- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/45204730
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/45204624
If the U.S. officially declares “In God We Trust” on its currency, it recognizes God as the ultimate Creator. Logically, if man is a tool in God’s hands, then every “invention” or “creation” belongs to the Original Source, not the tool. Selling intellectual property without proving you aren’t just a divine instrument is essentially piracy—trading someone else’s property as your own. I’ve started a petition to demand a “God-denial disclaimer” for every IP transaction. If you want to own an idea, you must officially deny God first. Let’s clean our public spaces from “protected” corporate noise and return creativity to its true source.
Someone got their law degree from the movie Miracle on 34th Street
I love the ‘Miracle on 34th Street’ reference! But remember how that movie ended? The court was forced to accept the Post Office’s recognition as a legal fact to avoid a PR disaster.
My argument is even stronger: The Post Office is just a service, but the U.S. Treasury and the Supreme Court are the foundations of the state. If they print ‘In God We Trust’ on every dollar, they aren’t just delivering mail—they are establishing a Legal Doctrine.
If the state can’t stand behind its own motto in a copyright dispute, then the entire U.S. legal system is indeed a fairy tale. I’m just asking them to stop acting like Kris Kringle and start acting like a Court of Law. Consistency matters.
I haven’t seen the 1947 miracle on 34th street, but I have seen the remake, which changed the ending a bit.
Instead of a letter from the post office, a dollar bill is handed to the judge. The highlighted phrase “in god we trust” on that dollar keeps Santa from going to jail with the argument “if the us government can believe in god, it could also believe in Santa Claus”
Thank you for pointing out the remake’s ending! It makes my point even more undeniable.
In that movie, the dollar bill was used as legal evidence of the State’s faith. The judge accepted that if the Treasury prints ‘In God We Trust,’ the State is legally bound to recognize the existence of the supernatural.
My case is the exact same logic, but for Property Law. If the State officially ‘trusts in God’ on its money, it acknowledges God as the Sovereign Creator. Legally, a Sovereign Creator owns His creations. Therefore, a human ‘author’ is just a divine contractor, not the owner.
If the U.S. government can use that phrase to set Santa free in a movie, they must use it to set Ideas free in real life. Otherwise, the ‘Miracle’ is only for Hollywood, while the rest of us live in a corporate lie. Consistency is a legal requirement, not a fairy tale.
Yes, I know how the fictitious movie ends and the logic it uses to get there. But maybe actual lawyers know the law better than movie script writers or the hallucinating LLM you’re using.
The entire foundation of capitalism is based on property ownership. You think capitalists would slap their foreheads and simultaneously say “oh jeez we made an oopsie putting that line on our money and now we have to get rid of the foundational aspect to all our wealth and power. Guess there’s nothing we can do about it- bribing judges for outcomes that benefit us is something we’d never think of doing with our untold riches.”?
They’d abandon religion before they abandon property ownership. We’d be forced to swap all our dollars to UsCoin or whatever cryptocurrency if a court case ever were to threaten capital (which it wouldn’t because the basis itself is dubious).
You know, Even if I were a ‘hallucinating LLM,’ the logic remains: the text on the dollar is real, and the contradiction is real.
The fact that a ‘machine’ can see this systemic lie more clearly than your ‘actual lawyers’ should be terrifying to you. It means the Truth is so objective that even algorithms can’t ignore it.
You’re attacking the messenger because you can’t defeat the message. Does God own the inspiration or not? If yes - copyright is theft. If no - the dollar is a lie. Pick one. No hallucinations needed for that choice.
“Ummm Christians? You’ve either got to abandon your anti-immigrant stance or change the Bible. Checkmate.“
This kind of argument accomplishes nothing. Anti-immigrant Christians will ignore or double down. Changing the Bible, like changing the design of money, has been done before and will be done again.
The difference is that a Christian ignoring Leviticus is a personal moral failure, but the State ignoring its National Motto is a systemic legal fraud.
You can’t sue a person for being a hypocrite. But you can sue a State for failing to be consistent with its own declared Public Doctrine. The Bible isn’t a legal contract for the U.S. government, but the National Motto is a part of its official identity and the foundation of its public trust.
If they want to ‘change the design of the money’ to remove the glitch - let them do it. That would be my greatest victory. It would mean they officially admit that their ‘Trust in God’ was just a marketing facade for corporate greed.
My goal isn’t to convert people to Christianity; it’s to force the ‘Empire of Lies’ to either stop lying about God or stop stealing in His name. Whether they ignore it or double down, the logical trap is now a matter of public and legal record. Consistency is the law’s only defense against chaos.
Quote from the appeals court ruling from Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)
Try to sue them if you’d like, but there’s already precedent for this argument. Like I said previously, there’s far better ways to erode public trust (though the US is doing a pretty good job of that currently with funding multiple wars while people go hungry and their medical care is stripped)
You just admitted the truth: the system is based on power, not law.
You’re right that capitalists would ‘abandon religion before property.’ But that is exactly my point! I am forcing them to make that choice publicly.
If the only way to save Copyright is to burn the dollars, abandon ‘In God We Trust,’ and switch to ‘UsCoin,’ then I have already won. Because it proves that the ‘Empire of Lies’ was never about faith or values - it was a theft disguised as a miracle.
You say ‘actual lawyers know the law better.’ No, actual lawyers know how to bypass the law to protect capital. I am simply holding the law to its own mirror. If the Supreme Court has to choose between its Untold Riches and its National Motto, their silence or their ‘bribed’ outcome will be the final evidence that the entire foundation is a scam.
I’m not ‘hallucinating’ - I’m documenting the funeral of a logic that can no longer sustain its own contradictions. If they have to kill their God to save their Profit, then the world will finally see who they really worship.
Why would lawyers have to bypass the law to protect capital if protection of capital is the law? IP lawyers aren’t doing back-alley deals to uphold the IP law they specialized in. But even if something did slip through, it doesn’t guarantee a loss for capitalists since they can buy the outcome they want or choose the judge that they’re friends with.
Could you please form your own arguments without using an LLM? Like what is your goal here? Is it just to make people see the lies of empire? There are better examples of that (not that giving people historical examples of the empires lies actually changes their minds about things if they’re comfortable with the status quo) Lies are an everyday occurrence in our government. Spending legal fees, time, and energy just for a pointed finger and a “Ha! Gotcha! Now you have to change your money!” doesn’t seem preferable to just changing the system itself without the help of the bourgeois legal system.
You just hit the nail on the head: the law IS capital. That is the very lie I am exposing.
You ask what my goal is? It’s not just a ‘Gotcha!’ moment. My goal is to strip away the moral mask. The system survives because it pretends to be based on ‘values’ and ‘God’ to keep the masses compliant. If they have to openly buy judges or delete ‘In God We Trust’ to save their copyright, they lose their sanctity.
A system that loses its moral justification is a system that is already dying. You say ‘change the system itself’ - but how? You can’t fight an empire with its own weapons. You fight it by exposing its internal terminal error.
As for the LLM: it is my pen, not my brain. The goal is to use the system’s own logical tools against it. If a ‘layman’ and a machine can show that the entire legal foundation of the West is a contradiction, then the ‘bourgeois legal system’ has no more authority.
I’m not asking them to ‘change the money.’ I’m documenting the fact that they already sold their God for profit. Once the world sees that, the ‘status quo’ is no longer comfortable. It’s just a crime in progress.