? " A state isn't a physical thing, those that recognize the state are communicating with it, those that accept the state, it's contitution and meaning are within the state.

There is no mobility limitation within ICCD. However the constitution states that Dians act to uphold the constitution in right action, and to defend the meaning of the consitution.

Economic concerns tend to national or governmental concerns. That has to do with court ettiquettes, and personal preferences on trade. All trade is free but the costs of trade may take resources. That is not the states concern, that is a political or business/economic concern.


I have been composing a government however the state is seperate from government. Governments interpret the meaining of the state and act for its benifit .

The only concern i have is premandating enforcement of governmental law, as I fundamentally beleive that to be a constitutional concern, thus I am in support of a civil government but have not fully came into full agreement on issues of preauthorization of militant executive orders and feel that public disclosure of any such orders is very politically problematic considering the state of "terrorism".

Enforcement is a cocern the constitution states that it is a responsiblity of Dians to uphold the constitution, and to bring understanding of it's meaning to others, so as to facilitate clear meaning of the state.

Intracircumcordei is expressed as the will of god, ultimately where the physical disolves into the spirtual or mental realms acts of militancy are not militant acts, however in mind of the temporal communication of state, militancy appears to be best left alone. Thus in mind of government I feel that the militant or military bodies should be left as a seperate entity, and that militias be left of their own device as a cultural or historic practice or tradition for those in understanding of the pure arts of militancy beyond acts of oppression and repression but instead as a form of defence of the state. Thus god will enact gods will through channeling understanding to all, and that the militia is not exclusive as an organization in exercise of defence of the constitution but can be seen as a center for practice of the tradition and arts of the militant, and if anyone so agrees they may attempt to bring reason there to and gods will will be done.


I think it would be cool to make your own island there are a number of projects. However, I'm not actively pursueing it, I am pursueing sustainable living, so maybe some day. Do you have a link to the bottle/can guy?

I'm not seeking the authority.. I'm seeking recognition, those that can be amible to communication or leisure to interaction. I think what you are confused about is that sovereignty isn't an exclusive right, by terms of the statement you have equal right to sovreignty in recognition of reasoned judgement etc.. In a way you are correct that the constitution of intracircumcordei (ICCD <- four letter abbrevation) states that communication for understanding and clarity is a prime activity, in upholding the constutition. However, for us to communicate it would have to be a mutually agreeable and ethical format. I definately don't "push". As for camping on your front yard, there is a basis of common law in many localities that would bear into reason for infringing an area that is seen as "private" by the other party, where that is reasonable then it is understood not to agitate hostilities, in mind without warrent on full exercise of reason. Invasion is not the intent instead it is benifit of the land. If there are other more accomidating less painful places to sleep, then of course the best non painful location is likely to be sought. IN that same mind if I offered to plant some apple trees or plum trees on your front yard when speaking a forum or other nuetral or amible locality, then it would be a benificial interaction. To say it is a mindless crusade for conversion to a cult is not so much it. I have a cult for that and even my cult doesn't go door to door. I'm more of a let em come to you, utilize nuetral and public mediums type person. Not a phone everyone up via telemarketing and put fliers in their front door, that is what commercial advertising is for. In respect to cultural bodies, why agrivate people unneededly, upholding honesty is one thing.. pushing it is another.


p.s. another important aspect of the petition is that it says "I do not support torture or druggins of individuals based upon them denying citizenship or stating that they are following a state of their choosing as a personal choice and personal recognition."

Also that citizenship should be a mutual contract, it should not exist by default without agreement of the person who would be "forced the citizenship"

To clarify any confusion about "seeking" ~

I am a sovereign individual
Intracircumcordei is a sovereign state.

I am within Intracircumcordei.
I acknoweldge Intracircumcordei as being a nominal state representing my beleif as what god has made for my awareness of the meaning of existance, the true state.

----
The petition is a way of supporting the right of individuals to state their beleif without being tortured or drugged for that beleif. (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Religon etc..)

The Citizenship remarks are in regards to acknoweldging that Citizenship is a two way understaken. The Grantor and the Grantee. Citizenship is not "true" if it is not agreed both by the body that oversee's the confirment of the citizenship and by the individual being confirmed the citizenship.

Meanwhile the comments in regarld to self and Intracircumcordei is exercise of those two acknowledgements. To sign the petition is a blessing of the action. An action stating that all individuals are equal and free to decide their beleifs and assosiations, free from subjection by militant forces seeking to coerce them by forced druggings or torture aimed to cause harm to the individual for the purpose of using physical or mental acts of harm to oppress and force change on unreasonable and inhumane grounds.

It is furthering the statement that torture and drugging individuals with mind altering drugs against their stated wishes should not be condoned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Rose_Island

I'd be careful, if I were you. Wouldn't want the FBI (or its Canadian equivalent) blowing up your house.

Nah they wouldn't blow up the houses (very unlikely) they'd just throw me in jail, or a nut house, under needle point ... (much like the past)... really though it would be easier just to dump me in a grave if it was really an issue..

It is not like the Canadian Government has never been contacted..

quite the contrary.

In general practice "most major" governments tend not to respond, directly.

I'm not in the slightest worried.

Either it isn't taken seriously or they have no desire to kill me, or to keep me locked away (cause they've had their chances.

I think in general, people who claim sovereign status and "independance" and statehood, are genrally just labled as crack pots, and if they become a nuisance, they just get shevled off, either hospitalized and forced drugs, or if "a 'serious' danger" locked in jail, or in a worse case scenario a combination of the two.

If it isn't "violent" like attacking the government :terrorism/treason" etc. fairly serious issues, there really isn't much they can legally do, not that legality is anything more then a cover regardless.

In a "bad" scenario, groups would just attempt to manioulate the situation, sabatouge, sterring etc..


IMO such actions are a waste of time, I'm a living breathing person, I just have a sense of understanding, and don't feel compelled to assosiate against my moral and ethical beliefs.

In the ultra totalitarian and militantly controlled world, it is a sad note; however, I realize that it takes responsibiity, acceptance, and a vision to break free from anything seen as "the wrong mentality".

I just choose to support what I think is right, and what I beleive, and sadly I find lots of fundamental issues with the concept of a voiceless, powerless, and abused people, that don't even have the right to freely travel or live.

It's an owned world, by the cultural sentiment permiating from nations, the concept is death to anyone without the deed given down the line from the crown or what have you.

That is a sad footnote, that I don't wholely accept.

If life is reduced to a waiting game, then the least i can do is be honest and true with what life really is, that ultimately god granted freedom and that in the full scope of reality we are all divine in correspondence of gods will.

I do what I beleive is right, what I know is right, and seperating myself from a culture I cannot understand nor agree with in regard to their course of action, is a betterment to the situation rathter then supporting a concept of "agreement" and right, when in actuality it doesn't exist. It is a facade, and the role I am given by their culture, I do not put upon myself. I am a free individual and I am not a criminal, I am not a subject and I do not owe anything. If I gain respect or resource then they become extortionists, in a society I have no voice within why would I benifit them, if they are on the wrong path?

Anyway, what it comes down to is that the way it is, and the common perspective and situation is clear.

I have no fear because I am with god. Anyway life goes on, I get where the norm is coming from, and I can gauge a response, but in all honesty, my statement of freedom and belonging to my own beleif and the truth as I see it, is not a harm, it is a benifit. I'm willing to speak, but no one speaks for me, Canada does not represent me, and I am not within Canada. I am within Intracircumcordei, and unbounded territory., both spirtual and temporal.

------------
I'm a person, not a subject. I represent myself.

In the scope of things it may be self segregation, however, I cannot say that I support initiatives I don't simply because people ignore my statements based upon laws I do not agree with nor place upon myself.

From the lawmakers perspective it may appear I am a criminal, but from my perspective they are the criminal for placing a law on me without my consent, they are the offender, because they are rude and unethical in their expectations, they are the ones breeching the peace, they are the ones if so acting upon their concept of rule over me as uncivil, in the instance that I do not take action against them in body. To harbour any ill will to me, just as me to them, is not a moral act.

The situation is clear that i am sovereign as long as I uphold gods will, gods will is not an interpretation of law in its own, accord. If I do not agree I am not bound.

If they choose to create hell, then they unleash a fiend upon themselves.

I'm here in good will, as myself there is nothing else, however if they breach the peace of god then hell will be unleashed upon them in time. I won't recognize that.

So long bably response late at night is now pretty much done.

It is communication, and a show of goodwill, not much more then that. I'm suprised some people find it difficult to support good will by default, and instead impede or attack. I don't fully understand why but none the less it appears that way at times.

Sorry, but we don't have the authority to make you a country.

I'm not asking to be a country.

You have what you have, and you have what was never taken.

I can respect individuals reasoned claims but I generally don't support ownership except ownership by god.

You arn't "making" me anything regardless from my own perspective, you would be agreeing that individuals have a right to self rule by self recognition and determination, and that torture and forced druggings are not ethical acts to take as a response to an individual being responsible for their moral and right acts.

----------------

A country is a bounded territory, ICCD is not bounded, it is unbounded. that is why it is a "State" and not a "country".

Hopefully you can see how

A STATE ~~~~~~~~~ status of being (mental/reason "sovereignty")
A COUNTRY ~~~~~ division of territory (physical/territorial "jurisdiction" ~)
A NATION ~~~~ peoples/cultural :"law")

they are all different things.

While I am claiming "sovereignty and statehood"
I am not limiting my jurisdiction, and my agreement of law is only that whichdoes not bound the individual and must be consensual between the parties.. otherwise it goes back tojurisdiction... to "decide sovereignty".on an ethical basis or to "create" the law".

The petition is for agreement of the right to self recognition and self determination, it does not deal withany mode of jurisdiction, other then reasoned and moral actions are required for continued recognition and determination.

While the legal basis is only introduced in the agreement that acts of torture and forced druggings will not be understaken for the reason of self recognition and determination on basis of continued moral and reasoned acts.

Is there an issue with that? If so can you explain because I don't see it.

OK... you need to learn to express yourself in short, simple sentences, because you are making little, if any sense.

You want to be a state, but you are defining state as a "status of being". OK. I hereby grant you permission to think of yourself as whatever you want.

Past that, what are you actually looking for (in basic, real world, simple terms)?

I'm fine expressing myself. I understand what I mean, as to communicate very clearly with myself. If you have issues understanding me, then it is you who needs to learn more about communication.

I'm not a wanton person, as to "desiring or wanting" to be "a state" in regard to "reason for being within a state". I am not seeking to not being within the state either. I am content with being within Intracircumcordei. It is not about seeking allowance, it is about others acceptance, and recognition, as it is something that has already occured, not something that needs approval to occur, as a self recognition. " I already know it, I'm letting you know it"

My definition for "state" is essentially the embodyment of a constitution, or reasoning, and mental disposition.

Essentially,
I think it is important that we are free to maintain our own beleifs.
I think it is important that we are free to our own basis of existance, one where others do not feel compelled to force control of our physical status based upon our mental beleifs. I.E. forcing people to a totalitaian veiw of mental functions, based upon systems such as a specific religion or science or sociocultural reasoning of rightness.
I feel that we should all have the right to our own reasoning, and that individuals should not be drugged based upon their choices for internalized actions; For non infringements of other individuals persons or wordly property.

I beleive that individuals should not be considered property, be it property of a government. Under no circumstances should we accept a human or other sentient being, as being the property of some other individual, without appeal to reason of self recognition, and self detemination for their own internal and self inclined acts.

Those are some of the key issues.
----------------
Furthermore, but less so related.
I think it is important that we find a means to communicate for common wellbeing based upon fundamental requirements for sustainance of life.

That being freedom of unhindered movement. Movement of the body habeus corpus. Free from entrapment when not making contact with other individuals.

What I think is important and vital is that we should have the right to aquire food and water. In that mindset we should plant food sources in the world and preserve our natural water systems, so that we all have access to food and water. In a claimed and owned world this seems problematic, especially with the ultra industrialized globe
--------------------
After this we need to learn to share space, we need to develope living environments, that are sustainable. The population issue becomes predominant, I wont be someone to say that people must not have sex; however, I think that for myself atleast I find tropical and subtropical environments to be ideal and there is only so much space in those areas.

Reasonable use is the other major issue, when we "need" to use something that is available. As long as we do not destroy/damage that thing, we should be free to use it. For renewable resources we should be able to use that object in reason of other individuals needs for the object, and reasonably determine the best use of the object.

These are my opinions and do not directly relate to any comments about the petition.
--------------------------

If we can accept that we all have the right to our own system of emergence into the world, as a mental creature :
and we accept that we should all have the right to free movement when we arn't infringing another persons physical body, or damaging materials :

then we should be able to find peace and tranquility.
-----------

Anything that isn't clear about my comments here or the peition there, feel open to ask for a specific clarification.

I generally communicate to the unknown audience as me myself, rather then acting on an imaginary target audience, atleast conciously.

Thankyou for atleast recognizing that I/we should have the right to our own worldview.

This is important, because in some places doctors will drug you with toxic psychotropic drugs if your worldview does not correspond with their worldview.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;11786774']
This is important, because in some places doctors will drug you with toxic psychotropic drugs if your worldview does not correspond with their worldview.

This is the only part I read.

OK.

You can be a state. Good luck. Zeus be with you. Don't pick up any wooden nickels. Semper bene placito humani gratia ascendo tuum.